Just a silly challenge inspired by screwing around in Crusader Kings 3. Have William the Conqueror elected Holy Roman Emperor, ideally without interfering too much with his conquest of England.
While I feel that the above post overstates papal power a tad, it is right in that William has little projection of power into the then HRE in order to warrant papal support. Most popes tend to back temporal princes who are likely to win, and who tend to support papal aims. Doesn't always work hence why so many Emperors got excommunicated when they were powerful enough to ignore the Pope, or even oppose them.
But I'm not declaring that the Pope isn't important though. And I've already pointed out that William has no power in the territories of Germany, Burgundy, & Italy. Which makes it more unlikely the Pope would support him as Emperor. So I'm unclear why you think I'm backing the idea of Emperor William.The reason the Papacy is important in this is that William I does not have any claim or any pull in Germany to be elected. Even with a claim to the throne of England, William I still went to seek permission to invade England from Alexander II. So how much more will he do this in atl when he has no claim or lineage based argument? He would be Emperor only at the behest of the clerical electors and the Papacy directly. That is his only bet, as he cannot conquer Germany, that is insanity nor is it legally permitted, he would be excommunicated if he tried or attacked by his nominal overlord, Philip I.
But I'm not declaring that the Pope isn't important though. And I've already pointed out that William has no power in the territories of Germany, Burgundy, & Italy. Which makes it more unlikely the Pope would support him as Emperor. So I'm unclear why you think I'm backing the idea of Emperor William.
Additionally presumably you're aware that the papal permission story only has a single source as opposed to those on post facto approval/forgiveness? And even that doesn't request the crown from the Pope as you imply but more allowance to take the crown from Harold.
Which is much more reasonable in explanation.Oh I do not claim that the Pope possessed the crown and then distributed it outwardly to William I. Only that the Papacy as a legal framer, as it was becoming, gave an approval and legitimacy to said conquest. As Urban II would later make apparent, the Papacy of this type, the reform Papacy which originated beyond the Alps and within the Frankish clerical tradition combined with a local understanding of the Power of Saint-Peter, disapproved of internalized European wars and believed the Papacy had the right to enforce realm peace. This implies likewise, the ability to legitimize a sanctioned war, which is what William I sought, to legitimize his warfare. Even if William I embarked upon seeking forgiveness, this is still a display on his part of Papal fealty in my opinion, and just what Popes such as Leo IX had hoped for. But that is not our topic..
And one should also beware of overreliance on single sources as being what actually happened rather than the only interpretation we (currently) have.Also, the idea that we need many sources for an event especially one of such a period would be debilitating to most of historical study. The Zanj Revolt is a good example, the entire war has only one serious source that we are in possession of, yet we know it occurred. In the case of William I and his request of permission and legitimacy from Alexander II, we must judge it according to the perception of reality of the period. It does make sense for that period that a respective claimant to a throne, which has over four claimants would seek Papal authority to legitimize his situation over others. And, these sorts of points were already spoken of by Alexander II's predecessor, Leo IX (a confidant of the Emperor Henry III and his cousin...) and certainly by Gregory VII. Furthermore, Alexander II was known for his role in creating coalition armies and sending forth or imploring military expeditions on behalf of the Papacy to attack different zones.
It would be a more realistic chain of events than William alone yes.Oh I did not want to say that you support William I as Emperor, only to reiterate for all readers that as far as I know, this is the only way he can receive the Imperial title, and even I think that this is mostly impossible in the years 1066-1083. The Papacy has too many issues in Rome and nearby to go about seeking these types of goals. If they did, it would not be William I whom they would grant a title either. Ansehelm of Baggio, or Alexander II was from a high noble Lombard clan in Milan and he respected power and noble lineage. As such, for both lineage purposes and for the purpose of a better policy, I could more imagine Alexander II attempting to grant the imperial crown to Philip I, who in turn will ask William I to support his claim. Perhaps in that string of events, William I could end up foisting the crown from Philip I due to some mistake Philip I alienating either Alexander II or Gregory VII
If they did, it would not be William I whom they would grant a title either. Ansehelm of Baggio, or Alexander II was from a high noble Lombard clan in Milan and he respected power and noble lineage. As such, for both lineage purposes and for the purpose of a better policy, I could more imagine Alexander II attempting to grant the imperial crown to Philip I, who in turn will ask William I to support his claim. Perhaps in that string of events, William I could end up foisting the crown from Philip I due to some mistake Philip I alienating either Alexander II or Gregory VII.
Didn’t expect as much response to an admittedly silly challenge.
Yay!
Quite an interesting scenario. What do you see happening to Philip’s position in France in it?
And so much more interesting than the cheesy way to do this in CK3 (use meritocracy perk to fab a claim on the French throne before conquering england then swear fealty to the HRE and fab a claim on that).
Yes, and much more climactic. Such a situation of a changing throne from Henry IV to Philip I to William I would be a series of wars and conflicts that would encompass all of Frankish Europe and nearby areas, with Sicily, Hungary, Denmark, Norway and Scotland all likely playing some sort of role. William I would definitely solidify himself as quite the character atl, as King of England, King of Germany, King of Italy, King of Burgundy (Middle France) and Holy Roman Emperor. France would also be much different... Under the Empire more explicitly, the King in Paris will have much difficulty in reining in his vassals. Precisely because he will be worked against from the top by the Emperor and from below by the counts and dukes of the realm who will ensure control over the Paris court and hence retain their strong dominion across the breadth of West France.