King of Germany and Investiture

Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germans (these were separate titles actually) fought with the clergy of the investiture controversy.

After being made Holy Roman Emperor, was there a way henry V could have gotten a win out of this?

I don't necessarily mean getting Holy Roman Emperors the right to appoint bishops. I mean either that OR the Pope lets the matter slide (elephant in the room style) for Henry V and confront the next emperor on the issue. He also needs to regain at leas 1/3 of the land his father lost.

If you think getting his antipope made real pope would do the trick, then suggest how he can do so here.

If this takes a civil war, preferably one that isn't more than 3 years long.

If none of Henry's decisions can do it, then maybe the Pope dies early or changes his mind? or maybe another bishop convinces him to change his mind?

Whichever POD makes the most sense.
 
You mean Henry IV? By the time Henry V deposed his father the Controversy had dragged so long it has become an embarrassment for both parties so they dealt in a Concordat that both ignored soon afterwards.

Anyways, for Henry IV, maybe when he cornered Gregory in Sant'Angelo Robert Guiscard is busy/dies?
 
Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germans (these were separate titles actually) fought with the clergy of the investiture controversy.
As far as I know, you didn't have a King of Germans style for most of middle Ages. Pre-Ottonians styled themselves either King of Franks or, simply, Kings; or used the distinct title of King of the Romans which served more or less, either to a non-crowned (or pre-crowned) emperor, either for their labelled successors.
It's at the point "King of Germans" was used as a mockery for Henry IV, while "King of Italy" was regularily (while not systematicaly) used.

A detail, I know.

After being made Holy Roman Emperor, was there a way henry V could have gotten a win out of this?
It's not really a given either side (emperors or popes) could have really won the Investiture Controversy, which was a conflict that really eroded each other sides resources and capacities.
Now, by the time Henry V became emperor, the imperial side really wasn't in a favourable position to get a better deal out of the resolution, which is incidentally why the whole thing ended on his reign, and why Henry tried to end it with a compromise (Sutri Agreement) in the 1110's.

It didn't really worked on, because of the general hostility of German clergy, to not mention the hostility of german potentes against the emperor. See, the general motivation of Henry to increase the imperial authority did threatened both the whole idea of pontifical exclusivity, but as well the independence of German landed aristocracy, and more or less both ended to make an unformal alliance.

I suppose than an *Henry V with lesser ambitions could, arguably, abide by a Sutri-like compromise early on which does let the pontifical power more or less intact, if he doesn't antagonize his German potentes. That said, such Sutri-like compromise should definitely not override the episcopalian rights to regalian power (which mean the temporal and landed power of bishops that was issued from their status as royal counciliors).
I would rather like the opinion of @Carp on this, but I wonder if we couldn't have a partial mediatisation of episcopalian regaliae into episcopalian-led secular lordships. It did happened IOTL eventually, but an earlier regulation may make things comparatively better for emperors.

But really, I do think that by the reign of Henry V, things went too far for anything than a less favourable deal for Rome (compared to IOTL results) in the solution of the crisis; as it would require to win over an unformal alliance between the clergy and the imperial potentes with the sole forces at his direct disposal.

Regarding what you proposes, I don't think it could work : it wasn't as much a matter of personal policies, would it be Pascal or Henry, but a matter of general political/ideological interest. You had a drive since the Xth to make the Roman church more autonomous from secular powers (amusingly partially due to Ottonian own efforts to be legitimized as emperors), and there was a point where using bishops as mere imperial administrators collided with the idea of Pontifical monarchy. Conveitrsly, the imperial legitimacy depended on its firm authority over potentes, secular or clerical (especially in the latter case, as Ottonian/Salian cesaropapist policies prooved), and could not really let the matter slide.

It's not even a matter of a civil war (altough a three-year civil war is a playing too softly giving the IOTL situation), but of dynastical, long-term ambitions and legitimity.
 
It's not really a given either side (emperors or popes) could have really won the Investiture Controversy, which was a conflict that really eroded each other sides resources and capacities.
Now, by the time Henry V became emperor, the imperial side really wasn't in a favourable position to get a better deal out of the resolution, which is incidentally why the whole thing ended on his reign, and why Henry tried to end it with a compromise (Sutri Agreement) in the 1110's.

The Sutri agreement wasn't a win for Henry V? Basically, this gives him everything he really wanted, except lay investiture.

I suppose than an *Henry V with lesser ambitions could, arguably, abide by a Sutri-like compromise early on which does let the pontifical power more or less intact, if he doesn't antagonize his German potentes. That said, such Sutri-like compromise should definitely not override the episcopalian rights to regalian power (which mean the temporal and landed power of bishops that was issued from their status as royal counciliors).
I would rather like the opinion of @Carp on this, but I wonder if we couldn't have a partial mediatisation of episcopalian regaliae into episcopalian-led secular lordships. It did happened IOTL eventually, but an earlier regulation may make things comparatively better for emperors.

Could this be possible?

But really, I do think that by the reign of Henry V, things went too far for anything than a less favourable deal for Rome (compared to IOTL results) in the solution of the crisis; as it would require to win over an unformal alliance between the clergy and the imperial potentes with the sole forces at his direct disposal.

Really, I'm not looking for the Emperors (who had a comparatively good deal from the 800s up to this point) to permanently keep their power over the Church (the situation post-Henry V most defiantly favored Rome). I'm trying to find a way for Henry V to get a good deal. If that includes restoring Imperial legitimacy and lay investiture, so be it. If a way can be found so that power goes back to Rome but it waits a generation, that's actually even better. For example, Paschall simply waiting until after Henry V to formally announce his prohibition on lay investiture, but you said it's beyond personal policies at this point. I do agree a civil war won't go favorably. He would be against the clergy, most of his vassals would refuse to right for him on this, and he only has sole forces at his direct disposal. Even if he had military success and overpowered a 3 to 1 advantage and marched on Rome with Gregory, this would probably actually weaken his legitimacy.
 
The Sutri agreement wasn't a win for Henry V? Basically, this gives him everything he really wanted, except lay investiture.
It was more of a favourable compromise for the Emperors rather than a victory, and Henry didn't just renounced to the imperial investiture, but renounced as well to what bishops held from their episcopalian power. It's basically an acknowledgement of the current status quo, and annouces the Concordate of Worms (altough this one precise that, while regalian honores of bishops are tied to the church, they technically bound the bishops to obey the emperor for what matter theses).

It highlights that Henry V tried to get support from Rome and Papacy supporters against his father, as there were important expectation from Henry being acknowledged as emperor, but in the same time Henry couldn't pull something too favourable for him and expect it to work. Which eventually happened.
Could this be possible?
Well, I think it is, I wouldn't have proposed it otherwise : they key matter, tough, is to define how less ambitious Henry V would be. I tend to think that with a Treaty of Sutri that would go more in the sense of Worms (especially with regalia) you could end with a mediation of several cases afterwards. I'd prefer someone as Carp or anyone with a serious knowledge of medieval Italy and Germany to confirm, tough.

I'm trying to find a way for Henry V to get a good deal.
I understand that : but Henry V's reign already began with an imperial position on this matter that would allow more a better deal compared to IOTL, than an objective good deal.
The Treaty of Sutri itself is partially the result of Henry V attempting to mend the problems raised by his coronation at the expense of his father; and trying to take all the cake as he did in Germany and Italy really wasn't going to work IMO.
A good deal for Henry V could pass trough Henry V being less ambitious, but it doesn't mean that would awarded.

If that includes restoring Imperial legitimacy and lay investiture, so be it.
At this point? Really unlikely to me. Henry would need to throw the massive part of imperial ressources to put the pope and his allies to reason, and not only German potentes would not agree with such mobilisation, but they were tired (resources and culturally wise) from this whole conflict and pushed to a reconciliation ASAP.

If a way can be found so that power goes back to Rome but it waits a generation, that's actually even better.
The conflict was ongoing since generations and really rottened a lot of political interactions within the Empire, and the general feeling was that the controversy had to be mended.
So to speak, it was a war of attrition, but one that wasn't as much warred with resources, but legitimacy, prestige and network. And Rome, since the Xth, underwent several changes and reinforcement of all of these (partially because it was supported by the Empire itself at first, in need of legitimacy from a strong spiritual power), on a scale that went way beyond its actual temporal power in Italy, and in spite of emperors hurling antipote at the crisis, Popes still managed to base themselves on clerical structures.

Once it goes to Rome, it nevers come home.
(At least for the century)
 
I would rather like the opinion of @Carp on this, but I wonder if we couldn't have a partial mediatisation of episcopalian regaliae into episcopalian-led secular lordships. It did happened IOTL eventually, but an earlier regulation may make things comparatively better for emperors.

By this I assume you mean something like the prince-bishoprics of Germany, in which case Henry IV had already created at least one in the form of Aquileia, which like Bruno's merger of ducal and ecclesiastical titles in Lotharingia was likewise a combination of a secular domain with an existing ecclesiastical post. It undoubtedly helped, however, that the patriarchate's territory was already quite close to the "German" sphere, having been grouped with or annexed to the German south-eastern marches in various configurations by that time (Otto the Great, for instance, annexed Verona and left the rest of "Italy" to Berengar II, before ultimately deciding to overthrow him entirely). Additionally, this probably would not have been possible had the secular territory in question, the Duchy/March of Friuli, not been essentially defunct/vacant since the death of Berengar I.

Whether similar states can arise in the rest of Italy depends, I think, on where in "Italy" you mean. In the old lands of the Exarchate, i.e. Romagna and the Pentapolis, bishops remained comparatively strong both in terms of political power within cities and land ownership in the countryside. It is not difficult to imagine Ravenna and similar episcopal seats in the area transforming into episcopal-secular statelets, either under a Roman aegis or an imperial one (although more generally I have my doubts as to whether the imperial project in Italy ever could have succeeded in a meaningful sense, despite any momentary victories by the Ottonians, Salians, Staufers, or anybody else).

Elsewhere, however, this is a harder outcome to achieve. The bishops in Lombardy, for instance, were pinched between the awakening civic consciousness of the cities on the one hand and the rural-based territorial nobility on the other. The "emancipation" of the communes which really took off in the 12th century (although certainly it had 11th century and earlier antecedents) involved either co-opting the bishop into the communal project or breaking his secular power. As bishops in Lombardy and Tuscany tended to lack the land and resources of the ecclesiastics of the old Exarchate, they were not in a strong position to defy these forces. To aggrandize them would involve alienating both the "middle elite" of the communes and the rural nobility, particularly the latter, and I doubt it would really create an ecclesiastical-secular elite that was truly imbued with loyalty to the emperor. As with the infamous Octavian/John XII, when a man is both prince and prelate the "prince" part tends to come to the fore.

I hope that's at least slightly related to the topic at hand; I confess I'm a bit at a loss here because I'm not sure exactly what is meant by a "win" for the emperors. Henry IV can get the most amazing deal he could possibly dream of, the Pope can under duress promise him the moon, and it still won't matter, because the fundamental prerogatives of each side have not changed, nor has the overall strategic situation. Any such victory or setback is bound to be fleeting, as Henry himself demonstrated by famously abasing himself at Canossa only to recant and drive the Pope from Rome once he'd suppressed his domestic rebels.
 
Last edited:
Top