Holy Roman Empire seen as a real Roman Empire?

[Basileus_Komnenos]

julius Nepos is never overthrown by Orestes and has a decent reign where the situation in the west solidifies. There’s no great reconquests besides retaking a few nearby places like the Mediterranean islands and southern Gaul. The next couple of decades are nice and the Nepos dynasty basically does what odaecer and theodoric did when it comes to rebuilding Italy and it’s institutions. Things went south for the WRE (again) when the plague hit Italy hard and left it open to the lombards (but a decade or two later than iotl). The emperors appealed to their eastern allies but they got little by way of help as the eastern empire was stretched thin.

This Italy even after the plague would still be a major power. The amount of damage the Gothic Wars did to Italy left it scarred and a shell of itself. Large cities like Milan were razed to the ground, the aqueducts of cites like Rome were destroyed which saw people fleeing the cities, the entire Roman governmental system that was left intact by the Ostrogoths in otl was in shambles. The actual Roman army was also exhausted and the Eastern Treasury was near bankrupt.

How would the Eastern Empire be stretched thin here? The financial burden from the added war is removed along with the soldiers dead from the fighting. If anything the plague would be a big hit, but the Eastern Roman army would still be intact.

The Lombards only migrated to Italy after the Gepid Kingdom was destroyed which created a power vacuum that saw them move to the devastated Italy in otl. With an intact Italy that rebuilds under Western Roman leadership under the Nepos dynasty, the Lombards wouldn't have had a chance.

In this crazy TL Justinian still takes NA (and gives some money and cheap grain to the west in compensation) but mainly focused on fighting the Persians. He won and cemented an advantageous peace that lasted decades but could not send much aid to his western allies. The western emperors lose about as much territory as the East did to the lombards iotl and barely hang on for the next 150 years.

This idea seems very ASB. This is something that Justinian would never really do. The major reason why he wanted to invade the West was because there was no more Emperor and he saw it as his duty to restore Roman rule in the West as the next Constantine. He also hated the fact that Italy and the Pope was under the thumb of a heretical Arian King. The Roman Senate had basically been in talks with Justin I in the hopes that he would depose Theoderic. But with a Western Rome in power, Justinian has no cause or reason fro war. If anything he might focus on Persia.

When the East tried earlier in otl to retake Africa, it was done in understanding that the lands go to the Western half of the Empire. North Africa was part of the dejure lands of the Western half of the Empire.

he western emperors lose about as much territory as the East did to the lombards iotl and barely hang on for the next 150 years. At some point the lombards decided to rid the world of the Western Roman emperors once and for all. They attack and in the opening battle kill the emperor and his heirs. The pope and senate ask for aid but the East is weak (same as in iotl) so they ask the Franks for aid.

How does the West fall so easily? The Eastern Empire without the Gothic Wars is very strong compared to otl even with the plague. Without the 20 years long total war fighting between Persia and Rome after Maurice's death, the Eastern Roman Army would not have been bankrupt and sapped of manpower. Plus there's no way that the Pope would really readily accept a Frank becoming Roman Emperor. The native Romans wouldn't accept this. Odoacer was of both Germanic and Roman origin and yet he still didn't dare proclaim himself Emperor. So this alternate Carolus Rex would be seen as a usurper, and would invite war with the East.

In return for becoming the emperor Charlamagne must defeat the lombards. Which he does with great joy as being the emperor is a big deal. Thus the HRE is a continuation of the WRE as Charlemagne was granted the imperial purple by the remains of the western government.

Where would the core of this Empire be? Italy here is more intact than in otl. So it would be appealing to setup shop here. Charlemagne was also removed from the fall of the Western Roman Empire by 300 years. The Carolingian Dynasty only rose to prominence because of Charles Martel fighting at the battle of Tours. But without the Gothic Wars, the Eastern Empire is strong enough to resist the Rashidun Caliphate along with the Sassanid Persians since they aren't bled white from civil war. The Franks also divided up lands among sons who fought each other. If Western Rome is still intact, then the endurance of Latin Roman culture is stronger with the actual heart of the Roman world still intact meaning that French might just be a dialect of Latin in upper Gaul/Germany rather than the very divergent language of otl it became. The Franks would also likely be rapidly assimilated into Roman culture because there was likely only a couple hundred thousand of them compared to the many millions of Gallo-Romans, Illyro-Romans, and the Romans of Italy still living within the Empire. So the Franks would be very Romanized kinda like the Visigoth were in otl but to a higher degree. I think the comparison would be like in China with how groups like the Mongols or the Manchurian Qing who invaded and conquered China became Sinicized and assimilated into Chinese culture.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

For the majority of history in the Latin world, the people saw the Holy Roman Empire or the Kingdom of France and certainly the two together as the legitimate heirs of Rome as designed by the Papacy and by right of transmission of tongue, customs and tradition. The opinions of later people on the matter, such as Voltaire are no matter, nor does the supposed necessity for changing the Empire's composition. All that matters is maintenance of the Empire and its relation to the Papacy. That means the Hohenstaufen do not make their grand gamble for power, they limit themselves conservatively to their realm of authority and accept Papal lordship and the Empire solidifies and focuses upon other entities in Europe. Should the spiraling out of control that exhibited the old order of Europe did not occur, we would have a continuity from the Middle Ages into the modern era, as opposed to clear and definite breaks in society and changes fundamentally in order, authority and political ideology. Imagine a Europe operating in a sense not far removed from Japan or China entering the modern era, ever in touch with a supposed medieval notion of authority, kingship and legitimacy.

Rather than otl's repudiation of universal European entities, the repudiation of European medieval political structuring and without the notions of separation between Classical Europe, Medieval Europe and Modern Europe (surely too, the artificial separation between Latin and Germanic that did not exist in the Medieval period on the continent, but did so in Britain to a degree).

Linguistic matters do not matter. If linguistic matters were the matter, then the HRE would be seen legitimate. Through the entire Middle Ages, the vastness of Latin circulation arising from the Empire is undeniable and far exceeding Latin produced from anywhere. One might even gander to study secular medieval compositions in songs from the Empire and note the exquisite Latin used therein. This was not as modern German nationalists liked to consider, a Germanic entity and solely a forerunner for the Germany of 1871; nay it was a far more complex creature than this. It fundamentally was a Frankish entity and hence held a direct lineage to the year 509 in the crowing of Clovis I and it remained attached to this reality through the entire Medieval Era.

Opining upon the Italian question is also worth mentioning. Dante Alighieri refers to the Holy Roman Empire as the ideal Lords of Rome and of Italy. Even describing the Holy Roman Empire as the only true heir of Augustus in his work, De Monarchia. So certainly, as late as 1306, the HRE was seen as King of Italy, a title that the Empire continued to hold until 1648, this war and the prior disgraces the HRE suffered is what paints our modern opinion of the HRE.

It should be mentioned as an addendum; the Empire was technically the King over Italy up to Abruzzi, that includes the city of Rome and the other areas of Papal allodial holdings. However, as per the Donation of Pepin, these lands as were the entirety of Church lands in Europe, completely allodial and could not be revoked. It was a statement of the Pope's feudal superiority to the Frankish lords of Europe. Nevertheless, the Emperor was still king of these lands, even receiving feudal dues from most of the Papal State lands during the reign of Innocent III, which Innocent III nor his successors had a problem with.

The problem in Italy, as I have mentioned elsewhere, was a discussion of feudal authority, wherein the Emperors wished to assert a dominance of feudal law above the Papacy; meanwhile the Papacy attempted to maintain its position as feudal lord. The end result of said conflict, was the entropy and destruction of universal entities within Europe, namely the Crown of France, the HRE and the Papacy. The Papacy found itself insular in its role and took to focusing primarily to increasingly mediocre actions/ambitions and fine points of theology,, the French crown became simply defined by its crown and of increasing the wealth of the interior of Paris, it gave up the old ideals of an universal Frankish empire spanning Europe and conquering the Holy Lands,,, and the Empire denigrated into a mass of diverging German states deprived of its old position as the 'Heart of Europe' and weakened by war, religious strife and keenly aware of its inadequacies, in retrospect, the HRE has become to Germany but an old expression of the modern Germany, rather than an universal European Empire.

So to change the modern European outlook on these topics, requires a different course of action in the Middle Ages.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I mean in the first 300 years or so after Otto it was seen as the true heir by its inhabitants, (and England, and France, and Christian parts of Spain) for some reason unfathomable. And the people of Italy outside HRE control resented the Byzantines for being Greek imposters and the Holy Roman Emperors as German ones... So all you have to do is turn it from a dysfunctional loose alliance into a true state, even a feudal one like England, and the people inside will keep deluding themselves. When it comes to ideas about sovereignty and legitimacy, fake it till you make it will apply in a few generations.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I mean in the first 300 years or so after Otto it was seen as the true heir by its inhabitants, (and England, and France, and Christian parts of Spain) for some reason unfathomable. And the people of Italy outside HRE control resented the Byzantines for being Greek imposters and the Holy Roman Emperors as German ones... So all you have to do is turn it from a dysfunctional loose alliance into a true state, even a feudal one like England, and the people inside will keep deluding themselves. When it comes to ideas about sovereignty and legitimacy, fake it till you make it will apply in a few generations.

The HRE was often more centralized than the Abbasid caliphate or French kingdom. Do you call the Abbasid caliphate or the French monarchy a loose alliance?

A loose alliance is the fragile and awkward secret alliance between the Ottoman Empire and France or Assyria with the Median tribes in the reign of Assur-Hadon. Not the strongest and most dominant collection of three realms in Europe aside from the Papacy, during the Middle Ages.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

The HRE was often more centralized than the Abbasid caliphate or French kingdom. Do you call the Abbasid caliphate or the French monarchy a loose alliance?

At many points in history the HRE was more centralized than its neighbors like France.

I agree a lot of times it was more centralized at certain points in time, but France got much more centralized later on.

The HRE hit its peak at the time of Charles V and then sort of... blew up. France had much more effective control of its own territory in Louis XIII's time than the Hapsburgs ever had control of the HRE outside their personal domain. Inside their personal domains they of course had power.

Basically, if a state becomes centralized after sometime, historians tend to look at the predecessor state as kingdoms destined for unity rather than a collection of territories. If its "peak" did not reach a note high enough, we tend to remember all the squabbles. In the high middle ages, the Holy Roman Empire was the strongest realms of western Europe (or western plus central if you go by today's definition), but because its high point "wasn't good enough"

Since people in plenty of places considered the HRE Roman, especially in itself, all it has to do is not explode due to the Reformation. If people of the middle ages think of the HRE as Roman and nothing breaks the unity, inertia will make people continue to think of it as Roman up until the present day. Maybe some critical analysts might note the bureaucracy isn't a continue of August's time or even a faithful reconstruction but made from scratch, some might note that Roman Emperors never needed a Christian religious official to legitimize them, some might notice that a lot of traditions were kind of dropped in the many decades between the collapse of Roman rule and the "re-creation," some might have noticed that classical Rome was a multilingual entity with Latin as the working language and modern "Rome" was a multilingual entity with... probably a bunch of working languages. But in the common consciousness, if the HRE didn't blow up, it'd be thought of as Roman.

 

[Mario]

Simply: avoid Verdun and similar partitions and keep France (and obvioulsy Italy) inside the HRE.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The HRE hit its peak at the time of Charles V and then sort of... blew up. France had much more effective control of its own territory in Louis XIII's time than the Hapsburgs ever had control of the HRE outside their personal domain. Inside their personal domains they of course had power.

That was not the peak of the HRE. That was the peak of the power of the Habsburg dynasty which shouldn't be confused with the HRE. The Habsburgs were unable to effectively utilize their control over the Duchy of Burgundy, Milan, Kingdom of Sicily, Aragon, Castile, Hungary, Archduchy of Austria, etc because all his lands were divided each with their own separate laws and institutions. The HRE was not unified states here, and was highly fragmented. Had the HRE been more of an empire and a unitary state like it had been under the Ottonians of Hohenstaufens, Charles V probably could have actually created the universal Empire he had aspired to create for Christendom. The HRE under someone like Charlemagne, the Ottonians, the Salians, or the Hohenstaufens before Frederick II should be considered the peak of the Empire. After Frederick II's death, an interregnum began that saw the Empire fragment over the centuries with the Empire becoming more of a loose confederation of states that paid nominal lip-service to the Emperor.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Simply: avoid Verdun and similar partitions and keep France (and obvioulsy Italy) inside the HRE.

As I said, people in the HRE considered the HRE Roman (for some reason? Name confused them I guess?). Just keep it together, make the people of Rome consider it truly Roman, complete centralizations, and inertia will make people continue seeing it as Roman.

 

[piratedude]

Should the spiraling out of control that exhibited the old order of Europe did not occur, we would have a continuity from the Middle Ages into the modern era, as opposed to clear and definite breaks in society and changes fundamentally in order, authority and political ideology. Imagine a Europe operating in a sense not far removed from Japan or China entering the modern era, ever in touch with a supposed medieval notion of authority, kingship and legitimacy.

I wonder if in such a world, after the fall of the byzantines, the pope would recognize another monarch as an eastern emperor or if he would transfer the authority and claims of the east to the HREmperor so that there's one 'unified' empire

 

[Albrecht.Bright]

This one is interesting.

The East and the West drifted too far, by the time of the collapse of the WRE. HRE was founded around three and a half Centuries later.

To actually win the favor of the ERE, they might have to achieve something quite big. Conquering Iberia from the Arab-Moor Caliphate or England from the Anglo-Saxons may be too big to expect. Probably build an empire that spans Germany, Austria, France(whole), Italy(whole), the West Slavic countries, Hungary(aka Pannonia) and move the capital back to Rome? Could we expect? Its a bit of a stretch, though but these are actually the core Catholic regions in Europe before Spain was conquered by the Northern Iberian Kingdoms(who were also Catholic). There's always a but, however. And in this case, a very large one.

HRE was some kind of a Multi Ethnic and a relatively decentralized entity and a reversion to a WRE like system(closest to which, was ERE, by then) when the Ethnic, Political and Linguistic divisions are so huge may never happen. The West was too divided by then. For that matter, the later Orthodox Slavic nations never "reunited" with the Byzantines, though they kept showing loyalty, now and then. We cannot expect a Caliphate like rise and expansion in the former WRE regions, by the HRE.

So what else? Byzantines brought to their knees by a much more stronger Arab Muslim/Persian invasion in the 7th-8th Century or a disease that collapses their economy? This could leave them seeking help and offer recognition to the HRE in return for help.

 

[Bloodmage]

England from the Anglo-Saxons may be too big to expect.

England is christian I dont think that would do anything
Also the thing is that the hre arose three centuries after the fall of the empire(western half)while the roman empire still existed in the east and had political continuity with rome
The Catholic world migth believe that the hre is the true roman empire but orthodox christians and muslims will believe that the vasileia Rhomaion is the roman empire

 

[Albrecht.Bright]

England is christian I dont think that would do anything
Also the thing is that the hre arose three centuries after the fall of the empire(western half)while the roman empire still existed in the east and had political continuity with rome
The Catholic world migth believe that the hre is the true roman empire but orthodox christians and muslims will believe that the vasileia Rhomaion is the roman empire

I mentioned that Anglo-Saxon England and Arab-Moor-Visigoth(Christian North and Muslim South) Iberia were strong and had organized systems by then unlike the other neighbors of the HRE by then. Conquering them isn't going to be possible, easily.

As for the legitimacy, I meant Byzantines and HRE considering each other, the "other half", legitimately and act so.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I wonder if in such a world, after the fall of the byzantines, the pope would recognize another monarch as an eastern emperor or if he would transfer the authority and claims of the east to the HREmperor so that there's one 'unified' empire

From what I understand, the Papacy transferred the title that Byzantium held to the Franks; that being Roman Empire. Once the Byzantines reached a detente with the Papacy and relations came to be somewhat amiable, the Papacy ceremonially returned their title and regranted them the ability to appoint bishops. In this period, you had a Holy Roman Emperor recognized by the Papacy and Byzantium and an Eastern Roman Empire recognized by the HRE and Papacy.

Should the Byzantine empire fall while the HRE is existing, perhaps to an invasion of grand kind, the Papacy could simply double down on the HRE. However, it is also possible for the Papacy to direct crusaders to go and retake the title. In that respect, the Hungarians, Bulgars, Normans or general Latin Europeans, would be eligible.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

This one is interesting.

The East and the West drifted too far, by the time of the collapse of the WRE. HRE was founded around three and a half Centuries later.

To actually win the favor of the ERE, they might have to achieve something quite big. Conquering Iberia from the Arab-Moor Caliphate or England from the Anglo-Saxons may be too big to expect. Probably build an empire that spans Germany, Austria, France(whole), Italy(whole), the West Slavic countries, Hungary(aka Pannonia) and move the capital back to Rome? Could we expect? Its a bit of a stretch, though but these are actually the core Catholic regions in Europe before Spain was conquered by the Northern Iberian Kingdoms(who were also Catholic). There's always a but, however. And in this case, a very large one.

HRE was some kind of a Multi Ethnic and a relatively decentralized entity and a reversion to a WRE like system(closest to which, was ERE, by then) when the Ethnic, Political and Linguistic divisions are so huge may never happen. The West was too divided by then. For that matter, the later Orthodox Slavic nations never "reunited" with the Byzantines, though they kept showing loyalty, now and then. We cannot expect a Caliphate like rise and expansion in the former WRE regions, by the HRE.

So what else? Byzantines brought to their knees by a much more stronger Arab Muslim/Persian invasion in the 7th-8th Century or a disease that collapses their economy? This could leave them seeking help and offer recognition to the HRE in return for help.

Why not simply use a POD when the HRE is already seen as the direct heir of Roman by most Latin/Germanic peoples within Europe? Just take this timeline and press it into the modern day. Without the Renaissance and Enlightenment and the other innovations regarding identity in Europe, matters would remain a general universality of entities. Hence, Europe would much more resemble China in terms of entities of universality, despite ethnic, linguistic and cultural difference.

Nevertheless, the ERE did recognize the HRE later with Papal detente. However, even before this, in 510, the ERE recognized the Franks as their representatives and Roman enforcers in the northern reaches of Europe. Hence, they were recognized as part of the Roman military and geopolitical system. Prior this, none can deny the Frankish status as military vassals and soldiers under the WRE, items that Clovis I was still claiming when he invaded the domain of Alaric II, one of the chief foes of the ERE.

With that in mind, that the Franks were recognized as Roman governors and partners in governance, we begin to form even larger levels of legitimacy. For the hRE, more than anything, is the continuation of the greater Frankish realm.

Though, I would agree, perhaps the most great tragedy in terms of universal entities is the failure of Europe to conjoin the West Frankish realm or the Crown of France to that of the Holy Roman Empire and the other three composite crowns. The supposed four crowns of Europe, spoken of at times, with whom the entirety of Europe and Christendom rests. Thus, the inclusion of France into the other composite realm, would at least remove any opposing claims to the universality of the Frankish realm (as for the entire middle ages, the West Francian entity, was claiming essentially, full authority over Europe, at least passively).

Why would the capitol need to be in Rome? The HRE did not require a capitol anyway, only a court wherein the lords resided for a time. Many realms even in that period operated in this manner. Even so, Rome was technically within the HRE, the Papacy simply was the allodial holder of the city and of its lands surrounding, alongside 1/3 of Europe. As per the Donation of Pepin, the lands owned by the Papacy, were direct holdings that were superior to that of Imperial direct holdings and above civil and custom law. The HRE, should be pleased that they are technical lords over Rome and can receive dues from much of the Papal vassals and likewise receive loans from the Papacy.