DBWI: The Holy Roman Emperor Loses Supremacy to Pope

From the 11th to the 14th centuries there was a constant struggle between the papacy and the emperor for supremacy. The struggle began over investiture but by the 13th century had expanded to fundamental questions over theology and the right to rule. After decades of open warfare in Northern Italy, Charles IV and Pope Clement VI finally resolved the dispute in the Concordat of Prague in 1367, whereby the papacy fell under full control of the emperor. By the mid-15th century, the emperor crowned the pope, not the other way around. Within 50 years of that, the reformist emperor Charles VI selected a relatively unknown monk from Germany as the pope, Martin Luther aka Pope Innocent V, who launched massive reforms of the Catholic Church, most famously the acceptance of marriage among the clergy and the end to the indulgences What if the papacy had managed to win the investiture controversy before the struggle expanded beyond it into more fundamental questions? How different would the Catholic Church look today?
 
It is likely that the Catholic Church would be far less liberal today but also Italy may be united instead of the HRE annexing all the way to Rome after 1367. In addition, the Avignon Papacy in France as well as the Canterbury Papacy in Britain may not have been formed out of the backlash to the Prague Concordat.
 
It’s possible that the HRE wouldn’t have become the superstate it remains. Perhaps without a powerful, hereditary monarchy Germany would be divided, sort of like Nippon today.
 
I took a history course last semester and my teacher and I had this same conversation. He kept talking about some obscure ideological movement called "nationism" that's prominent in some of the Hesperian states today. Basically, the idea is that groups of similar people form a sort of collective identity based around a common language or history kind of like how the Romans of the Republic were fanatically loyal to their idea of service to their national identity. Obviously, this backwards kind of thinking would lead to all kinds of strife and warfare all over the world, especially in Europe. Frankly, I'm glad things didn't turn out that way otherwise that extremely prejudiced ideology would have knock-on effects with things like sulfur weapons* and make the world a more chaotic and dangerous place.

*OOC: gunpowder
 
I took a history course last semester and my teacher and I had this same conversation. He kept talking about some obscure ideological movement called "nationism" that's prominent in some of the Hesperian states today. Basically, the idea is that groups of similar people form a sort of collective identity based around a common language or history kind of like how the Romans of the Republic were fanatically loyal to their idea of service to their national identity. Obviously, this backwards kind of thinking would lead to all kinds of strife and warfare all over the world, especially in Europe. Frankly, I'm glad things didn't turn out that way otherwise that extremely prejudiced ideology would have knock-on effects with things like sulfur weapons* and make the world a more chaotic and dangerous place.

*OOC: gunpowder

That’s totally absurd. I mean, the internationalist system has major economic and technological benefits. It allowed for a rapid industrial revolution in the 16th-18th centuries that I cannot see happening under a bunch of independent “nations” instead of a few large empires who had the time and resources on top of the system itself
 
That’s totally absurd. I mean, the internationalist system has major economic and technological benefits. It allowed for a rapid industrial revolution in the 16th-18th centuries that I cannot see happening under a bunch of independent “nations” instead of a few large empires who had the time and resources on top of the system itself

Plus if every nation had its own state, there would be upwards of 500 countries in the world, and I doubt that any human is capable of managing diplomatic relations with all of them without going insane. Even if it happened, the chaos would lead to the world reconsolidating back to the few dozen states we have now
 
Married clergy is an overrated reform. The Eastern rite churches always had those and the Latin Rite had it in the past. And in any event, widowed priests can't remarry and the episcopate is drawn from the ranks of the celibate clergy.

Without married priests, I wonder if there would be some type of intermediate order or ministry, greater than a layman and less than a priest?
 
Last edited:
I took a history course last semester and my teacher and I had this same conversation. He kept talking about some obscure ideological movement called "nationism" that's prominent in some of the Hesperian states today. Basically, the idea is that groups of similar people form a sort of collective identity based around a common language or history kind of like how the Romans of the Republic were fanatically loyal to their idea of service to their national identity. Obviously, this backwards kind of thinking would lead to all kinds of strife and warfare all over the world, especially in Europe. Frankly, I'm glad things didn't turn out that way otherwise that extremely prejudiced ideology would have knock-on effects with things like sulfur weapons* and make the world a more chaotic and dangerous place.

*OOC: gunpowder
I have heard of something similar to that, actually. They’re called the French Liberation Army, they’re the guys who killed Prince Richard, which is the whole reason why Matilda II now rules the Angevin Empire. They want French independence, or something like that. I think the Irish and Scots have similar groups.
 
In addition, the Avignon Papacy in France as well as the Canterbury Papacy in Britain may not have been formed out of the backlash to the Prague Concordat.

Then you have to consider that Edward VII sponsored his youngest brother, William, Duke of Oxford, (who had entered the church, as had become traditional for the third son of a King) as a candidate for the Canterbury Papacy in 1600 and the Canterbury Conclave seeking to yield more influence on the monarchy voted in the Duke of Oxford's favour.

Depending on how you see it, this either backfired or worked in their favour when William ended up becoming King too after Edward's children predeceased him and he was left without grandchildren, and George, Duke of Wessex, drowned and was left childless flowing suspected infertility.

William III was both King and Pope - and his cousin and heir, Thomas of Durham, was reluctant to release the claim to the papacy and recognise the royal and holy crowns as separate.

We would definitely have avoided the Civil War in 1630 between the Papist and Royalist factions in court!
 
Then you have to consider that Edward VII sponsored his youngest brother, William, Duke of Oxford, (who had entered the church, as had become traditional for the third son of a King) as a candidate for the Canterbury Papacy in 1600 and the Canterbury Conclave seeking to yield more influence on the monarchy voted in the Duke of Oxford's favour.

Depending on how you see it, this either backfired or worked in their favour when William ended up becoming King too after Edward's children predeceased him and he was left without grandchildren, and George, Duke of Wessex, drowned and was left childless flowing suspected infertility.

William III was both King and Pope - and his cousin and heir, Thomas of Durham, was reluctant to release the claim to the papacy and recognise the royal and holy crowns as separate.

We would definitely have avoided the Civil War in 1630 between the Papist and Royalist factions in court!
Yep that was a mess but I don’t think the secular backlash was a good thing when the more radical royalists got into power
 
Yep that was a mess but I don’t think the secular backlash was a good thing when the more radical royalists got into power

Indeed, as they say, "absolute power rules absolutely ..." Jettisoning the papist nobles from the English court after the Civil War probably wasn't a good thing when you think about it -

You have to admit though, Hercule II* of France showed his allegiances when the fleeing English papists, including King Ferdinand of England's devoutly religious sister, Mary of Westminster, showed up at The Capetian Court and the Louvre Palace and he made them swear allegiance to the Pope in Rome before giving them sanctuary.




* - son of Hercule I of France, aka Francis, Duke of Anjou and Alencon, who died childless at 29 IOTL.
 
Indeed, as they say, "absolute power rules absolutely ..." Jettisoning the papist nobles from the English court after the Civil War probably wasn't a good thing when you think about it -

You have to admit though, Hercule II* of France showed his allegiances when the fleeing English papists, including King Ferdinand of England's devoutly religious sister, Mary of Westminster, showed up at The Capetian Court and the Louvre Palace and he made them swear allegiance to the Pope in Rome before giving them sanctuary.




* - son of Hercule I of France, aka Francis, Duke of Anjou and Alencon, who died childless at 29 IOTL.
Better to have to change allegiance than what happened to Manuel IV of Rhomania/Byzantium when he fled to his cousin. Holy Roman Empress Wilhelmina had him murdered when they were dining together.
 
If the Holy Roman Empire was busy fighting in Italy would they lose their holdings in Estonia and other overseas ventures?
 
Top