AHC/WI: Centralize the Holy Roman Empire Post-Westphalia

I'll throw out a suggestion I made in a previous thread to use Reichsritter as the basis for the imperial bureaucracy you're going to need if you start centralising the Empire,

I could be wrong, but I think by 1648 they're not what they once were.

Though I'm no expert.

Was recapturing Istanbul ever really a seriously thought of proposition? I think if you want to go about centralising the Holy Roman Empire then after the Treaty of Passarowitz - or better yet a Treaty of Karlowitz that sees them gain Transylvania, the Banat/what's nowadays the Serbian autonomous province of Vojvodina north of the Danube and parts of Croatia north of the Suva to form a nicely delineated and defensible border - then they would be better off arranging a long-term peace with the Ottomans to allow them to concentrate on Germany and Italy. The Balkans just seem like a distraction.
Which raises the question. Do the Habsburgs even want to centralize the Empire as a goal in its own right the way say, Frederick I did?

They seem to have preferred extending the family's power - not necessarily power as emperors.

How about removing the Hungarian problem by getting them to make the Crown of Saint Stephen hereditary in the person of the Habsburgs? After the Treaty of Karlowitz the Habsburgs regained most of Ottoman Hungary to go with Royal Hungary they already ruled, perhaps by playing hardball with the Hungarian nobility they could force them to recognise the crown as hereditary in return for doling out all that new land. I'm sure the Hungarians will still cause trouble but with it no longer being an elective monarchy they would lose a lot of their leverage and allow the Habsburgs to concentrate on the Empire for a fair while.
Even if its hereditary, they still have to spend time and attention on Hungary, or the Hungarians are going to feel like they're being squeezed by foreign overlords for foreign concerns. That won't end well.
 
Maybe if the Austrians deal with those uppity Prussians using the time-honoured Hapsburg method of marrying into their royal family, and the dynastic history of those two nations falls out so that Prussia ends up getting incorporated into the Hapsburg dynastic union. That way we don't have German dualism tearing the Empire apart, and, if we add a belligerent and expansionist France into the mix, we might see the German princes granting more power to the Emperor. Possibly if Revolutionary France still does well in Germany, but not quite well enough to force the Empire to disband, we might see the various German princes ceding control of foreign and military policy to the Emperor on the grounds that it's at least better to be dominated by a German monarch than a foreign one. The Empire might then evolve into a federation-style country, a la the USA.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Was recapturing Istanbul ever really a seriously thought of proposition? I think if you want to go about centralising the Holy Roman Empire then after the Treaty of Passarowitz - or better yet a Treaty of Karlowitz that sees them gain Transylvania, the Banat/what's nowadays the Serbian autonomous province of Vojvodina north of the Danube and parts of Croatia north of the Suva to form a nicely delineated and defensible border - then they would be better off arranging a long-term peace with the Ottomans to allow them to concentrate on Germany and Italy. The Balkans just seem like a distraction.

Unfortunately however, the reason for further Balkan "distractions" I feel is because the Russians also have an interest in the Balkans, especially after they have successfully conquered the Crimean Peninsula. So even with a long term peace, it might not prevent the Russians from taking over in the Balkans. Bad because in the event of war between Austria and Russia, they would be surrounded on two sides.

How about removing the Hungarian problem by getting them to make the Crown of Saint Stephen hereditary in the person of the Habsburgs? After the Treaty of Karlowitz the Habsburgs regained most of Ottoman Hungary to go with Royal Hungary they already ruled, perhaps by playing hardball with the Hungarian nobility they could force them to recognise the crown as hereditary in return for doling out all that new land. I'm sure the Hungarians will still cause trouble but with it no longer being an elective monarchy they would lose a lot of their leverage and allow the Habsburgs to concentrate on the Empire for a fair while.

Even if its hereditary, they still have to spend time and attention on Hungary, or the Hungarians are going to feel like they're being squeezed by foreign overlords for foreign concerns. That won't end well.

No it won't...If I know Hungary, it'll mean the Hapsburgs will still be concentrating on Hungary. If they want to concentrate on the Empire as much as they need. I'm sorry, I really am, but they are going to have to split off Hungary from the Hapsburg's Imperial holdings, either by putting a relative on the Hungarian throne or otherwise, but the Hapsburg's future at united the Imperial crown lands into a centralized (or more practically a unit similar to the OTL German Empire) will forever be cast in doubt as long as Holy Roman Emperor is also King of Hungary.

Which raises the question. Do the Habsburgs even want to centralize the Empire as a goal in its own right the way say, Frederick I did?

They seem to have preferred extending the family's power - not necessarily power as emperors.

Personally Elfwine, I think I can attribute that reason to Westphalia more than anything else. Especially during the twilight years of Empire, after Charles VI. To how effective that turned out...well, one could look to the 19th century for that one, which was by all accounts a Hapsburg-screw.

Maybe if the Austrians deal with those uppity Prussians using the time-honoured Hapsburg method of marrying into their royal family, and the dynastic history of those two nations falls out so that Prussia ends up getting incorporated into the Hapsburg dynastic union. That way we don't have German dualism tearing the Empire apart, and, if we add a belligerent and expansionist France into the mix, we might see the German princes granting more power to the Emperor. Possibly if Revolutionary France still does well in Germany, but not quite well enough to force the Empire to disband, we might see the various German princes ceding control of foreign and military policy to the Emperor on the grounds that it's at least better to be dominated by a German monarch than a foreign one. The Empire might then evolve into a federation-style country, a la the USA.

That's assuming the Prussians still go on to be that powerful state (and I believe it very well can.) and also if there will still be a Revolutionary France, although an expansionist France can suffice if they prove powerful enough.
 
Last edited:
I think it's very hard to centralize the Holy Roman Empire at pretty much any period post-Reformation, but I also think that it's wrong to say that it was "too rotten to save," or what not.

The long-standing bias of the historiography of the Reich is basically to castigate it for not being the Kaiserreich. This goes back to 19th century historians like Ranke and Treitschke. But I think if you look at the most recent work on the Reich in the 18th century, you'll find that it was a fairly functional entity which commanded the loyalty of many people and served important purposes. It wasn't a modern state, but it wasn't trying to be a modern state.

There were, of course, secular princes, and especially the secular prince-electors, who wanted to increase their own standing at the expense of the Reich as a whole. But they are generally not in agreement with one another, and you have the counterbalancing forces of the Emperor and the various smaller polities (ecclesiastical states, free cities, imperial counts and knights) who can ally together to maintain the imperial constitution. Alternately, the princes can ally with the smaller entities to maintain the constitution against aggrandizement by the Emperor.

The Reich began to have problems in the mid-18th century, when Prussia started to become powerful enough to successfully challenge the Emperor on its own (something no medium-sized state had really been able to do before; the Bavarians were crushed during the Spanish Succession War, even despite a much closer alliance with the French than Frederick ever had).

Even then, the Reich was still healthy enough in the 1780s for the princes to band together, under the ironic leadership of Frederick the Great, against Joseph II's attempts to undue the balance of power.

What really destroyed the Reich was the French pressure from outside, pressure of a sort it was never really designed to deal with, and that basically encouraged the worst impulses from the Princes. The old constitution of the Empire was destroyed in 1803, probably irreparably - the weak polities that were eliminated then were the heart of the imperial idea.

So, anyway, just a warning not to read the history of the Reich in the same way that Treitschke did - I think the more recent work is really interesting, and points to how, even as late as the 18th century, the modern sovereign state was still not fully established as the only possible form of political organization.

If you want the actual Holy Roman Empire to survive, rather than merely to transform it into a Grossdeutsch version of the Kaiserreich, the best POD is probably to give Karl VI a son, which obviates the War of the Austrian Succession. Beyond there, it's hard to see through the swarm of butterflies.
 
I think it's very hard to centralize the Holy Roman Empire at pretty much any period post-Reformation, but I also think that it's wrong to say that it was "too rotten to save," or what not.

The long-standing bias of the historiography of the Reich is basically to castigate it for not being the Kaiserreich. This goes back to 19th century historians like Ranke and Treitschke. But I think if you look at the most recent work on the Reich in the 18th century, you'll find that it was a fairly functional entity which commanded the loyalty of many people and served important purposes. It wasn't a modern state, but it wasn't trying to be a modern state.

There were, of course, secular princes, and especially the secular prince-electors, who wanted to increase their own standing at the expense of the Reich as a whole. But they are generally not in agreement with one another, and you have the counterbalancing forces of the Emperor and the various smaller polities (ecclesiastical states, free cities, imperial counts and knights) who can ally together to maintain the imperial constitution. Alternately, the princes can ally with the smaller entities to maintain the constitution against aggrandizement by the Emperor.

The Reich began to have problems in the mid-18th century, when Prussia started to become powerful enough to successfully challenge the Emperor on its own (something no medium-sized state had really been able to do before; the Bavarians were crushed during the Spanish Succession War, even despite a much closer alliance with the French than Frederick ever had).

Even then, the Reich was still healthy enough in the 1780s for the princes to band together, under the ironic leadership of Frederick the Great, against Joseph II's attempts to undue the balance of power.

What really destroyed the Reich was the French pressure from outside, pressure of a sort it was never really designed to deal with, and that basically encouraged the worst impulses from the Princes. The old constitution of the Empire was destroyed in 1803, probably irreparably - the weak polities that were eliminated then were the heart of the imperial idea.

So, anyway, just a warning not to read the history of the Reich in the same way that Treitschke did - I think the more recent work is really interesting, and points to how, even as late as the 18th century, the modern sovereign state was still not fully established as the only possible form of political organization.

If you want the actual Holy Roman Empire to survive, rather than merely to transform it into a Grossdeutsch version of the Kaiserreich, the best POD is probably to give Karl VI a son, which obviates the War of the Austrian Succession. Beyond there, it's hard to see through the swarm of butterflies.

This, times a thousand. And let's add that all this worship for the Kaiserreich was ultimately for a state that failed faster and more profoundly than the HRE ever did, in no small part due to the supposed improvements that the Prussians had carried out. Centralization is not necessarily good in itself, especially when it is done in such a way that it stifles all hope of reasonable dissent. Virtually every absolute monarchy in history is a good example of this.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
This, times a thousand. And let's add that all this worship for the Kaiserreich was ultimately for a state that failed faster and more profoundly than the HRE ever did, in no small part due to the supposed improvements that the Prussians had carried out. Centralization is not necessarily good in itself, especially when it is done in such a way that it stifles all hope of reasonable dissent. Virtually every absolute monarchy in history is a good example of this.

Maybe so, but at the same time, trying to keep the HRE alive will require some degree of centralization. Too much centralization will increase dissent and eventually lead to a French Revolution-esque movement, but too little centralization...and you're going to end up with a Yugoslavia-moment where every state that wanted nothing to do with the Emperor broke away from the Empire. Remember, that the states within the HRE Post-Westphalia were de facto independent, and it took Napoleon to make that de-facto independence, de-jure.
 
No it won't...If I know Hungary, it'll mean the Hapsburgs will still be concentrating on Hungary. If they want to concentrate on the Empire as much as they need. I'm sorry, I really am, but they are going to have to split off Hungary from the Hapsburg's Imperial holdings, either by putting a relative on the Hungarian throne or otherwise, but the Hapsburg's future at united the Imperial crown lands into a centralized (or more practically a unit similar to the OTL German Empire) will forever be cast in doubt as long as Holy Roman Emperor is also King of Hungary.

I don't think there's any barrier in the way of the HRE being King of Hungary and HRE except that Hungary is one more distraction from working on their goals within the empire.

Personally Elfwine, I think I can attribute that reason to Westphalia more than anything else. Especially during the twilight years of Empire, after Charles VI. To how effective that turned out...well, one could look to the 19th century for that one, which was by all accounts a Hapsburg-screw.

True. But their policies in general come off to me as less devoted to strengthening the Imperial office and more about the family's position - not that the two are mutually exclusive, but there was a distinction between "imperial" and "Habsburg" lands, say, and the latter grew.

Space Oddity said:
This, times a thousand. And let's add that all this worship for the Kaiserreich was ultimately for a state that failed faster and more profoundly than the HRE ever did, in no small part due to the supposed improvements that the Prussians had carried out. Centralization is not necessarily good in itself, especially when it is done in such a way that it stifles all hope of reasonable dissent. Virtually every absolute monarchy in history is a good example of this.

Although I think that says something about the failings of the Kaisserreich's set up in ways not directly related to centralization - the office of chancellor, for example.

But I would second this. If one is defining "failure" around "was the HRE a centralized, united, single state?" it failed hard. But if one's aiming for another goal, it might well have been something that could have been preserved up to the present, as a healthy coalition/league/something.

After all, even if "The Empire" lacked many things, its not as if those things were absent within the territories we're talking about.

But on a third hand, I do think that it being an uncentralized unstate ultimately did mean some bad things. Not that emulating France would necessarily have been the best outcome - but I think saying that the Old Regime in France died first as a point in the HRE's favor is stretching things.

So yeah, complicated. It may not have been Holy, Roman, or an Empire - but there's more to it than a pithy quote. Although it's more than a little disturbing that it went to the point that the various princes of the empire decided to make the concept that it was even a united coalition a joke (Frederick the Great stealing Silesia is going past "loose knit", to name a specific example).
 
Ulm was an Imperial Free City, and Mainz was fortified by the Elector-Archbishop independently of the Emperor (and it was an Imperial city, too, for a time).

I would think that for the Emperor to fortify an Imperial Free City would be one thing, but to erect an imperially controlled fortress in the territory of one of the great princes would be another. Would that even be legal ? The fortress authorities would have to control at least some territory around the fortress, so it would actually amount to the Emperor setting up new Imperial Free Cities. I don't think he could do that ?
 
And you're going to persuade them to do so how? Not to mention the details of a tax on what, on who (I doubt the concept of a tax paid by every adult male is normal in the HREGN in this period) and so on that would be subject to argument and discussion and dispute.

There's the rub - the Princes don't have to say "No, we refuse to contribute to the Empire's defense" point blank to block a program that strengthens imperial authority and access to resources at their expense.

They have a lot of ways to argue for alternatives.



Ulms and Mainz are a lot easier to argue are relevant to the defense of the Federation against France than fortresses in Bavaria are. And the Confederation doesn't have the fact the princes do not want the Emperor to gain power at their expense, which your proposal is all about - it would be very difficult to say that fortifications with large numbers of Imperial troops in place to interfere with the elector of Brandenburg is about national defense against the Empire's Western Enemy.



But not much use to the goal of reigning in the larger princes.



No, it would look as if the sovereign is not willing to spend (for example) Bavarian money or men on something of no concern to Bavaria.

Their subjects would probably prefer that, and their fellow princes . . . its kind of hard to look bad for being part of the crowd, if that makes sense.

Especially for those princes who phrase their disagreement with the Imperial Army Plan in terms of alternatives and other points up for discussion instead of just saying "No, the rest of the Empire can hang." bluntly.

It might be effectively saying so, but if they can phrase their arguments well enough, they can make the IAP seem like a greater threat than France. Which would be all sorts of bad and wrong, but that's beside the point.



So, this differs from the OTL situation how? "Fellow Germans" didn't see many soldiers sent freely to Vienna's defense against the Turk or to fight against Louis XIV - God's sweaty gym socks, we have the elector of Bavaria actively siding with France (in the War of Spanish Succession) and we don't see the other princes of the Empire all jumping on Bavaria over it.



And those are the states who you have to get on board and/or push into submission. Not the little states that would be more happy to make certain arrangements in regards to Imperial powers but which don't have much to contribute.

OK I feel I should point out that all this is for my TL, Apollinis et Dianae. So some things will be changing from OTL. As to the ta, it would be payed by each imperial Prince, though the larger Princes will probably pay more.

They do have some alternative but not many.

As to the fortress locations, your both right and wrong. Yes you can't build a fortress in Brandenburg and say its defending against France, but you can say its defending against Sweden, still a very powerful nation at this point, or Poland.

As for reigning in the larger Princes, I think its possible. Saxony sided with the Emperor most times, as would TTL Calvinist Palatinate, wanting to regain the lower Palatinate and their higher ranking Prince-Electorship. The Ecclesiastical states tended to side with the Emperor as well. Really this just leaves Bavaria and Brandenburg. Here both are married into the Imperial family, so for the time being they might be willing to side with the Emperor. And really the Emperor only needs short-term support to get reforms through. Later on, the Princes can object but the laws will already be on the books, so not much they can do.

And this is were the Imperial circles can come into play. Each circle pays a tax to build the fortresses within that particular circle. That way Bavaria or Brandenburg or Cologne are paying for their own defense, not some other Princes.

But remember most commoners at this point saw themselves as Germans not Bavarians or Prussians. So they might just as easily see their Sovereigns as looking out for themselves rather then Germany. After all, that logic is what destroyed Germany in the thirty years war and no German is gonna want a repeat of that.

As to the Imperial army and making France seem like a bigger threat, that's gonna be difficult. Remember France has already ravaged Germany several times before, something that can't be said about the Emperor. And the army garrisoning each fortress can be a combo of Habsburg troops and troops from the Imperial circles. That way its more fair.

And in my TL most of the Imperial princes sent aid to Vienna, encouraged by the promises of English subsidies and glory. And actually most Princes send troops against France when the Diet declared it an imperial war. Bavaria was more of the exception rather then the rule. And Bavaria originally sided with the Emperor, only switching after Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria died.

And troops and fortresses can be built in Imperial states close to the larger states but not technically in the major states. That way the Emperor can project power onto the major states but not within their borders. I think it would work.

In a way, you're right Elfwine. It will be immensely difficult to sell the idea of taxing the other parts of the empire not directly under your control to build fortresses that would impose greater imperial fortress. Especially more so on the larger powers within the HRE who are more opposed to the Emperor. Money is what makes all these dreams as they are...as I highly doubt there will be enough money to construct these planned fortifications.

However, I do feel that it is possible to do so to at least confirm the smaller states and the larger ones that are supportive to the Emperor at the time, (such as the Electorate of Saxony before the PU with the PLC, or the Duchy of Lorraine and Margraviate of Baden) but for those who are in opposition, such as the Wittelsbach electors of Bavaria, or the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg...that would be a harder sell. Even then it's only possible because they were either gratefully supportive of the Emperor, are in opposition to the French King (Louis XIV) or both, and that may change if action is not taken soon-ish.


I think your both right. Direct taxation would be difficult but a circle tax could work. That way each circle is funding their own defense and not the defense of the entire Empire.

As for the larges states, Bavaria is gonna have its hands hands full with the Palatinate wanting to regain their lost territories, so they will be distracted. And Brandenburg is temporarily allied via marriage with Austria so both are for the time being neutralized. But a common enemy like the Sun King should be enough to convince the Princes to support the defense plans.

I'll throw out a suggestion I made in a previous thread to use Reichsritter as the basis for the imperial bureaucracy you're going to need if you start centralising the Empire,




An expansionary France will certainly help by providing an outside enemy to unify against but the Ottomans? After the Treaty of Karlowitz pushed them away from Austria and Bohemia they're not really a threat to any territory within the Empire, I was under the impression that people were generally reluctant to stump up the resources for further wars as it was seen as more of a Habsburg thing than an imperial one.



Was recapturing Istanbul ever really a seriously thought of proposition? I think if you want to go about centralising the Holy Roman Empire then after the Treaty of Passarowitz - or better yet a Treaty of Karlowitz that sees them gain Transylvania, the Banat/what's nowadays the Serbian autonomous province of Vojvodina north of the Danube and parts of Croatia north of the Suva to form a nicely delineated and defensible border - then they would be better off arranging a long-term peace with the Ottomans to allow them to concentrate on Germany and Italy. The Balkans just seem like a distraction.



How about removing the Hungarian problem by getting them to make the Crown of Saint Stephen hereditary in the person of the Habsburgs? After the Treaty of Karlowitz the Habsburgs regained most of Ottoman Hungary to go with Royal Hungary they already ruled, perhaps by playing hardball with the Hungarian nobility they could force them to recognise the crown as hereditary in return for doling out all that new land. I'm sure the Hungarians will still cause trouble but with it no longer being an elective monarchy they would lose a lot of their leverage and allow the Habsburgs to concentrate on the Empire for a fair while.

Well I'm unsure if the Reichsritter on their own would be a good basis for a bureaucracy. Maybe they could be combined with the Thurn und Taxis post services? Controlling the lines of communication across the Empire would be a great boost to any centralization attempt.

And your right, France and perhaps Sweden would be a good threat to use as an outside enemy to unify the imperial states behind the Emperor. The Turks mainly threatened the Habsburgs, not the rest of the empire.

As for a long term peace with the Ottomans, not gonna happen in my TL. Right now most of Europe is allied against the Turks and either way Austria wants Hungary, Croatia and Transylvania back. Its better to completely remove the Ottomans from the Balkans and set up puppet states then focus on Germany and Italy.

As to making Hungary hereditary, that shouldn't be to hard. After all the Emperor made Bohemia hereditary and with the Imperial army controlling Hungary it should be easier to leverage the Hungarian Diet to make the throne hereditary. But that's only half of the real problem. Hungary's magnates were the real problem. Weaken them, maybe by breaking up the massive estates, and the Habsburgs can focus on Germany.

Maybe if the Austrians deal with those uppity Prussians using the time-honoured Hapsburg method of marrying into their royal family, and the dynastic history of those two nations falls out so that Prussia ends up getting incorporated into the Hapsburg dynastic union. That way we don't have German dualism tearing the Empire apart, and, if we add a belligerent and expansionist France into the mix, we might see the German princes granting more power to the Emperor. Possibly if Revolutionary France still does well in Germany, but not quite well enough to force the Empire to disband, we might see the various German princes ceding control of foreign and military policy to the Emperor on the grounds that it's at least better to be dominated by a German monarch than a foreign one. The Empire might then evolve into a federation-style country, a la the USA.

In my TL Apollinis et Dianae Prussia hadn't yet risen and I have to plans to allow it to do so.And with a POD in 1666 I doubt we would see anything similar to Revolutionary France. But Louis XIV would be enough to make the Princes tremble, especially if he annexes some territory on the Rhine. It proves that the Sun King can't be trusted and the Princes should turn to the Emperor for protection.

This, times a thousand. And let's add that all this worship for the Kaiserreich was ultimately for a state that failed faster and more profoundly than the HRE ever did, in no small part due to the supposed improvements that the Prussians had carried out. Centralization is not necessarily good in itself, especially when it is done in such a way that it stifles all hope of reasonable dissent. Virtually every absolute monarchy in history is a good example of this.

Yeah the Prussians military obsession is what ruined the German Empire. But I think your wrong about centralization. Evey state with to much decentralization fails for a reason. Centralization at the end of a bayonet is bad but leaving each Imperial prince to his own devices was equally disastrous. That's why I believe that Federalization is the way to go. Each Prince maintains his control over his own territories but things that involve the entire Empire and defense could be handled by Vienna. Its not perfect and it would take a lot of work but could work.

Maybe so, but at the same time, trying to keep the HRE alive will require some degree of centralization. Too much centralization will increase dissent and eventually lead to a French Revolution-esque movement, but too little centralization...and you're going to end up with a Yugoslavia-moment where every state that wanted nothing to do with the Emperor broke away from the Empire. Remember, that the states within the HRE Post-Westphalia were de facto independent, and it took Napoleon to make that de-facto independence, de-jure.

Really the HRE in between the Peace of Westphalia and the rise of Prussia was surprisingly together, unlike what a lot of people think. Look at how many Imperial Princes sent aid to to Vienna or participated in the Great Turkish war. Before Prussia came to power Austria had no rival within the Empire. Sure the Bavarians liked to think of themselves as the Habsburgs rivals, but every time they challenged the Emperor they got their asses kicked. But I think any form of centralization can be encouraged against a powerful external enemy. History proves that people are willing to give up some freedoms for security. This could be applied on a larger scale in the Empire.
 
OK I feel I should point out that all this is for my TL, Apollinis et Dianae. So some things will be changing from OTL. As to the ta, it would be payed by each imperial Prince, though the larger Princes will probably pay more.

They do have some alternative but not many.

And they have enough alternatives to avoid this.

As to the fortress locations, your both right and wrong. Yes you can't build a fortress in Brandenburg and say its defending against France, but you can say its defending against Sweden, still a very powerful nation at this point, or Poland.
Only if its actually in a position where it would be defending against either. A good position to lean on the elector is not necessarily the same as protecting against external threats.

And arguing that the empire is surrounded by enemies who are all seeking to devour it - that sound you hear is eyes rolling in their sockets. You might be able to present Louis XIV as a great threat. You might be able to present Sweden as a threat to the northern Germans (although they seem to have minded it less than Vienna). You're going to have a hard time getting people in one area to see the concerns of the other as "a matter for all of us" when they really aren't.

As for reigning in the larger Princes, I think its possible. Saxony sided with the Emperor most times, as would TTL Calvinist Palatinate, wanting to regain the lower Palatinate and their higher ranking Prince-Electorship. The Ecclesiastical states tended to side with the Emperor as well. Really this just leaves Bavaria and Brandenburg.
No, really, this leaves everyone. The princes are not going to graciously support something weakening them and strengthening the Emperor unless they see it as an advantage to them or the Emperor can push the issue.

It's one thing to side with the Emperor as an ally, its another thing to accept that he wields dominate power over you.

Here both are married into the Imperial family, so for the time being they might be willing to side with the Emperor. And really the Emperor only needs short-term support to get reforms through. Later on, the Princes can object but the laws will already be on the books, so not much they can do.
There is a great deal they can do. Laws don't enforce themselves, and a tax voted for such and such a period is not indefinite.

And this is were the Imperial circles can come into play. Each circle pays a tax to build the fortresses within that particular circle. That way Bavaria or Brandenburg or Cologne are paying for their own defense, not some other Princes.
So they will argue that as they're paying for it, they should have control of it, for example.

You appear to think that because you think there's a logical argument that the princes will all be swept away by something so not-simple that it failed to occur in the hundred and fifty odd years the empire had left (OTL). If it was easy and straightforward, it would not need changing things.

But remember most commoners at this point saw themselves as Germans not Bavarians or Prussians.
Says who?

So they might just as easily see their Sovereigns as looking out for themselves rather then Germany. After all, that logic is what destroyed Germany in the thirty years war and no German is gonna want a repeat of that.
No, they would see their sovereigns as looking out for (say) Bavaria.

"the good of Germany on the whole" would require some sense of "Germany on the whole" being an actual thing - which is neither yet a matter of modern nationalism or a matter of an actual united state.
As to the Imperial army and making France seem like a bigger threat, that's gonna be difficult. Remember France has already ravaged Germany several times before, something that can't be said about the Emperor. And the army garrisoning each fortress can be a combo of Habsburg troops and troops from the Imperial circles. That way its more fair.
No, it's going to be pretty frickin' easy when you consider what the electors are worried about. And its not about "Habsburg vs. Imperial circle", its about them being the Emperor's, and not subject to the electors.

As for ravaging Germany - I'm pretty sure those who saw the Imperial armies in the Thirty Years War would not be convinced they were paragons of discipline and restraint. Especially when the Emperor is fighting within Germany, meaning "other Germans" are part of said army's foes.
And in my TL most of the Imperial princes sent aid to Vienna, encouraged by the promises of English subsidies and glory. And actually most Princes send troops against France when the Diet declared it an imperial war. Bavaria was more of the exception rather then the rule. And Bavaria originally sided with the Emperor, only switching after Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria died.
And troops and fortresses can be built in Imperial states close to the larger states but not technically in the major states. That way the Emperor can project power onto the major states but not within their borders. I think it would work.
I don't. And you appear to be very optimistic the princes will all just kneel down and beg to be allowed to take part in this.

History proves that people are willing to give up some freedoms for security. This could be applied on a larger scale in the Empire.
As OTL demonstrated over and over and over again, the people who would be giving up power were not willing to do so any more than they absolutely had to even with so-called "common threats".

There's a reason the HRE was in its OTL state, and its not that the rulers were such morons that they couldn't grasp simple, obvious ideas.

Speaking for myself, and this is a peeve in general, when people present how such and such a state could have done better by just doing something that the writer comes off as thinking is self-evident I have to question how well the writer understands what the people who would actually have to do this are working with (and working against).
 
And this is where the Imperial circles can come into play. Each circle pays a tax to build the fortresses within that particular circle. That way Bavaria or Brandenburg or Cologne are paying for their own defense, not some other Princes.
Seems reasonable, the Reichsarmee, Army of the Holy Roman Empire, seems to have been manned by each imperial circle having to provide so many infantry and cavalry and funded by the Romermonat tax levied on the individual states. It shouldn't be too hard to possibly piggy-back off of this.


Well I'm unsure if the Reichsritter on their own would be a good basis for a bureaucracy. Maybe they could be combined with the Thurn und Taxis post services? Controlling the lines of communication across the Empire would be a great boost to any centralization attempt.
Oh certainly not by themselves. If you start building a serious bureaucracy then you'll need more bodies, the easiest solution for that would be the creation of grammar schools with the Reichsritter I saw as more of the middle management. Basically it's a quid pro quo of the Emperor protecting them from being annexed by larger regional states and in return they provide the socially acceptable, if lower nobility, face to things. The real trick to anything like this is making sure that they don't go the way of Henry VII's 'new men' a number of whom become too rich and influential from their duties, rotating people around every so often and making sure someone keeps an eye on things seem like a good start.
 
Top