Hohenstaufen dynasty centralized HRE, German dominated Europe?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

The Hohenstaufen dynasty marked the beginning of the decentralization of Central Europe after the failure of the dynasty to form a French-like government/monarchy that dominated its political realm, resulting in a lot of infighting and increasing breakdown of the politics of Central Europe. However this could have gone the other way and is usually the POD for a centralized Germany/Central Europe on par with France or Britain. Assuming the Hohenstaufen's had successfully managed to institute a hereditary monarchy that was increasingly centralized, say starting with the POD of Barbarossa living and locking in his dynasty's control over the HRE with a stable capital at either Frankfurt or Aachen, would that result in Central Europe/Germany dominating Europe going forward?

The HRE if centralized and well run, probably spinning off Italy as a separate kingdom under a Hohenstaufen branch family to reduce the constant struggle to keep it part of the fold, it would be the biggest and most populous entity in Europe and would pretty much be able to dominate its neighbors of the time. Short of a political breakdown and civil war (pretty much OTL) the Empire would be able to put its energies outward rather than inward; would then the history of Europe be a central entity using its economic/military power to dominate its neighbors and run Europe from 1300 onwards or would some other power or collections of powers have risen to take it down? I guess what I'm asking is whether the balance of power would be locked in early as Central Europe having the central place in European politics as has been developing since the late 1800s, just by the middle ages had it not fractured in that period instead?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
See, whenever I think of a Barbarossa survives timeline, I can't help but think that he'd attempt to control Jerusalem as part of the HRE (if vastly independent), and have to move his centre of power to either end of the Alps so that he can control Italy, control Germany, and project power to Jerusalem. I may be wrong, and he may not seek control of Jerusalem, in which case he has a lot of prestige from that adventure succeeding.

In both scenarios he could consider Jerusalem a good place to send uncooperative nobles that would otherwise resist his attempts to centralize. If they are in Jerusalem, what can they do resist his actions in Europe proper?

The HRE could grow in any number of directions. It could seek to control Naples, or try and beat the snot out of France.
Regarding how to centralize, I expect that we'd see a centralizing HRE seeking to establish a base of power as I said before, in either Austria, or perhaps even Provence - with part of the centralization process being to take territory away from the local rulers.

Long story short - it could be interesting, and Jerusalem could become a long-term dumping ground for resistant nobles. I'd expect significant efforts to conquer Hungary and Illyria/Yugoslavia/Not ERE and attempt to Germanize the areas. Expect the development of significant infrastructure projects at the eastern end of the Alps/NE Italy/SW Hungary as that would be an ideal power base for the HRE.

I'd also expect to see attempts to bring the Kings of France, and the Spains under HRE rule, and to challenge the ERE. Will all this succeed, doubtful. The Jerusalem adventure makes the ERE stronger, and may well lead to the ERE reclaiming the Balkans after it reclaims Anatolia (and maybe Egypt). Another target would be Denmark - a perfect place to set up the Royal Heir? Prince of Denmark = Heir to the Empire?

We could see an attempt to conquer Egypt made by either Roman Emperor to be honest.

End result - there will be more Germans going south east, than north east in this timeline, but yes, the Germans would be holding the balance of power for a very long time. Germany Proper would extend into Hungary, and perhaps Croatia, and the Netherlands may well not evolve into a different nationality.

I don't remember reading a Barbarossa survives and centralizes timeline before, so I look forward to one if you're intending to write it :p
 
Barbarossa was 68 during the Third Crusade, IF he survived the whole ordeal he wouldn't live much beyond 1192, Henry VI's succession was pretty smooth as it was so that was a non issue. In fact, he surviving makes his house weaker, since without Richard's ransom Henry don't get Sicily.

The PoD(s) to have the Staufens alive and kicking is first of all Henry don't dying with a 2 years old son, no Otto IV fiasco and Fred II is a HRE, not King of Sicily first.

Another one is simply preventing them from dying out. Henry was the only of Barbarossa's adult sons to die a natural death.
 

Deleted member 1487

Barbarossa was 68 during the Third Crusade, IF he survived the whole ordeal he wouldn't live much beyond 1192, Henry VI's succession was pretty smooth as it was so that was a non issue. In fact, he surviving makes his house weaker, since without Richard's ransom Henry don't get Sicily.

The PoD(s) to have the Staufens alive and kicking is first of all Henry don't dying with a 2 years old son, no Otto IV fiasco and Fred II is a HRE, not King of Sicily first.

Another one is simply preventing them from dying out. Henry was the only of Barbarossa's adult sons to die a natural death.

Alright, so how do things start playing out with Henry not dying so young?
 
Alright, so how do things start playing out with Henry not dying so young?

He proposed twice to scrap the election system and make hereditary succession the law of the land.The first time it was accepted but didn't get any signatures for it.When he tried to get support into writing,he got rejected.Perhaps he'd try it for a third time.
 

Deleted member 1487

He proposed twice to scrap the election system and make hereditary succession the law of the land.The first time it was accepted but didn't get any signatures for it.When he tried to get support into writing,he got rejected.Perhaps he'd try it for a third time.
What if he succeeds?
 
The Emperor don't need to bribe the electors with privileges and make a hole in the tresuary to confirm his succession.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
The emperor gets more authority.No more bribing electors with privilege and money.More active efforts to cut down the size of the nobles' fiefs and 'rights' I suspect.

Pfft, Rights.

Who needs rights when you've got a one-way ticket to Beirut, Paris of the Middle East?!

Sun, Sea, Sand, and Sacred Sites! The ULTIMATE HOLIDAY DESTINATION!

Disclaimer : So long as you aren't poor, Muslim, Jewish, a member of the Clergy, Orthodox, Italian, Middle Eastern, Norse, Wearing a thick woolen coat, or Geordie. No, seriously, we melt at 30C. It isn't good.

Disclaimer 2 : The one way ticket may or may not involve manacles.
 
Last edited:
Alright, so the monarchy has become hereditary, what does Henry teach his son that prevents the investiture controversy? How does that prevent the kingdom of Sicily issue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erbreichsplan

Well... there isn't really anything extraordinary to do with Frederick II, just a regular education, Henry VI had a really good position in Italy and would continue to do in his reign. I don't much idea in how big his personal demesne was (except he had Meissen), but by proxy he had Swabia and Upper Burgundy through his brothers Philip and Otto and he can always add Saxony should those pesky Welfs rebel once again. :rolleyes:

But the question is: I really don't think the Empire would be "centralized" on the mold of France. It is just so big (spamming from Holstein to Malta) and the geography doesn't really help. I can think of a "federal" (if you can call it) Empire with an working Imperial Diet developing following continuos reigns of Staufer emperors.

Also, try reading "The Prince of Peace", it's pretty much about Henry VI surviving.
 

Deleted member 67076

Well the HRE has a huge problem in that there are effectively two bases of power: Germany and Italy. They make centralization difficult as the emperor has to constantly go back and forth to impose his authority rather than cement rule in one place. More homogenous and less rowdy area.

I think it would be best if the HRE lets Italy go somehow (difficult I'd imagine as Italy is quite wealthy and populated) and instead focuses its efforts on binding Germany into an actual state.
 
I'm of the opinion that Italy was essentially a lost cause for the empire, particularly under Friedrich Barbarossa. His universalist philosophy of empire meant that he had had essentially no allies on the peninsula. As long as his policy was focused on reducing Milanese power, he could at least count on the communes and territorial lords opposed to Milan (and there were many), but what Barbarossa wanted - the complete political, economic, and military subjugation of all Italy, a "renovatio imperii" that would mean the end of autonomy for every city in Italy, even his anti-Milanese allies - ended up driving even the (formerly) most rabidly pro-Imperial communes into the Lombard League. He was, at the same time, opposed by practically every other regional power: the Pope, the Sicilians, even the Greeks who went around funding anti-Imperial communes.

What Barbarossa wanted was fundamentally incompatible with reality, and it's a testament to his skill and tenacity that he managed to stave off the inevitable for so long. He would have been infinitely better served by leaving Italy to the dogs and concentrating his considerable resources in Germany.

But for Barbarossa, my feeling is that such a course of action would require nothing less than a brain transplant.
 
Best way to centralize the HRE is to stop it from forming. Otto the Great never conquers Italy, and both Germany and Italy get their own kings who can focus entirely on one realm.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Probably the best solution could be a Hohenstaufen Viceroy of Italia. As much as I know I suggested an Austrian base of power, this could be another solution.

Rather than direct control, the Emperor essentially uses the Viceroy as a middle-man between the Italian states and himself. Give the Viceroy some territories (say, taken from Venice, or non Imperial territories) and funding both from Italy and some subsidies from Germany. Make it so his troops are recruited from various parts of Germany and you have a small standing army to directly impact the Italians, backed by the German levies if needed.

Say that the Viceroy has power outside of the Italian cities, but is only an Imperial Representative within, it is a small step towards centralization. Italians pay taxes to the Viceroy, who in turn pays the majority to the Emperor, spending the remainder on Italian projects outside the cities/within if practical, and funding the standing forces. Sell it with the line that the Viceroy has a responsibility to protect the cities rights from the Emperor, and to protect them from outside aggression - and potentially mediate disputes without warfare.

The Italians all win in some way shape or form, the Emperors get a smidgen of centralization by compromising, but have a patsy to take the blame, who controls the territory outside the cities. Note - who says that the Viceroy hasn't got power in new cities?

Now admittedly there are details, compromises, etc that would be needed - but The German Emperor with the Viceroy of Italy seems more practical than the Emperor of Germany and Italy. (Less mountains to cross too!)
 
There is a Viceroy in Italy,it's the Imperial Vicar of Italy,but as far as I can tell,the HRE's system of setting up Imperial Vicars isn't that effective.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
There is a Viceroy in Italy,it's the Imperial Vicar of Italy,but as far as I can tell,the HRE's system of setting up Imperial Vicars isn't that effective.

Hence why it isn't like those vicars. The vicars seem to be empowered Princes, where this is about a non-hereditary viceroy position that can be assigned to anyone. Ideally someone who isn't a landed noble already. Otherwise it is too entrenched in long-term dynastic issues, rather than the responsibilities of the office. Totally different office.
 
Hence why it isn't like those vicars. The vicars seem to be empowered Princes, where this is about a non-hereditary viceroy position that can be assigned to anyone. Ideally someone who isn't a landed noble already. Otherwise it is too entrenched in long-term dynastic issues, rather than the responsibilities of the office. Totally different office.
I agree.Whenever the HRE crushes a rebellion,and whenever the emperor takes that land,what seems to happen is that he generally distributes that land to his supporters instead of setting up an administration where a non-hereditary steward/governor reports directly to the emperor unlike the French Kings.
 
Last edited:
Top