That doesn't follow from the previous point - it still was the Holy Roman Empire, and the idea of Emperor as universal ruler was still paired with the universal church.
But thats my point - he wasnt. "Holy Roman Emperor" was a fancy title, but thats just it. It meant the German monarch had a higher title than the French, Spanish or English Kings, but thats about it. The Church simply was not linked anymore to the state, not more than in other states, anyways. Politically, that was so since the Golden Bull, and socially the Church was weakened Europe-wide in teh 14th and 15th century anyways.
Now I dont deny the point might arise, and the Pope claimed until the end of the HREGN the right to appoint the Emperor - its just nobdo yregigniced that right. And that really tells much in itself. The HREGN went at great lengths to divide itself from the church. But yes, the point might arise - its just that structurally and even in the public mind at large, Church and Empire were not not united anymore. So the point mioght arise, but thats all.
I don't deny that a differently educated Habsburg Emperor might have tried the national church approach, but it would have been a very bold and unprecedented move - a move that, e.g., Louis XIV never dared to complete in France ("Gallican church"), although he was in a much stronger position than any 16th century German Emperor and had the precedent of the Anglican church.
But then, by the time of Louis XIV the religious borders had stabilised themselves very much. But the Reformation Era really was an "anything goes" era in regards to religious experimentation...
Granted. But these same archbishops might also have offered resistance.
Not necessarily. Ironically, the Reformation often won most followers in the ecclestial territories. It makes sense, too: The Reformation did start as a reform movement
within the church, and teh ecclestial rulers were those who would take such matters of faith most seriously. Many prince-bishops tried to become secular rulers, though IOTL not a single one suceeded. So, the Archbishop-Electros could be coopted that way, and even if not would have great unrest in their realms...
I'm not saying that the only reason these Princes became Protestant was in order to set themselves apart from the centralising Emperor, but this was one of the elements that determined their choice.
But that makes no sense! If you want more autonomy, then you want a good negotiation base. Now, if you also oppose the Emperor in questios of religion, you have a worse negotiation base, as youll have to sacrifice aims in autonomy to get your aims in keeping your religion.
There were always forces for a stronger Empire (especially among the Reichsstädte and the smaller territories, and even among the bigger Princes who could hope one day to become Emperor)
Nonono. That is exactly what Im saying here: it wasnt just power politicking, just as politics and society nowadays arent just powerpoliticking, but also actual convictions and ideas. The greater princes didntz support the Empire in hopes to become Emperor (at that time, teh Empire already was de facto Habsburg hereditary), but because it was the Empire, and it was their conviction that it had to be supported. Of course, it also was their conviction that the Empire was built on the "deutsche Libertät" (the "German Liberty", by which the autonomy of the princes was meant), but they also acknowledged that an Empire needs an Emperor, and that the Emperor needs to be supported. Luther initially was very sueamy about wether the pricnes were even allowed to defy the Emperor, and some princes were, too.
You cant just simply intepret the politics of the time in terms of intersts and powerpolitcial goals. Social and political convictions also always plaid a great role, and the Empire was not supported as a matter of power politics, but as a matter of course. Just like an US governor doesnt support the USA as a matter of maybe one day becoming President, but as a matter of convictions. Same applies here (well, okay, the manner of convictions is wildly different, fo coruse but still).
but the Imperial reform also shows the limits of what was possible.
True, but to a large part that was because Reformation came in the way. Now, if in Reformation most involved parties are on the same side... in any case, that Imperial Reform was tried is argument enough. If the Pricnes realyl were just about power and their own interests, theyd never have agreed to something making the Empire more unified.
Princes opposed to the centralising tendencies rallying around the Catholic banner or, as their Catholic counterparts during the 16th and 17th century IOTL,
As said, that made no sense. And for that matter, IOTL BOTH sides supported the Emperor, and not merely nominally. Youre thinking of the 18th century, when the Empeire really was a corpse, but here we are three centuries earlier, and that does make a whole lot of differnce.
I simply see no good reason why any Emperor would go for that - why break with the tradition without gaining anything? Except perhaps for a true believer in Protestantism, but again, I simply don't see him pulling all the Princes with him.
Because a national church would make the Empiere, HIS Empire, more coherent. Of course, its true, he wouldnt be able to gain all the newly centralised authority, but the alternative is that his title is
entirely hollow and without meaning. Even if the Reichstag gets most shares of power, it still is in the Emperors interest to unify the Empire, or elsewise he gets nothing at all. Hundred percent of no power still is less than fourty percent of some power.