HRE invades Naples and Sicily

Can they produce a valid claim, or at least something that looks like it? The Staufer governed there, but they had died out at this time already. And Sicily too? At this time, it's already part of Aragon after they rebelled against the Anjou in the Sicilian vespers.
 
Wasnt Naples and Sicily considered a Papal fief by that time? I am sure that an invasion to these territories would lead to a permanent fall out between HRE and Papacy... And with a strong Pope in Rome he could have the Imperial Title revoked and given to someone else causing severe chaos in Europe thus opening the way for Ottomans to continue their expansion to Central Europe...
 
IIRC, they had a claim on it , and Frederick II (not the Barbarossa, neither the prussian one: the Hohenstaufen one from Svevia) actually managed to got grab of it by marriage around 1200.
obviously it ended in an enraged Pope, an excommunicated emperor, some rebellious german princes, and the two things fell apart
 
Wasnt Naples and Sicily considered a Papal fief by that time? I am sure that an invasion to these territories would lead to a permanent fall out between HRE and Papacy... And with a strong Pope in Rome he could have the Imperial Title revoked and given to someone else causing severe chaos in Europe thus opening the way for Ottomans to continue their expansion to Central Europe...

If they had a valid claim on these kingdoms, then the papacy would have been in a lot weaker position to oppose an invasion as long as the emperor would have respected the fact that he holds these kingdoms as Papal fiefs.
This doesn't mean that the pope will be happy with this situation, so the Papacy in all likelihood will try to restore independency for these kingdoms. Restoring these kingdoms to independency can be done peacefully, by allowing a younger son of the emperor to inherit these kingdoms; or by destabilizing the empire and promising these kingdoms to any christian prince/noble, who conquers them. However it doesn't mean that this will work; it may very well be possible that the Papacy will have to accept the new situation.
 
If they had a valid claim on these kingdoms, then the papacy would have been in a lot weaker position to oppose an invasion as long as the emperor would have respected the fact that he holds these kingdoms as Papal fiefs.
This doesn't mean that the pope will be happy with this situation, so the Papacy in all likelihood will try to restore independency for these kingdoms. Restoring these kingdoms to independency can be done peacefully, by allowing a younger son of the emperor to inherit these kingdoms; or by destabilizing the empire and promising these kingdoms to any christian prince/noble, who conquers them. However it doesn't mean that this will work; it may very well be possible that the Papacy will have to accept the new situation.

Being a vassal of the Pope would be an unacceptable position for the Emperor.
That would mean to admit defeat on the whole Middle Age power struggle
 
Being a vassal of the Pope would be an unacceptable position for the Emperor.
That would mean to admit defeat on the whole Middle Age power struggle

In the fourteenth century they'd lost already. I reallycan't see any setup in which a fourteenth-century Holy Roman Emperor can muster sufficient forces to march through Northern Italy and invade Sicily. Papal overlordship isn't gpoing to be a big issue here, it's purely notional anyway given the pope's puppet status. The problem is simply going to be power projection capability, lack of.
 
Being a vassal of the Pope would be an unacceptable position for the Emperor.
That would mean to admit defeat on the whole Middle Age power struggle

OTL Charles V and Charles VI were as king of Naples nominally a vassal of the pope for that title, but they also controlled lots of land as truly independent monarchs (although de facto they were just as powerful in Naples).
Furthermore quite some European Christian kingdoms were at one point papal fiefs, IIRC some of the Iberian kingdoms started out this way (at least IIRC Portugal did) and John Lackland, king of England, had to accept the pope as his feudal overlord.
 
OTL Charles V and Charles VI were as king of Naples nominally a vassal of the pope for that title, but they also controlled lots of land as truly independent monarchs (although de facto they were just as powerful in Naples).
Furthermore quite some European Christian kingdoms were at one point papal fiefs, IIRC some of the Iberian kingdoms started out this way (at least IIRC Portugal did) and John Lackland, king of England, had to accept the pope as his feudal overlord.

Uhm
I think you are mistaking the position of a king with that of the emperor.
It is perfectly right for a king to be vassal of the pope, since most catholic kings recognize a spiritual preminence to him.
The holy roman emperor, on the other hand is in a position much more like the ancient Byzantine one: in principle he claims preminence both in wordly and in spiritual matters, i.e. he is both wordly ruler and head of the church.
That's Emperor Orbis Terrarum, imago Christi
(and that's the reason for them having that small orb surmonuted by a cross)
That's all the Middle-age Investiture War was about.
From when Charlemagne was invested by the pope, the popes claim to be higher than the emperors (since they crown them), while the emperors deny that, since their nominal source of power (roman) precede that of the pope.
I did not know the fact that ChV and VI tried that but I assume that it was because they were deeply catholics (IIIRC ChV renounced to the throne and ended as a monk) and at that time the Papacy had already won his contest
 
Uhm
I think you are mistaking the position of a king with that of the emperor.
It is perfectly right for a king to be vassal of the pope, since most catholic kings recognize a spiritual preminence to him.
The holy roman emperor, on the other hand is in a position much more like the ancient Byzantine one: in principle he claims preminence both in wordly and in spiritual matters, i.e. he is both wordly ruler and head of the church.
That's Emperor Orbis Terrarum, imago Christi
(and that's the reason for them having that small orb surmonuted by a cross)
That's all the Middle-age Investiture War was about.
From when Charlemagne was invested by the pope, the popes claim to be higher than the emperors (since they crown them), while the emperors deny that, since their nominal source of power (roman) precede that of the pope.
I did not know the fact that ChV and VI tried that but I assume that it was because they were deeply catholics (IIIRC ChV renounced to the throne and ended as a monk) and at that time the Papacy had already won his contest

The status of papal fief was attached to these kingdoms, and as such the emperor would only be a nominal vassal for these kingdoms (this position would have been recognized, but only when necessary)*, but not in the empire or his other possessions. Or more technically the emperor in his role of king of Naples would accept the pope as his overlord, but as emperor he would claim the position you described.
Somewhat similar for the relation between the Norman and Angevin kings of England and the king of France, the king of England was a vassal of the king of France for his holdings in the kingdom of France (Normandy, Anjou etc.), but as king of England he was equal to the king of France.

*= so if they were to meet eachother, the emperor would have met the pope as emperor and not as the king of Naples ;)
 
Last edited:
The status of papal fief was attached to these kingdoms, and as such the emperor would only be a nominal vassal for these kingdoms (this position would have been recognized, but only when necessary)*, but not in the empire or his other possessions. Or more technically the emperor in his role of king of Naples would accept the pope as his overlord, but as emperor he would claim the position you described.

I am sorry I was not clear about it.
It goes without saying that such a position would be nominal.
But that's precisely what it was all about.
A nominally higher position consented to the Pope to claim that an emperor not crowned by a pope has no value (and this caused a hell of rebellions down the middle ages), and that he (the pope) had the ultimate word on investitures of bishops.
Since so many german city-states were actually under the power of a bishop, that would mean that a lot of german towns would be ruled by a man who is a vassal of the emperor, but who has been selected by the pope
 
Well, Sicily/Naples as a papal fief was a diplomatic ploy of Pope Hadrian IV. against Emperor Frederic I. Barbarossa.
Hadrian couldn't get as much support from Barb as he hoped for against the Normans, so he allied with them against the Emperor.
No Pope ever had any real political or military control over Southern Italy.
(And this should be the prerogative to give it away as a fief.)

Of course, afterwards that construction stuck for some time ...
 
Top