The 'Universal ruler'

Deleted member 92195

Hi all, I would like someone give some clarity on the text extract from Wikipedia because it does not have any references based on what it is saying. Which sadly does not give it much legitimacy. I have highlighted the crucial aspects.

"Emperor Henry was the most powerful monarch in the Mediterranean and Europe, since the Sicilian kingdom added to his personal and Imperial revenues an income without parallel in Europe. However, his aims to integrate Sicily into the Empire as a second power base of the Hohenstaufen dynasty were not realised during his lifetime. The negotiations with Pope Celestine III to approve the unification (unio regni ad imperium) in return of another crusade reached a deadlock. On the other hand, his beliefs of a universal rule according to the translatio imperii concept collided with the existence of the Byzantine Empire, reflected in Henry's expansionist policies by forging alliances with King Leo I of Armenia and King Aimery of Cyprus.

In 1195 Henry's envoys in Constantinople raised claims to former Italo-Norman possessions around Dyrrachium (Durrës), one of the most important naval bases on the eastern Adriatic coast, and pressed for a contribution to the planned crusade. Upon the deposition of Emperor Isaac II Angelos Henry openly threatened with an attack on Byzantine territory. He already evolved plans to betroth his younger brother Philip to Isaac's daughter Princess Irene Angelina —deliberately or not— opening up a perspective to unite the Western and Eastern Empire under Hohenstaufen rule. According to the contemporary chronicler Niketas Choniates his legates were able to collect a large tribute from Isaac's brother and successor Alexios III, which, however, was not paid before Henry's death.

Emperor Henry came down to earth, when an armistice between Pisa and the Republic of Venice ended and the Pisan navy immediately entered the Adriatic to attack the Venetian harbour of Pola (Pula), where they suffered a disastrous defeat. La Serenissima had suspiciously eyed Henry's claims to Adriatic ports threatening her dominating position and commercial interests in the region. The emperor had to culminate the conflict by arranging a peace treaty and confirming the Venetian autonomy."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 92195

This piece of history must be extremely obscure and non-existent for no one to know about it. If its true that is.
 
So you're asking
1) if Henry forged alliances with Leo and Amaury?
2) if Henry threatened the ERE?
3) if the betrothal plan of Phillip and Irene existed?
4) if Henry intended to unite the HRE with ERE?
 

Deleted member 92195

So you're asking
1) if Henry forged alliances with Leo and Amaury?
2) if Henry threatened the ERE?
3) if the betrothal plan of Phillip and Irene existed?
4) if Henry intended to unite the HRE with ERE?

That is what the text is saying not me (it is self-evident) I'm just putting it out there for everyone to see and what the thoughts on of text are. Hey, I don't want to be accused of false information when it came from Wikipedia and has no sources attached to it. The point at which history maybe altered is explained in the text and as you rightfully you point out but as you well know, consequentially anything can be derived from what it is proposing.
 
It's
That is what the text is saying not me (it is self-evident) I'm just putting it out there for everyone to see and what the thoughts on of text are. Hey, I don't want to be accused of false information when it came from Wikipedia and has no sources attached to it. The point at which history maybe altered is explained in the text and as you rightfully you point out but as you well know, consequentially anything can be derived from what it is proposing.
More that I'm not sure what you are asking of readers.
Are you asking for verification on what you highlighted?
Or something else?
 

Deleted member 92195

It's

More that I'm not sure what you are asking of readers.
Are you asking for verification on what you highlighted?
Or something else?

Is the proposal historically accurate and its consequences.
 
TBH this seems like a point of Wikipedia not having rigorous enough editors, because that sounds way to polemical to be wikipedia.
 

Deleted member 92195

Ultimately the premise I think of this discussion is in the title, 'universal ruler', or also known as 'universal monarchy'. There have been only a few cases where a universal monarchy occurred or could have occurred:
  • Roman Empire
  • Byzantine Empire (through Christendom overruled all other kings)
  • Charlemagne
  • Charles V
  • British Empire
  • Russian Empire
  • Napoleon I
  • German Empire (World War I)
Whilst the union was unlikely Henry IV was attempting to make a Universal monarchy along with his Erbreichsplan to make the HRE a hereditary monarchy
 

Deleted member 92195

On the other hand despite its unlikeliness wasn't Napoleon's conquests and Charles V inheritance unlikely scenario but still, it happened.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
A unified HRE-ERE combo would be extremely powerful, I think it could rule for a thousand years.

They'd crush the French, Papacy(if it gave them trouble), the Polish, Hungarians, and anyone else who challenged them.
 
A unified HRE-ERE combo would be extremely powerful, I think it could rule for a thousand years.

They'd crush the French, Papacy(if it gave them trouble), the Polish, Hungarians, and anyone else who challenged them.
No they've wouldn't, they'd be unstoppable for about 50 years at best then fall to infighting against rebels, separatists kingdoms, and the like, usually under religious pretenses. They might maintain their borders for a while, and maybe even expand a little, but I wouldn't expect the new Roman Empire to be able to really reclaim its former glory in full. It would definitely be the center for most arts and sciences, and would basically rule Europe through soft power while it existed,
 
Top