AH Question: Centralized HRE

The "how to better preserve stem duchies" thread has stimulated me to ask--just how could the HRE be centralized into a proper nation-state by, say, 1815, on par with France or Britain (in OTL, of course)? PODs can be anywhere from the Carolingians on.
 
Well, there is always the traditional make the Imperial title hereditary instead of elective, avoid conflicts with the Pope, or avoid the Interregnum. Those are the usual methods people use to centralize the Holy Roman Empire.

Personally, I think it would cool if someone could find a way to reform the HRE into a constitutional monarchy. Maybe we could have it that an elector becomes Emperor in the Middle Ages and, realizing the problems the empire is having, convinces everyone to reform the constitution into something similar the the US Constitution. After all, the HRE did have an Imperial Senate and an Imperial court system. Perhaps we could even have the imperial crown remain elective, but having the immediate heirs bared from being candidates along with rules set up to punish the purchasing of votes.
 
Personally, I think it would cool if someone could find a way to reform the HRE into a constitutional monarchy. Maybe we could have it that an elector becomes Emperor in the Middle Ages and, realizing the problems the empire is having, convinces everyone to reform the constitution into something similar the the US Constitution. After all, the HRE did have an Imperial Senate and an Imperial court system. Perhaps we could even have the imperial crown remain elective, but having the immediate heirs bared from being candidates along with rules set up to punish the purchasing of votes.

That would indeed be cool.

I see two possibilities:
1. Imperial cities proping up much earlier and being much more widespread, particularly in the North and East.
2. Swiss-like local "peasant republics" getting a vote in the diet, hence Uri, Schwatz and Unterwalden or Dithmarschen or early East Frisia, to name some examples, getting their representation in the diet and becoming powerful enough in their own right to persist against the grand nobles.

Both groups will probably side with the Emperor.
 

Susano

Banned
In the Middle Ages just about every Emperor tried to strengthen the cities. This didnt quite work out, time and time again, so Im a bit sceptical about that. Now, a hereditary Emperorship is very likely to help - the HRE could then go down Frances road and simply extend the royal, err, imperial domain bit by bit. Of course, its not an automatism: At the end, the Emperorship was de facto hereditary and that didnt help any...
 
In the Middle Ages just about every Emperor tried to strengthen the cities. This didnt quite work out, time and time again, so Im a bit sceptical about that.

I think that's because the cities were too few and too weak. If there had been earlier urbanization throughout the Empire, resulting in many more imperial cities which may have had more time consolidating their local power over surrounding areas it might have worked. After all, a 10th century emperor just didn't have that much cities north of the Alpes to strengthen, right?

And what about those "peasant republics" like the Swiss? Couldn't there be more of them? So much of them that they become a player to reckon with - or at least so much of them that they keep local nobles in check?

Considering a hereditary emperor - that could work. We had, however, semi-hereditary emperors IOTL as well. After all, a strong emperor with a son typically had him made king. The problem is that a strong emperor AND a surviving son of proper age were always required. But a series of strong Emperors would probably be required initially in case of a hereditary title as well. And a son of proper age would be required as well even if the monarchy were hereditary. I personally think that if the early imperial dynasties were anywhere that long-lived as the French (or the Welfs, which, in that regard, would make a good imperial dynasty), that could have led to a more centralized HRE without making it officially hereditary. Though a hereditary monarchy would still help.

The main proble, IMHO though, is the pope and the church. The emperor had to deal with both much more than the kings of France or England. Even if you had a hereditary monarchy, the pope might excommunicate the Emperor, its son or both and crown a counter-emperor. And since the HRE held power in Northern Italy, the pope will frequently try exactly that.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
Hm. Maybe. It depends on how those republics turn out to be. The Swiss cantons, including the peasant republics (which were really only the oldest 5 or 6 or so...) developed an ideology of a "turned around" social order (not entirely true since most of them were oligarchies, but hey...) - thankfully (for them) not an expansive ideology, but still, this kinda would stand in contradiction to the Emperor. On the other hand, the Frisisan peasant republics were constantly threatened by surrounding nobles, so would probably be happy about any protection they get - but OTOH, once they are in a secure position, things might change...
 

Thande

Donor
It would probably have helped if the alternative hereditary dynasty to get the imperial throne was based in lands somewhere nearer the middle of the German lands and lacking any possessions outside the HRE, as opposed to the Hapsburgs in OTL.
 

Susano

Banned
Oh, another thought: Religion. Martin Luther, or an appropriate equivalent, doesnt found an universal church, but a national (in the manner of how such things named, maybe Germanican?) church, which the Emperor uses in his manner...
 
Centralisation depends on a hereditary throne (which came too late to really entrench Imperial authority), expanding the power of the Free Cities, and maintaining the size and power of the Prince-Bishoprics. The earlier this is done, the better. Might as well start with the Ottonians, and have them not get into a boondoggle in Italy, which later Emperors got wrapped up in as well, partly in an attempt to do what Otto could not.
"Winning" the investiture controversy is overrated as a turning point. The official victory of the Papacy meant jack all, since the Emperors continued to nominate Bishops anyway.

The key is consolidating power in Germany and Bohemia before trying to take Italy, having good relations with Italian city-states, and keeping the number of feudal states in Germany low enough to be controlled properly by even a mediocre Emperor. Expanding the royal demesne over time should help; start with Saxony and Franconia, and go from there. Bavaria above all needs to be controlled by relatives of the Emperor or otherwise subjugated to Imperial control, or else their dukes will keep cocking things up.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Oh, another thought: Religion. Martin Luther, or an appropriate equivalent, doesnt found an universal church, but a national (in the manner of how such things named, maybe Germanican?) church, which the Emperor uses in his manner...

The Lutheran Church was a national church*, it just needed to be adopted by Charles, Ferdinand or Maximillian and you would have had a national church.

*While the Danes, Swedes and the Teutonic Orders territories adopted it, it was only because they was deeply intergrated into the German intellectual milieu.
 
Also, why does the HRE have to include (Northern) Italy (and Burgundy)? What if it didn't, and how could it not? Would that help or harm centralization? (I would be inclined to think, since Emperors could focus on Germany, that it would help).
 
I think it really helps. Not having possessions in Italy means the Emperor is farther away from the Pope, isn't so regular in conflict with him and would also help to further centralize and focus in the German lands and why not, also focus in the Ostsiedlung.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
It also removes almost 40% of the wealth of the empire and close to one third of its population; plus some of the early emperors had stronger bases in Italy than Germany: they could have provided the needed power base to expand from, especially at the early-ish POD needed.
 

Susano

Banned
The Lutheran Church was a national church*, it just needed to be adopted by Charles, Ferdinand or Maximillian and you would have had a national church.
Well, kLuther very much wanted it to be an universal church. And itd oes make a difference if its exclusivge to a nation or not, even if other nations only adopt it due to deep intellectual links. But of course, yes, the most important part is the Emperor playing along.
 

Eurofed

Banned
It also removes almost 40% of the wealth of the empire and close to one third of its population; plus some of the early emperors had stronger bases in Italy than Germany: they could have provided the needed power base to expand from, especially at the early-ish POD needed.

Indeed, and this is a very good reason why the emperors would be quite reluctant to give up Italy for Germany (or the other way around). Moreover, the best PoDs to achieve centralization are early in its history, under the Ottonians and the Hohenstaufen, and they would allow to achieve centralization without giving up any valuable section of the Empire.

Centralisation depends on a hereditary throne (which came too late to really entrench Imperial authority), expanding the power of the Free Cities, and maintaining the size and power of the Prince-Bishoprics. The earlier this is done, the better. Might as well start with the Ottonians, and have them not get into a boondoggle in Italy, which later Emperors got wrapped up in as well, partly in an attempt to do what Otto could not.
"Winning" the investiture controversy is overrated as a turning point. The official victory of the Papacy meant jack all, since the Emperors continued to nominate Bishops anyway.

The key is consolidating power in Germany and Bohemia before trying to take Italy, having good relations with Italian city-states, and keeping the number of feudal states in Germany low enough to be controlled properly by even a mediocre Emperor. Expanding the royal demesne over time should help; start with Saxony and Franconia, and go from there. Bavaria above all needs to be controlled by relatives of the Emperor or otherwise subjugated to Imperial control, or else their dukes will keep cocking things up.

Exactly. I agree with pretty much everything in this recipe. I would only point out that Henry VI came very close to make the empire hereditary, and that had either him or Otto III lived to a successful ripe old age, and got the chance to train a son to complete their work, the centralization of the HRE would have made a huge leap forward. The OTL centralization work of successful emperors was repeatedly broken by dynastic crises occurring at a really bad moment and resetting everything to square two.

Besides having a dynasty holding the throne for a century or so with no crippling interregnum, the key to victory was to consolidate the imperial power base in Germany and Italy alike. If the particularist nobles and city-states are successfully broken, victory in the inverstiture controversy shall happen by default: the Popes are essentially powerless against Emperors with a strong grip of Germany and Italy, who can hence raise successful antipopes. At best, the Pope can flee Italy and seek support from some Western monarch, and an early Great Schism would ensue.
 
Top