A North German emperor during the Reformation?

After the Reformation, Catholicism remained dominant in the south of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as along the Rhine. The Habsburgs had a particular interest in keeping Catholicism strong, as the emperor was a Habsburg. But what if there had been an emperor with most of his domains in the north of Germany? In OTL, Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, gave refuge to Martin Luther and Saxony became Protestant. But what if the elector had also been emperor? Would he not then have an interest in remaining a Catholic? The emperor could hardly be a Protestant, could he? Another candidate might perhaps have been the elector of Brandenburg. What effect would this have had on the Reformation?
 
After the Reformation, Catholicism remained dominant in the south of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as along the Rhine. The Habsburgs had a particular interest in keeping Catholicism strong, as the emperor was a Habsburg. But what if there had been an emperor with most of his domains in the north of Germany? In OTL, Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, gave refuge to Martin Luther and Saxony became Protestant. But what if the elector had also been emperor? Would he not then have an interest in remaining a Catholic? The emperor could hardly be a Protestant, could he? Another candidate might perhaps have been the elector of Brandenburg. What effect would this have had on the Reformation?

I don't see any reason why an Emperor couldn't have been Protestant. Actually, by removing the Pope from the equation, this may have strengthened the position of Emperor as the Pope would no longer be needed to confirm the title. I don't think it would have been difficult to politically pivot in such as way that this hypothetical Emperor claimed to gain his power from God (without the need of the Pope) and to be restoring true Christianity throughout the realm.
 

fi11222

Banned
After the Reformation, Catholicism remained dominant in the south of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as along the Rhine. The Habsburgs had a particular interest in keeping Catholicism strong, as the emperor was a Habsburg. But what if there had been an emperor with most of his domains in the north of Germany? In OTL, Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, gave refuge to Martin Luther and Saxony became Protestant. But what if the elector had also been emperor? Would he not then have an interest in remaining a Catholic? The emperor could hardly be a Protestant, could he? Another candidate might perhaps have been the elector of Brandenburg. What effect would this have had on the Reformation?
It seems to me that the problem was not the role of Emperor but the fact that the Habsbourg were also kings of Spain. A 100% German Emperor with any possessions outside of Germany could conceivably have become protestant. This would of course have given a huge boost to the Reformation. A German Henry the VIIIth!
 
I don't see any reason why an Emperor couldn't have been Protestant. Actually, by removing the Pope from the equation, this may have strengthened the position of Emperor as the Pope would no longer be needed to confirm the title. I don't think it would have been difficult to politically pivot in such as way that this hypothetical Emperor claimed to gain his power from God (without the need of the Pope) and to be restoring true Christianity throughout the realm.
It seems to me that the problem was not the role of Emperor but the fact that the Habsbourg were also kings of Spain. A 100% German Emperor with any possessions outside of Germany could conceivably have become protestant. This would of course have given a huge boost to the Reformation. A German Henry the VIIIth!

But the Holy Roman Empire was a Catholic empire, almost by definition, as it was theoretically "Roman".
 
But the Holy Roman Empire was a Catholic empire, almost by definition, as it was theoretically "Roman".

Yes, but there is no reason it would have to stay that way. After all, its not like the HRE had a written constitution that forbid any non-Catholic from holding the position of Emperor. If the the majority of the electors want a Protestant Emperor, and that Emperor is able to maintain his authority, it will work just fine. The Emperor drew his authority and legitimacy from being a defender of the Christian Church. If the Lutheran Church comes to be viewed as the legitimate Christian Church its not too difficult to see the Emperor continuing to draw his legitimacy from that. And, for those who truly care about the 'Roman' aspect; the Empire is still a linear descendant of Charlemagne's state, so its still good. Its not like the fact that the Empire failed to control Rome through much of the Middle Ages ever undermined the HRE all that much (proved a useful goal, certainly. But I doubt any rebels rose up to question the legitimacy of the state because Rome was outside of Imperial hands)
 
There's no way for a Protestant to be elected. Period. Look at the composition of the imperial Electoral college: the Ecclesiastical states and the Bohemian vote insured a Catholic majority. There was never a Protestant majority, therefore no chance of a Protestant Emperor.
 
There's no way for a Protestant to be elected. Period. Look at the composition of the imperial Electoral college: the Ecclesiastical states and the Bohemian vote insured a Catholic majority. There was never a Protestant majority, therefore no chance of a Protestant Emperor.

Okay; so, rather than saying "never", how do you get a Protestant majority? I was going to suggest having the Hussites maintain control in Bohemia, but that would cause a storm of butterflies that would change the Reformation as we know it. So that's out.
 
The Elector of Cologne was temporally protestant in the 1540s, before Charles and Ferdinand deposed him, it was the only time that the Electoral college was majority Protestant, that said his position was rather poor (the people of the Electorate rejected the Reformation, Cologne itself is weak and too close to Charles' Netherlands, the Pope, etc.).
 

fi11222

Banned
But the Holy Roman Empire was a Catholic empire, almost by definition, as it was theoretically "Roman".
This is as misunderstanding, I believe. The HRE was "Roman" in the same way as the "Byzantine" Empire was. It was Rome's political leagacy that was claimed by this title, not the religious supremacy of the pope. Besides, the HRE, had had its share of opposition to the papacy in the past and could just as well have chosen this opportunity to revive the old quarrels.

The real reson the Habsburg were supporting the pope was that they were allied with him in the Italian wars againts the French.
 
The Elector of Cologne was temporally protestant in the 1540s, before Charles and Ferdinand deposed him, it was the only time that the Electoral college was majority Protestant, that said his position was rather poor (the people of the Electorate rejected the Reformation, Cologne itself is weak and too close to Charles' Netherlands, the Pope, etc.).


Wasn't Bohemia basically Protestant? This is why the 30 years war broke out...
 
Okay; so, rather than saying "never", how do you get a Protestant majority? I was going to suggest having the Hussites maintain control in Bohemia, but that would cause a storm of butterflies that would change the Reformation as we know it. So that's out.

For a protestant majority, I think the ecclesiastical states would have to turn secular and protestant, like it happened in Prussia.
 
It was only after 1526 that Bohemia passed to the Habsburgs "for good". Before that, it was ruled for a long time by the Jagiellons, before their reign was cut short by Louis II's untimely death during the Battle of Mohács. It's not inconceivable that a surviving Jagiellon dynasty in Bohemia would eventually convert to one of the protestant branches, and under the right circumstances either get the imperial title themselves or vote for one of the North German protestant princes.
 
Last edited:
According to Wikipedia, Frederick III of Saxony was "Pope Leo X's candidate for Holy Roman Emperor in 1519—the pope had awarded him the Golden Rose of virtue on 3 September 1518—but he helped secure the election of Charles V". The wording here seems a bit unclear. Who secured the election of Charles V? Was it the pope or Frederick? If it was the pope, what is meant by writing that Frederick was the pope´s candidate?

If it is correct that the pope supported Frederick as candidate to be emperor, this is quite interesting. Was this before Frederick started protecting Martin Luther? It would seem strange if it was after. On the other hand, maybe it was an attempt by the pope to turn Frederick against Luther?
 
Wasn't Bohemia basically Protestant? This is why the 30 years war broke out...
It's population was pretty mixed (that's why Ferdinand II got elected in the first place), but its ruler was a Catholic (in the case of the 1540s, Ferdinand of Austria).
 
Top