A Kingdom and a Horse - Planning Thread

Havent understood it fully. If the Habsburgs fight against France, who will fight against them... uh, them being teh Habsburgs or France?

Sorry, I just want ideas on who would be on which side in the Inevitable Franco-Habsburg War of Ultimate Doom And Killing (the historical name for the war, incidentally).
 

Susano

Banned
Sorry, I just want ideas on who would be on which side in the Inevitable Franco-Habsburg War of Ultimate Doom And Killing (the historical name for the war, incidentally).

Oh, good question. And problematic.

IOTL, the French-Habsburg wars were, strangely, over Italy. ITTL, Milan would still be the primary war object, but it would be without the two Sicilies (as theyre still non-Habsburg Spanish). That means in Italy we now have a third player. I dont think confessional loyality will play much of a role, I can rather see something like 1984: Three sides, with two sides always allied, and then backstabbing each other and re-aligning. More or less anything could come out of that...

OTOH, with England now Habsburg, northern France could become a second theater, because England wont be able to ship troops around half of Europe to reach Italy, so the only way to efficiently use Englands ressources would be attacking France directly.

In the Empire... well, its the 16th century. Imperial solidarity was still big. Yes, the Protestant powers did ally with France now and then (ironically, given how Catholic France was, but it was aimed after all against the Emperor) but not as much as one might think, and they routinely gave the Emperor moeny and troops to use against the Turks, even though they fully well knew that eventually it would come to war with the Emperor. Now, with most of the EMpire religiously aligned, Imperial soldiarity will be even larger, so *Charles might be able to raise more Imperial troops. OTOH, as said, Bavaria...
 
Honestly, a Protestant HRE is an intriguing idea, but I don't think it's likely. The legitimacy of the Empire derived from the Catholic Church, and I don't think that a potential Habsburg Emperor would have disregarded that.
I also think the idea of a Latin-Catholic and Germanic-Protestant split would be too neat for plausible history.
Let's also keep in mind that the English Monarchy split from Rome over Henry VIII's marriage problems - without that, we can assume that any English monarch would have fought the rebellious spirit of Protestantism as much as Henry did before he broke with Rome, and Habsburg Kings, who would either be HR emperors or at least be in line for being elected to that position, even more so. So I'd assume that the English situation would be more similar to OTL France, where the Kings were forced into an uneasy peace with the Huguenots.
As OTL Charles was quite ready to tolerate the Protestant princes when he needed internal peace in order to fight France or the Turks, I'd assume that TTL Habsburgs would show similar flexibility.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
Honestly, a Protestant HRE is an intriguing idea, but I don't think it's likely. The legitimacy of the Empire derived from the Catholic Church, and I don't think that a potential Habsburg Emperor would have disregarded that.
That is simply not true in the 16th century anymore. By then, the HREGN was seen as, well, the German Empire with a fancy name. Naming and crowning the Emperor had nothing to do with the Pope anymore. Indeed, IOTL there were quite many people who championed the cause of a national church.


Let's also keep in mind that the English Monarchy split from Rome over Henry VIII's marriage problems - without that, we can assume that any English monarch would have fought the rebellious spirit of Protestantism as much as Henry did before he broke with Rome, and Habsburg Kings, who would either be HR emperors or at least be in line for being elected to that position, even more so. So I'd assume that the English situation would be more similar to OTL France, where the Kings were forced into an uneasy peace with the Huguenots.
No, as said, HRE doesnt eman automatically catholic. Indeed, there are great politcial incentives for going protestant, which is why it became so sucessful - like disowning the usually vast church lands, for example. So I do think a *Charles raised in a more liberal enviroment than Spain would most likely side with Protestantism, and hence introduce it also in England.

As OTL *Charles was quite ready to tolerate the Protestant princes when he needed internal peace in order to fight France or the Turks, I'd assume that TTL Habsburgs would show similar flexibility.
Thats not true. "Tolerate" is simply the wrong word for it. He simply couldnt do anything about them for the longest while, but when he COULD strike he did.
 
That is simply not true in the 16th century anymore. By then, the HREGN was seen as, well, the German Empire with a fancy name. Naming and crowning the Emperor had nothing to do with the Pope anymore. Indeed, IOTL there were quite many people who championed the cause of a national church.
That's the state of things after Charles V - he still went to the length of having himself crowned Emperor by the Pope in 1530 (ironically after the Sacco di Roma 1527). And despite the rise of Protestant states like Brandenburg-Prussia or Saxonia, the majority in the Electoral college stayed Catholic until the end of the HRE, and no Protestant was ever elected HR Emperor. OTL Charles V wanted to leverage his imperial legitimacy and the power derived from his territories outside and inside the HRE into a strong, universal monarchy; the German princes to a big degree became Protestant as this legitimised their resistance against a strengthening of the imperial rule. Had Charles V embraced Protestantism and still tried to strengthen the position of the emperor, many of the Protestant princes would have reverted to Catholicism. A national church and a strong central monarchy like in England were mutualy exclusive propositions in Germany in that period.


No, as said, HRE doesnt eman automatically catholic. Indeed, there are great politcial incentives for going protestant, which is why it became so sucessful - like disowning the usually vast church lands, for example. So I do think a *Charles raised in a more liberal enviroment than Spain would most likely side with Protestantism, and hence introduce it also in England.

See above. Also, OTL Charles was raised in the Netherlands, not in Spain, so it wasn't just a question of environment.

Thats not true. "Tolerate" is simply the wrong word for it. He simply couldnt do anything about them for the longest while, but when he COULD strike he did.
As I said, he let them be as long as he was busy with France and the Turks and acted against them in the periods when there was peace externally. That's what I meant with "tolerate"; I wasn't implying that he was tolerant in principle.
 

Susano

Banned
That's the state of things after Charles V - he still went to the length of having himself crowned Emperor by the Pope in 1530 (ironically after the Sacco di Roma 1527).
Because of personal romanticism, nothing more. It did not reflect the politcial and social state of affairs at the time. The Pope had nothing to do with the Emperor anymroe - Charles had been Emperor already BEFORE the coronation. Since the Golden Bull, the Electors, not the Popes, made the Emperor, and also in everything else the Popes had nothing to do with it anymore. The HREGN simply was not built upon religion anymore, and that ever since the 15th or maybe even late 14th century.


And despite the rise of Protestant states like Brandenburg-Prussia or Saxonia, the majority in the Electoral college stayed Catholic until the end of the HRE, and no Protestant was ever elected HR Emperor.
Of course, that probably has more to do with 1) that three electors were archbishops, a state of affair that surely wouldve changed if the HRE became protestant and 2) that by that time the Habsburg had become de facto hereditary HR Emperors anyways.

I do think youre confusing cause and effect here - things were as you stated because the Emperor and half the Empire remained catholic. There is no reason that should be so ITTL, and if the Reformation takes them, too, those things would be different.


OTL Charles V wanted to leverage his imperial legitimacy and the power derived from his territories outside and inside the HRE into a strong, universal monarchy; the German princes to a big degree became Protestant as this legitimised their resistance against a strengthening of the imperial rule.
I dont think that is true. Politics were not always along confessional lines at the time. For example, the Proetstant Pricnes as said at time sdid ally with Catholic France to weaken the Emperor. Princes converted either out of personal convictions, or for internal standing, as said, being able to seize the church lands. The Emperor had nothing to do with it - on the contrary, raising such a conflict potential with the Emperor even made it less likely to gain more autonomy, as the Emperor would maybe bargain withr eligious allies, but not if eh doesnt need to with religious enemies.

Had Charles V embraced Protestantism and still tried to strengthen the position of the emperor, many of the Protestant princes would have reverted to Catholicism. A national church and a strong central monarchy like in England were mutualy exclusive propositions in Germany in that period.
I dont think that is true. It is way too simplifying to imagine Emperor and Princes assimply enemies for power. The Imperial Idea was still strong in the 16th century, as can be seen in how the Empire did support the Emperor in the wars with the Ottoman Empire and France. Of course the Princes would not simply roll over and give up power, but lets remember that is also the time of the Imperial Reform, a movement to give the Empire a more coherent and unified form. I think its likely most Princes would have supported a national church, as long as the Emperor wouldnt have sole authority over it - but that can be done. If need be, the vast land of the Prince-Bishops can serve as encouragment...
 
I dont think that is true. It is way too simplifying to imagine Emperor and Princes assimply enemies for power. The Imperial Idea was still strong in the 16th century, as can be seen in how the Empire did support the Emperor in the wars with the Ottoman Empire and France. Of course the Princes would not simply roll over and give up power, but lets remember that is also the time of the Imperial Reform, a movement to give the Empire a more coherent and unified form. I think its likely most Princes would have supported a national church, as long as the Emperor wouldnt have sole authority over it - but that can be done. If need be, the vast land of the Prince-Bishops can serve as encouragment...

Hmm... Could we see a *Germany a centuary or two early? ;)

[Susano] :cool::cool::cool::cool: [/Susano] :p
 
If the power in the HRE moves north and west ?Could whe get our - Netherlands part of Germany- Challenge, out of this?
 
Having read through the thread, this sounds excellent Nek. :)

I'm intrigued to see how Spanish India develops.
 
Because of personal romanticism, nothing more. It did not reflect the politcial and social state of affairs at the time. The Pope had nothing to do with the Emperor anymroe - Charles had been Emperor already BEFORE the coronation. Since the Golden Bull, the Electors, not the Popes, made the Emperor, and also in everything else the Popes had nothing to do with it anymore.
Granted.

The HREGN simply was not built upon religion anymore, and that ever since the 15th or maybe even late 14th century.
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. The point is that the question whether one could exist without the other didn't even arise before Reformation. IOTL the answer of the Habsurg Emperors was negative - that's one of the reasons why the HRE became a museum piece alreay in its lifetime and never developed into a modern nation state. 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.

Of course, that probably has more to do with 1) that three electors were archbishops, a state of affair that surely wouldve changed if the HRE became protestant and 2) that by that time the Habsburg had become de facto hereditary HR Emperors anyways.

Granted. But these same archbishops might also have offered resistance.


I dont think that is true. Politics were not always along confessional lines at the time. For example, the Proetstant Pricnes as said at time sdid ally with Catholic France to weaken the Emperor.
Princes converted either out of personal convictions, or for internal standing, as said, being able to seize the church lands. The Emperor had nothing to do with it - on the contrary, raising such a conflict potential with the Emperor even made it less likely to gain more autonomy, as the Emperor would maybe bargain withr eligious allies, but not if eh doesnt need to with religious enemies.

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.

I dont think that is true. It is way too simplifying to imagine Emperor and Princes assimply enemies for power. The Imperial Idea was still strong in the 16th century, as can be seen in how the Empire did support the Emperor in the wars with the Ottoman Empire and France. Of course the Princes would not simply roll over and give up power, but lets remember that is also the time of the Imperial Reform, a movement to give the Empire a more coherent and unified form.

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), and I don't think that at that time anybody among the German princes had any intention to actually destroy the Empire, but the Imperial reform also shows the limits of what was possible. Again, I'm not saying that it's impossible that a Habsburg emperor in an ATL like this could embrace Reformation, but it would have led to a mirror image of OTL - Princes opposed to the centralising tendencies rallying around the Catholic banner or, as their Catholic counterparts during the 16th and 17th century IOTL, Protestant princes trying to expand their territories and autonomy while nominally supporting the imperial cause. Since the fall of the Hohenstaufen the balance of power simply had shifted too much towards the Princes, and no religious policy chosen by an Emperor would have changed that.

I think its likely most Princes would have supported a national church, as long as the Emperor wouldnt have sole authority over it - but that can be done. If need be, the vast land of the Prince-Bishops can serve as encouragment...
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.
 

Susano

Banned
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.
 
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.


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.

Well, I think on the church-state link, it's you who's projecting things as they resolved after the religious wars back into the time before them.


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.

Yes, you're right on this; OTOH, this would have given a good pretext for other powers to interfere in the name of the Catholic church.


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.

This was not about a negotiation base, this was about rallying cries and ideological underpinning.

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),

Not true, yet, by this time. Charles V had to pay huge bribes to become Emperor and to defeat Francis I of France in the Election.

As a general point, convictions and political goals have a way to align themselves as fits best; when this doesn't work tragedy ensues. The course for the German princes had been over the centuries to increase their autonomy; I agree that there was a certain loyalty and no desire to actually abolish the Empire, but the overall development was underway for the Empire to become more and more irrelevant, which was generally advantageous to the big princes and disadvantageous for the small territories.

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.

I think you miss-interprete both the imperial reform and the dynamics here. The imperial reform was a give-and-take on many fronts, not an event where everybody rose up and agreed "let's do this".


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.

You're putting up an alternative here that's not the only way of seeing this. The emperor may have seen (and that's what Charles V and the Habsburgs after him did) his legitimacy as more important than the power he could get from a source he saw as illegitimate (because of being heretic). He also may have thought (and that certainly was Charles V's thinking) that he'd be able to bring the Protestant princes back to the fold and achieve his goals for the HRE inside a Catholic framework. In order to want to achieve this by a means of a reformed, non-catholic national church, an emperor would have to be a convinced Protestant, but then he'd be an actor of change and the Princes would have extracted power concessions from him in order to enact this change.

My point still stands - a national church and a stronger central authority were cross-purposes at this time, which is one of the main differences between the HRE and other European nation states.


(Note: I'll be off-net for some weeks now, so don't expect posts from me in this thread for some time.)
 
Last edited:
Top