Hohenstaufen Centralization of the HRE: What exactly does this take?

[Elfwine]

As it says on the tin.

There are some old threads on the subject, but none of them really address the basic question here. What exactly would the Hohenstaufen Emperors have to do to address the problems with imposing imperial authority?

Henry VI succeeds at making the crown hereditary and say he lives another twenty years or so (give or take) and say Frederick II is raised to think of himself as an Emperor first and king of Sicily second. Let's throw in having the succession secured by at least average-competence emperors into the 1300s. The kind of stuff any sufficiently imaginative writer can dream up.

Fine. All of this is easy from the Alt-historian's perspective. Seen it in a dozen threads and half as many timelines.

But what do they have to do beyond that? Does Imperial law need to be changed to give the position more power? Or is it more like France, where the Hohenstaufens have to build up a power base through control of land and ideally the new cities to be able to crush any would be quarrelsome subjects so as to turn de jure authority into de facto? Something else?

And where are the resources (of men, of money, diplomatic trumps to play in that game...all of them) coming from? Where can the Emperor turn without having his attempts to secure support in one region causing him to have to make compromises that will see his authority unravel in the second region?

No point in controlling Italy at the expense of any authority in Germany, and not much more the other way around.

But not very many nobles or city-states - even if not actively opposed to the Emperor - are going to eagerly lend support in Imperial projects designed to strengthen the ability of the Emperor to use them for his plans and his ambitions but at their expense.

One good thing the Hohenstaufens have is that if the position is made hereditary, then the ability for a would be anti-king to do anything is...extremely limited. The Pope's role in the process has been rendered about as relevant at the archbishop of Canterbury.

It might take some work to make that work alongside establishing a functional relationship with the Papacy, but I presume support for things like crusades would make it hard for the Pope to openly oppose the Emperor without it seeming to be purely a matter of spite, and after the initial disturbance it would sooner or latter reach being the status quo on its own.

All things otherwise being favorable, at least.


Note: I'm using "centralization" to mean "power to the Emperor" - the HRE being a truly centralized state in any sort of modern sense will take a long time, but the Angevins OTL seems to have been fairly successful despite the Magna Carta and the Capets managed to make it over the obstacles in the period (late 12th to early 14th century) in question. Being more successful than either of these would be nice, being as successful as the Capets were at establishing royal authority on firm foundations that could and did endure and grow still further as time permitted is the task that - somehow - the Hohenstaufens fell short of.

And judging by the threads involving "centralized Holy Roman Empire" or "successful Holy Roman Empire", it appears to be a community consensus that the possibility is worth discussing - but as none of those provide much detail on the "so how do the Emperors actually get the resources for the changes necessary?", I'm starting this one.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

They need to build a strong powerbase. Then they can change laws and stuff, but first they need to be in a position making it near impossible to get rid of them.

 

[carlton_bach]

I really suspect in order to build a centralised kingdom, they need to lose, and lose big. They run a realm that is uncentralised and almost entirely based on consensus government, which fits in well with the political theory of the day. As long as this system generates successes, the motivation to change it is not strong enough. Not for the empoerors, who, after all, continue to have considerable power, and not for the nobles who are its main beneficiaries, gaining great independence and status. The problem I see is that by the time a confrontation between the emperors and the nobility became understood as such (as obvious as such a thing was to a nineteenth-century historian steeped in the discourse of ethnic nationalism, contemporaries saw things differently), it was really too late for the emperor to win it. The great nobles had become too well entrenched. A major defeat, costing them Italy or, better yet, Germany, could lead to both nobles and emperors rallying around whatever solution gave them a chance of a comeback. Personally, I think that for the Hohenstaufen, Sicily is their best shot at a centralised state. Of course that would require a more complete defeat of the papacy, but I suspect that by the early thirteenth century, that's actually a possibility.

 

[Janprimus]

The position of the emperor/king of the Romans during the Hohenstaufen era, before the interregnum was not that bad and was much better than it became post interregnum.

In order for the Hohenstaufen to focus on the empire, they should perhaps split in a Sicilian and an imperial Swabian branch.

 

[Eurofed]

IMO we may look to the example and analog of France to see what would be required to build a power base strong enough and snuff out attempts to put imperial authority into question. Just be mindful that as centralization progresses, there are going to be at least some nobles, city-states, and clergy that see the writing on the wall and decide to side with the imperial party and reap a cushy role in the new order, rather than to fight for particularism to the bitter end. Also the emperors can win at least some section of the urban and trading middle classes to the side of centralization, like the other Western monarchies did, and develop a cadre of secular bureucrats to support imperial administration from them.

 

[Eurofed]

The position of the emperor/king of the Romans during the Hohenstaufen era, before the interregnum was not that bad and was much better than it became post interregnum.

Exactly. Without the power vacuum during the minority of Frederick II and the interregnum, the power base of the emperors was not so bad to begin with.

In order for the Hohenstaufen to focus on the empire, they should perhaps split in a Sicilian and an imperial Swabian branch.

Not really, and Sicily was rather valuable. They do need to treat Germany and northern Italy as their main concern, however.

 

[Janprimus]

Hence my suggestion to split the house into two branches, combining the HRE and Sicily could mean that neither gets the attention they both desire; and it will cause for the threatened Pope (the Papal states were surrounded by the lands of the Hohenstaufen) to conspire against them, which goes beyond the 'normal' conflicts between the Pope and the emperor/king of the Romans.

This could happen, when king of the Romans Philip of Swabia survives and fathers a son; which would mean that IOTL emperor Frederick II will just be king Frederick I of Sicily ATL. This would probably lead to a situation where the Sicilian Hohenstaufen really become Italian and the Swabian branch remaining German, which will make the Swabian branch more popular with the German electors, since the Sicilian branch would each generation be perceived as more foreign.

 

[Shevek23]

Another factor to consider is the parallel attempts of the Church to centralize its pan-European structure and liberate it from the manipulations of local kings and such powers. And indeed, when the Popes felt very confident, to assert their superiority over all secular power which they argued was by the nature of things subordinate to the authority of the Church.

This plays out somewhat differently in the Imperial context than in kingdoms like England or France. The latter, being peripheral to the "Empire" and in many cases (the British kingdoms, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe) being partially or completely outside the ancient territory of the Roman Empire as well as the core of the new Empire, relate to the Church as a modern nation does to some supranational agency that includes but does not overlap them--the extreme concept of Papal supremacy would be an absurd case of conquest by sheer say-so; clearly the peripheral kings had a separate power base independent of the claims of the Church, and it would be necessary there to find some kind of balanced division of powers.

But in the Empire, in the state claiming the mantle of Rome, a Rome transformed before its fall into the unitary state that champions Christendom itself and with that charge renewed at the coronation of Charlemagne, the whole question of the roles and relations of the structure of the Universal Church and the in principle Universal Empire was that much more vexed. Was the Emperor nothing more than the Pope's security chief? Was the Pope just the Emperor's chaplain and chief bureaucrat? Shouldn't Empire and Church be fused into one on some terms or other, and if not what would be the proper division of powers--and if the two structures ever worked that out, wouldn't the systematic conquest and subjugation of all the surrounding kingdoms of Christendom, fully aided by every bit of leverage the Church could use, by the Empire the logical implication?

Because of the Empire's implicit universal claims, the surrounding realms were motivated to stir up whatever trouble they could to forestall the day when Church and State achieved harmony and the power of the Empire lived up to its pretension of being the universal state of Christendom. To be sure the other political conflicts they were embroiled in with the Empire and each other meant that some of these independent powers sometimes had motive to throw in with Imperial leadership for a time. But such relations worked both ways; the outer powers who played ball with the current Emperor would want concrete concessions and any tendency they risked of getting absorbed into the Empire would have to be balanced by bids for greater power within the Empire.

In other words, both those states currently and in the short run at any rate implacably opposed to Imperial power and those currently cooperating with it had strong interests to prevent the sort of success in centralizing this thread asks about--all would tend to uphold the elective principle for the Emperor over hereditary succession for instance, the enemies just to weaken their foe, the friends as a stake in the Imperial structure--in principle any noble line within the Empire could hope to secure the Imperial crown for itself, and the others, being Electors, would still have a lot of leverage over it. Similarly, they'd tend to alternate between supporting Emperor and Pope in matters of resolving Church-State conflicts, both to keep both pretentious monarchs off-balance, and in support of their various divergent immediate interests. As a general rule you'd expect them to on the whole wind up supporting secular power over the Pope, being secular powers themselves--but then again too much of that might give too much power to the Emperor who could then overwhelm him--and the Church, to secure its own position, would seek out those secular powers most threatened by rising Imperial power to back its otherworldly claims and thus secure some checks against the Empire for themselves.

The upshot, it seems to me, that the Empire was being watched by all of Catholic Europe, while on the periphery, there was a lot less attention paid to the trends of more effectively centralizing monarchies, whose royal lines were generally able to prevail in the long run, while sharing in the general game of stirring the central European pot so it never could jell.

I'd guess, if you want some powerful centralized monarchy in the place occupied by the "Empire" OTL, step one is make sure it is not called the "Empire." If it's just the Kingdom of Germany or some such their monarchial dynasties would be far more likely to get away with centralizing without every duke and bishop in Europe churning things up again!

 

[Eurofed]

Hence my suggestion to split the house into two branches, combining the HRE and Sicily could mean that neither gets the attention they both desire;

Not necessarily. Sicily can still be addressed adequately as an extension of HRE Italy.

and it will cause for the threatened Pope (the Papal states were surrounded by the lands of the Hohenstaufen) to conspire against them, which goes beyond the 'normal' conflicts between the Pope and the emperor/king of the Romans.

The Pope was going to be hostile to strong emperors regardless of their ownership of Sicily, and the power of the theocratic Papacy needs to be crushed for the Empire to succeed in any case.

This could happen, when king of the Romans Philip of Swabia survives and fathers a son; which would mean that IOTL emperor Frederick II will just be king Frederick I of Sicily ATL. This would probably lead to a situation where the Sicilian Hohenstaufen really become Italian and the Swabian branch remaining German, which will make the Swabian branch more popular with the German electors, since the Sicilian branch would each generation be perceived as more foreign.

The purpose of the exercise is to centralize the Hohenstaufen empire as a whole, splitting northern Italy, Sicily, or Germany away defeats it.

 

[Janprimus]

Not necessarily. Sicily can still be addressed adequately as an extension of HRE Italy.



The Pope was going to be hostile to strong emperors regardless of their ownership of Sicily, and the power of the theocratic Papacy needs to be crushed for the Empire to succeed in any case.



The purpose of the exercise is to centralize the Hohenstaufen empire as a whole, splitting northern Italy, Sicily, or Germany away defeats it.

I thought that the purpose of the exercise of a centralization of the Holy Roman Empire by the Hohenstaufen and not all territories held by the Hohenstaufen (of which Sicily was rather wealthy), so this doesn't (necessarily) require the kingdom of Sicily.

 

[Eurofed]

I thought that the purpose of the exercise of a centralization of the Holy Roman Empire by the Hohenstaufen and not all territories held by the Hohenstaufen, so this doesn't (necessarily) require the kingdom of Sicily.

As far as I'm concerned, the kingdom of Sicily was de facto an integral part of the Hohenstaufen HRE, if not de jure. The emperors certainly meant so. I glady concede that the Kingdom of Jerusalem would be a different issue.

 

[Gonzaga]

Why not simply deny Sicily to the Hohenstaufens? You would only need to make William II have a legitimate heir that survives to adulthood. Without it they would need to keep their focus on Germany and Northern Italy.

 

[Eurofed]

Why not simply deny Sicily to the Hohenstaufens? You would only need to make William II have a legitimate heir that survives to adulthood. Without it they would need to keep their focus on Germany and Northern Italy.

Again, this defies the purpose of the exercise. And it is unnecessary, if Henry VI does not die untimely.

 

[Gonzaga]

Again, this defies the purpose of the exercise. And it is unnecessary, if Henry VI does not die untimely.

The purpose of the exercise is how to achieve a centralization of the HRE under the Hohenstaufens. It doesn't say that it should include Hohenstaufen's lands that weren't part of the HRE. Anyway, who should answer this doubt is Elfwine.

 

[Elfwine]

The exercise is about "Hohenstaufen centralize of the HRE." Sicily is not part of the HRE any more than Jerusalem.

Its only more relevant because its a part of the dynasty's power base (if things go as OTL).

Defining a successful HRE as having to include Sicily is like defining a successful Spain as having to include Portugal.

So as Gonzaga and Jamprimus have said. Eurofed, if you think the task benefits from holding Sicily, I'm all ears.

Note on the dynasty: Henry is assumed to live longer (since I think almost all the Successful Hohenstaufen timelines involve that), so no Philip of Swabia, no Otto of Saxony butting in.

Yourworstnightmare mentioned that they need a strong powerbase. Okay, how? Where are they getting this from?

A couple other notes:

Its all well and good to say that the decentralizers won't fight to the bitter end, but how do the Hohenstaufens enter a position where compromising on perhaps unfavorable terms beats defeat and subject to the Emperor's not so tender mercy is the problem.

France and other powers can't do much to mess with things in this era. Philip and Louis VIII (and Louis IX) have enough in France. Not to say they're totally irrelevant, but the 13th century is much better for their interference being minimal than the 17th.

And finally, triumph for the Hohenstaufens is not necessarily related to failure by the Pope. If the Pope being crushed happens, so be it - but I am skeptical that the Pope has to be brought down to raise up the Hohenstaufens in this phase.

The Pope is welcome to think he's superior to kings and emperors as long as that doesn't mean interfering with the secular work of jelling the state.

 

[Eurofed]

So as Gonzaga and Jamprimus have said. Eurofed, if you think the task benefits from holding Sicily, I'm all ears.

It benefits the task in two ways: it substantially enhances the power base of the dynasty, and it makes the empire as a whole wealthier and more strategically secure. The job in Sicily can more or less be done as an extension of the job in northern Italy.

And finally, triumph for the Hohenstaufens is not necessarily related to failure by the Pope. If the Pope being crushed happens, so be it - but I am skeptical that the Pope has to be brought down to raise up the Hohenstaufens in this phase.

The Pope is welcome to think he's superior to kings and emperors as long as that doesn't mean interfering with the secular work of jelling the state.

Pretensions of superiority to secular rulers, and interference in secular rule, tended to go hand in hand, so in all likelihood they need to be defeated together. The Papacy does not need to be destroyed as a recognizable institution (although it might happen), but the theocratic version of the Papacy that tried to set itself up from Gregory VII onwards needs to be set back. You need to reverse the outcome of Canossa, so to speak. France did it successfully in the 14th century, ITTL the HRE needs to do it as well.

 

[Elfwine]

It benefits the task in two ways: it substantially enhances the power base of the dynasty, and it makes the empire as a whole wealthier and more strategically secure. The job in Sicily can more or less be done as an extension of the job in northern Italy.

Do tell.

Pretensions of superiority to secular rulers, and interference in secular rule, tended to go hand in hand, so in all likelihood they need to be defeated together. The Papacy does not need to be destroyed as a recognizable institution (although it might happen), but the theocratic version of the Papacy that tried to set itself up from Gregory VII onwards needs to be set back. You need to reverse the outcome of Canossa, so to speak. France did it successfully in the 14th century, ITTL the HRE needs to do it as well.

There's a difference between the Pope seeking to advance his agenda and the Pope seeking to undermine the Emperor as his agenda, though.

More to the point, the more money and energy and time the Hohenstaufens spend specifically facing the Pope, the more two things happen.

1) The Pope can portray them as a threat. D'you want to hand them the opportunity of claiming that the Hohenstaufens are opposed to the Church?

2) Said money, energy, and time are not spent on addressing internal affairs.

 

[Faeelin]

Yourworstnightmare mentioned that they need a strong powerbase. Okay, how? Where are they getting this from?

I have to raise my hand here. Where do you think they got their armies and wealth OTL? The Hohenstaufens had a strong power base in Swabia and Burgundy.

 

[Elfwine]

I have to raise my hand here. Where do you think they got their armies and wealth OTL? The Hohenstaufens had a strong power base in Swabia and Burgundy.

Did not know that (on Burgundy). The only particular piece of land I know they held (not counting Sicily) is Swabia.

How much of Burgundy (meaning the Kingdom of Arles?) did they hold?

Either directly or via the imperial crown.

Just thinking that they - judging by OTL - needed to strengthen and expand their domain, or at least not face such demands as to need to depend on the cooperation rather than secure the obedience of the other princes.

 

[Faeelin]

Did not know that (on Burgundy). The only particular piece of land I know they held (not counting Sicily) is Swabia.

How much of Burgundy (meaning the Kingdom of Arles?) did they hold?

Barbarossa married the Countess of Burgundy, so all of the Count(y?)'s properties became part of the crown's demense. And in OTL Frederick II acquired Austria, as part of a bid to secure a belt of territory in Southern Germany.