Mediatisation within the Holy Roman Empire

Napoleon's invasion of Germany was merely the nail into the coffin of moribund Holy Roman Empire, which had essentially been limping along since the Teaty of Westphalia gave all the statelets of the empire, no matter how small and no matter how unimportant de facto independence from the Emperor, who was reduced to an even more powerless figure head.

My question concerns the Mediatisation (Reichsdeputationshauptschluss if one wishes to get technical) the that occured during the years of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic invasions of Germany. Were the Mediatisations merely a product of their time, starting with the Princes who had been deprived their territories East of Rhine, or was it based on an older mechanism? The biggest portion of Mediatisation is that it removed Imperial Immediacy for a state -- states who held that coveted privilege had no liege except for the Emperor, but by the end of empire it meant even more as it granted states that held the status coveted rights, such as minting coinage, setting tolls, amongst other privileges.
t
I only ask as I'm working on The Prince of Peace again and the Holy Roman has taken a different course from OTL, with Philip the Fair living longer and actually becoming Emperor and choosing to appease the rising Protestant movement through the abolition of 'useless' church land, mostly Prince Abbacies and selling them to highest bidder, thus essentially turning them into secular Principalities. These lands in the time of Philip mostly fell into the hands of Riters and Barons irregardless of religion, and while the Emperor hoped he might rely on this new class of noble land owners to serve as a bulwark of his dynasty, it didn't come true. Many of these new landowners developed client-master relations with the larger princes closest to them, rather than the Emperor in Brussels.

Under Charles V (the OTL figure who reigned from 1519) sales of church property were ceased; no further land was secularized, but that land that already secularized basically remained in the hands of a chancellory created to deal with the sales, while Charles V opened negotiations with the Pope to restore all of these lands back into the hands of the Church in hopes to recover the great blows it had suffered in Germany as a whole. With the Diet, not to mention the new class of landowners created by Philip protesting the return of the lands back into the hands of the Church, Charles V had to back down. He was able to sale a portion of the lands back to the church for a good sum, but was forced to recognize the sales that occured and that more would probably happen in the future. The Habsburgs in the Prince of Peace are still Catholic, although Philip was greatly influenced by Erasmus while Charles V was influenced by his devout Portuguese wife. His heirs are much more pragmatic, and with the big religious wars starting to break out, beginning in France and the Emperor prepared to take sides, I see tensions rising within the empire and a new round of clerical sales and even secularizations about to begin to finance any possible war.

I guess my question is: is Mediatisation a proper term to what is happening in Prince of Peace, or is it merely a more haphazard surpression of clerical lands as what happened in Henry VIII's England? In a way it is Mediatisation, as those lands secularized with Imperial Intermediacy retain it, transforming for spiritual estates into hereditary principalities. After all, the Emperor is not the only one getting the piece of the pie. The large territorial princes, especially those who have embraced the reformation are in on the game too within their territories, and even the Spiritual Electors and wealthier Prince-Bishops are lining their pockets through the sale of church lands within their domains.

Apologies for the rant. Haven't slept yet. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Got to get my head around this :)

Are you saying that in your ATL people who bought clerical lands are now having these confiscated? Or are you saying that people who bought clerical lands and held them in fief from the Emperor direct are being forced to enfief themselves to a local territorial prince instead?

or something else?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Got to get my head around this :)

Are you saying that in your ATL people who bought clerical lands are now having these confiscated? Or are you saying that people who bought clerical lands and held them in fief from the Emperor direct are being forced to enfief themselves to a local territorial prince instead?

or something else?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf


My apologies, I noticed many spelling errors in my original post and left out information.

Essentially what happened back in the 1520s, Philip I took a page from Henry VIII's book and began a surpression of clerical territories. Small scale surpressions had probably already began in states within the empire where the reformation was gaining ground, but for the Emperor to take a stance was quite radical.

His targets were primarily the so-called Imperial Abbacies, small monesteries that held Imperial Intermediacy -- that is the Abbot was a Prince of the Empire and held a seat in the diet. Abbacies like these were basically suppressed and passed into the hands of the Emperor, or to be more exact, a Chancellory that had been established to handle these lands by finding willing buyers, irregardless of religion. The sales of such territories were aimed primarily at the lower nobility-- Knights, Barons, and even the untitled nobility, such as those who gained nobility through military or civil service, as well as impoverished noble classes who were granted generous terms to purchase the land.

These suppression were Imperial led. Similar suppression occured within states that adopted the Protestant religion, but they tended to benefit the Prince seizing the clerical lands in his domains only, for instance. The Calvinist Landgrave of Hesse had nunneries and monesteries sold off, precious relic, gold, and treasures sent away to mint, but all for his benefit.

These lands maintained Imperial Intermediacy, so the purchasing of such an estate was quite a social elevation as it gave one a seat in he diet and made them direct vassals of the Emperor. Typically it would be a given that one would assume the title of Prince much as the Prince-Abbots did, but the rank granted essentially depended on the payment, with the Chancellery handling the essentially dictating that a "gift" of so much money on top of the purchase of the estate would ensure a grant of such-and-such title (Count, Duke, Prince) by the Emperor.

Basically these territories are like little Lichtenstein, scattered around the empire. The Emperor began these sales as a way to replace the redundant abbacies with secular dynasties that would be loyal to him and his dynasty. Yet because these new statelets are very small, there's not much loyalty to an Emperor who is far away in Brussels. As such, these new princes quite often cultivate ties with electors nearest to them, this is prolematic in it's own way, as it gives the larger states a way to flex their muscles, say by bestowing favors on these smaller Princes and in return their furnish troops to their armies.

Charles V's reign further alienated the new class of landowners and drew them closer to the existing princes, as they feared he might try to undo his father's work (compare Mary I and fear she would restore the Monesteries). Charles' son is more pragmatic and has continued the sale of lands, althouhgh at a slower pace than his grandfather. A war is brewing through, which means may use such sales to raise funds, as well as call in favors to those Princes who bought titles. I was thinking it could spark unrest, especially if one of the Electors voices his objections backed up by those petty princes who are in his pocket.

Essentially, I'm wondering if such a scenario could provoke a more drastic supression, going from tiny abbeys to pieces od Bishoprics, if not te the entire thing.
 
Last edited:
Ah, thank you.

If Mediatisation is understood as breaking the direct link from land-owner (whether secular or religious) to Emperor by placing the land-owner under an intermediate ruler, then I don't think you have it here.

Your religious owners have lost their position but the new land-owners retain the immediacy, ie despite whatever local alliances they make, the Emperor is remaining their liege, maintaining the direct link.

If your question refers mainly to what is being done to the ecclesiastical holdings, what was the word the Spanish used in the 19th century for when they did this? That might have earlier origins

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I'd be interested to see what you're doing with the Prince-Abbacy of St. Gall, after all it was already an associate of the Swiss by this point.
 
Found the word I was looking for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Confiscations_of_Mendizábal

desamortización - which must be linguistically akin to amortisation which I recall from company accounts.

Does it just mean Confiscations, or does it have an older, legal meaning?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Not sure if it has an older meaning, but this is exactly what I was thinking. This is more like the Spanish clerical confiscations during the reign of Isabella II rather than anything else. I'd have to research it further but thanks!
 
I'd be interested to see what you're doing with the Prince-Abbacy of St. Gall, after all it was already an associate of the Swiss by this point.

That puts them in an interesting position; the Swiss Confederacy can easily back up the Prince-Abbot. More than likely Philip backed down regarding St. Gall and it is still a Prince-Abbacy. I can't see the Emperor risking another conflict with the Swiss over trying to secularize it.
 
Top