AHC The HRE centralizes?

Your objetive is to have the the HRE to centralize and to have the primogeniture sucession, effectivelly uniting it under one banner, the PoD is 1181

One observation is that a federal solution, like the german empire can also be accepted, but the empire must have only one dynasty with a hereditary sucession system and no member can leave the union
 
Different split of Habsburg Empire-Netherlands went to Austrian branch. And Zapolya keeps Hungary-so Habsburgs are not distractet fighting Ottomans. With Austria proper, Bohemia and Netherlands Habsburgs have big advantage over lesser German states, like 19th century Prussia. HRE throne was de facto hereditary in Habsburg Dynasty by this time.
 
Recentralize* The Holy Roman Empire was not a heavily decentralized confederacy until nearly the end of its life, the simple matter is not decentralizing it to begin with.
 
Recentralize* The Holy Roman Empire was not a heavily decentralized confederacy until nearly the end of its life, the simple matter is not decentralizing it to begin with.

Oh yeah, well what do you call it's precursor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany and it's relationship to the other parts of the Holy Roman Empire? Everything except Germany was a decentralized confederacy, with that guy only having as much power over non-Germany as the Holy Roman Emperor had over everything outside the personal demesne. If anything, the Hapsburgs partially centralized things, as even the post 30 years war (a low point in royal authority) was still more centralized than anything between Henry V and the Hapsburgs.

To the OP, it's not going to happen with religious disunity. The only way to make it work is the Catholic Church nips "heretics" in the bud. If non-Catholics reach 25% of the general population of the HRE or even a significant minority among its counts and margraves, the rifts will cause strife and demands for autonomy, even if no Protestant vs Catholic war like the 30 years war happen.

Actually, maybe if Henry VIII of England wasn't so eager for getting in Anne Boleyn's Pants, a Catholic league victory in the first seven years of the thirty years war might do it, if the victors convert people fast enough. Any war longer than that and the destruction and loot the mercenaries cause will delegitimize imperial authority in the eyes of the masses, and inevitably any centralization efforts would be delayed or halted by the loss of legitimacy.
 
Recentralize* The Holy Roman Empire was not a heavily decentralized confederacy until nearly the end of its life, the simple matter is not decentralizing it to begin with.
Treaty of Westphalia is what decentralized it. 1648. That's pretty much learned first year for any poli sci or history major.
 

trajen777

Banned
1. Fredrick 1 (Barbarossa) makes peace with the Pope (1177)
2. Fredrick 1 does not die on the third crusade but in stead (see his victory against Turks in Anatolia) takes his large and well trained army to capture Edessa, Aleppo, and Jerusalem. he required Henry the lion to go on crusade and after Fredrick is acclaimed by Christian world as a hero. Henery is made duke of ?? in crusader states. With Richard the lionheart they capture Egypt and bring back enormous wealth.
3. Fredrick arrives back in Germany with wealth and prestige. Henry VI (son) was also on the crusade and is also proclaimed a hero.
4. With correct bribes and the aura of the moment they barons agree to the HRE as hereditary. (Henry was very close to making this happen)
5. Henry does NOT GO HUNTING and get sick in Italy and reigns for 20 years.
 
Okay, let me be radical here.

The HREGN was capable of fielding armies to use against the Turks and French in the 16th and 17th centuries, funded by the empire together. It was a good deal closer to a state than we'd expect.
 
Okay, let me be radical here.

The HREGN was capable of fielding armies to use against the Turks and French in the 16th and 17th centuries, funded by the empire together. It was a good deal closer to a state than we'd expect.

I have to disagree.

The HRE was more than decentralized. The powers of the emperor had already been terribly reduced during the long interregnum, that is in the second half of the 13th century.

And in fact, the most decisive years were the years following Henry VI's premature death, with the rival reigns of Philip I and Otto IV, then of Otto IV and Frederick II, then when Frederick II focused his interests on Italy rather than on Germany.

This is the POD you need to take to avoid the HRe's fate as we knew it. No later than this POD.
 
Treaty of Westphalia is what decentralized it. 1648. That's pretty much learned first year for any poli sci or history major.

No, the 30 Years War decentralized (and in the eyes of many delegitimized) the HRE, Westphalia brought some of it back, but left the Emperors in worse state than before the reformation.
 

trajen777

Banned
Ok here is another Option -- i think this has to happen during the Hohenstaufen dynasty -- after their fall then the princes are to strong.

1. Fredrick 2 lives till 1255 (5 more years)
2. Fredrick divides his kingdom in two parts. Manfred gets KOJ and Italy in 1250
3. Manfred gets the HRE minus Italy in 1250
4. Pope instead of massive antagonist sees this is a way to break from being "surrounded" by the HRE
5. In meeting with Manfred they swear to support each other and not reunite Sicily and the HRE (this eliminates the interregnum -- which is where the HRE really fell apart)
6. Fredrick 2 lives five more years to allow Conrad and Manfred to stabilize their empires
7. With the continuation of the line -- Fredrick 1 - Henry VI - Fredrick 2 - Manfred you have four strong kings (Fredrick 2 was to much focused on Italy vs Germany benefit ) -- so with the "aura of Hohenstaufen and three of the four emperors centralizing more power and with the pope now supportive of Manfred i think you would have seen a heriditory Emperor and a strong / stronger central power. It was the death of Fredrick 2 and war with the pope and Conrad early death which lets to the 10 + years of no ruler the barons took advantage of.
 
Actually, maybe if Henry VIII of England wasn't so eager for getting in Anne Boleyn's Pants, a Catholic league victory in the first seven years of the thirty years war might do it, if the victors convert people fast enough.

I don't thinking changing Henry VIII is necessary, since English involvement in the TYW was pretty negligible. A better POD would be to keep Sweden distracted somehow, so that the war ends with the Hapsburgs stomping on Bohemia, the Palatinate and Denmark and putting the fear of God into their recalcitrant princes.
 
I don't thinking changing Henry VIII is necessary, since English involvement in the TYW was pretty negligible. A better POD would be to keep Sweden distracted somehow, so that the war ends with the Hapsburgs stomping on Bohemia, the Palatinate and Denmark and putting the fear of God into their recalcitrant princes.

England could keep the Swedish distracted with a minimal contribution. At that time the major naval powers were the Spanish, English, Danish, and Venice (? Did someone make a mistake in this book). Just by making a token contribution, they act as a Sword of Damocles, with Sweden never knowing if all their shipping will disappear in a few raids if they don't keep their eyes peeled.

Or imagine or some other way to distract the Swedish while the Hapsburgs stomp on Bohemia and the Palatinate, pick your distraction.

My point being is that the war needs to end in the first seven years or so. Any longer and the toll on human suffering will be increased to the point people start questioning the current system. A victory in seven years that ends in a negotiated peace with the Hapsburgs as victors (with some of the defeated knowing the fear of God and others getting off with tribute, renewed oaths, and concessions) is likely better for a centralized HRE in the long run than a thirty years war with a Catholic League winning without giving any concessions. The TYW caused so much suffering that plenty of people questioned the status quo. Is it ASB if I say the Hapsburgs find some money 30 years before the war and use that money to pay the mercs? Because honestly a lot of the collateral damage in the war was unpaid mercs who decided every town was an unguarded bank and every hamlet was a buffet.
 
Treaty of Westphalia is what decentralized it. 1648. That's pretty much learned first year for any poli sci or history major.

I'm not sure it was ever really that centralized to begin with. I'd say that the peace of Westphalia just confirmed the facts on the ground.
 
Okay, let me be radical here.

The HREGN was capable of fielding armies to use against the Turks and French in the 16th and 17th centuries, funded by the empire together. It was a good deal closer to a state than we'd expect.

I would say that the seven years war and the subsequent establishment of Prussia as a second large german state finally ended any chance to strengthen the central authority. If the Austrian had won (and it is not hard to find POD to ensure that) and regained Silesia they'd be by far the largest state in the HRE and could start to revive its central institutions. Particularly if they'd manage to acquire Bavaria during the Bavarian War of Succession. In fact they might even manage to acquire it without war, as Karl Theodor was willing to exchange Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands which were adjacent to his lands. The Hapsburgians agreed to the trade, but IOTL Prussia intervened and managed to block it. If Austria had won the seven years war the deal would likely go through and with Bavaria and Silesia the Austria would easily dominate the HRE.
 
England could keep the Swedish distracted with a minimal contribution. At that time the major naval powers were the Spanish, English, Danish, and Venice (? Did someone make a mistake in this book). Just by making a token contribution, they act as a Sword of Damocles, with Sweden never knowing if all their shipping will disappear in a few raids if they don't keep their eyes peeled.

Even if they were Catholic, there's no guarantee the English would get involved. Heck, depending on butterflies, they might even join the anti-Imperial side -- shared religion didn't stop France teaming up with Sweden against the Emperor, so if England thought an anti-Imperialist victory would be in its interests, it might well join the war against the Emperor.

Or imagine or some other way to distract the Swedish while the Hapsburgs stomp on Bohemia and the Palatinate, pick your distraction.

A bigger and harder-fought Polish-Swedish War seems like an obvious distraction; make Sweden too preoccupied with Poland to send any forces to Germany, and the war would end with a Hapsburg victory.
 

ben0628

Banned
Sweden never enters the 30 years war and the Catholic League maintains effective control over the empire after crushing Denmark?
 
Top