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

Eurofed

Banned
I'm not sure if this is too much. The only other analogous situation I can think of is Charles V, and his reign was not an enormous success, no?

I'd also note that this makes the HRE unique as it wouldn't have a central capital. Unless there's a separate court for both realms?

I would point out that it would be a temporary solution (as it would have been for Charles V's empire if he had been successful) in the long term. In due time (say 100-200 years) overall centralization, imperial administration, and technology shall be advanced enough to make this unnecessary.

This might indeed take the form of partially separate courts or viceroyalties becoming established for the various realms, with the emperor periodically traveling between them. As things progress, this shifts to separate branches of the administration being grouped together into a central capital, as it happened in Spain.

Which city would end up the capital of the HRE in the long term is indeed another fascinating aside.
 
Last edited:
Nuremburg isn't badly placed, but there's no really convenient location to monitor both Italy and Germany.

Though given that Berlin (not relevant in this period but that's not the point) isn't exactly where one would have sited a central medieval capital, or London, or Paris...

Its probably doable.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The problem is that the English and French aren't fighting two separate parts of their realm to beat it into obedience at the same time.

That's the are that turns this from "yeah, well, everyone else had it" to the aspect that makes HRE centralization difficult and somewhat less likely. All other things being even, that is, and the evenness of those things is itself...questionable, but covered in other points.

I think we should really avoid to make size that much of an overwhelming difference, because it wasn't. Russia eventually did manage to centralize, and rule itself with pre-modern tools, over a size rather bigger than HRE+Sicily would be.

That doesn't mean that it does them any favors to give the Popes more reason to oppose them every step of the way rather than diverting papal attention by appearing to cooperate in areas it doesn't hurt them to and picking their battles in the areas that do matter, at least until the internal tasks are solid enough to make papal support for internal enemies easily crushed.

I've conceded that for the sake of political expediency, it may be useful to keep the HRE and Sicily formally separate for a while.

Fair enough so far, though I'd say the odds are against all five living to a ripe old age. Not to say its impossible, but it shouldn't be taken for granted - for instance, the Capets have Louis VIII not even reaching forty.

Fifty years is not that much of a ripe old age for a member of the ruling elite, even in the Middle Ages. But if you are concerned about the odds, we may still appease them by having Conrad V die at forty or so. After a century of successful state-building, a brief regency by the turn of the 14th century would not in all likelihood be that much of a problem.

This does, however, assume that nothing occurs to cause unpredicted consequences.

True, but there is no special reason to assume that this would go in the direction of reawakening particularist drives.

This is true. But the Staufen need to weigh any particular struggle as it relates to their interests rather than going all out for crusades that might be successful in that sphere and completely compromise them elsewhere.

No contention, here.

How does the HRE's strength relate to the movement of Germans to the East?

A prosperous, stable Germany likley drives population growth and more so of expansionistic settlement pressure to the East, from ambitious (cadet) nobles, burghers, and peasants alike seeking to better their lot.

And so it will most likely be ITTL, though possibly with the crown's encouragement - but we're talking support in forms that don't use imperial resources.

Or at least, it doesn't tax imperial resouces significantly. I shall go and say that one or two wars to establish imperial authority over Poland would not burden the empire considerably, also because eastern nobles would be eager to support it (and quite possibly even nobles from other areas, if it looks like a source of new lands for their cadets).

Again, at this point the issue of ATL greater Eastern expansion is mostly about (western) Poland. Assimilation of the Baltic is quite on the table, but is an issue for a later period.

And settlement=/= conquest (for either Hungary or Poland).

Only up to a point.

While I agree with a good part of this, I do not see why Poland is being more Germanized in this scenario, when there is nothing either in the HRE or in Poland making it more desirable to move to the East. Has Poland been more depopulated or the Empire more crowded?

The Empire would indeed be a bit more crowded. Political stability means more prosperity and a bit more demographic growth, and the guys that are not fighting for domestic wars look forward to reaping a new livelihood beyond the borders, instead.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
True. But there is a difference between the King (or Dukes) of Poland acknowledging the Emperor as an overlord and the Baltic coast being securing in HRE hands (Pomerania at this point is all German, or at least HRE, isn't it?) and a HRE which has actually taken over Poland like here.

HRE assimilation of Poland is of course going to be a gradual process, but the local rulers recognizing the Emperor as their overlord may indeed be the start of it.

On the Teutonic Knights: I'd assume minimal directly relevant butterflies, though TTL's Frederick II might have a different relationship with them.

Are you so sure that Outremer would still fall ITTL ? I am far from it. I do expect that Jerusalem would be retaken.

On being a neat medieval monarchy and Lombardy (and other cities): This is an area where I can't tell if it would or wouldn't work. It sounds like an area that would need to be handled carefully for a long time. On cities in general...that seems to be one of the better ways to nurture things towards a stronger state. Strong cities tied to the crown benefit both.

The problem (to Eurofed) with the Italian cities is that we're looking at city-states, fiercely reluctant to give up their independence. Not just cities which have no political power.

To put it another way: Milan has an army. Vienna doesn't.

Please be mindful that that independence was still quite a half-way process by the time of the PoD. The Peace of Costance made it quite partial. And the right to keep armies could, and would, be limited by a strong imperial authority. It is actually more likely that the Emperors bargain the keeping of partial autonomy in other areas, according to the terms of the Peace of Constance, but limit the military power of the cities. Of course, not to the degree of making them defenseless, the Empire would still be look forward to getting levies from the cities too, in wartime.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Nuremburg isn't badly placed, but there's no really convenient location to monitor both Italy and Germany.

Nuremberg is not indeed badly placed, but perhaps Munich is an even better location. It is reasonably half-way.
 
I think we should really avoid to make size that much of an overwhelming difference, because it wasn't. Russia eventually did manage to centralize, and rule itself with pre-modern tools, over a size rather bigger than HRE+Sicily would be.

I said "separate" for a reason. This would be like trying to unite Scotland and England, if Scotland was more Celtic.

I've conceded that for the sake of political expediency, it may be useful to keep the HRE and Sicily formally separate for a while.

Alrighty.

Fifty years is not that much of a ripe old age for a member of the ruling elite, even in the Middle Ages. But if you are concerned about the odds, we may still appease them by having Conrad V die at forty or so. After a century of successful state-building, a brief regency by the turn of the 14th century would not in all likelihood be that much of a problem.

Agreed. My point is that if we get down to specifics, we're more likely to see a sixty and a forty by the erratic flows of average than everyone reaching 50. Its not that 50 is particularly impressive, but it being uniformly the case - well, what's the average for Philip II through his great great grandson?

True, but there is no special reason to assume that this would go in the direction of reawakening particularist drives.

Outright particularism is one thing. But that the Duke of Bavaria has interests that may or may not be "loyal service to the Emperor' is harder to eliminate even if he's generally a good vassal. Ordinary ambition to gain more of the pie than the Hohenstaufens want any vassal to have is a natural part of the feudal system.

A prosperous, stable Germany likley drives population growth and more so of expansionistic settlement pressure to the East, from ambitious (cadet) nobles, burghers, and peasants alike seeking to better their lot.

A united HRE is not necessarily distinct enough from OTL in terms the prosperity within the realm (even if the realm is better off) to change OTL pressures.

Or at least, it doesn't tax imperial resouces significantly. I shall go and say that one or two wars to establish imperial authority over Poland would not burden the empire considerably, also because eastern nobles would be eager to support it (and quite possibly even nobles from other areas, if it looks like a source of new lands for their cadets).

Again, at this point the issue of ATL greater Eastern expansion is mostly about (western) Poland. Assimilation of the Baltic is quite on the table, but is an issue for a later period.

Let's see, fighting the Prussians or the Poles...

I'll take the Prussians on, and twice on Sundays. Especially once Poland starts pulling back together again.

Speaking as a baron.

Only up to a point.

Up to quite a significant point. Migration in search of better opportunities is not the same as one polity taking over another, even if within Poland the Germans by chance and other factors become more dominant than just in Silesia and Kustrin.

The Empire would indeed be a bit more crowded. Political stability means more prosperity and a bit more demographic growth, and the guys that are not fighting for domestic wars look forward to reaping a new livelihood beyond the borders, instead.

Exactly how much different is political stability within - for instance - Austria than it was OTL?

HRE assimilation of Poland is of course going to be a gradual process, but the local rulers recognizing the Emperor as their overlord may indeed be the start of it.

Assuming, that is, that this happens - though triggering Polish reunification is quite a bit more difficult than the Staufens or the kings of Bohemia (picked due to absorbing the better part of what OTL part of Poland entered the HRE) having the opportunity to mess with it as they see fit.

Are you so sure that Outremer would still fall ITTL ? I am far from it. I do expect that Jerusalem would be retaken.

Outremer falling is not - directly - impacted by the issue of Staufen success here. A lot depends on specific crusades and internal consequences rather than "Staufen succeed, therefore Outremer succeeds." - thus the comment on direct butterflies. It would be unlikely to do worse than OTL, but it is not necessarily going to do better.

Please be mindful that that independence was still quite a half-way process by the time of the PoD. The Peace of Costance made it quite partial. And the right to keep armies could, and would, be limited by a strong imperial authority. It is actually more likely that the Emperors bargain the keeping of partial autonomy in other areas, according to the terms of the Peace of Constance, but limit the military power of the cities. Of course, not to the degree of making them defenseless, the Empire would still be look forward to getting levies from the cities too, in wartime.

The point is that said armies exist to begin with, and a desire to maintain that independence as far as possible also exists. That makes it more difficult to control Milan than Vienna - not impossible, but it isn't the same situation.

Nuremberg is not indeed badly placed, but perhaps Munich is an even better location. It is reasonably half-way.

How significant is Munich in this period?

Not arguing, but I do know Nuremburg would have a certain tendency to become the capital by default based on OTL conditions, and don't know much on Munich.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I said "separate" for a reason. This would be like trying to unite Scotland and England, if Scotland was more Celtic.

*Shrug* 'National' differences are nowhere that important in this period (and there are very very good chances that the modern rise of European nationalism is butterflied out or it takes a wholly different, much less ethnic-linguistic, character, if Central Europe is dominated by a supranational empire that is the most powerful European state since the High Middle Ages). Peasant dialects got substantially different within a few days of horseride travel anyway, and Latin was the widespread lingua franca of religion and culture for the educated European elites. A successful HRE may easily embrace and foster its use as the imperial lingua franca for administration and trade. The HRE is surely going to paint itself to its own peoples and to Europe at large as the Second Coming of Augustus and Charles the Great, with neo-Roman imperial ideals being used to smooth out petty "national" differences between the various peoples. Germans and Italians are going to be close enough to balance inthe foreseeble future (especially because this divergence is necessarily going to butterfly out the 17th-18th century hard decline of Germany and Italy) within the Empire, as it concerns demographic and economic weight, that the supra-national imperial ideal may easily look believable to both. Slavs of course are in a quite different position, but then again they have a snowball's chance in Hell of resisting assimilation in this scenario. As it concerns Romance-speaking 'Burgundians', in all likelihood they eventually merge with Italians.

Agreed. My point is that if we get down to specifics, we're more likely to see a sixty and a forty by the erratic flows of average than everyone reaching 50. Its not that 50 is particularly impressive, but it being uniformly the case - well, what's the average for Philip II through his great great grandson?

Well, Frederick II already got to be 56 y.o. IOTL, and if anything, the scenario doing just as well or being slightly more longeve, with a less troublesome reign. The PoD just really requires Henry VI and Conrad IV doing 50 y.o. or better, with Conrad V being allowed to croak at 40 or so, which is far from implausible.

Outright particularism is one thing. But that the Duke of Bavaria has interests that may or may not be "loyal service to the Emperor' is harder to eliminate even if he's generally a good vassal. Ordinary ambition to gain more of the pie than the Hohenstaufens want any vassal to have is a natural part of the feudal system.

Agreed, but the Duke of Bavaria should not be any different from the Count of Champagne in this regard.

A united HRE is not necessarily distinct enough from OTL in terms the prosperity within the realm (even if the realm is better off) to change OTL pressures.

Uhm. I do expect something of an economic boom within the HRE as basic centralization progresses to fulfillment over the late 13th century, up to the plague. The effect of integrating so many prime economic centers of Europe within the same united polity, imperfect as a late middle ages unification may be, is going to be substantial. And this is going to have some significant effect on population (not to mention the state's coffers).

As an aside, this in all likelihood accelerates the Renaissance significantly (more so if it delays or forestalls the fall of Outremer), but of course not radically, out of greater opportunities for mecenatism, increased trade exchanges, and the like.

Let's see, fighting the Prussians or the Poles...

I'll take the Prussians on, and twice on Sundays. Especially once Poland starts pulling back together again.

Speaking as a baron.

IIRC, the Poles have somewhat better land than the Prussians. And Poland is not very likely to pull itself back together. The Emperors and the eastern magnates had any interest to keep it fragmented, as a preliminary to its assimilation.

Anyway, in the end a strong, united HRE is going to expand in Poland AND the Baltic over time, with the locals having much less of a chance than OTL to forestall its expansion. We may disagree on which area would get priority in various periods.

Up to quite a significant point. Migration in search of better opportunities is not the same as one polity taking over another, even if within Poland the Germans by chance and other factors become more dominant than just in Silesia and Kustrin.

Anytime up to the 19th century, when settlers keep expanding in an area from a neighbor polity, and that polity is stronger than the nominal owners or rival claimants of the area, there comes a point when settlement becomes ownership by one way or another, ask Mexico.

I'm not saying that ITTL whole Poland gets Germanized up to the Vistula and part of the HRE up to the Bug, this may or may not happen although it is far from outlandish. But if at the very very least West Prussia and South Prussia (the Prussian share of the 1st and 2nd Partitions) do not end up as German as pre-WWII Silesia ITTL, I'm going to cry there is a quite unreasonable amount of Polonophile bias in the TL. If an identifiable Poland survives at all ITTL, it really needs to be pushed rather more eastward and southward than OTL (in pre-WWII terms of course), with Warsaw being a border city or nearly so, like Krakow, and essentially made up of Masovia, and Sandomierz, and maybe a shurken.

though triggering Polish reunification is quite a bit more difficult than the Staufens or the kings of Bohemia (picked due to absorbing the better part of what OTL part of Poland entered the HRE) having the opportunity to mess with it as they see fit.

Exactly.

Outremer falling is not - directly - impacted by the issue of Staufen success here. A lot depends on specific crusades and internal consequences rather than "Staufen succeed, therefore Outremer succeeds." - thus the comment on direct butterflies. It would be unlikely to do worse than OTL, but it is not necessarily going to do better.

It is not necessairly going to do better, but it would be wholly reasonable for it to do so by indirect butterflies. I do really expect the success of the Staufen to cause at least one more successful Crusade, quite possibly two, or even three on a stretch (not necessarily or even likely all of them at the Staufen's hands), and the Fourth Crusade in all likelihood to have a wholly different course. I'm just calling everyone's attention to the possibility of it happening, when we discuss things like the Teutonic Order.

How significant is Munich in this period?

Not arguing, but I do know Nuremburg would have a certain tendency to become the capital by default based on OTL conditions, and don't know much on Munich.

Well, Nuremberg indeed has very good chances to end up as the capital of the HRE by default if political inertia about the issue prevails, especially because it was part of the Staufen demesne, and its position is not admittedly so bad as it concerns the geopolitical balance between Germany and Italy. Munich may only have chances if the Emperors at some point get a bug for purposefully creating a 'new' capital with near-optimal geographic placement (as much as the Alps would allow, anyway).

Once the centralization process gets so advanced that an itinerant court, 'viceroyalty' sub-capitals, and such, become much less useful, I do expect the Emperors to turn and get rather lavish with creating a quite striking imperial capital. This would fit with the neo-Roman imperial ideology, and work as a magnet to drag the nobles and magnates close to the imperial throne.
 
Last edited:
*Shrug* 'National' differences are nowhere that important in this period (and there are very very good chances that the modern rise of European nationalism is butterflied out or it takes a wholly different, much less ethnic-linguistic, character, if Central Europe is dominated by a supranational empire that is the most powerful European state since the High Middle Ages). Peasant dialects got substantially different within a few days of horseride travel anyway, and Latin was the widespread lingua franca of religion and culture for the educated European elites. A successful HRE may easily embrace and foster its use as the imperial lingua franca for administration and trade. The HRE is surely going to paint itself to its own peoples and to Europe at large as the Second Coming of Augustus and Charles the Great, with neo-Roman imperial ideals being used to smooth out petty "national" differences between the various peoples. Germans and Italians are going to be close enough to balance inthe foreseeble future (especially because this divergence is necessarily going to butterfly out the 17th-18th century hard decline of Germany and Italy) within the Empire, as it concerns demographic and economic weight, that the supra-national imperial ideal may easily look believable to both. Slavs of course are in a quite different position, but then again they have a snowball's chance in Hell of resisting assimilation in this scenario. As it concerns Romance-speaking 'Burgundians', in all likelihood they eventually merge with Italians.

Two comments - well, three.

1) Scotland still has a sense of itself as separate from England even OTL (in this period). It isn't about being Celtic in the sense of "we're Celts and you're Anglo-Saxons" as a people, its a different legal and cultural set of traditions entirely. That kind of "nationalism" is not going away because the educated elite and the clergy speak Latin (and Latin as a lingua franca seems...easier said than done.)

2) Neo-Romanism is going to mean exactly what? The HRE can paint itself as the survival of/reincarnation of Charlemagne's Empire until its forgotten the differences and it still has to be something people take seriously. Not to mention something that isn't just a fancy term for whatever fantasyland the Staufen dream up, like the Moon King's castles were.

3) See the bottom of this post for comments that relate to Poland.

Well, Frederick II already got to be 56 y.o. IOTL, and if anything, the scenario doing just as well or being slightly more longeve, with a less troublesome reign. The PoD just really requires Henry VI and Conrad IV doing 50 y.o. or better, with Conrad V being allowed to croak at 40 or so, which is far from implausible.
For comparison, treating Philip as equivalent to Henry VI (they were born in the same year).

Philip II: 58
Louis VIII: 39
Louis IX: 56 (only 10 when his father died)
Philip III: 40

Average age at death: 48.

So 50 is actually not entirely unreasonable by comparison to a dynasty in roughly similar circumstances.

It is, however, interesting how both Louis VIII and Philip III die "young", the former leaving a minor as an heir. To continue this, Philip IV died at 46. That would make the average age a little under 48 instead of a little over.

Rounding to the nearest year for kingly death for purposes of the calculations on averages.

So while this scenario takes it for granted that the Staufen do not have a succession crisis through out the 13th century, for the sake of discussion (as this is on the specifics not covered by the well trodden path of these scenarios), it ought to be noted that the bumpiness of this - while not cutting them off as OTL - can have some unpleasant consequences for unexpected reasons for Frederick II and his son and grandson.

Henry VI's relative longevity also being in the taken for granted assumptions.

It ought to be noted that in the Prince of Peace, Frederick dies at 48 (if I am not mistaken) and is not succeeded by his son. Just for completeness's sake.

Agreed, but the Duke of Bavaria should not be any different from the Count of Champagne in this regard.
That's quite thorny enough, though. Not "this is impossible", but certainly "this is a challenge".

Uhm. I do expect something of an economic boom within the HRE as basic centralization progresses to fulfillment over the late 13th century, up to the plague. The effect of integrating so many prime economic centers of Europe within the same united polity, imperfect as a late middle ages unification may be, is going to be substantial. And this is going to have some significant effect on population (not to mention the state's coffers).

As an aside, this in all likelihood accelerates the Renaissance significantly (more so if it delays or forestalls the fall of Outremer), but of course not radically, out of greater opportunities for mecenatism, increased trade exchanges, and the like.
How exactly though? How is a greater level of "national" unity going to make one bit of difference to the trade routes within the state compared to OTL?

Certainly in later eras it'll be a huge difference, but how much real difference does it make whether Milan differs to Nuremburg vs. ignores it as much as it can when it comes to trade and agricultural production?

IIRC, the Poles have somewhat better land than the Prussians. And Poland is not very likely to pull itself back together. The Emperors and the eastern magnates had any interest to keep it fragmented, as a preliminary to its assimilation.
It is also somewhat harder to take over.

Anyway, in the end a strong, united HRE is going to expand in Poland AND the Baltic over time, with the locals having much less of a chance than OTL to forestall its expansion. We may disagree on which area would get priority in various periods.
A strong, united HRE is going to expand to the east so much why again? Again, if its thinking of itself as Carolingian, its going to want to reincorporate - in some sense - France. More at bottom again.

Note: This is discussing generalities as far as possible (same applies to the rest of this post). It would not be inappropriate for any given scenario to be more Eastern-centric or not, but there's a difference between how any given HRE Centralizes scenario may devour Poland and the Baltic and what applies as a generalized reality as part of the basic factors at play, the way that for instance all scenarios must address the Pope in some form.

Anytime up to the 19th century, when settlers keep expanding in an area from a neighbor polity, and that polity is stronger than the nominal owners or rival claimants of the area, there comes a point when settlement becomes ownership by one way or another, ask Mexico.

This is not a matter of "nominal" ownership, even if the Polish states are weak as polities, they do control their own territories - and those territories are already reasonably well inhabited.

So this is not at all like Mexico's situation relative to the Americans.

I'm not saying that ITTL whole Poland gets Germanized up to the Vistula and part of the HRE up to the Bug, this may or may not happen although it is far from outlandish. But if at the very very least West Prussia and South Prussia (the Prussian share of the 1st and 2nd Partitions) do not end up as German as pre-WWII Silesia ITTL, I'm going to cry there is a quite unreasonable amount of Polonophile bias in the TL. If an identifiable Poland survives at all ITTL, it really needs to be pushed rather more eastward and southward than OTL (in pre-WWII terms of course), with Warsaw being a border city or nearly so, like Krakow, and essentially made up of Masovia, and Sandomierz, and maybe a shurken.

How is there an unreasonable amount of Polonophile bias for the HRE to not carve up Poland? Poland is not vital to the HRE in any way, or part of its historical claims in any sense - at least not to the extent being proposed.


Could the Staufen mess with Poland if they so chose? Definitely. That is an obstacle that needs to be weighed, but it is not a situation where Poland being broken is a big part of the nature of such a timeline as is being sketched out in general terms.

It is not necessairly going to do better, but it would be wholly reasonable for it to do so by indirect butterflies. I do really expect the success of the Staufen to cause at least one more successful Crusade, quite possibly two, or even three on a stretch (not necessarily or even likely all of them at the Staufen's hands), and the Fourth Crusade in all likelihood to have a wholly different course. I'm just calling everyone's attention to the possibility of it happening, when we discuss things like the Teutonic Order.
Possibility, yes. Probability...gets into a lot of factors that aren't even addressed by the Staufen succeeding in Germany and Italy.

Well, Nuremberg indeed has very good chances to end up as the capital of the HRE by default if political inertia about the issue prevails, especially because it was part of the Staufen demesne, and its position is not admittedly so bad as it concerns the geopolitical balance between Germany and Italy. Munich may only have chances if the Emperors at some point get a bug for purposefully creating a 'new' capital with near-optimal geographic placement (as much as the Alps would allow, anyway).

Once the centralization process gets so advanced that an itinerant court, 'viceroyalty' sub-capitals, and such, become much less useful, I do expect the Emperors to turn and get rather lavish with creating a quite striking imperial capital. This would fit with the neo-Roman imperial ideology, and work as a magnet to drag the nobles and magnates close to the imperial throne.
I'm not sure how much neo-Romanism is going to mean, but this is mentioned above and relates to that in general rather than specifics on if it happens how it will influence the capital.


For the sake of being concise, I think we need to address the issue of Poland as primarily these two things: rather than the three or four specific little bits of quoted text:

1) To what extent is Poland relevant to the goals and objectives of the Carolinginan Empire Reborn? Certainly such an empire can meddle. But would it choose to spend the effort in all ways to do so, or would it pursue other things? How much will the Staufen care to have more than a nominal overlordship of Poland? How much will it be possible for magnates to tear away pieces?

2) To what extent will there be - in this period (keeping in mind that at the end of the 13th century Poland is pretty close to reuniting, OTL - its a generation off if memory serves) a greater German presence in Poland that leads to Polish lands being drawn into the HRE as opposed to Germans settling in a foreign land?

Obviously one can easily construct something where the Staufen and other Germans find Poland irresistible, that is not in dispute. But Poland can also be a side project, and as such is more likely to resemble OTL fairly closely, than to be assimilated.
 
Last edited:
Earlier POD making the Investiture Controversy less acrimonious so the Papacy doesn't see the need to emasculate the Emperor and that the Emperor isn't inclined to follow Eurofed's desire in destroying it's theocracy.

Maybe another PoD is that Conrad III will get his imperial coronation in exchange for helping the Pope in Italy (after the 2nd Crusade). I think it's best to keep an independent Norman dynasty in Sicily. In either case, Frederick II is groomed to be more Charlemagne than Henry IV. Maybe he's genuinely pious... maybe he's cynical... it could go either way.
 
Last edited:
Earlier POD making the Investiture Controversy less acrimonious so the Papacy doesn't see the need to emasculate the Emperor and that the Emperor isn't inclined to follow Eurofed's desire in destroying it's theocracy.

Maybe another PoD is that Conrad III will get his imperial coronation in exchange for helping the Pope in Italy (after the 2nd Crusade). I think it's best to keep an independent Norman dynasty in Sicily.

Anything with a POD early enough to address the Investiture Controversy is too early for the Hohenstaufen (kings of Germany since 1138, Emperors since 1155 or so). And this is specifically on them since we have at least a half dozen timelines, including a couple by Eurofed (whatever happened to Kairos's anyway?) involving them - that and Hohenstaufen is fun to say.

Why would it be better to keep an independent Norman dynasty Sicily?

Its easy enough to do with a kind butterfly - but why?
 
Right, I know the Hohenstaufen post-date it, but both sides need to be more willing to settle with the other. The HRE is still turbulent enough and the Welfs will still be agitating, etc that the change in dynasties doesn't need to be affected.

Outside of the distraction, etc I think both sides saw the control of Sicily and Apulia to be going "all in" on the overall end-game against the other, which makes it too imperative for each to deny the other and the stakes are too high in either controlling it. Doesn't particularly matter if it's Normans, though. Might be best if the Byzantines still have it, even.
 
Right, I know the Hohenstaufen post-date it, but both sides need to be more willing to settle with the other. The HRE is still turbulent enough and the Welfs will still be agitating, etc that the change in dynasties doesn't need to be affected.

I think the problem is that its not really something that has a convenient way to settle - this cookie can't be divided into two.

And a POD in the 1070s could easily be one that impacts the lives of the Salian (if I'm remembering right) Emperors, and what children they have and so on, that's the problem so far it being prior to the 'staufen.

Outside of the distraction, etc I think both sides saw the control of Sicily and Apulia to be going "all in" on the overall end-game against the other, which makes it too imperative for each to deny the other and the stakes are too high in either controlling it. Doesn't particularly matter if it's Normans, though. Might be best if the Byzantines still have it, even.

Elaboration on this point would be appreciated. Looking to understand what you're saying here, not arguing.
 

Eurofed

Banned
You cannot defuse the HRE-Papacy conflict by letting the Norman Kingdom of Sicily survive, it existed before and beyond the HRE-Sicily dynastic union. Moreover, the Staufen empire encompassed Sicily as an integral (and quite valuable) part, de facto if not de jure. It is one of the main ways the Staufen-HRE success scenario is recognizably different from say a Ottonian-HRE one.

I'm going to ask all posters: please, please stop trying to defy the purpose of the exercise by proposing to split Germany and Italy or Germany-Italy and Sicily apart. This is NOT about the Middle Ages unification of Germany and/or Italy, it is about the success of the Staufen empire.
 
Last edited:
You cannot defuse the HRE-Papacy conflict from letting the Norman Kingdom of Sicily survive, it existed before and beyond the HRE-Sicily dynastic union.

Moreover, the Staufen empire encompassed Sicily as an integral (and quite valuable) part, de facto if not de jure. It is one of the main ways the Staufen HRE success scenario is recognizably different from say a Ottonian HRE one.

I'm going to ask all posters: please, please stop trying to defy the purpose of the exercise from splitting Germany and Italy or Germany-north Italy and Sicily apart. This is NOT about the Middle Ages unification of Germany and/or Italy, it is about the centralization and success of the Staufen empire.

I'm going to invoke all authority of being the thread creator and thread namer on this, which is rather like invoking the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor amusingly enough (that is to say, I am powerless to do anything except say this):

No. This is about the centralization of the Holy Roman Empire, under the Staufen.

That does not include Sicily.

This is about the time between 1155 (Barbarossa's coronation) to about 1300. This is about the Emperors Frederick I, Henry VI, and so forth. Conrad III may be included if one sees him as capable of being relevant (I don't, but he's one of the Staufen and was an uncrowned emperor).

Sicily is valuable and Sicily was one of the things the Staufen tried to incorporate into their holdings OTL.

But the purpose of this exercise is fusing the lands on this map that are defined as the Holy Roman Empire: http://www.shadowedrealm.com/maps/political/view/the_holy_roman_empire_under_hohenstaufen - not the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, not the Duchy of Silesia, not the Duchy of Burgundy, not the County of Artois and not even necessarily the March of Ancona and the rest of the Papal States that are absorbed by the HRE on that map.

I am perfectly willing to accept the argument that Sicily being absorbed by the Staufen will assist more than it harms, and that the Staufen are perfectly capable of managing it in some way.

But I cannot overstate this.

This is solely and specifically about the centralization and unification of the HRE.

So once again: Sicily is not part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Splitting Germany and northern Italy apart obviously does not "centralize the HRE" and would be another sort of scenario than making that proto-state jell properly. Sicily not belonging to the Hohenstaufen? Matters not.

I hate to use large font here, but redefining the HRE to include Sicily for purposes of our discussion is not conducive to answering what the Hohenstaufen need to do to make the empire solidify into a proper state that is reasonably responsive most of the time and which can be beaten into obedience when necessary.

So lay off the "Sicily is an integral part of the Hohenstaufen empire and makes this different than an Ottoian unification" or "this is about the Staufen Empire" stuff.

Are we clear on the "purpose of the exercise" as posited by the person who started it?

You are more than welcome to create your own thread about how much of Europe the Hohenstaufen can put under their control while centralizing the HRE. You are even welcome to discuss how Sicily is very important to meeting the criteria for success in this exercise. But you are not welcome to change the definition of success so that Sicily must be included and that those who are suggesting that the Staufen not pursuing it would be better off are the ones "defying the purpose of this exercise".

Elfwine, Thread Creator

 

Eurofed

Banned
Whatever. You are perfectly free to invoke your rights as thread creator and strictly define the terms of the scenario for this thread. I'm not going to challenge that.

I'm however, still free to deem that, speaking in the sense of the general basic scenario being invoked by this thread, the terms you set are not really fair to the spirit of that basic scenario and deem its discussion in this thread therefore and sadly inadequate. A real pity, since there was a rather nice exchange of ideas going along.

Nothing personal, but answers to this kind of topic that go down the "why don't we make it easier by splitting this part off" path piss me off as cheating.
 
Last edited:
Whatever. You are perfectly free to invoke your rights as thread creator and strictly define the terms of the scenario for this thread. I'm not going to challenge this.

I'm however, still free to deem that, speaking in the sense of the general basic scenario being invoked by this thread, the terms you set are not really fair to the spirit of that basic scenario and deem its discussion in this thread therefore and sadly unsatisfactory.

The problem is that you are defining the basic scenario as not "How can the Staufen bring the HRE together", but "how can the Staufen make a Greater Holy Roman Empire" - despite that being specifically not what the scenario is about.

It is your right to argue that gains outside the HRE would be both beneficial to the Staufen in their pursuit of centralization and a natural consequence of Staufen ambitions being successful, it is no less valid for others like Uxi and JanPrimus to argue that Sicily adds more problems than it does benefits and that the Staufen are better off focusing within Germany to build their powerbase for purposes of this specific scenario, which does not preclude or include any of the trimmings that make the difference between the Prince of Peace and one of your timelines or between Kairos's timeline and mine.

I am not trying to preclude Sicily from being included in Staufen lands, but I am opposed to it being included as something that has to be incorporated to meet the scenario's criteria. It doesn't work like that.

This isn't "how can we create this: (insert link to some particular map of an ATL)" and was never meant to be. If the OP implied otherwise in any way shape or form, I apologize for misleading you.

A real pity, since there was a rather nice exchange of ideas going along.

And will hopefully remain so despite my post above pointedly saying that Sicily is not part of the HRE and its incorporation is not required to meet the scenario's criteria in the sense of "uniting/centralizing the HRE".

Again, if you think the Staufen will be able to meet the scenario's criteria with Sicily, that's entirely valid and on topic - its when you pushed it towards "Centralization of the HRE+Sicily, what does this take?" that I responded as I did in the post above.

Nothing personal, but answers to this kind of topic that go down the "why we don't make it easier by splitting this part off" path piss me off as cheating.
Cheating?

What is cheating about suggestions involving not acquiring lands outside the HRE making it easier?

Genuinely confused here.
 
Not arguing, but I do know Nuremburg would have a certain tendency to become the capital by default based on OTL conditions, and don't know much on Munich.

Munich shows up in the 1170s in historical records as part of the Welf Demesne. So IMO it's not exactly ideal...

What I think Eurofed is pointing out is that the Normans, the Pope, and the Empire saw Naples and Sicily as key to control of Italy. This is why there were several imperial invasions before Henry VI conquered with love, not war. [1]

Sicily proposed up the Lombards and the Pope. So I don't think he is crazy to say that this must be dealt with.

[1] Love in this sense being dynastic power politics backed by an army.
 
There's a difference between arguing that the Staufen need Sicily and that the scenario requires Sicily be included in the HRE, if that makes sense.
 
Top