AHC: ERE & HRE Coexist

Which is the answer to the AH Challenge. If both develop that kind of division of the Empire into two states claiming succession to the Constantinian Empire and this more or less peaceful co-existence becomes accepted as the norm, that's the most realistic way to bring this about. It would also mean disputes between the two are more or less ordinary geopolitical disputes, not ideological wars over who is the real heir to Constantine I and Theodosius.

Yeah. And ordinary geopolitical disputes between states are a given until at least the equivalent of WWI (as in, until war becomes so unbearably horrible no one wants to push it except madmen).

Anyone else have any thoughts to add to this? How future crusaders fit into this development, for instance.

Point taken. :eek:
Why would the HRE have a particularly hard time (as Western states shedding feudalism go), while I have your attention?

Not that normal for that isn't ridiculous and a long term thing, but I got the impression you're arguing that even if the Hohenstaufen succeed, its going to be even worse for the HRE than for France or Spain or England.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. And ordinary geopolitical disputes between states are a given until at least the equivalent of WWI (as in, until war becomes so unbearably horrible no one wants to push it except madmen).

Anyone else have any thoughts to add to this? How future crusaders fit into this development, for instance.

Why would the HRE have a particularly hard time (as Western states shedding feudalism go), while I have your attention?

Not that normal for that isn't ridiculous and a long term thing, but I got the impression you're arguing that even if the Hohenstaufen succeed, its going to be even worse for the HRE than for France or Spain or England.
I will repeat the alliance with the HRE could easily be kept if and only if Fredrick I and the EMperor of Byzantium got along. In otl the normans were a threat both to the HRE and the Romans, thus with Corad III alliances were made. But once Fredrick I became emperor it boke apart because the two battled for succestion over Italy by trying to outmaneuver one anotherinstead of focusing on their common enemies. it also didnt help that Both emperors considered themselves successors to Rome. So just have them mend their ideological dispute and have Fredrick cooperate with the Byzantine emperor and Conrad's Alliance is sure to last. Only problem is the ANgeloi. Please for the love of god if you want an HRE-Roman alliance butterfly them away. better yet butterfly away Andronikos Komnenoss. Because it was thanks to Manuel that the alliance was so successful.
 
Yeah. And ordinary geopolitical disputes between states are a given until at least the equivalent of WWI (as in, until war becomes so unbearably horrible no one wants to push it except madmen).

WWII would probably be better for that than WWI (as Hitler was a definite fruitloop but claiming Imperial Japan's military dictatorship with that is not entirely truthful).

Why would the HRE have a particularly hard time (as Western states shedding feudalism go), while I have your attention?

Not that normal for that isn't ridiculous and a long term thing, but I got the impression you're arguing that even if the Hohenstaufen succeed, its going to be even worse for the HRE than for France or Spain or England.

Spain IMHO is a pretty comparable analogy: a long-term history of division of a region, a brief unification under a powerful pair of monarchs, the peninsula splits back up again later. The HRE's problems stem from its sheer size, mostly. In a pre-modern situation, long-lived large empires are quite rare, and China is a history of multiple dynastic empires that were often extremely different in practice from each other even before the Yuan showed up. HRE's problems are due to that size and the complications posed by the Papacy, which is unlikely in the extreme to accept a strong Emperor.

The Papacy helped immeasurably as far as damaging the British monarchy, it was unable to do that to the French monarchy, and arguably did more harm than good in Iberia. With HRE, the Papacy is not quite as distant as it is from say, England or France.
 
I will repeat the alliance with the HRE could easily be kept if and only if Fredrick I and the EMperor of Byzantium got along. In otl the normans were a threat both to the HRE and the Romans, thus with Corad III alliances were made. But once Fredrick I became emperor it boke apart because the two battled for succestion over Italy by trying to outmaneuver one anotherinstead of focusing on their common enemies. it also didnt help that Both emperors considered themselves successors to Rome. So just have them mend their ideological dispute and have Fredrick cooperate with the Byzantine emperor and Conrad's Alliance is sure to last.

So what happens when the Normans are dealt with (doesn't matter by which emperor)? Will the other emperor really accept them controlling that part of Italy? Will the successful one not want to take the rest?

This is something that has to be answered correctly for generations. And the ideological issues are pretty big. Can't have two states both being the One True Roman Empire - maybe two states each as half of the Roman Empire, but not as the One and Only Roman Empire.

Only problem is the ANgeloi. Please for the love of god if you want an HRE-Roman alliance butterfly them away. better yet butterfly away Andronikos Komnenoss. Because it was thanks to Manuel that the alliance was so successful.
I'm assuming that the Angeloi on the throne will inevitably end badly, so no worries. No timeline involving success of the ERE can permit them to be on the throne for long, in my opinion.

Andronikos...depends on who replaces him. Andronikos was crazy but competent (sadly more of the former as time went on). Either replaces him as in how Alexius II grows up or usurps the throne from Alexius II instead, depending.

Snake Featherston said:
WWII would probably be better for that than WWI (as Hitler was a definite fruitloop but claiming Imperial Japan's military dictatorship with that is not entirely truthful).

True. But you get my point - it takes a war involving unimaginable carnage.

Spain IMHO is a pretty comparable analogy: a long-term history of division of a region, a brief unification under a powerful pair of monarchs, the peninsula splits back up again later. The HRE's problems stem from its sheer size, mostly. In a pre-modern situation, long-lived large empires are quite rare, and China is a history of multiple dynastic empires that were often extremely different in practice from each other even before the Yuan showed up. HRE's problems are due to that size and the complications posed by the Papacy, which is unlikely in the extreme to accept a strong Emperor.
How so (on both size and the pope)? Papal wishes for being (in effect, if never spelled out as such) in charge of all Europe as the Grand High Theocrator?

Trying to think of how to address that, since unlike the ERE, which can agree to let the HRE occupy Italy and doesn't really care about Germany or (the kingdom of) Burgundy, the Pope has broader interests.

Or is this just a matter of the fact no self-respecting pope wants to be at the mercy of a secular power, which would happen with one power controlling Italy?

The Papacy helped immeasurably as far as damaging the British monarchy, it was unable to do that to the French monarchy, and arguably did more harm than good in Iberia. With HRE, the Papacy is not quite as distant as it is from say, England or France.
How so on Spain?

Asking since Spain is...not really a success story in the long run. Looking at this in terms of the kings and the kingdom, not just its many wars or its economic problems (though those may relate to the internal politics).
 
True. But you get my point - it takes a war involving unimaginable carnage.

Indeed. It helps if the nukes make not just the carnage unimaginable, but victory being as ghastly as defeat, though.

How so (on both size and the pope)? Papal wishes for being (in effect, if never spelled out as such) in charge of all Europe as the Grand High Theocrator?

Feudalism was a system that worked....tolerably....on a small scale. Its tendency to anarchy if left to itself would be quite obviously problematic on increasingly larger scales. HRE was too large to function as a Medieval state, same as Kievan Rus was.

Trying to think of how to address that, since unlike the ERE, which can agree to let the HRE occupy Italy and doesn't really care about Germany or (the kingdom of) Burgundy, the Pope has broader interests.

Or is this just a matter of the fact no self-respecting pope wants to be at the mercy of a secular power, which would happen with one power controlling Italy?

The bolded bit. Especially the Holy Roman Emperor, whom the Popes crowned.

How so on Spain?

Asking since Spain is...not really a success story in the long run. Looking at this in terms of the kings and the kingdom, not just its many wars or its economic problems (though those may relate to the internal politics).

It did more harm than good through the Inquisition, which through the expulsions of Sephardim and Muslim Conversos caused major problems Castile-Aragon never recovered from. :(
 
Indeed. It helps if the nukes make not just the carnage unimaginable, but victory being as ghastly as defeat, though.

Yeah. Not strictly necessary, but yet another reason to regard "all out war" as something to actively avoid.

Kind of hard to sell a Quick Glorious War when the initial attacks by both sides send casualties into the millions.

Feudalism was a system that worked....tolerably....on a small scale. Its tendency to anarchy if left to itself would be quite obviously problematic on increasingly larger scales. HRE was too large to function as a Medieval state, same as Kievan Rus was.
Wonder how Russia (the state that emerged after Kievan Rus) managed to work. For a given definition of "work", yes, but it didn't dissolve into fragments.

On that note, is this also part of why Poland failed as a state? Or were the kings just too weak to face the nobility?

The bolded bit. Especially the Holy Roman Emperor, whom the Popes crowned.
Not good. I get the impression that posing as the Champion of/Defender of (Western) Christendom is not going to actually help things. Ignoring any side effects.

But why would it be better (however marginally) for, for instance, the ERE to control Italy?

It did more harm than good through the Inquisition, which through the expulsions of Sephardim and Muslim Conversos caused major problems Castile-Aragon never recovered from. :(
Seems to have had two effects, tell me if I'm missing anything:

1) Anything that causes an exodus of skilled and educated people is a bad thing.

2) Everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition. That kind of obsession with pure blood and pure faith sounds like a recipe for incompetence and ideologues.
 
Yeah. Not strictly necessary, but yet another reason to regard "all out war" as something to actively avoid. And unlike the others, impossible to argue with - the sheer devastation value of nukes is unambiguous.

IMHO, without nukes WWIII would have come around the 1960s or so. Nukes were too devastating for either the Soviets or the USA to really use them.

Wonder how Russia managed to work. For a given definition of "work", yes, but it didn't dissolve into fragments.

Moscow escaped the devastation caused by the Golden Horde and the Moscow Tsars built a formidable military machine while being Genre Savvy enough not to go a-crusading against superior Heathen force.

Not good. I get the impression that posing as the Champion of/Defender of (Western) Christendom is not going to actually help things. Ignoring any side effects.

But why would it be better for, for instance, the ERE to control Italy? Less of a sense that these guys are supposed to be papal servants?

It wouldn't be. If anything the ERE, which is post-Schism, would probably be more brutal than the HRE, whose soldiers are at least Western Christians like the Pope.

Seems to have had two effects, tell me if I'm missing anything:

1) Anything that causes an exodus of skilled and educated people is a bad thing.

2) Everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition. That kind of obsession with pure blood and pure faith sounds like a recipe for incompetence and ideologues.

1) Especially the kind of farmers who were extremely crucial to Early Modern Spain's prosperity. The exits of those farmers is what did the damage.

2) Indeed.
 
IMHO, without nukes WWIII would have come around the 1960s or so. Nukes were too devastating for either the Soviets or the USA to really use them.

Yeah. I'm not 100% convinced, but the possibility existed. Certainly impossible for WWIII to happen short of insanity in a world with nukes.

Moscow escaped the devastation caused by the Golden Horde and the Moscow Tsars built a formidable military machine while being Genre Savvy enough not to go a-crusading against superior Heathen force.

Gotcha.

It wouldn't be. If anything the ERE, which is post-Schism, would probably be more brutal than the HRE, whose soldiers are at least Western Christians like the Pope.

True. You get my point though - what makes the HRE seen as even worse than the alternatives?

1) Especially the kind of farmers who were extremely crucial to Early Modern Spain's prosperity. The exits of those farmers is what did the damage.

2) Indeed.

Any good sources or information on #1 here?
 
Yeah. I'm not 100% convinced, but the possibility existed. Certainly impossible for WWIII to happen short of insanity in a world with nukes.


Hence why the nukes are a necessity to make large-scale war too ruinous whether you win it or lose it.

True. You get my point though - what makes the HRE seen as even worse than the alternatives?

Unfortunately fear of the ERE would work whenever it starts wanting to refight the Ostrogothic Wars, but otherwise is a pretty limited source of Papal respect for the Emperor.

Any good sources or information on #1 here?

The book A History of Islamic Societies has a chapter on the Expulsion in the third part of the book, dealing with Muslim histories in the Colonial era. My argument derives from that chapter, though the book is not immediately available (I'll find it in the Uni Library and have specifics tomorrow).
 
Hence why the nukes are a necessity to make large-scale war too ruinous whether you win it or lose it.

Yeah. Alternatives might work, this will.

Unfortunately fear of the ERE would work whenever it starts wanting to refight the Ostrogothic Wars, but otherwise is a pretty limited source of Papal respect for the Emperor.

But would a French king controlling Italy be seen as any better? That's what I'm trying to get at - why does the HRE being in charge bother the pope more than any other overly powerful monarch?

The book A History of Islamic Societies has a chapter on the Expulsion in the third part of the book, dealing with Muslim histories in the Colonial era. My argument derives from that chapter, though the book is not immediately available (I'll find it in the Uni Library and have specifics tomorrow).

Yay. This issue has interested me for a while - seems the situation could have been worked out better (both for the Muslims and the kingdom) had things gone differently, but noooo.

Not to mention other things, but a failed Reconquestia is another topic.
 
To be fair to the Pope, Spanish Inquisition was never his business. Actually it was largely a way for the Spanish kings to meddle with religious stuff of their realms without messing up too much with established church privileges and Pope's right's.
Or, better said, was a way to make the Church work for their secular aims, and ensuring ideological cohesion of their stuff.
At the beginning, Rome objected the jurisdiction of the Inquisition and, IIRC, the fact that it curbed the power of the bishops.
 
The book A History of Islamic Societies has a chapter on the Expulsion in the third part of the book, dealing with Muslim histories in the Colonial era. My argument derives from that chapter, though the book is not immediately available (I'll find it in the Uni Library and have specifics tomorrow).

Isn't it? I suppose you are referring to Ira Lapidus' work.
Its Italian translation is immediately available in most bookshops of cities with a university, it's weird English version is not.
And yes, it is very good as a general source. The entire "muslims under Christian rule" thing is not a topic which attracts much attention - not as much as the reverse at least.
I think I read somthing more detailed about the expulsion but I cannot recall the title.
 
Isn't it? I suppose you are referring to Ira Lapidus' work.
Its Italian translation is immediately available in most bookshops of cities with a university, it's weird English version is not.
And yes, it is very good as a general source. The entire "muslims under Christian rule" thing is not a topic which attracts much attention - not as much as the reverse at least.
I think I read somthing more detailed about the expulsion but I cannot recall the title.

That's the one, yes.
 
Top