AHC: Germany by 1100

With French, English, and Spanish unity being so relatively early compared to Germany. I have always wondered how to unify Germany around the same time as France and England. And what effect this would have on history. Anytime before 1100 is open.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
Germany (well, the HRE) in 1100 was not significantly less unified than other European states of the time, was it? The problem comes later on, when France and Castille (which would absorb Aragon) and England managed to suppress their powerful vassals and turn into real kingdoms under royal authority, while the Holy Roman Empire saw the local lords gain more and more power at the expense of the kings.
 
I often heard than some of the Hohenstauffen could be i the position to unfie Germany or the Core of the HRE.

The butterflies would be large, i haven read any good timelines involving a earlier german unfication. Its a kind of mount everst, well or a K2, in writing such a timeline to the modern age.
 
Germany (well, the HRE) in 1100 was not significantly less unified than other European states of the time, was it? The problem comes later on, when France and Castille (which would absorb Aragon) and England managed to suppress their powerful vassals and turn into real kingdoms under royal authority, while the Holy Roman Empire saw the local lords gain more and more power at the expense of the kings.

Pretty much this. France well up into the 16th & 17th centuries was much more decentralized and feudal than many people around here seem to assume.
 
Pretty much this. France well up into the 16th & 17th centuries was much more decentralized and feudal than many people around here seem to assume.

It seems more a matter of the King's position being stronger within the kingdom (the royal demense is pretty damn large) than "less feudal" or centralized in the sense we use that term post-1700 or so.

The King of France could order his vassals around (with enough effort), the HRE had trouble persuading them to cooperate.

So as relates to the OP: What about Italy? As in, what are the Kings of Germany (who are also kings of Italy most of the time by this point - a few didn't get crowned as that like Frederick II would later) - doing there?
 
So as relates to the OP: What about Italy? As in, what are the Kings of Germany (who are also kings of Italy most of the time by this point - a few didn't get crowned as that like Frederick II would later) - doing there?

Regarding the above, I think it would be even more interesting and in line with their OTL policies if the Staufens united and became kings of Italy instead, making the HRE, at least geographically, less of a misnomer. Early united Italy is, IMHO, even more rare than Germany, as I have seen it done with for Germany in IE 1.0 (admittedly with less than adequate detail), but not with Italy. Considering that up until the industrial era Italy was some of the most valuable territory in the world a united Italy might even be able to pull a smaller scale Rome redux in the western Med.

As for Germany, you might be able to do it by stopping the Habsburgs from inheriting outside of Germany. They were pretty detrimental to German unification because of their massive foreign interests and the fact that they were based out of Spain from early on. If they start focussing on breaking down the nobility in the 1400s then they are completely on pace with France and Spain and only a little behind England in terms of unity. Swapping Frederick III out for a more agressive but still competent ruler might help.
 
Regarding the above, I think it would be even more interesting and in line with their OTL policies if the Staufens united and became kings of Italy instead, making the HRE, at least geographically, less of a misnomer. Early united Italy is, IMHO, even more rare than Germany, as I have seen it done with for Germany in IE 1.0 (admittedly with less than adequate detail), but not with Italy. Considering that up until the industrial era Italy was some of the most valuable territory in the world a united Italy might even be able to pull a smaller scale Rome redux in the western Med.

The problem is uniting Italy requires some kind of base, and the base the Staufens had is mostly in Germany. Sicily counts only after the 1190s (so only after the first two Staufen).

As for Germany, you might be able to do it by stopping the Habsburgs from inheriting outside of Germany. They were pretty detrimental to German unification because of their massive foreign interests and the fact that they were based out of Spain from early on. If they start focussing on breaking down the nobility in the 1400s then they are completely on pace with France and Spain and only a little behind England in terms of unity. Swapping Frederick III out for a more agressive but still competent ruler might help.
Early on? It's not for two centuries (Rudolph I is the first Habsburg emperor*, after all) after their first significant member that they have significant (possibly "any") foreign interests.

If anything, as Albert I (who tried to make his son King of Bohemia) shows, the early Habsburgs were very interested in building up a power base within the Empire.

They don't have Spain until Charles V (to use his imperial title), which is almost two and a half centuries after Rudolph.

Blaming the Habsburgs for the fact that none of the Emperors or Kings of the Romans between Henry VII and Maximilian were able to do anything is like blaming Margaret of Anjou for the success of the Tudors.


* Technically he was only king of the Romans, but he counts.


Also, and I'm not sure about England (which seems to have been in a good position for strong kings from before the Norman conquest) or Spain (which I know little about), but France was in a position to start checking the nobility when it did because of events in the High Middle Ages. Similiarly, the Holy Roman Emperors aren't in that position because of such events going in favor of the nobility's privileges and powers at the expense of the crown (or at least with no long term gain for it).
 
Last edited:
It seems more a matter of the King's position being stronger within the kingdom (the royal demense is pretty damn large) than "less feudal" or centralized in the sense we use that term post-1700 or so.

The King of France could order his vassals around (with enough effort), the HRE had trouble persuading them to cooperate.

In 1100, the royal demesne was pretty damn small. And the king had an awful time of it with many of his vassals. Ottonian Germany was quite functional by comparison, wasn't it?

Suppose you have the Ottonians stay out of Italy. ..?
 
In 1100, the royal demesne was pretty damn small. And the king had an awful time of it with many of his vassals. Ottonian Germany was quite functional by comparison, wasn't it?

Suppose you have the Ottonians stay out of Italy. ..?

Which would require a POD before AD 1000, sadly.
 
Yeah, but the OP says anything before 1100. Or am I missing a later restriction on our brainstorming?

Nah, I just miss read a digit.

Hm. Well, first question is - why does Otto stay out of Italy?

We, from our perspective, can say it may have been a bad idea in the long run, but it wasn't one in the short term.

And it seems to have appealed to his ambition.
 
Nah, I just miss read a digit.

Hm. Well, first question is - why does Otto stay out of Italy?

We, from our perspective, can say it may have been a bad idea in the long run, but it wasn't one in the short term.

And it seems to have appealed to his ambition.

How about this: one of Otto's other sons survives, and he is persuaded to divide the inheritance, one son taking Germany and the other Italy. The one son gets the thriving Ottonian empire to rule and consolidate, and the other deals with the mess in Italy without diverting attention and resources from Germany.
 
How about this: one of Otto's other sons survives, and he is persuaded to divide the inheritance, one son taking Germany and the other Italy. The one son gets the thriving Ottonian empire to rule and consolidate, and the other deals with the mess in Italy without diverting attention and resources from Germany.

That might work.
 
The problem is uniting Italy requires some kind of base, and the base the Staufens had is mostly in Germany. Sicily counts only after the 1190s (so only after the first two Staufen).

Early on? It's not for two centuries (Rudolph I is the first Habsburg emperor*, after all) after their first significant member that they have significant (possibly "any") foreign interests.

If anything, as Albert I (who tried to make his son King of Bohemia) shows, the early Habsburgs were very interested in building up a power base within the Empire.

They don't have Spain until Charles V (to use his imperial title), which is almost two and a half centuries after Rudolph.

Blaming the Habsburgs for the fact that none of the Emperors or Kings of the Romans between Henry VII and Maximilian were able to do anything is like blaming Margaret of Anjou for the success of the Tudors.


* Technically he was only king of the Romans, but he counts.


Also, and I'm not sure about England (which seems to have been in a good position for strong kings from before the Norman conquest) or Spain (which I know little about), but France was in a position to start checking the nobility when it did because of events in the High Middle Ages. Similiarly, the Holy Roman Emperors aren't in that position because of such events going in favor of the nobility's privileges and powers at the expense of the crown (or at least with no long term gain for it).

Early on was a throw away that happened to be inaccurate, sorry. What I meant was that, in a time when the French kings, particularly Louis XI, were busy breaking the backs of the nobility (after Louis XI and his son there are very few feudal lords at the ducal level who were not the younger brothers of the king) the Habsburgs were busy in Burgundy and later Spain and Hungary. They controlled Austria and Bavaria, which in the right hands and with the right motivation could have been more than enough to tightly control the German states in the 1400s. After that it becomes nominally more difficult because of the reformation, though again, Austria and Bavaria is likely to be enough land to sponsor a German King in more than name. I just think that by Charles V's time things are getting out of hand, and the Habsburg foreign policy isn't helping.

Also, on Italy, unlikely I admit, but Staufen Italy is slowly becoming a major AH dream of mine, so I can't help but mention it in the discussion.
 
Early on was a throw away that happened to be inaccurate, sorry. What I meant was that, in a time when the French kings, particularly Louis XI, were busy breaking the backs of the nobility (after Louis XI and his son there are very few feudal lords at the ducal level who were not the younger brothers of the king) the Habsburgs were busy in Burgundy and later Spain and Hungary. They controlled Austria and Bavaria, which in the right hands and with the right motivation could have been more than enough to tightly control the German states in the 1400s. After that it becomes nominally more difficult because of the reformation, though again, Austria and Bavaria is likely to be enough land to sponsor a German King in more than name. I just think that by Charles V's time things are getting out of hand, and the Habsburg foreign policy isn't helping.

Bohemia, not Bavaria. But I'm not sure it was something that they could have tightly controlled the rest of the German states with their occupations elsewhere.

Even if they don't inherit anything in Hungary or Spain, they have France - in the West and in Italy - and the Ottomans in the East to worry about, which will inevitably disperse energies).

But yes, things are getting out of hand. I just don't think it's fair to say the Habsburgs kept it from happening or that a different dynasty - say the Wittelsbachs - would have done better here.

Also, on Italy, unlikely I admit, but Staufen Italy is slowly becoming a major AH dream of mine, so I can't help but mention it in the discussion.

It's certainly something worth exploring with OTL's Frederick II spending more time on it than Germany.

Sicily is not a bad base to work from, but it would be effectively abandoning the empire to focus on Italy primarily - which most men won't want to do, if only because of the prestige of the imperial title.

Having a second son take Sicily might be a good position to work from - say Conrad is consumed by German concerns, and Manfred builds up in the south.
 
Germany (well, the HRE) in 1100 was not significantly less unified than other European states of the time, was it? The problem comes later on, when France and Castille (which would absorb Aragon) and England managed to suppress their powerful vassals and turn into real kingdoms under royal authority, while the Holy Roman Empire saw the local lords gain more and more power at the expense of the kings.
Pretty much this. France well up into the 16th & 17th centuries was much more decentralized and feudal than many people around here seem to assume.
Yeah, a lot of our ideas about the state of states are based on what happened afterward, not what was actually the case in the period. That's the case for German (dis)unity, or in the portrayal of Asia as being significantly less developed/advanced than Europe because of what the place looked like after European exploitation. We basically have a habit of believing the winners were always the winners, even if the people of the time would look at you in confusion.
 
I've heard the Capetian success in turning France into a coherent, functioning Kingdom attributed largely to "good dynastic luck". That is, a long series of French Kings each lived to father competent male heirs who were adults or near-adults when it came time for them to inherit the throne.

France, like the HRE, started out as an elective monarchy (at least once the Carolingians died out), but the early Capetian Kings were generally able to turn the elections into mere formalities, a ritual in which the nobility recognized the current King's son as his heir (legally, a junior co-King). The living King could then leverage his position to ensure the election of his son as the heir. Eventually, the pretence of elections was dropped and the French throne became officially hereditary, since it had been so long since a King's eldest son had failed to inherit that the idea of doing anything else was unthinkable.

Some Holy Roman Emperors tried to do the same thing, and a few succeeded, but in general they had poor dynastic luck (Emperors dying before they had any heirs old enough and respected enough to arrange pre-election) and weren't able to sustain the practice, so the practice of Imperial Election came to be seen as an important and jealously-guarded privilege of the upper Imperial nobility, and it was often used as leverage to preserve the nobility's other privileges.
 
Top