Henry VI von Staufen lives longer, what next?

Hello everyone. I have been looking around for a PoD that would (Very likely) have resulted in the HRE becoming a hereditary state, and or one that would give more power to the emperor. I stumbled upon the story of Henry VI von Hohenstaufen, and also did some reading on our forums to see what people had come up with, with this PoD.

So, I was wondering: What would happen next?

As far as I'm aware, The HRE, if Henry lived longer, would be a hereditary state (And I'm assuming that the Archbishop of Cologne would be out of the way, since he put up resistance to the plan), laying the way for more developments inside the HRE. However, beyond that, I'm a bit overwhelmed with where to start! Any help with this PoD and with this topic in general would be great, seeing as this would be my first legitimate Alternate History timeline / story. Thank you all in advance.

Some questions I'm considering are:

-How would the pope react to this sudden increase in the Emperor's power?
-Would the Princes stay content with this new system for long? Or would there be a regression?
 
I don't think the Pope would have much of a say;Innocent wasn't in power yet, and the Empire had established garrisons in Romagna.
 
-How would the pope react to this sudden increase in the Emperor's power?
Badly, unless Henri VI gives actual concessions. That's assuming it get accepted to begin with.
At this point, it was "Who wants to beat the hell out of Henry VI", so...

-Would the Princes stay content with this new system for long? Or would there be a regression?

Well, HRE was already a de facto hereditary or at the very least a dynastically inherited entity. It's just that dynastic "failure" and more than regular challenges to imperial legitimacy didn't helped (while they were revolts or wars against kings in other realms, their royal legitimacy was rarely challenged).

It's to be compared with the contemporary de jure hereditary frankish crown as Philipp Augustus didn't felt necessary to crown his heir while he was still alive, while his predecessors did. It didn't prevented frankish kingship to be hereditary.

Struggle with german nobles was still ingoing, more or less supported by the pope (when not fueling the pontifical hostility) basically because imperial authority growth was frowned upon by HRE nobles that were more powerful than their Frankish or British counterparts, and that Henri IV had to take drastic measures that only made it worse, hence the accusation of tyranny that are most admittedly based on actual facts (how he get rid of Sicilian elites, for exemple)

Problem is that Henri VI was far too ambitious, without the means to.
Not only willing to establish his hegemony in Germany, but as well in Italy and western Europe as a whole (as his capture of Richard, against a formal oath of suzerainty and tentative to intervene in the Plantagenet/Capetian business shows).
Trouble is, Not only pontifical, italian city-states, french and english powers grew since Ottonian times but Imperial hegemony already declined in Germany itself.
(And I don't even talk about rear alliances against Byzzies)

My personal take on it is that the plan was doomed to fail. Trying to enforce it was already something prone to be frowned upon (elsewhere, it wasn't a legal stuff that made automatic hereditary accepted, but acceptation that made it so).
A far less ambitious emperor, actually focusing on germanic matters could have be more easy but unfortunatly, imperial kingship was about universalism and giving it up outright would have severe consequences on one's legitimacy.

You could avoid Otto IV-like takeover, but Welfs would be still a pain in the imperial ass, and Henri VI behavior would make Honestaufen more discredited than IOTL, if he doesn't have a sudden change of character (but that's not for Pre-1900 forum anymore).

But even avoiding that would be rather hard. Even if Henry VI last enough to try acting against Philipp II in a Bouvines-like battle, and at best ending in a stalemate (What made Imperial loose, as in different military tactics, more unified frankish army, etc. would be still present enough while Henry VI isn't certain to go with the same advantages than Otto). That would put him in an even less good position, and with possible doomfall.
 
Last edited:
Problem is that Henri VI was far too ambitious, without the means to.
Not only willing to establish his hegemony in Germany, but as well in Italy and western Europe as a whole (as his capture of Richard, against a formal oath of suzerainty and tentative to intervene in the Plantagenet/Capetian business shows).

I mean, what's going to stop Henry VI in 1197? The Sicilian elites? No, they're dead. The Italian city-states? They're quiscient. The Pope? Imperial garrisons are occuping much of its territory.
 
@ LSCatalina :
"Doomfall"-- I like it. I pronounce it as an official Englishese word. ;) I think Id like to use it in future. Meatier than mere "downfall".
¿con permiso?

I'll just add that with all the concessions given to the nobility, towns, and ecclesiastical princes in Germany by his father, Henry was basically screwed in realizing his ambitions in the North. Lets just call Large parts of Germany the HRE in name only.
He had better success in Italy. If he'd lived longer and kept his focus there he could have consolidated the increasingly commanding position of the Imperial loyalists in Italy.
 
I mean, what's going to stop Henry VI in 1197?
German nobility, mainly but as well different opponents surrounding him. Being supported by the pope and practically anyone Henry pissed (and that's an awful lot), made already his son (or rather his regents for him) unable to claim anything past Sicily.

The Sicilian elites? No, they're dead.
Sicily was so peaceful that the emperor died on the way back of stopping a rebellion there.
The royal elites were out, but it didn't prevented the remaining ones to remain an issue whatever deported in Germany (where they managed to still gather some support) or still in place.

The Italian city-states? They're quiscient.
Not really. Not only he had to intervene in Adriatic while Pisa and Venezia warred, threatening stable ties with Italy
As for the rest, they were calm as long their advantages granted by Barbarossa weren't threatened. I'm not sure, as in at all, that a more and more authoritarian Henri VI would have spared north Italy. We know the reverence they had for imperial suzerainty after the emperor's death.

The Pope? Imperial garrisons are occuping much of its territory.
It would have worked if the pope was only a temporal ruler among other. Thing is the pope is the ruler of the western Christian churches, something that put him in a quite favourable position : Innocent III didn't invented powerful papacy.
Critically when it comes to the role he had in confirming or sabotaging imperial legitimacy after Ottonian period.

And the most likely failed crusade he planned at this point wouldn't have really increased his prestige.
As long Henry VI wants to keep Sicily (as it happened with Frederick II), he wouldn't have papacy support but rather the assurence of an hostile one, ready to scheme or ally with anyone needs some legitimacy against the HRE.
The threat isn't directly military, it's a political one.

@ LSCatalina :
"Doomfall"-- I like it. I pronounce it as an official Englishese word. ;) I think Id like to use it in future. Meatier than mere "downfall".
¿con permiso?
Oops, sorry, don't know why I wrote that. Sure you can.

I'll just add that with all the concessions given to the nobility, towns, and ecclesiastical princes in Germany by his father, Henry was basically screwed in realizing his ambitions in the North.
Well...Frederic I's concessions were actually a rather good policy. Most of "conceded" parts were already more or less out of his scope and "conceding" them forced the nobles to acknowledge his suzerainty.
Furthermore, giving the really pro-Welf stance of many ecclesiastical princes, replacing them granted a bit of support against papacy.

I tend to think that his son simply inherited the ambition without the skills (and critically in a period where other powers were a bit too powerful to pull a Barbarossa out of nowhere).

He had better success in Italy. If he'd lived longer and kept his focus there he could have consolidated the increasingly commanding position of the Imperial loyalists in Italy.
And would be screwed in Germany that was basically his power base. Unless a Frederic II vs Otto IV situation is considered a success (as in turning back to an independent Sicily), you're back to the usual problem of HRE : aka victories in Italy are made at the expense of Germany control.
 
Thank you all for your replies!

I want to point out, however, that Henry VI was actually very close to turning the HRE into a hereditary monarchy. At the diet of Wurzburg (Pretty sure it was Wurzburg, will have to double check), He actually had most of the princes backing him, the main road block was the Archbishop of Cologne, who rallied support against the Emperor's plan. I believe that if the Archbishiop was, say, dead, then the plan may just go forward without problem. Also, the way he got the princes to support him was (IIRC), giving them the right of Hereditary Fiefs, and also giving the non-secular provinces a certain right, (I forget which one, however. I'll check later). Its because of this that I do believe it would've been possible for the HRE to become hereditary, and within the next few centuries, maybe even centralized. Just something to consider for this discussion.


Also, I would like to note that my main reason for posting this thread was to see what would happen "NEXT", after the plan succeeded, not to discuss whether the plan would have worked in the first place. Anyways, thank you all again for posting. :D
 
I want to point out, however, that Henry VI was actually very close to turning the HRE into a hereditary monarchy.
Again, HRE was already pretty much that on many regards. Henri VI wanted to make it systematical and written down, as other europeans monarchs as Frankish ones felt unecessary to crown their heirs while they were still themselves alive to strengthen the inheritence.

And that's one of the reason I think it wasn't going to be easy : in all other case, the automatic inheritence wasn't written down but was considered as normal, meaning acceptance of a dynasty as automatical reciever of authority.
That Honestaufen didn't managed to get that "naturall" point out already the resistance against their authority.

I believe that if the Archbishiop was, say, dead, then the plan may just go forward without problem.
Probably noy : the archbishop was mainly a rally flag against something that was considered as, 1) forced against them by a ruler already considered as tyrannic, 2) Opposed to the imperial kingship that get defined by dynastical election.

While accepted at Wurtzburg, it get rejected at Er

Also, the way he got the princes to support him was (IIRC), giving them the right of Hereditary Fiefs, and also giving the non-secular provinces a certain right,
He didn't. Princes asked him to do that, and prince-bishops asked for renounciation of imperial interventionism, and he agreed to "consider" it.
Let's be clear : he couldn't have done that without making imperial authority falling big time (as in the exact contrary of unification), and it wasn't a promise that he would have followed, hence the absence of agreement on it, and therefore the lack of support for his plan.

More important the princes, less likely they would be anyway to agree : electors were pretty much on their own already, and giving formal (and more or less symbolic at this point) hereditary rights against an actual important influence over imperial elections would be a fool's bargain.

after the plan succeeded, not to discuss whether the plan would have worked in the first place.
How can we discuss about how it would have worked, if we think it couldn't have (unless going in ASB forum)?
Unless he makes several compromises that he couldn't make without destroying its own power, the plan wasn't going to be accepted.
 
Well, I've given up hope on this PoD. Are there any other promising ones out there in the general timeframe of this one? I'd prefer to have the HRE centralized earlier rather than later, so pre-habsburg would be great.

Anyways, thanks everyone for your input. :D
 
I'd prefer to have the HRE centralized earlier rather than later, so pre-habsburg would be great.

Thing is, there's no such thing as feudal centralization. IOTL, it asked for HYW to have truly such in France (while, admittedly, Late Capetians did much to have unifying measures) with feudality itself not really disappearing before Bourbons.

So it depends what you search : a more unified HRE (at the likeness of what happened IOTL in France, England, Poland, etc.) or a centralized HRE (both wouldn't be possible with only one PoD in my opinion).

If the first one, well a lasting Ottonian or Salian dynasty could do much to make automatic hereditary transmission (at least for Germany, I'm far more dubious about imperial kingship) happening "naturally".

The main obstacle is probably the imperial kingship itself, that lead to universalist ambitions that are basically doable only when neighbours aren't too powerful rather than an essential strength of it. More importantly, it forces to hold Italy as being tied with imperial kingship.

Then, the more powerful dukes and high nobility in HRE (compared to France where they had to deal themselves with their troublesomes vassals, or England where royal power was more well established) are another thing. They benefit from relativly unified entities and don't expect to be under the thumb of the emperor without a fight.

Another issue is the pope and Italy. Unifying Germany alone would be doable, Germany, and Italy meaning being at cross with the pope, whom power (that he acquired because Ottonians needed imperial legitimacy) was important enough to be a recurrent issue.

The unification of HRE wouldn't be easy if made only about emperor's power. The particular context and institutions ask for something different from what happened, for exemple, in France.
Collaboration, if not collegiality, with the pope and some dukes (maybe up to the creation of distinct crowns, with an Italian viar), Otton III's reign without the copy/pasting of Byzantine feature being an interesting model.

If happening, it would be an original unification, maybe unsettling but probably better than copy/paste IOTL development.
The main problem with this collaboration/unification (half-feudal/half-collegial) would be dynastical ambitions, and the tendency to grab it all. I'd see this process taking time and being overall more unstable than neighbours.

Centralization of HRE probably would have to wait that HRE's neighbours strengthen up and that imperial title goes out of medieval imperial kingship (as in Italy not being necessary, and having large chunks being lost), but would ask for late medieval PoDs.

First, no Interregnum is mandatory. This was the end of HRE as seen as one entity. You probably need to butterfly away Frederic II and have Philip of Swabia hold imperial title (maybe with Otto dying from his wounds) and agreeing to settle with Innocent (that had a protectorate de facto on central Italy at this point).
Eventually, giving up Italy would be an important factor. A Golden Bull-like decree, without the Interregnum to divise even more the land, giving it up Italy (but allowing to limit pontifical interventionism) is best.

But I think only the growing threat of actually centralizing realms as France from one hand, and eastern threats would really do something about it. Reforms as early Habsburgs would be a good pist, but you'll need to butterfly away Reformation (with a late medieval PoD, that wouldn't be too hard).

Basically, a smaller HRE (compared to MA or even IOTL Renaissance/Modern HRE), still more federal than centralized (but not inexistant as a real entity) would be doable.
 
Hmm I know when the Henry the Saxon revolted Fredrick I was able to defeat him. So WI after Henry survives on his way back some of the electors who are irritated by his policies revolt. He then uses Impeial toops to crush the rvolters and replaces the princes who revolted with their siblings or other relations, in return for the othe relations sweaing fealty to the hohenstaufens dynasty and signing ageements to vote only fo hohenstaufen candidates in the impeial elections.

At the same time lets say Henry decides that ruling both Italy and Germany would be too much to do so he split the two titles. With the Kingdom of Sicily and King of Italy being given to one of his sons or relatives and his other son/relative retaining the imperial title and King of Germany. This way Henry can then focus in on just Gemany while his relative can focus on pacifieng italy. THis in turn gives more leveage against the Pope of Rome because now the Pope is hemmed in by not one but two different kings and so if he tries inciting the lombards to revolt they can be crushed by both Imperial and Italian toops or if Sicily/Naples revolt the Emperor can send his armies from Germany to aid Sicly and vice vesa if Germany revolts.

In that sense you couldhave a suvivng hohenstufen dynasty and if it does suvive and Fance starts Unifieng like OTL, the Ottomans eventually threathen Europe, and Poland Lithuania unifies like otl the German princes will be foced to continue rallying behind the Hohenstaufen line lest a civil war breaks out and foreigners vye for their lands?
 
Hmm I know when the Henry the Saxon revolted Fredrick I was able to defeat him. So WI after Henry survives on his way back some of the electors who are irritated by his policies revolt. He then uses Impeial toops to crush the rvolters and replaces the princes who revolted with their siblings or other relations, in return for the othe relations sweaing fealty to the hohenstaufens dynasty and signing ageements to vote only fo hohenstaufen candidates in the impeial elections.
If I may, it's assuming several things.

1) That opposition of the princes was only about a personal feud.
It was a more heavy tendency, that pushed princes to revolt against emperors long before and long after Henry VI (with of course, several exception as Henry III). Even if he wasn't a massive dick, you'd still have to deal with these and even if he won, the regular revolts would be enough of a drain to be a constant huge nuisance.

2) That dynastical solidarity isn't a thing.
Remember that we're talking about a feudal setting there, on which dynastical solidarity (and even conception of social organisation) was really strong (hence the maintain of "dynastical feuds" such as Welfs). Removing an individual ruler but letting the dynasty and its circles in places would be not only mostly useless but counter-productive.

3) That Henry benefitted from the same favourable factors than his father.
The imperial host that defeated Henry the Lion wasn't the personal army of Frederic but an host made of several of Germanic nobility while Henry was isolated. A more general revolt, critically if the revolt is made in reaction of Henry VI's tyranny, would significantly reduce imperial forces. Look at what his brother had to face.

At the same time lets say Henry decides that ruling both Italy and Germany would be too much to do so he split the two titles.
He couldn't do that without really weakening his legitimacy even more as an emperor. Imperial kingship was tied up with Italian one too much that it could be done overnight.
 
hmm you make good points catilina, but would it be possible for him to pull a Chales V in terms of splitting land though. After all Chales was somehow able to split the Hapsburg lands and not suffer legitmacy loss? Perhaps he doesnt split the titles during hs reign but before he dies he leaves in his will the german teritories to one son and the italian teritories to other. Suely that would be
acceptable to the pinces and his dynasties legitmicy since he is only splitting land beetween the sons to give them equal shares?
 
hmm you make good points catilina, but would it be possible for him to pull a Chales V in terms of splitting land though. After all Chales was somehow able to split the Hapsburg lands and not suffer legitmacy loss? Perhaps he doesnt split the titles during hs reign but before he dies he leaves in his will the german teritories to one son and the italian teritories to other. Suely that would be
acceptable to the pinces and his dynasties legitmicy since he is only splitting land beetween the sons to give them equal shares?

Wasn't that pretty close to what happened anyway. Frederick remained in South Italy, while Henry's brother, Philip, took the lead in Germany [similar to the split that Charles V created]. The Hohenstaufen cause was hurt because Philip was assassinated whilst Frederick was still a minor.
 
hmm you make good points catilina, but would it be possible for him to pull a Chales V in terms of splitting land though. After all Chales was somehow able to split the Hapsburg lands and not suffer legitmacy loss?
The situation was quite different.
First Golden Bull removed the institutional pontifical and "protection of Rome" part of the deal, making HRE definitely more German-based even institutionally.
Furthermore, since Maximilan I, the pontifical/italian part is gaved up totally, calling themselves "chosen from God", at the favour of a more modern (in the historical sense) organisation (prooving that HRE still have guts in the XVIth century).

For medieval era, critically more early you go (as the OP asked), it's really harder. Italy's crown and dominion over it was deemed necessary (hence the regular warfare made by emperors there).

Suely that would be acceptable to the pinces and his dynasties legitmicy since he is only splitting land beetween the sons to give them equal shares?
It's technically doable, but in the same way than splitting crowns in medieval Spain wouldn't be concieved as creating two totally separate entities. What would be assumed (and what would most probably happen quickly, would it be under ambition pressure) will be a reunion of kingships.
Furthermore, splitting lands between Germany (where emperors could have important lands) and Italy (where imperial lands were, at best small, usually almost unexistant) wouldn't have been really viable.

Wasn't that pretty close to what happened anyway. Frederick remained in South Italy, while Henry's brother, Philip, took the lead in Germany [similar to the split that Charles V created]. The Hohenstaufen cause was hurt because Philip was assassinated whilst Frederick was still a minor.
It was less of a plan that dicted by the circumstances, Philip of Swabia couldn't have proected his nephew's right without risking an even major crisis (and division of South Italy and HRE being a sine qua non condition for reaching an agreement with Papacy). Remember that during all his reign, he had to face major nobiliar rebellion led by Otto IV and Welfs.

After that, and probably not of its own will, I don't see Frederick being crowned emperor at his majority if Philip is winning.

I proposed above to make Phillip even more compromise with Innocent, eventually giving up Central Italy (Tuscany and Emilia) to the pope. Maybe renouncing Sicily in favor of another relative and make Frederic II an imperial vicar for Italy (if not King of the Romans) in order to prepare a takeover of Central Italy afterwards would be interesting.
That said, I think Henri VI fucked up enough that a better PoD may involve butterflying him.
 
Top