AHC: Longer living, stronger, more united HRE

Your challenge for today oh great and magnificent students of history, is to come up with a scenario that has the Holy Roman Empire living for a longer period of time than it did, for it to be stronger than it was originally, and better/more united as well.

A giant cookie to whomever can come up with a scenario that manages to keep it alive to at least 1850 while meeting the other criteria.
 
Since the usual answer involves the Hohenstaufen, I'm going to pick on the Ottonians. Have Otto III live longer, sire some kids, and keep things going - eventually they have the same position relative to the crown as the Capets did, and this elective monarchy business can't be used against them.

From there, well, that's the rub.
 
It would probably help if the empire broke between the Germans and the Italians. More homogeneity. A Italian only HRE would be pretty cool as it would actually be Holy, and Roman, and if the work on expanding to Italy and Beyond it would be an Empire as well. Suck it Voltaire.
 
It would probably help if the empire broke between the Germans and the Italians. More homogeneity. A Italian only HRE would be pretty cool as it would actually be Holy, and Roman, and if the work on expanding to Italy and Beyond it would be an Empire as well. Suck it Voltaire.

How does it help the empire to lose Italy (phrased that way because Otto was King of Germany already when he became King of Italy)? Plenty of more successful states have ruled over diverse peoples - more diverse than German vs. Italian even.
 
How does it help the empire to lose Italy (phrased that way because Otto was King of Germany already when he became King of Italy)? Plenty of more successful states have ruled over diverse peoples - more diverse than German vs. Italian even.

I'm thinking more agreeable geography. The Alps are a tough geographical feature to get around for long term success. Even thought their are successful rulers, their are as equally unsuccessful. Italy was the first one to start treating the HRE as non-consequential. More so German princes don't like seeing their men fight in Italy. I'm thinking of Henery the Lion who though formally loyal to Barborossa interventions in Italy drove them apart.
 
I'm thinking more agreeable geography. The Alps are a tough geographical feature to get around for long term success. Even thought their are successful rulers, their are as equally unsuccessful. Italy was the first one to start treating the HRE as non-consequential. More so German princes don't like seeing their men fight in Italy. I'm thinking of Henery the Lion who though formally loyal to Barborossa interventions in Italy drove them apart.

Italy treated the empire as non-consequential because it was able to face Imperial attempts to make it submit and beat them - not because of the Alps. Barbarossa, his son, and his grandson (among other emperors) had no problem crossing them with armies.

And how did we go from homogeneity's dubious virtues to geography?
 
I favor the Habsburgs not inheriting Spain as my method of choice for these threads. Basically, Habsburgs do inherit Burgundy, but Joanna la Loca doesn't become the heiress or doesn't marry Philip. Without Spain the Habsburgs focus their efforts on unifying their German holdings and inheriting land within the empire. Since OTL they had first Spain, then Hungary to preoccupy them and prevent them from making real progress with Germany, we can assume that without these the Habsburgs have a better shot at achieving unity in Germany, as well as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria, so it would be appreciably larger and potentially more powerful than OTL Germany.
 
Frederick II of Hohenstaufen isn't forced to accept

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutum_in_favorem_principum

and focuses on Germany instead of Italy. He was a great lawmaker and king supposedly, who centralized Sicily. Maybe he could've done the same if he avoided the Statutum and focused on Germany?

I favor the Habsburgs not inheriting Spain as my method of choice for these threads. Basically, Habsburgs do inherit Burgundy, but Joanna la Loca doesn't become the heiress or doesn't marry Philip. Without Spain the Habsburgs focus their efforts on unifying their German holdings and inheriting land within the empire. Since OTL they had first Spain, then Hungary to preoccupy them and prevent them from making real progress with Germany, we can assume that without these the Habsburgs have a better shot at achieving unity in Germany, as well as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria, so it would be appreciably larger and potentially more powerful than OTL Germany.

But wouldn't religious strife just pull their empire apart?
 
- As said, you probably need to get rid of Italy sooner or later. But the trickery is that Italian title was one of the "markers" of the Empire.
I would see rather well a King of the Romans being distinct from the Emperor since the XIII century.
Seeing how Italy was divided, its pretty safe to assume that the King of the Romans would have as much power than the King of Arles pre-Imperial acquisition.

- Dynastic stability : After the XII century, HRE became a musical chairs look alike. In a era and place where stability of a state was directly dependent on the stability of the dynasty in place, that was really detrimential. Of course, it's a dialectic relationship but generally, more the dynasty is in place for a long time, is acknowledged and is not really challenged in his power, the more strong the feudal state is.

- Limit the ambitions of the emperors : it's kind of related to the first point. The original power of the HRE was in the maintenance of a public land : thanks to eastwards expansion, the german kings and the emperors could give away lands and ensure the service of nobles without damaging their power.
When this expansion halted, tough...Well it didn't really halted, but wasn't made at the benefit of HRE and the settlement of XII to XIV centuries beneficied more to his vassals and even rival states.

HRE didn't managed to maintain his interests everywhere : Italy, Papal States, Mediterranean, Baltic, Central Europe. They didn't had much choice for select their priorities, so it's why you should "help" them.
No Italy (except Frioul, in order to keep an eye on Southern Central Europe), no Burgundy, but keep Lotharingia, it's one of the main part of HRE regarding demographic and wealth.

With these three points, you somewhat helped the HRE to reach what you search : it would be still plagued with important vassals and little statelets, but you can't have everything.
 
But wouldn't religious strife just pull their empire apart?
Maybe, maybe not. Martin Luther could be butterflied or have his life altered or cut short depending on the butterfly effect, which could totally reshape the reformation, possibly even making it an internal reform rather than a schism. Even if the Reformation happens just the same, Protestantism could either be more thuroughly stamped out by Habsburgs comitted to Germany (hell they could even use it to justify some landgrabs against heretical lords), or without the Catholic anchor that is Spain they could convert themselves. Even if neither of these things happens, recall that Prussia was able to unite a religiously divided Germany in much less time, and in a scenario where the vast majority of Habsburg lands are German nationalism could work in their favor.
 
Top