Hohenstaufen-united HRE during colonization

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What would a united HRE in the 1600's do when European colonialism was just beginning? Would they become the largest colonial power, or just another medium sized venture? Keep in mind that this HRE had retained the Lowlands, including all of modern Belgium and Netherlands.
 
It depends. If this is a land based country like OTL France, you can expect that it may have some colonies like the French. Few people going to big areas, like Quebec or Louisiana.
But it really depends. Was there a Reformation? What happened in the HRE? What's the demographic situation of the Empire? Is the HRE really threated by any neighbor? Does it has a real interest in colonizing or expanding their trade?

Because the HRE is more inside Europe and so it's not like England, France, Spain or Portugal.
But then, if there is an important trade activity, comparable to the OTL Dutch or even bigger, we can see the HRE having exploitation colonies, trade posts, similar to the OTL Dutch
 
Why is HRE united? If united along (roughly) OTL lines it would more likely focus on colonizing east rather than some cross-Atlantic venture. Of course those lands would likely have to be taken first.....
 

Deleted member 1487

My vision of the HRE being united under a centralized monarchy with the Hohenstaufen house, starting with Barbarossa surviving the crusades, letting him, his longer living son, and this grandson (who possesses Sicily), centralize the empire into a hereditary monarchy. Italy is pacified after Henry the VI, who doesn't have to deal with the Welf rebellion thanks to butterflies from a longer-lived Barbarossa. The HRE centralizes over 5 generations and becomes hereditary, meaning it takes the path of France and ends up as an absolute monarcy. It comes to financially and militarily dominate its neighbors, France most of all. Italy remains quiet until the Renaissance and breaks away while the HRE is bogged down fighting France.

A reformation like event happens, but no dukes seize on it as a political tool for grabbing power. The Catholic church survives, moderating, mainly because no strong pope ever evolved, and doctrine is more maliable without a strong force opposing change. Catholism still is unified, though several off-shoots have sprung up that are oppressed by the majority. Civil unrest and trouble in the HRE as a result, but solved by decree from the strong monarch.

It is the dominant power on the continent and starts expanding East due to large population increases (18+ million by 1400's). Hiring explorers in the 1500's as part of the race to find new trade routes, new lands with gold are discovered, prompting competition with the Spanish, Portuguese, British, and French for exploitation colonies. The leaders in the push are from the Low Lands, who have a history of using the ocean for trade. Though a land power the HRE also has a moderate sized navy.
 
It's way better now;)

Well I think this HRE has good possibilities. I will put my bets in a colony somewhere in North America for settlers, maybe in Louisiana or in US East Coast. Or maybe, just maybe in Rio de La Plata. Then some Caribbean Islands, maybe some Indonesian Islands or an Indian outpost. Also can have some outposts in Africa.

What I see more possible are the exploitation colonies. But for the settlement colonies it depends on a few things:
-The Germans have the habit to migrate when suffering demographic pressure. What happened and happens with the Ostsiedlung?
Here we can have strong Poland and Hungary, and maybe a union between them both instead of Poland-Lithuania, so Germans will have to go to America.
-How pragmatic the Germans are when colonizing.
-The fact that they don't loose it in a war.
-They need a rather strong navy to defend their colonies. Look at OTL France with England and the UK.

Besides from this, I can see that as there is no true Reformation, there aren't as many protestants as OTL, so there you have way less potential settlers for countries like England.
 
I can't really see the German HRE as being able to hold on to Italy forever. Sooner rather than later the Italians are going to chafe at being ruled by some transalpine king with pretensions of being a Holy "Roman Emperor." Germany being about as centralized as France or Spain in this period is a plausible wager, but Germany and Italy united, together as centralized as France is something else entirely. I could see Italy being similar to OTL - a collection of antagonistic states, recognizing the emperor in name only when he descends to Rome for coronation, quick to return to business as usual when he is home in Germany.

Just my thoughts.
 
I can't really see the German HRE as being able to hold on to Italy forever. Sooner rather than later the Italians are going to chafe at being ruled by some transalpine king with pretensions of being a Holy "Roman Emperor." Germany being about as centralized as France or Spain in this period is a plausible wager, but Germany and Italy united, together as centralized as France is something else entirely. I could see Italy being similar to OTL - a collection of antagonistic states, recognizing the emperor in name only when he descends to Rome for coronation, quick to return to business as usual when he is home in Germany.

Just my thoughts.

Or maybe at some part of their history the Italian cities created a league to oppose the Emperor and rule by themselves. The manage to achieve this, but in fear of being reinvaded they stay in the league, which evolves into a confederation and with time it becomes a country. Then we might have another important player for colonization
 
The best - and in my humble opinion only - chance of a untied HRE is an early and clear victory of the catholic forces in the 30 year war.
This would give the HRE uncounted numbers of settlers as the lutherans would gladly leave.
But I see a lot going east into Russia - much more than in the OTL. There would be a mass exodus to Sweden, Norway and England as well.
In other word not a colonisation but an emigration.
I don't see the HRE going through all the troubles of starting its own colonies. There was no real motivation for it. As long as Spain is in Hapsburg hands there is no need.
After 1700 however it might look different and HRE might get a few of the Spanish colonies in a settlement after the war of the Spanish Succession.
The empty areas such as California(perhaps the whole West Coast) and the Philippines come to mind.
A more state organised colonisation might occure after that. And North Africa would be a prime target for a united HRE in the 18th/19th century, esp if they can hold on to Italy.
 
If the HRE unifies into a centralized state dominating its neighbours, I think we'd see a Dutch approach to colonization, mainly due to the merchants of the big cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Bruegge, Luebeck, Bremen, Hamburg, maybe also italian ones: Genoa and Venice).
The Empire itself will probably rather reluctant to colonize as it will be mainly a land-based power fighting near constant wars.

Nevertheless, unlike the Dutch merchants, those merchants can rely on the vast ressources and populations of the HRE, providing them a by far larger number of emigrants.
 
I can't really see the German HRE as being able to hold on to Italy forever. Sooner rather than later the Italians are going to chafe at being ruled by some transalpine king with pretensions of being a Holy "Roman Emperor." Germany being about as centralized as France or Spain in this period is a plausible wager, but Germany and Italy united, together as centralized as France is something else entirely. I could see Italy being similar to OTL - a collection of antagonistic states, recognizing the emperor in name only when he descends to Rome for coronation, quick to return to business as usual when he is home in Germany.

Just my thoughts.

Ironically when this transalpine went to the cisalpine;) parts of the Empire, it also caused problems in the transalpine part of the empire. Centralization is more probable for these parts seperately, however this doesn't have to mean that they leave the empire.

Regarding the main question it depends on how the empire centralizes and which forces are stimulating the colonization. If it is merchant based, it will be like the OTL Dutch, but with more colonies. OTOH the empire could also end up using a more settlement approach.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I can't really see the German HRE as being able to hold on to Italy forever. Sooner rather than later the Italians are going to chafe at being ruled by some transalpine king with pretensions of being a Holy "Roman Emperor." Germany being about as centralized as France or Spain in this period is a plausible wager, but Germany and Italy united, together as centralized as France is something else entirely. I could see Italy being similar to OTL - a collection of antagonistic states, recognizing the emperor in name only when he descends to Rome for coronation, quick to return to business as usual when he is home in Germany.

Middle Age Italy was not any more inerently prone to decentralization than Middle Age Germany. If the Hohenstaufen Emperors manage to crush particularist German nobles and Italian city-states in the 12th and 13th century, there is no good reason why Italy ought to break away centuries later, barring a truly catastrophic lost war or dynastic crisis. Remember, this is centuries before the birth of modern European nationalism, which is quite likely to be butterflied away or change radically with Germany and Italy having being united into a neo-Roman imperial state for half a millennium. European elites were very mindful of the supranational precedent of the Roman Empire. A successful HRE Emperor's legitimacy to rule would be acknowledged by everyone north and south of the Alps. Also such a polity would be by far the most powerful European state, its claim to be the successor of the Romans would not be questioned. Pretensions my butt.

Anyway, back to the original question. I gave some thought to the topic of colonization by a successful Hohenstaufen empire. Although my scenario has the success of the Hohenstaufen HRE (where Germany and Italy remain united, no question) has butterflies affecting all the Western European monarchies, with the rise of France and Castille being crippled in favor of the success of the Angevin Empire and Aragon-Languedoc. Anyway, ITTL the Hohenstaufen Empire would be a hybrid land and trade power. It would have at its beck and call the manpower of Germany and Italy, but also most of the trade strongholds of Late Middle Age Europe: the Low Countries, northern Italy, Franconia, Bohemia, northern Germany. I speculated that it would colonize north America from Quebec to North Carolina, southern Brazil, Rio de la Plata, and Uruguay region. The Angevins would colonize the Deep South, Mexico, and Cuba. The Aragonese Empire (which would unify Iberia) would colonize southern Mexico, Central America, Gran Colombia, and northern Brazil.
 
Last edited:

Sandmannius

Banned
This centralized and unified HRE will obviously use its North Sea ports in the Low Countries, but it would neccesarily be as seafaring and water-crazy as the OTL Dutch Republic, as this HRE would be very large and full of resources as well as having an enormous power projection and being able to expand east and south, rather than being trapped in between several great powers like the Dutch in OTL. So, maybe this HRE would not be as devoted to spice trading, colonization and/or settlement, but then again, this ATL HRE has more resources to devote to it's navy and more people to settle in the New World, so we might see a greater overseas Dutch/German presence.

But then like in OTL, you'd have a problem with the Dutch, as the entire HRE will now be using the ports in the Low Countries, so the people living there would evolve into a seperate identity, as they still would the rich merchants, the experienced marines and the educated navigators. Then eventually they might desire their independence, as they know that they are the moneymakers and such. I doubt they'd be able to achieve independence against such a power HRE, but this ATL Dutch Revolt would probably be backed by both England and France.

This also brings up another question, what would be the dominant part of the HRE? Northern Italy, the Low Countries, soutern Germany influenced by Austria or north-eastern Germany like OTL?
 

Eurofed

Banned
This centralized and unified HRE will obviously use its North Sea ports in the Low Countries, but it would neccesarily be as seafaring and water-crazy as the OTL Dutch Republic, as this HRE would be very large and full of resources as well as having an enormous power projection and being able to expand east and south, rather than being trapped in between several great powers like the Dutch in OTL. So, maybe this HRE would not be as devoted to spice trading, colonization and/or settlement, but then again, this ATL HRE has more resources to devote to it's navy and more people to settle in the New World, so we might see a greater overseas Dutch/German presence.

I strongly expect that this HRE shall closely remember OTL France in its geopolitical outlook, in that it shall equally divide its energies between extra-European colonization and expansion within Europe.

But then like in OTL, you'd have a problem with the Dutch, as the entire HRE will now be using the ports in the Low Countries, so the people living there would evolve into a seperate identity, as they still would the rich merchants, the experienced marines and the educated navigators. Then eventually they might desire their independence, as they know that they are the moneymakers and such.

But please remind that the Dutch are not going to be the only moneymaking and seafaring merchant elites within the HRE. There are still going to be the Italians too, a strong united HRE in all likelihood boosts Europe into being much more successful vs. the Arabs and Turks, so trade routes towards the East are likely going to remain pretty important, too.

This also brings up another question, what would be the dominant part of the HRE? Northern Italy, the Low Countries, soutern Germany influenced by Austria or north-eastern Germany like OTL?

Well, in all likelihood it shall be polycentric, too big and full of resouces not to be, with several economic and political centers which started to blossom in the High Middle Ages keeping go strong in this vast unified and centralized state: the Low Countries, Northern Italy, Sicily, Franconia, Bohemia, northwestern Germany.
 
To answer the question, we should clear up one misconception explicitly:

powerful is not the same as big.

Yes, a centralized state is more likely to be powerful than a bunch of connected tiny states.
But it is not obvious why a central authority should seek more problems by adding even more different territories to their scope of responsibility.

Look what happened IOTL: There was a appreciable - and partially successful! - push towards centralism in the HRE starting from the end of the 15th century; basically, it got interrupted by the Reformation. But among the first consequences
i) Swiss independence from the HRE was articulated louder and more clearly, and
ii) the Emperor had to acknowledge the de-facto loss of control over most of Italy.

So centralization often leads to smaller, not bigger states.
Looks even logical, doesn't it?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Look what happened IOTL: There was a appreciable - and partially successful! - push towards centralism in the HRE starting from the end of the 15th century; basically, it got interrupted by the Reformation. But among the first consequences
i) Swiss independence from the HRE was articulated louder and more clearly, and
ii) the Emperor had to acknowledge the de-facto loss of control over most of Italy.

Except that this is about a Hohenstaufen-united HRE, and the particularist forces active in the 12th-13th century Switzerland and Italy were not any different from those active within Germany proper, Austria, the Low Countries, or Bohemia. And particularism across the HRE had built much less strong of a power base in the 13th century than in 15th century. Especially as it concerns Italy, it was far too valuable, economically and politically, to be given up by the Emperors, so either the Imperial party wins its quest for centralization in Germany and Italy alike, or it fails in both.

So centralization often leads to smaller, not bigger states.
Looks even logical, doesn't it?

No, not really. In the late phases of a centralization procees, the successful central authority typically uses the power base it built up in the core strongholds to stamp out particularist resistance in the diehard area of the 'traditional' polity. In the phase after that, the harnessed power of the centralized polity is used to expand into 'novel' nearby territories that are not staked by a just as strong or stronger rival.
 
Last edited:
hmmm I see butterflies in the Crusades, Fall of Byzantium, development of Poland and Scandinavia, the Baltic Crusades, the Reconqustia of Iberia, maybe in the development of Russia.... All which equal awesome. :p
 
In the late phases of a centralization procees, the successful central authority typically uses the power base it built up in the core strongholds to stamp out particularist resistance in the diehard area of the 'traditional' polity. In the phase after that, the harnessed power of the centralized polity is used to expand into 'novel' nearby territories that are not staked by a just as strong or stronger rival.

This is completely logical. But in this idealized way, it only works in a (power) vacuum, i.e. without any independent agents outside and without any new trends the leaders didn't anticipate.
 
Top