Italian dominated Holy Roman Empire, whats it look like and can it revive a legitimate Roman state.

Nirgal

Banned
Didn't Otto III try to make Rome the HRE's capital before dying of fever? If he doesn't die early, he could have decades to consolidate his rule and Romanize the HRE.
He couldn't even effectively fight the Roman aristocracy, let alone a hypothetical coalition of the cities of northern and central Italy who desire self rule. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it's really improbable.
 
He couldn't even effectively fight the Roman aristocracy, let alone a hypothetical coalition of the cities of northern and central Italy who desire self rule. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it's really improbable.
The Northern Italian cities aren't the great political and economical powerhouses of the 12th to 13th centuries by Otto's time, his biggest opponents are going to be the German grandees that are going to resent being sidelined like that, the Emperor may not like it, but Germany is the heartland of the Empire and the source of his power, not Italy, he would learn it eventually, although not necessarily without some revolts (that I think he would still end up on top, the Ottonians still had power and standing on the German nobles to overcome a great rebellion in spite of all, but that would send a message).
 

Nirgal

Banned
The Northern Italian cities aren't the great political and economical powerhouses of the 12th to 13th centuries by Otto's time, his biggest opponents are going to be the German grandees that are going to resent being sidelined like that, the Emperor may not like it, but Germany is the heartland of the Empire and the source of his power, not Italy, he would learn it eventually, although not necessarily without some revolts (that I think he would still end up on top, the Ottonians still had power and standing on the German nobles to overcome a great rebellion in spite of all, but that would send a message).
You're right, the cities aren't powerhouses, but allied together (as they would be against any external threat at this time) they are gonna be a daunting task to subdue, especially for an Otto facing trouble at home and barely able to stand against the Roman aristocracy.
 
I think all of the above answers failed to acknowledge the main reason OTL HRE lost Italy - Holstein-to-Sicily is a logistic nightmare, well beyond 'mere' political will.

If the Emperor transfers his political center to Italy, then Germany becomes very hard to hold onto instead - a reversal of OTL roles would happen, with German lands gradually drifting away (and likely be more successful in trying a separate unification under a native King). There's good reason why, for all of his splendor, Frederick II is seen as having weakened Imperial power in Germany enough to be a factor in the eventual decline of Imperial cohesion.

I would strive for a very early POD, perhaps preventing the power vacuum of the early 10th Century; only then there is a slight chance of a string of capable Emperors holding onto both in a different, meaningful manner so that some kind of 'Roman' identity grows strong enough to survive the eventual challenges. That also requires weaker Byzantium (to avoid tussles over Southern Italy) and would lead to a weaker Papacy, butterflying the Reformation as we know it OTL anyways.
 

Deleted member 92195

I think all of the above answers failed to acknowledge the main reason OTL HRE lost Italy - Holstein-to-Sicily is a logistic nightmare, well beyond 'mere' political will.

If the Emperor transfers his political center to Italy, then Germany becomes very hard to hold onto instead - a reversal of OTL roles would happen, with German lands gradually drifting away (and likely be more successful in trying a separate unification under a native King). There's good reason why, for all of his splendor, Frederick II is seen as having weakened Imperial power in Germany enough to be a factor in the eventual decline of Imperial cohesion.

I would strive for a very early POD, perhaps preventing the power vacuum of the early 10th Century; only then there is a slight chance of a string of capable Emperors holding onto both in a different, meaningful manner so that some kind of 'Roman' identity grows strong enough to survive the eventual challenges. That also requires weaker Byzantium (to avoid tussles over Southern Italy) and would lead to a weaker Papacy, butterflying the Reformation as we know it OTL anyways.

It's logistical nightmare because there are so many dynamic and moving parts to Frederick's strategic, tactical and operational situation. I think it's possible to create the birth of a nation but it requires an individual to think beyond all comprehension, which I have read Frederick was. I think you have to start with an honest, self-reflective and analytical view on how to build a state from scratch, which Frederick did not start with, and then plan and build from there.
 
While normally the population of Germany would make this not likely, what If at some point the Holy Roman Empire takes control of the entirety of Italy. After this at some point the Renaissance or something similer occurs boosts the economic power of Italy. From charts I have seen from this period while north Italy is not likely to dominate the HRE, the Italian peninsula as a whole had a population comparable, if not larger then the German population of the HRE and a larger economy as well. So my question is what does a Italian dominated Holy roman empire look like, what is it likely to do diplomatically and expansion wise and finally if a Protestant reformation still occurs how does that look with Italy added to the mix as a more dedicated participant does Italy save Catholicism or will the rebellion expand and take on a more anti Italian role, will the southern German states stay with Italy and if the HRE eventually fractures, with less Germans in the HRE which would expand Italian control more, is there any potential for the HRE to serve as a basis for reviving a legitimate roman state by unifying a Italian dominated HRE down the roud?
Maybe If the Italian cities are economically more powerful than German merchants. Maybe butterflies the Hanseatic League for example. Maybe the Eastern colonization goes not so well for Germans, Slawic princedoms persist and resist the Germans. Maybe Italy becomes the powerhouse of HRE, the German Princes depend in The Italians. Maybe Italian becomes court Language of HRE. German Emperor's residence is in Italy, also the Reichstag is know in an Italian city rather than Worms.
 

Deleted member 92195

The reason for HRE decentralization was because in 1220 and 1232 Frederick gave away what little power he had in Germany to the princes. This is confirmed by the following two texts. I quote

The first text:

"The Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis ("Treaty with the princes of the church") was decreed on 26 April 1220 by Frederick II as a concession to the German bishops in return for their co-operation in the election of his son Henry as King. It was an important source of law of the Holy Roman Empire, and was counted among its constitutional documents by the editors of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

In this law Frederick II relinquished a number of important Royal rights (Regalia) to the spiritual princes. Among other things, the bishops received the rights to mint coins and levy tolls in the German part of the Holy Roman Empire and to build fortifications. Moreover, they gained the right to hold courts in their lordships and to receive the assistance of the King or the Emperor in carrying out the sentences passed there. Acceptance of the sentences by the King or Emperor was guaranteed: condemnation by the ecclesiastical courts automatically meant condemnation and punishment by the Royal or Imperial courts as well. Therefore, the pronouncement of excommunication by an ecclesiastical court was invariably followed by the sentence of outlawry from the King or the Emperor.

The decreeing of this law, taken in conjunction with the later Statutum in favorem principum, which granted similar concessions to the secular or lay princes, made the power and influence of the spiritual territorial princes in relation to the Empire and the towns extraordinarily great. Frederick's aim was to leave the Empire north of the Alps secure under the direct rule of the princes, allowing him to concentrate his efforts on the southern part of the Empire. This rule of the land by the princes was nevertheless secured at the expense of the centralised power of the monarchy."

The second text:

"The Statutum in favorem principum ("Statute in favour of the princes") of 1231, reaffirmed in 1232, counts as one of the most important sources of law of the Holy Roman Empire on German territory.

In May 1231 Frederick II's son Henry, King of Germany, issued the grant under pressure from the German secular princes during his rebellion against his father. The terms were very similar to those conceded to the ecclesiastical princes or bishops in the Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis at the time of the Henry's coronation (in 1220), conferring similar rights. Frederick II confirmed the grant in May 1232.

In this law, the Emperor relinquished a number of important Royal rights ("Regalia") to the secular princes. Among other things, they received the rights to mint coins and levy tolls in the German part of the Holy Roman Empire. In particular, however, Frederick granted them the right of approval over any legislation proposed in future by the Emperor.

The decreeing of this law together with the previous Confoederatio made the power and influence of the territorial princes in relation to the Empire and the towns extraordinarily great. Frederick's aim was to leave his Empire north of the Alps secure under the direct rule of the princes, allowing him to concentrate his efforts on the southern part of the Empire. This rule of the land by the princes was nevertheless secured at the expense of the centralised power of the monarchy."

Analysis:

Frederick believed he was ultimately Sicilian in his training, lifestyle, and temperament, despite inheriting Norman and German blood, thus he always ruled from Sicily. This can be seen as the pivotal reason for why he gave away what little power the emperor had in these two pieces of legislation. He probably thought by giving power to the German princes would assist the state in functioning more independently, the problem is, the HRE was already decentralized. Thus giving away these powers made the emperor powerless.

Frederick did not think 'inclusively' of lands he ruled, thus this requires one literally to think differently:

What has happened in the state in the past:
  • Circumstances revolving around Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI
  • Erbreichsplan: plan to change the Holy Roman Empire from an elective to a hereditary monarchy. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erbreichsplan
What is the current/past circumstance of the state and what is happening in the state now:

All states are based on three important factors. The Holy Roman Empire:
  • Power structure is: Empire (Integration)
  • Power source is: Aristocracy (power of few)
  • Power ideology is: Feudalism (socio-economic ideology)
What will the state look like in the future:

HRE aimed to be the legitimate successor to the Roman Empire, therefore the goal should be:
  • Power structure is: Empire (Integration)
  • Power source is: Despotism/Autocracy (power of one)
  • Power ideology is: Absolute monarchy (socio-economic ideology)

Interestingly Frederick implemented serious reform in the Kingdom of Sicily that was not be altered until 1819. This reform was the Constitutions of Melfi or Liber Augustalis. I quote:

"The Constitutions of Melfi, or Liber Augustalis, were a new legal code for the Kingdom of Sicily promulgated on 1 September 1231 by Emperor Frederick II. It was given at Melfi, the town from which Frederick's Norman ancestors had first set out to conquer the Mezzogiorno two centuries earlier. Originally a reform of the Assizes of Capua of 1220, themselves his reform of the Assizes of Ariano of 1140, the Constitutions formed the basis of Sicilian law for the next six centuries.

The author of the Constitutions is purported to be Frederick himself, though Giacomo Amalfitano, Archbishop of Capua, appears as an influence as well. He was even reproved by the pope for accepting and advising clauses contrary to the wishes of the church. Traditionally, the work has been attributed to Pier delle Vigne, but it is almost certain that, while Frederick, Giacomo and Pier had their hand in it, the Liber is the product of months of work by a committee.

The Constitutions were written in Latin and translated into Greek before their promulgation. They were meant to apply, as with previous Sicilian law, to all the peoples of the realm: Lombards, Greeks, Saracens, Germans, Jews. The 253 clauses are divided into three books:

The first regards public law (107 clauses; one of them missing in all manuscripts)
The second regards judicial procedure (52 clauses)
The third regards feudal, private, and penal law (94 clauses)
The Constitutions, like the Assizes before them, strengthened the power of the king and diminished the power of his feudatories. The centralising and bureaucratising tendencies of Roger II's legislation continued a century later in the Constitutions. It also continued to emphasise the sacral role and God-given right to rule of the monarch. Frederick II wrote in the Constitutions that "we, whom He elevated beyond hope of man to the pinnacle of the Roman Empire.

Militarily, the Constitutions prohibited bearing arms without permission. A standing Saracen army was created to prevent the king from having to call up the unreliable barons, surely angered by the Constitutions. These, the feudatories, were gravely affected in other ways, too. For example, the sale of fiefs was banned, putting an end to subinfeudation, and all vassals were subject to the king's taxes and other imposts.

Ecclesiastically, the Constitutions affected the bishops as they did all great landholders, but they also affected them in unique ways. The clergymen were made subject to the common courts. They were deprived also of judgement over heretics, prohibited from acquiring lands, and forced to sell inheritances.

Also like the great dioceses and baronies, the cities were affected by the centralising laws which removed their powers and made them more directly subject to not only the king, but his ministers as well. Cities could not become communes, as many in Northern Italy had, and were prohibited from electing consuls or podestàs, on pain of sack and pillage. Like the baronage, the cities were deprived of rights of penal justice. These were transferred to the king and his magistrates alone.

These magistrates or ministers became a more important class. Fewer and fewer noblemen served the king as more and more simple freemen were raised to power. The magistrates were elected for a year pending reaffirmation and received a salary from the state. This made them loyal to the king and his administration, for without it they were nothing. The great officers of the Regno were the ancient ammiratus ammiratorum, the grand protonotary (or logothete), great Chamberlain, great seneschal, great chancellor, great constable, and master justiciar. The last was the head of the Magna Curia, the court of the king (his curia regis) and the final court of appeal. The Magna Curia Rationum, a division of the curia, acted as an auditing department on the great bureaucracy. Other than this, there was a sort of parliament, consisting of not only the barons, but the universities and the landed commoners. It did not debate or rubber-stamp legislation, which was the king's to make and unmake, but merely received it and promulgated, giving its advice where it could.

Economically, state monopolies were imposed on silk, iron, and grain. On the other hand, tariffs on trade within the Regno were abolished. The privileges granted previously to Pisa and Genoa were, however, rescinded. Weights and measures were uniformly regulated across the realm.

Finally, the equality of all citizens before the law was affirmed. The Constitutions made much of reducing the power of the nobility and of following the Roman tradition of equality before the law: thus, all freemen, all citizens, were equals, in theory. Likewise, for the benefit of commoners, Frederick banned trial by ordeal, ordering his judges to use instead "the common methods of proof which have been introduced both by the ancient laws and by our constitutions." The Constitutions notably used reason and logic to dismiss the superstitious foundations of the ordeal; for example, the use of trial by hot iron was dismissed because people believed "the natural heat of white-hot iron grows hot and, what is even more foolish, grows cold for no good reason at all", and trial by water was forbidden because of the belief "that the defendant of the crime, who has been established only by his guilty conscience, will not be received by the element of freezing water, when, in fact, it is the retention of sufficient air that prevents him from submerging." Frederick also banned trial by battle, ordering that more weight be given to the testimony of witnesses, although exceptions to this were granted to knights, and for cases in which no witnesses could be provided.

The Constitutions also contain incidental information relating to the practice of medicine. Frederick proclaimed that, in order to become a medical practitioner, it was necessary to have some practical experience, which many European university-educated doctors did not have in 1231."

Conclusion:

This is the first step in understanding the HRE's situation and what was required for it to become a legitimate heir to the Roman Empire. In regards to the Guelphs and Ghibellines, conquering the Papal States and proclaiming the Kingdom of Rome/Latium-Romagna, vassalage of the Pope, the Sixth Crusade and the consequences of Frederick's marriage to Queen Isabella II of Jerusalem. They are all for another post.

Edit: Also, his father (Henry V) had an odd plan to invade the Byzantine empire and place a Hohenstaufen on the throne and declare himself a "universal ruler". BY 1220 the Latin Empire had been proclaimed and by 1250 it would only have 11 years before being destroyed. Strange that in Italy they spoke Latin commonly, this was nothing compared to the area which the Empire proclaimed to be its territories. Conquering Constantinople and installing himself as the Latin Emperor would give him some legitimacy in the eyes of Italians. (It would eventually, therefore, cease to exist as a crusader state.)

Frederick's relationship with the Livonian Order and Teutonic State will also be intriguing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 92195

I am designing and constructing something which is feasible but it is extremely difficult to get my head around. It is 800 years ago after all. Just to show everyone the sheer size of the task Frederick had, I am only designing and constructing a feasible plan which Frederick could centralize what we today call 'Italy'. We also have the problem of decentralized kingdoms of Burgundy and Germany. We have the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the eastern Medditerrain and the Teutonic State in the Baltic. This is shown below:

The Holy Roman Empire and the Latin Empire are tied together and ruled by a single person. The Latin Empire rules everything south of the Alps and the Holy Roman Empire rules everything north of the Alps. This satisfies the Italians that they not being ruled by Germans but by an Italian. They are, therefore 'recognised' by the state. Frederick alters the inheritance law to elective and ties the titles together; therefore both titles now come as a pair.

Holy Roman Empire:
  • Kingdom of Burgundy
  • Kingdom of Germany
  • Kingdom of Bohemia (Přemyslids)
Latin Empire:
  • Kingdom of Italy (combing Lombard kingdom, Lombard league and Margravate of Tuscany in a centralized kingdom)
  • Kingdom of Rome/Latium-Romagna (replaces Papal States: anointed to the "King of the Romans", heir to the Holy Roman and Latin Emperor)
  • Kingdom of Sicily
Kingdom of Jerusalem (Frederick assumed the powers of a 'regent')

Teutonic State
  • Livonian Order
However, the organisation of such a state is just downright mind-boggling. 2 empires and 7 kingdoms.

Taking it further... in 1301 and 1305 Wenceslaus III of Bohemia inherited the kingdoms of Poland and Hungry. (Croatia was included) Its 50 years out from Frederick's death, I'm trying to determine if the two can be linked or if Frederick's actions have direct consequences on his inheritance. However, I know it's too far removed, 50 years is half a century and with Frederick, I'm re-writing 1225-35, so that is 65 to 75 years. Just a bit of fun nothing more.:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all, they'd need Sicily becoming a perpetual part of it.

Secondly, there are people who claim that the Italians would dominate the politics of the united German-Italian empire then, just as southern France dominated (at this time at least) French politics.
 
Last edited:
I think all of the above answers failed to acknowledge the main reason OTL HRE lost Italy - Holstein-to-Sicily is a logistic nightmare, well beyond 'mere' political will.

If the Emperor transfers his political center to Italy, then Germany becomes very hard to hold onto instead - a reversal of OTL roles would happen, with German lands gradually drifting away (and likely be more successful in trying a separate unification under a native King). There's good reason why, for all of his splendor, Frederick II is seen as having weakened Imperial power in Germany enough to be a factor in the eventual decline of Imperial cohesion.

I would strive for a very early POD, perhaps preventing the power vacuum of the early 10th Century; only then there is a slight chance of a string of capable Emperors holding onto both in a different, meaningful manner so that some kind of 'Roman' identity grows strong enough to survive the eventual challenges. That also requires weaker Byzantium (to avoid tussles over Southern Italy) and would lead to a weaker Papacy, butterflying the Reformation as we know it OTL anyways.

Agreed, Frederick II is not seen as a strong Emperor north of the Alps, be basically squandered his patrimonium and Imperial authority there. In a way he was a absent as Charles V, though he at least had a loyal brother (Ferdinand) to represent him in the Empire. If this scenario happens earlier, then a native leader could arise. OTOH if Philip of Swabia lives longer and fathers a son, then Frederick might be limited to Sicily, since Philip would be the 'native prince' and Frederick II the 'foreign prince'. IMHO a division the Papacy would prefer over a de facto (for at least one reign) Sicily-HRE union.
 

Deleted member 92195

First of all, they'd need Sicliy becoming a perpetual part of it.

Secondly, there are people who claim that the Italians would dominate the politics of the united German-Italian empire then, just as southern France dominated (at this time at least) French politics.

You read Henry V's mind, he tried to integrate the Kingdom of Sicily within the HRE but negotiations between him and the Pope fell apart. Vassalage of the pope would give the emperor the hand over the Pope to integrate the kingdom into the empire. Now he was thinking about integrating his kingdom of Sicily into his Holy Roman Empire. Now I am saying the HRE size is too overweight and tying the HRE and Latin empire together would satisfy the short term. However, having separate states risks the empires being divided like the Roman empire had two consuls and two emperors. Therefore combing the empires would be the best option: "The Holy Roman Latin Empire".

As for Italian dominance, yes, with the three kingdoms it is more dominant than Germany. The best method for the emperor to dominate Germany is to conquer Norse territory, accumulate lands through inheritance and eventually create the Kingdom of Prussia. The emperor could integrate the duchy of Swabia into it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Swabia) It took the Hohenzollerns 400 years too do that. However, inheritance of larger territories was always 'more' appealing, like Hungry.

Edit: I have had another thought. If you want to avoid creating further kingdoms, just invest the duchy of Swabia and after attaining, what we now know today as the Prussian provinces of Brandenburg, East Prussia, West Prussia and Pommeria into the "Kingdom of Germany". Now the Kingdom of Germany was the Holy Roman Empire but because you have kingdoms of Burgundy, Italy, Sicily and Rome, one has to distinguish between what territories are what. From there, if the emperor attains more lands he can invest it into the kingdom thus creating a centralised state. Once the emperor has overall influence within Germany, only then will he be able to start reforming the empire as a whole. This scenario will be very much like Prussia dominating the states around it to eventually create the North German Confederation. (The Kingdom of Burgundy lands were referred to as the "Lands of the Burgundy Crown" and this would also apply to 'Italy' and 'Germany'.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 92195

Introduction:

Here it is, before you start reading, it is 2,468 words long and extremely complicated. So read it slow and carefully to understand it. I believe my head was in the ninth dimension when constructing this in my head and I listen to a lot of Def Leppard, in order to write it down. Never the less I have enjoyed it. Enjoy.

Like I said before, one can learn an awful lot in the past, and translate it into the circumstance and shape it accordingly to the present and the future.

Looking at the past:

Incident: “When Pepin the Short sought to become king of the Franks in the 8th century, the church needed military protection, so Pepin found it convenient to make an ally of the pope. Frederick Barbarossa, however, desired to put the Pope aside and claim the crown of old Rome simply because he was in the likeness of the greatest emperors of the pre-Christian era. Pope Adrian IV was naturally opposed to this view and undertook a vigorous propaganda campaign designed to diminish Frederick and his ambition. To a large extent, this was successful.

Conclusion: Frederick (II) must conclude from this, that one should keep ones plans private, so private in fact that only you or close relatives should know about the ‘full plan’. He should also conclude that a ‘pre-emptive’ strike against the Pope is required. Not to kill but to capture. It is intriguing that only a propaganda campaign destroyed Frederick Barbarossa’s plans to become the ‘King of Rome’.

Roman law:

Frederick Barbarossa is famous for the reintegration of ‘Roman law’, otherwise known as the Justinian code. The text below is extremely revealing of the state in which the Holy Roman Empire was in, in comparison to the Roman Empire.

“The Justinian code envisaged that the law of the state as a reflection of the natural moral law (as seen by the men of the Justinian system), the principle of rationality in the universe. By the time Frederick assumed the throne, this legal system was well established on both sides of the Alps.
  • Emperor's power through Roman law:
  • He was the first to utilize the availability of the new professional class of lawyers.
  • The Civil Law allowed Frederick to use these lawyers to administer his kingdom in a logical and consistent manner.
  • It also provided a framework to legitimize his claim to the right to rule both Germany and northern Italy.
  • In the old days of Henry V and Henry VI, the claim of divine right of kings had been severely undermined by the Investiture Controversy.
Critical Problem: The Church had won that argument in the common man's mind. There was no divine right for the German king to also control the church by naming both bishops and popes.

It was through the use of the restored Justinian code that Frederick came to view himself as a new Roman emperor. Roman law gave a rational purpose for the existence of Frederick and his imperial ambitions. It was a counterweight to the claims of the Church to have authority because of divine revelation. The Church was opposed to Frederick for ideological reasons, not the least of which was the humanist nature found in the revival of the old Roman legal system. The institution of the Justinian code was used, perhaps unscrupulously, by Frederick to lay claim to divine powers.

Conclusion: Frederick restoration of Roman law was a crucial step in gaining legitimacy, but never the less imperial power still remained fractured through decentralization and the Italians refusal to subject to Germany. It was Frederick lack of imperial authority in Italy, the fact he had to military enforce it, the sheer size of military capability required in relation to the logistical means against him which made him falter. Finally this strange and powerful foe: the pope and his allies were all against him gaining legitimacy.

Investiture Controversy:

The investiture controversy was the conflict between the state of the Church regarding a state sovereign’s ability to appoint local church officials through investiture. Holy Roman imperial power was undercut through the weight of the Investiture controversy. It is important to understand ‘What is imperial power?’ and once you have defined it, you can understand what the state could do and could not do. Imperial power is defined as: I quote:

  1. “the policy or practice of extending a state's rule over other territories
  2. an instance or policy of aggressive behaviour by one state against another
  3. the extension or attempted extension of authority, influence, power, etc, by any person, country, institution, etc:
  4. cultural imperialism:
  • a system of imperial government or rule by an emperor
  • the spirit, character, authority, etc, of an empire
  • advocacy of or support for any form of imperialism”
Conclusion: In this case of the Investiture controversy it was attacking the very “spirit, character, authority” of the Holy Roman Empire. A compromise to the investiture controversy was negotiated in the Concordat of Worms in 1122. However, it was a ‘compromise’ and the emperor gained some power but it did not go far enough. It requires vassalage of the pope for people to understand that the state is higher the god’s preacher, not gods preacher is higher than the state.

Despite the emperor “eliminated lay investiture, it allowed secular leaders some room for unofficial but significant influence in the appointment process. While the monarchy was embroiled in the dispute with the Church, its power declined while the localized rights of lordship over peasants increased. This eventually led to:
  • Increased serfdom that reduced rights for the majority
  • Local taxes and levies increased, while royal coffers declined
  • Localized rights of justice where courts did not have to answer to royal authority”
Analysis:

The state of the church (Papal States) used Christianity as a method of obedience, especially against this Kingdom of the Germans/Romans (HRE) territory; it believed that this ‘territory’ was a fiefdom of the state of the church through god. If there were ever a time when there was a higher title than emperor, then the Pope believed he was that person. The Pope could not rule such a territory of HRE size, because that would mean they would have to govern it as a proper state, as they did in their own Papal territory. Therefore the state of the church decided to crown this ‘territory’ as an ‘empire’, this is due to the Western Roman Empire collapsing. As a consequence, the crowning of the emperor was a counterbalance by Christianity/Pope, in the balance of power equation in relation to the Byzantine Empire. (Eastern Roman Empire) However, this emperor was just a puppet of the Pope, because everyone obeyed the church, not the ‘state/emperor’. In conclusion, Frederick Barbarossa, Henry VI and Frederick II were trying to reverse this equation. That is in a literal sense.

The desired effect of Frederick II crowning himself as the ‘Latin emperor’ is for the allegiance towards the state of the church by the average day person, soldier, nobility, ecclesiastical folk and maybe even Italian principalities/city-states to peel away in the ‘Kingdom of Italy’ and in the Papal States themselves. By proclaiming himself as the ‘Latin emperor’ he is distinguishing himself as a ‘proper’ emperor. Not some title that has been bestowed upon him by god’s human preacher: The Pope. Most importantly he will be distinguished as an emperor because he has another empirical title other than the empirical title given to him by the Pope. The title will also give him some legitimacy in relation to his realm being Holy because the Latin Empire was a Crusader State.

Don’t let other people take care of your business. I quote:

Problem: “During Frederick's stay in the Holy Land, his regent, Rainald of Spoleto, had attacked the Marche and the Duchy of Spoleto. Gregory IX recruited an army under John of Brienne and, in 1229, invaded southern Italy. His troops overcame an initial resistance at Montecassino and reached Apulia. Frederick arrived at Brindisi in June 1229. He quickly recovered the lost territories and trialled the rebel barons, but avoided crossing the boundaries with the Papal States. The war came to an end with the Treaty of Ceprano in the summer of 1230; the emperor personally met Gregory IX at Anagni, making some concessions to the church in Sicily. He also issued the Constitutions of Melfi (August 1231), as an attempt to solve the political and administrative problems of the country, which had dramatically been shown by the recent war.”

Rainald was appointed by the Papacy and was granted sweeping powers, which he did not hesitate to use. In that year, he invaded the March and granted privileges to Osimo, San Ginesio, Ripatransone, and Recanati.

Solution: This is avoided because Frederick goes on the Fifth Crusade in 1217 when he is king of the Romans not the Holy Roman Emperor.

How the “Statutes in favor of the princes” and “Treaty with the princes of the church” made Frederick powerless. I quote:

Problem: “Frederick's son Henry VII (who was born 1211 in Sicily, son of Frederick's first wife Constance of Aragon) had caused their discontent with an aggressive policy against their privileges. This forced Henry to a complete capitulation, and the Statutum in favorem principum ("Statutes in favor of the princes"), issued at Worms, deprived the emperor of much of his sovereignty in Germany. Frederick summoned Henry to a meeting, which was held at Aquileia in 1232. Henry confirmed his submission, but Frederick was nevertheless compelled to confirm the Statutum at Cividale soon afterwards.”

Solution: This is avoided through a victorious fifth crusade, recapturing the kingdom of Jerusalem and maybe even creating an Egyptian crusader state. (Open to discretion to the latter.)

Timeline – 1217 – 1233:

1217: Goes on Crusade.

On Crusade, Frederick encounters a variety of different cultures from all over Europe who have come to Crusade. This includes Germans, French, Dutch, Flemish, Frisian, Venetians, Hungarians, Croats and Italians from all different realms of Europe, including: Austria, Tyrol, Bavaria, Merania, Thuringia, Holland, Baden, Cologne, Brixen, Passau, Hungry, Croatia, Halych, France, Flanders, Rodez, Papal States, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Latin Empire, Knights Templar, Teutonic Order, Knights Hospitaller.

(All events must occur up until 1217; otherwise it would alter the timeline considerably. This includes Henry or Constance not dying, Frederick not been given to Pope Innocent III as a guardian, who was then tutored by Cencio (Pope Honorius III). However, Frederick (King of the Romans) accepting to go on the fifth Crusade in 1217 gives the opportunity to alter his personality and his perspective on the world. (Age 23) Time away from court alters how he perceives the world.)

In conclusion from this, he learns of the vast size of the realm he is to be emperor in relation to Europe. It is during the Crusade that he learns extensively of states around Europe, including the Latin Empire.

Equally as important, Frederick is tested by live combat as a warrior, tactician and strategist. ‘Winning battles’, ‘important battles’ and ‘pivotal battles’ that lead to the Muslims surrendering are only going to contribute to the euphoria by the populace in Europe. If he were to take part in the negotiations and sign the treaty of their surrender then this just going improve his diplomatic skill.

1220: In the Euphoria of conquering Jerusalem and possibly Egypt, Friedrich is elected to the Holy Roman Emperor and his son is elected to the King of the Romans. This avoids signing "The Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis” ("Treaty with the princes of the church") and "The Statutum in favorem principum” ("Statute in favour of the princes") in 1220 and consequentially later in 1232.

1221: Returns from a victorious crusade

1221-2: Frederick studies his grandfather and father military campaigns and diplomacy. He derives the following:
  • Revises his father’s Erbreichsplan about changing the Holy Roman Empire from an elective to a hereditary monarchy.
  • Constructs a plan to gain legitimacy among Italians through his Sicilian perspective. He alters his father’s plan to invade the Byzantine Empire and install a Hohenstaufen prince. Instead, he will invade the Latin empire and crown himself as the ‘Latin Emperor’ through being ‘Latin’.
  • Frederick decides to wait 5 years after his crowning, for the allegiance towards the church to peel away before attempting to capture the Pope in a pre-emptive strike.
Pre-emptive strike plan:
  • Invade the Papal states through the south via the Kingdom of Sicily
  • Use small armies as a distraction to Lombard kingdom, Lombard league and the Margravate of Tuscany. The first army will operate around the Kingdom of Burgundy and Italian imperial border. This is west of the Lombard Kingdom. The second small army will operate in the Margravate of Verona. Its aim is to attack the Lombard league. The aim of this tactic is to stall, only for short time, reinforcements coming to the Pope’s aid.
  • Once Rome is besieged and the Pope is caught. The proclaiming of the Kingdom of Rome will give the Emperor the legitimacy as the rightful heir of the Roman Empire. This will further weaken the remaining states’ allegiance to the state of the Church. The remaining states should then be conquered.
  • Pope vassalage: the pope will probably not accept vassalage. Therefore the creation of an anti-pope is required. With the conquest of the Papal States, the pope has no armies. The emperor can, therefore, place the anti-pope in the position of the pope. Vassalage between the anti-pope and the emperor has already been ‘pre-arranged’.
  • The new pope can then accept the kingdom of Sicily within the Holy Roman Empire.
1223-5: Frederick conquers the Latin Empire and installs himself in Constantinople; he takes the crown Jewels with him to Sicily. Frederick legitimacy among Italians increases as the empire professes to be “Latin” which the Italians speak. Frederick alters the inheritance law to elective and ties the title to the HRE; both titles now come as a pair. The HRE rules all lands north of the Alps, whilst the Latin empire rules all land south of the Alps. He rules both his realms as the first Doppelkaiser. (Double emperor)

1225: marries Queen Isabella II of Jerusalem

1230-33: Pre-emptive strike:

Frederick’s hide’s his army in barren wastelands, hills and mountain passages. Two fleets have also been assembled; ready to block the western and eastern coast to prevent the Pope fleeing.

Frederick invades the Papal States proclaiming that his empirical title the ‘Latin Empire’ gives him claims to all those lands which speak Latin. Lord, ladies, bishops and mayors kneel to the emperor’s proclamation of his claims. Meanwhile, two armies in the west and east of northern Italy are roaming around the Lombard Kingdom and League unchecked. They use hit and run skirmish tactics is disrupt any unguarded settlements.

Frederick strikes his army directly towards the City of Rome without much resistance. Within days the city is under siege. The city is under siege for around half a year, but eventually, the city falls due to dwindling allegiance to Christianity over allegiance to the state and lack of reinforcements. The pope is captured and imprisoned.

Fredericks declares the ‘Kingdom of Rome’ with the ‘Duchy of Latium’ and ‘Spoleto’ held by the King. With Rome besieged, he raises an entirely new army from the kingdom of Rome and rides north with both armies to conquer the remaining foes.
 
What if the Hapsburgs never inherit Spain, and we see a north/south split rather than an east/west split among the sons of Phillip the Handsome?
 

Deleted member 92195

Finally, this is the refreshing part. The kingdom of Jerusalem.

Frederick’s only son with Isabella II of Jerusalem was Conrad IV, he inherited the kingdom of Sicily, Italy, Burgundy, Germany and most importantly Jerusalem. In the scenario, Frederick defeats the Pope and centralises the kingdom of Italy, he probably live longer. Frederick died in 1250 and he was 55. I think a realistic age of him dying is around 65 - 70. His son Conrad died in 1254 at the age of 26. He could, therefore, inherit the imperial throne anywhere between the age of 35 - 40. Or anytime sooner if his father dies earlier.

In regards to Isabella II of Jerusalem, she died whilst giving birth to Conrad. Death in regards to Childbirth is usually the complications of stress and anxiety, or otherwise the complication of a medical condition. The supporting husband usually goes a long way as well. Her death was in 1228, whilst Frederick was fighting in the sixth crusade. She was only 15/16 years old!!! I bet that must have been difficult, giving birth whilst your husband is at war and not helping you give birth at the young age of 15/16. I could not do that.

In my scenario, he’s proclaimed himself as the Latin emperor and waiting for the allegiance towards the church to decline. Ample time to concentrate on your wife giving birth. I cannot say she will survive but Frederick presence may change the equation.

Historically she died and he proclaimed that he had rightful powers of ‘regent’ over his son. This caused the Lombardy civil war with those individuals inside the kingdom of Jerusalem who did not want him to have power. If his wife dies he should not press this because it will just stretch his military capacity. He risks capitulation along his pre-emptive strike. If she lives... they will become a ‘power couple’, a historically renowned one at that. They will ‘probably’ have a lot of children because, at that time, legitimate Hohenstaufen’s were in short supply. There were plenty of illegitimate children but not a lot of legitimate children.

In Conrad inheriting the empire, Jerusalem is going to evolve into this ‘ancient colony kingdom’ pre-1490s. (This was the start of Spanish colonialism) How awesome!!! Over the following decades it will eventually be accepted into the empire, only then will the empire be considered truly ‘Holy’, alongside Rome.

Other Interesting points of note:

Adelaide, Countess of Burgundy marries an illegitimate issue of Frederick, instead of Hugh, Count of Salins and later Philip I, Count of Savoy. Upon her death, the county passes to their son/girl. Frederick at this point can leave the county in the hands of an illegitimate issue or invade it and reinvest it into the 'Crown lands of Burgundy'.
 

Deleted member 92195

Anyone got any ideas of the consequences of all this happening? (See above) I was able to solve the ‘problem’ but the butterfly effects will be insane. World will be unrecognisable.
 
Anyone got any ideas of the consequences of all this happening? (See above) I was able to solve the ‘problem’ but the butterfly effects will be insane. World will be unrecognisable.

If you ask me, you did all that through liberal usage of wank.

That said, such a gigantic Empire would feel compelled to restore the whole of the old Roman ideal, and promptly shatter at the first serious downturn - be it from the economy or the bad handling of an incapable Emperor.
The main consequences would be on the Islamic world, on an even stronger and more enduring Roman Ideal, and on the colonization efforts.
 

Deleted member 92195

If you ask me, you did all that through liberal usage of wank.

That said, such a gigantic Empire would feel compelled to restore the whole of the old Roman ideal, and promptly shatter at the first serious downturn - be it from the economy or the bad handling of an incapable Emperor.
The main consequences would be on the Islamic world, on an even stronger and more enduring Roman Ideal, and on the colonization efforts.

I have no shadow of doubt that Frederick had the skills and capability to do it, it was ultimately his mindset. His mum brought him up to be Sicilian and she did not think he would rule the HRE and she did not intended him to either.

His grandfather and father were close, therefore I believe he could accomplish such a monumental achievement. In comparison to Napoleon, this type of achievement is half of what he did. I.e Napoleon did crazier things. However the Napoleon ‘incident’ obviously had not occurred. Therefore Frederick would be considered crazy, because people don’t think like how I’ve written and they certainly don’t think like that in the 1200s. Saying that his grandfather and father were radical in thier attemps to unite the HRE.

In regards to restoring the Roman or the Frankish empire, I thought they would be on table. You are correct in regards to an incapable emperor or an economic downturn, the Habsburgs were awful.

However it’s the ‘order of processes and steps’ to unite Italy in order proceed to unite Germany/Burgundy. It’s also the military campaigns, ancient fighting, geopolitics, geography of the realms, politics, economics, the terrortories involved in order to accomplish this; framed within the empire’s probable short time survival of this genius emperor, upon entering the 13th century which interests me most.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no shadow of doubt that Frederick had the skills and capability to do it, it was ultimately his mindset. His mum brought him up to be Sicilian and she did not think he would rule the HRE and she did not intended him to either.

Thus lies my problem. It was not a matter of there being a will, or the ability, but of the situation being favorable to such a project. Let us take a good equivalent to your trifecta of excellent Emperors; the Ottomans between 1451 and 1566. They did grow exceptionally, but they were on the cusp of growth, their starting position strong and with plenty of conquerable territory in every direction; they had no real internal threats either, better technology and a more cohesive distance/communication between their core territories, especially at the start (but even at the tail end: losing Algeri or parts of Persia didn't have a major impact).


However it’s the ‘order of processes and steps’ to unite Italy in order proceed to unite Germany/Burgundy. It’s also the military campaigns, ancient fighting, geopolitics, geography of the realms, politics, economics, the terrortories involved in order to accomplish this; framed within the empire’s probable short time survival of this genius emperor, upon entering the 13th century which interests me most.

Unless you add more exceptional individuals and manage to prevent multiple children, the situation you outlined amounts to:

- Germany who is both big and strong/united enough (even if by sole dislike of the Emperor), ripe for rebellion. It will be the first to go.
- Italy is cowed and loyal enough, especially if the Capital is brought back to Rome. Not too much trouble there (though the urban middle class will not be overjoyed). Some threat may come from Africa.
- Latin Empire: it's in huge need of reorganization, probably dislikes the 'frankish pretenders', and their élites will Be happy to offer the Imperial Crown to any Orthodox ruler - Bulgarian, Georgian, Serbian, even Russian, you name it - so long as they kick out the occupiers. An hotbed of trouble and a net drain.
- Jerusalem (+Egypt): even if wank-Frederic wipes the floor with Saladin, there will be some attempt at Jihad (Saladin and Egypt merely being the difference between minor and major challenges). And the Mongols are coming, to test the strength of HRE-Outremer resilience.

Now, any new Emperor would be horribly hard-pressed to keep all of this together - I think fhe first challenge would come from the Latin Empire, only to be followed by unrest in Germany and the arrival of the Mongols from two different ways.
I'm also somewhat skeptic strong emphasis of the Roman-ness would prevent revolts - they'd change the flashpoint and the wording used, but not the underlying causes.
 
Top