Centralised HRE?

How would one go about getting a centralised Holy Roman Empire, with a POD after the death of Otto III? When is the best time to do it, and how would it be done? What does a centralised Reich look like?
 
If Henry VI lives another twenty or thirty years, he can keep up the progress he's already made - with the resources of Sicily at his disposal, he's less dependent on the good will of the German princes or the Italian cities.

And when Frederick II succeeds him (ideally by Henry VI having succeeded at removing the Electoral aspect of things), he would be in a much better place than OTL.

Something where the nobility can't extort privileges and rights from the emperor all the time would be a necessary step whoever you start with though. I'm not sure who is in a position to do that between Otto III and Henry VI - the investiture controversy isn't really something the Emperor is in a good position to win, so I wouldn't rely on that.

At the very least, we see a powerful state existing in central Europe, instead of a bunch of dubiously cooperative princedoms that resemble a failing confederation more than an empire. Not sure if there's any easy comparison to OTL states to be made.

Probably not a Eurofed hegemonwank though.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I'm perhaps going to surprise Elfwine (;):p) and state that I do not (necessarily) expect a successful centralized HRE (hereby assumed to include at least all of pre-WWII Germany minus Prussia, Italy, Low Countries, Burgundy, Switzerland, Austria, Czechia, and Slovenia) to become the European hegemon, at least not in the sense of enforcing pan-European political unification.

However, I do certainly expect that in all likelihood it would become and stay the most powerful European state, and to dominate the continent in this lesser sense, thanks to its ownership of the pooled demographic and economic potential of its core lands.

It is all but sure that by its very existence, it would butterfly out the serious demographic and economic decline that Germany and Italy suffered in the 17th and 18th centuries. This would make the HRE remain the economic and demographic alpha dog of Europe from the High Middle Ages to the late Early Modern Age (unless it totally screws up the race to colonization, which isn't any likely), and the most likely candidate to start the Industrial Revolution in Europe.

It would also be a quite successful competitor for Britain, France, and the Iberian states for the creation of colonial empires in the Americas and Asia, even if it is kinda hard to tell which areas it would colonize and where it would displace OTL owners (colonization patterns are rather sensible to butterflies). It is however most likely that the HRE colonial empire would be at least as big as any of the OTL British, French, Spanish, or Portoguese empires.

Barring low-probability butterflies, I do not see another European state which might fully match it in demographic, economic, and eventually industrial potential, except an Anglo-French or French-Iberian union, or a wanked Russian Empire or Byzantine/Ottoman Empire.

One of the states most deeply influenced (and most likely not in a good way) would be France: by its very existence, a successful centralized HRE is in all likelihood going to make impossible for France to expand beyond its Middle Ages eastern border. The Low Countries, Lorraine, Alsace, eastern Burgundy, Franche Comte, eastern Dauphine, eastern Provence, and Corsica would stay a part of the HRE.

If anything, it is more likely that the HRE eventually manages to absorb some pieces of France, such as any, some, or even possibly all of the western Flanders, Champagne, western Burgundy, western Dauphine, and western Provence, reversing the OTL geopolitical trend.

Another very high-probablity consequence would be that areas like Denmark, Poland, the Baltic lands, Hungary, Croatia, Algeria, and Tunisia would experience cultural and political absorption by the HRE to a much higher degree than OTL. Any, some, or all of those polities are going to end up seriously shrunken up or even entirely absorbed by an expanding HRE.

Whatever state gets to fill the geopolitical niche of the Eastern Mediterranean, be it the Byzantines or some equivalent of the Ottomans, it would experience quite serious difficulties to expand its influence in the Balkans beyond Greece and Bulgaria, with Serbia, Romania, and Bosnia likely ending up as some kind of buffer areas.

By the very fact of its success, the rise of the HRE as a centralized state implies that the Papacy is going to experience a rather serious setback in their struggle for power. In all likelihood, the Church is going to end up much less of an independent and self-driven power center than OTL.

Most likely, and especially if the HRE and the other Western European states at some point band together to contain the power of the Popes (quite possible), the Church ends up much more decentralized than OTL, with the Pope and the Curia seriously dewanked, and most of the power in the hands of the national episcopates, under the watchful patronage and supervision of the various monarchs (something rather akin to the model of the Anglican and Orthodox churches), and the ecumenical council as the one true universal authority for the occasional settlement of issues.

Quite possibly, this may lead to an healing of the Greek-Latin schism (if at some point the Byzantines, the HRE, and the other Western states experience a spell of good relations) and/or butterfly away the Reformation (or it happens as a wave of social unrest taking the mask of heretical would-be religious reform, rather like the Hussites and Anabaptists, and suffering a similar sorry fate).

It is also quite likely (although by no means necessary) that its very existence and power favors butterflies like the consolidation of other areas of Europe in bigger and stronger states than OTL (or their breakup in Balkanized buffer areas if they are too close to the HRE sphere), an earlier Renaissance, more successful Crusades, a revitalization (or accelerated decline) of the Byzantine Empire, and the lack of rise or serious containment of the Ottoman Empire.

If several factors align correctly, we might even see the borders of the Muslim world seriously pushed back by European colonial expansion in the Late Middle Ages, esp. if the Renaissance happens earlier (quite possible) and/or the discovery of the Americas is slightly delayed (less likely).

Like France, Sweden is going to find the path of expansion to its south forever barred. If it ever manages to rise as a regional power ITTL (possible, but seriously liable to butterflies; a lasting Kalmar Union might have better chances) would be likely driven to seek its fortunes in the Baltic lands and Russia (with varying degrees of success) or with colonial expansion (unlikely to get much success with the addition of the HRE to the OTL big players).

With Poland largely dewanked and eaten up by the HRE, the geopolitical niche of the PLC would have to be filled by something else: perhaps an Old Prussian/Baltic polity that embraces early Christianization, or a Polish remnant that gets displaced to the East.

Not sure how butterflies might otherwise influence Russia.

It is also far from outlandish that the rise of Capetian France may be derailed and wrecked, if the HRE intervenes against it in such critical periods as the Angevin-Capetian struggle, the Capetian-Occitan conflict (whether it takes a religious mask like the OTL Albigensian Crusade or not) and the Hundred Years War equivalent (if it ever happens). This might possibly lead to the rise of a Franglish empire. The latter, if it ever happens, would be a worthy match and long-term competitor for European and eventually colonial supremacy to the HRE. Most likely, it would be France absorbing England/Britain rather than the other way around.

Alternatively, the centralization of France might be destabilized, turning it into TTL equivalent of our HRE, a decentralized loose confederation of bickering princedoms and warring ground for the competing influences of England, the HRE, and Spain.

Yet another possibility is that France ends up largely partitioned between England (which gets something akin to a neo-Angevine Empire), the HRE (which gets chunks of eastern France), and Aragon/Spain (which gets most of Occitania), with the Capetian state a tiny buffer polity in Central France, if it endures at all.

A possibility much more favorable to France is that it manages to follow a path much akin to OTL, and then it may seek an easier path to expansion in the Iberian peninsula, by a varying mix of military conquest of, and dynastic marriages with, the Iberian states. This might lead to the rise of a Franco-Aragonian, Franco-Castillian, or even Franco-Spanish union, which again would be a valid match and competitor to the HRE.

The lasting unifications of the Iberian and Nordic states might also happen as the result of the shadow the HRE would cast. This is far from mandatory but it is a reasonable possible outcome of geopolitical competition with a powerful state in central Europe, if the right military and dynastic butterflies align at all.

As for the HRE itself, it is all but sure that in order to consolidate its union and defuse potential domestic tensions between its component nationalities, its ruling elite is going to embrace some kind of neo-Roman imperial ideology as its founding myth, painting itself as the direct successor of the Romans through Charles the Great, and adopting Latin as the supranational lingua franca of the elites and middle classes. In modern times, this is likely to evolve into a multinational, multicultural Switzerland-like nation-state with monarchical features akin to Britain (if it picks a liberal evolution path) or Russia (if it does not). It is quite likely that the non-German/Italian minorities within its borders (e.g. Czechs, Slovenes, and varying amounts of Poles, Hungarians, and Croats) end up thoroughly assimilated or almost so, and of course the Dutch and Swiss would never arise as separate national identities. On the other hand, it is extremely likely that the Germanic and Romance areas would remain as distinct components, unless Latin gets entrenched in modern times as a common tongue.

It is also quite likely that the existence of a powerful multinational state in central Europe that pursues a neo-Roman imperial ideology may butterfly away the rise of modern European nationalism, which may be replaced by enduring monarchism, first absolute then constitutional, and possibly by USA-like federal republicanism. Quite possibly a lively political competition might ensue between the HRE, the ERE (if it manages to avoid its OTL death spiral) or Russia (if it does not), and the most powerful Western European state about who gets to be the "true" inheritor(s) of the Roman Empire: according to established precedent, there can only be a couple of valid claimants for the mantle at most, the equivalents of WRE and ERE.
 
Last edited:
If Henry VI lives another twenty or thirty years, he can keep up the progress he's already made - with the resources of Sicily at his disposal, he's less dependent on the good will of the German princes or the Italian cities.

It occurs to me that Henry VI, if he stuck around, may have pursued Mediterranean ambitions instead of focusing on the German princes. He was already making noises about taking Byzantium, after all...
 

Eurofed

Banned
If Henry VI lives another twenty or thirty years, he can keep up the progress he's already made - with the resources of Sicily at his disposal, he's less dependent on the good will of the German princes or the Italian cities.

And when Frederick II succeeds him (ideally by Henry VI having succeeded at removing the Electoral aspect of things), he would be in a much better place than OTL.

Both Otto III and Henry VI would have gotten rather good chances of entrenching the centralization of the HRE if they had gotten another 2-3 decades of successful reign, and a son (and optimally grandson) just as longeve and successful as themselves (this is all but sure with a Frederick II who gets the right education and gets to build on the success of his father). I'm going to focus on the Hohenstaufen case because it is more likely to succeed for the reason you quote.

By the time he died, Henry VI had managed to establish a fairly good grip on Sicily, the German princes, and the Italian city-states. IOTL, his untimely death, the Interregnum, and civil war largely undid his work, forced Frederick to start back from square two and got Frederick II a background that led him to focus on Sicility to the neglect of Germany and northern Italy. If Henry VI has a long, successful reign, his son would get to build on his successes, further extending the progress of centralization, and there would never be an Interregnum to set things back.

Moreover, IOTL Henry almost managed to get the HRE reformed into an hereditary monarchy. If he lives longer, it is quite likely that he eventually succeeds. He would also educate Frederick to give a balanced amount of attention to Germany, northern Italy, and Sicily. Frederick II reigns more or less as long as his father, further extending the progress of centralization.

With any luck, Frederick II may have a son which gets to have a reign of similar length and successful to his father, and grandfather. By his death, the HRE would have experienced a century of largely successful progress on the path to centralization, and multiple hereditary successions. Without the failire of the Hohensataufen, there would not be the Great Interregnum, which IOTL wrecked the centralization of the HRE for good.

By the end of the 13th century and early 14th century, the HRE might easily be at a similar degree of unity as contemporary OTL France and England. Assuming the Mongol threat gets defused much like OTL, and no uncanny dynastic disaster happens in the 13th century, nothing really troublesome is scheduled to happen until the Black Death. But if the HRE has been a success story up to then, in all likelihood its centralization is as irreversible as the ones of the other Western European states.
 
I'm perhaps going to surprise Elfwine (;):p) and state that I do not (necessarily) expect a successful centralized HRE to become the European hegemon, at least not in the sense of enforcing pan-European political unification in pre-modern times. It would not be big and strong enough for that (a successful centralized Carolingian Empire might be a different issue).

Well, you have made at least a couple distinct threads involving one that is definitely a hegemon-power - one of several, but significantly eroding the plurality of the continent above and beyond what its existence does.

Most likely, and especially if the HRE and the other Western European states band together at some point to contain the power of the Church (quite possible), the Church ends up much more decentralized than OTL, with the Pope and Curia seriously dewanked, and most of the power in the hands of the national episcopates, under the watchful eye and supervision of the various monarchs (something rather akin to the Anglican and Orthodox churches), with the ecumenical council as the one true universal authority for the occasional settlement of issues.

Quite easily, this might lead to an healing of the Greek-Latin schism (if at some point the Byzantines, the HRE, and the other Western states experience a spell of good relations) and/or butterfly away the Reformation (or it happens as a wave of social unrest taking a religious mask, rather like the Hussites and Anabaptists, and suffering a similar fate).
Exactly how are the medieval kings going to "contain the power of the Church"? I'm not saying Church power can't be eroded, but its not something you can form a military coalition to stop.

If several factors align correctly, we might even see the borders of the Muslim world seriously pushed back by European colonial expansion in the Late Middle Ages, esp. if the Renaissance happens earlier (quite possible) and/or the discovery of the Americas is slightly delayed (less likely).
Several factors that would be immensely difficult to align correctly, unless this involves the ERE - you know, the only Christian state with armies that can reasonably expected to beat Muslim ones over the long haul, and near enough to the area to viably threaten things.

Defining "the area" as Egypt and the Levant - Africa is more manageable, but if you want to dewank Islam beyond that, the Western states are ill-equipped (by their nature and location) to deal with it.

Like France, Sweden is in all likelihood going to find the path of expansion to its south forever barred, and if ever manages to rise as a regional power (possible, but seriously liable to butterflies; a lasting Kalmar Union might have better chances) would be driven to seek its fortunes in Russia (with varying degrees of success) or with colonial expansion (unlikely to get much success with the addition of the HRE to the OTL big players).
The HRE is in an awkward position to engage in colonial expansion - same as the Dutch, though with Baltic ports.

This isn't to say it can't, but its more likely to look like France than England or Iberia here.

Yet another possibility is that France ends up largely partitioned between England (which gets something akin to a neo-Angevine Empire), the HRE (which gets chunks of eastern France), and Aragon/Spain (which gets most of Occitania), with the Capetian state a tiny buffer polity in Central France, if it endures at all. A possbility more favorable to France is that it manages to follow a path much akin to OTL, and then it may seek expansion in the Iberian peninsula, by a varying mix of military conquest of and dynastic marriages with the Iberian states. This might lead to the rise of a Franco-Aragonian, Franco-Castillian, or even Franco-Spanish union, which again would be a valid match and competitor to the HRE.
And more likely than a neo-Angevine Empire. France being blocked in the east? Definitely true. The west? Since when did this become an Englishwank?

The lasting unifications of the Iberian and Nordic states might also happen as the result of the shadow the HRE would cast. This is far from mandatory but it is a reasonable outcome of geopolitical competition with a powerful state in central Europe.
This does run into the problems of all the things historically dividing them, however. Not sure a HRE hegemon is going to inspire more love of Swedes for Danish kings and their demands.


Focusing on the main things I have a dispute with, since overwhelming this thread with disagreement won't serve anyone any favors. But the balance between optimistic and pessimistic needs to be struck.

Faeelin said:
It occurs to me that Henry VI, if he stuck around, may have pursued Mediterranean ambitions instead of focusing on the German princes. He was already making noises about taking Byzantium, after all...

Quite possibly. He seems to have been about to go on crusade when he died - where he would go from there has several possibilities.

The point on the German princes was just that he doesn't have to suck up to them to get support, though, which will make any plans easier.

Eurofed said:
By the end of the 13th century and early 14th century, the HRE might easily be at a similar degree of unity as contemporary OTL France and England. Assuming the Mongol threat gets defused much like OTL, and no uncanny dynastic disaster happens in the 13th century, nothing really troublesome is scheduled to happen until the Black Death. But if the HRE has been a success story up to then, in all likelihood its centralization is as irreversible as the ones of the other Western European states.

While I agree with this, I would emphasize the "by the end of the 13th century" part. The HRE needs a long period of successful emperors just to establish both the position of the emperor and the centralization of the state to the level necessary to go in this direction.

While nothing specifically troublesome is scheduled until the Black Death, papal issues will be a problem for a good while - and as stated above, you can't solve this with an army. Not while still wrestling with the fact that even if the princes are brought down to size there are still forces and individuals who would enjoy smashing the Hohenstaufens.

It would be tragically easy for a successful Henry and Frederick to happen and for Conrad* to still see things fall down again.

Its far from inevitable, but the task of Henry and Frederick has to be meaning that even if Conrad* (OTL his oldest surviving son but his second son by birth, so * ) does die young or some other crap that things have acquired deep enough roots to continue.

OTL, they hadn't.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Exactly how are the medieval kings going to "contain the power of the Church"? I'm not saying Church power can't be eroded, but its not something you can form a military coalition to stop.

I misexplained myself; I meant (and since edited my wording) to "contain the power of the Popes", which wasn't all that difficult to accomplish, IF the rulers of the HRE, England, and France (which all had their grief with the Papacy) actually recognize their common interest at curbing the power of the Pope and band together at some point, using their combined influence on their respective bishops to impose a decentralization reform of the Church through an ecumenic council.

Several factors that would be immensely difficult to align correctly, unless this involves the ERE - you know, the only Christian state with armies that can reasonably expected to beat Muslim ones over the long haul, and near enough to the area to viably threaten things.

Defining "the area" as Egypt and the Levant - Africa is more manageable, but if you want to dewank Islam beyond that, the Western states are ill-equipped (by their nature and location) to deal with it.

I actually meant North Africa, Egypt, the Levant, and quite possibly Mesopotamia, nothing more than that, and I meant that it would necessarily involve the ERE, with the obvious exception of North Africa,. As it concerns the latter, it would not be too difficult for a more successful HRE, France, or Spain to kick Islam out of the Maghreb. Strategically, it is just an extension of the Reconquista.

The HRE is in an awkward position to engage in colonial expansion - same as the Dutch, though with Baltic ports.

And Italian ports. The Dutch, limited as their power base at home was, managed to grab and hold Indonesia. They could have easily done much better if they could have tapped the pooled resources of Germany and Italy.

This isn't to say it can't, but its more likely to look like France than England or Iberia here.

Yeah, but it is not that difficult to imagine the HRE reversing the OTL outcome of the *French and Indian Wars. ;)

And more likely than a neo-Angevine Empire. France being blocked in the east? Definitely true. The west? Since when did this become an Englishwank?

*Shrug* I do expect that ITTL some serious degree of political consolidation in Western Europe has to take place one way or another, with national identities still being relatively fluid and not so important in the Middle Ages, unless the rulers of England, France, and Spain are happy being eternal second fiddle to the HRE. At least one and half, if not better a couple of those nations have to get merged somehow for a decent competitor to emerge.

This does run into the problems of all the things historically dividing them, however. Not sure a HRE hegemon is going to inspire more love of Swedes for Danish kings and their demands.

True, but Denmark is going to be in a rather different position with a united HRE. It is actually not that likely that an independent Denmark survives ITTL, be it by a successful Kalmar Union or because the Emperors would love to control the Danish Straits trade.

While I agree with this, I would emphasize the "by the end of the 13th century" part. The HRE needs a long period of successful emperors just to establish both the position of the emperor and the centralization of the state to the level necessary to go in this direction.

While nothing specifically troublesome is scheduled until the Black Death, papal issues will be a problem for a good while - and as stated above, you can't solve this with an army. Not while still wrestling with the fact that even if the princes are brought down to size there are still forces and individuals who would enjoy smashing the Hohenstaufens.

It would be tragically easy for a successful Henry and Frederick to happen and for Conrad* to still see things fall down again.

Its far from inevitable, but the task of Henry and Frederick has to be meaning that even if Conrad* (OTL his oldest surviving son but his second son by birth, so * ) does die young or some other crap that things have acquired deep enough roots to continue.

True, but it is far from difficult, with a successful Henry and Frederick, to have butterflies make *Conrad, too, have a sufficiently long and productive reign. Barring uncanny disasters, the dynasty seemed to produce reasonably competent and longeve scions, and a string of four fairly successful and longeve rulers (Frederick I, Henry VI, Frederick II, and *Conrad) spanning close to a century and half of reign, is not that outlandish a divergence. If we can have this long a "grace period" (which is wholly akin to what OTL France got), centralization and imperial power in the HRE would get in all likelihood irreversible.

As it concerns the Popes, as I said, their supremacy was not inevitable nor unassailable. The history of Great Schism suggests that with the right butterflies, their power could be substantially dewanked IF a sufficient amount of secular rulers and bishops loyal to them acted together.
 
Last edited:
I misexplained myself; I meant (and since edited my wording) to "contain the power of the Popes", which wasn't all that difficult to accomplish, IF the rulers of the HRE, England, and France (which all had their grief with the Papacy) actually recognize their common interest at curbing the power of the Pope and band together at some point, using their combined influence on their respective bishops to impose a decentralization reform of the Church through an ecumenic council.

No worries.

Easier said than done though. That kind of alliance forming would be easy in a theoretical sense, hard given the actual conflicts and tensions and so forth - even with a supposedly common cause, that won't eradicate their differences, and any Pope worth a damn will use that for all its worth.

I actually meant North Africa, Egypt, the Levant, and quite possibly Mesopotamia, nothing more than that, and I meant that it would necessarily involve the ERE, with the obvious exception of North Africa,. As it concerns the latter, it would not be too difficult for a more successful HRE, France, or Spain to kick Islam out of the Maghreb. Strategically, it is just an extension of the Reconquista.
The Maghreb, yeah. Egypt and the Levant would be a challenge even with a vigorous ERE as an ally (which is not likely to happen - the ERE has no reason to want to see the HRE any more in its turf than is avoidable, or any other Franks for that matter. Realpoltik>religion.)

That's not to say you can't have successful crusades thanks in part to the ERE, but in the long haul, this is one of the aspects hard to keep going in many ways.

Mesopotamia...is not even relevant for some time.

And Italian ports. The Dutch, limited as their power base at home was, managed to grab and hold Indonesia. They could have easily done much better if they could have tapped the pooled resources of Germany and Italy.
Probably. The problem with the ports is the issue of location - the HRE is awkwardly positioned to reach the Atlantic and beyond just as the Dutch were. This is far from an impossibility, but it probably means a role similar to the Dutch with more to back it up when people threaten the colonies rather than painting the map with Imperial...gray?

Yeah, but it is not that difficult to imagine the HRE reversing the OTL outcome of the *French and Indian Wars. ;)
Agreed. All things being even, at least.

*Shrug* I do expect that ITTL some serious degree of political consolidation in Western Europe has to take place one way or another, with national identities still being relatively fluid and not so important in the Middle Ages, unless the rulers of England, France, and Spain are happy being eternal second fiddle to the HRE. At least one and half, if not better a couple of those nations have to get merged somehow for a decent competitor to emerge.
The problem is that whether they're "happy being eternal second fiddle" or not, actually forming those nations is going to be difficult. Aragon isn't going to eagerly embrace union with Castile-Leon just because the HRE is the biggest state in Western-Central Europe.

True, but Denmark is going to be in a rather different position with a united HRE. It is actually not that likely that an independent Denmark survives ITTL, be it by a successful Kalmar Union or because the Emperors would love to control the Danish Straits trade.
A successful Kalmar Union does require the Danish kings (or Norweigan kings or whoever) to be able to successfully get everyone on board though, and for that not to be undone by either the HRE or dissent from within as in OTL.

True, but it is far from difficult, with a successful Henry and Frederick, to have butterflies make *Conrad, too, have a sufficiently long and productive reign. Barring uncanny disasters, the dynasty seemed to produce reasonably competent and longeve scions, and a string of four fairly successful and longeve rulers (Frederick I, Henry VI, Frederick II, and *Conrad) spanning close to a century and half of reign, is not that outlandish a divergence. If we can have this long a "grace period" (which is wholly akin to what OTL France got), centralization and imperial power in the HRE would get in all likelihood irreversible.
Okay, let's take the lifespans of OTL's Hohenstaufens up to Conrad IV.

Conrad III: 59 years
Frederick I: 68 years
Henry VI: 32 years.
Frederick II: 56 years
Conrad IV: 26 years.

Conradin and Manfred never had a chance, so I'm not counting them.

Of these, only Barbarossa would seem to be particularly elderly, though Conrad III and Frederick II are perfectly respectable.

We have 95 years between Frederick I's coronation (1155) and Frederick II's OTL death (1255). You need another couple of Hohenstaufen to make the century and a half mark.

Is this possible? Sure. But it'll take more than *Conrad.

As it concerns the Popes, as I said, their supremacy was not inevitable nor unassailable. The history of Great Schism suggests that with the right butterflies, their power could be substantially dewanked IF a sufficient amount of secular rulers and bishops loyal to them acted together.
And if the Bulgarslayer had a son, we'd discussing how awful a world without the Roman Empire would be.

Easier said than done to get both secular rulers (which have various divergent interests) and bishops (who have more reason to favor the pope than the kings) a sufficiently powerful enough presence at this point.

I think for purposes of a successful HRE, you need something where the emperors can take advantage of papal mistakes - which also has the effect of not merely defeating any individual pope's dreams of supremacy but leaving the Papacy in a position where it has no credibility when it comes to meddling in secular affairs.

That's what the Empire needs, not a victory on who invests bishops, after all. The latter may or may not mean the former if popes are able to play the excommunication and interdict cards and all the other religious grief they can give.


The short form of all of this is that you really need more than just "competent emperors". You need competent emperors who are able to find solutions to the various problems in the way, some of which are harder to solve than others. How do you deal with the German princes while juggling Italy and the Pope? How do you integrate Sicily into the system instead of having it be its own den of troubles? How do you ensure that your sons are capable of continuing the job?

The last is especially difficult. Not absolutely impossible, but there's a reason things went wrong for Frederick II.
 
Last edited:
Top