No Henry III of the Holy Roman Empire - consequences for the Investiture Controversy

Henry III was an important figure in strengthening the Catholic Church. This had consequences that would lead to the Investiture Controversy. But what if Henry III either had never been born, died young or for other reasons never became emperor. What if some other person, less interested in reforming the church had become emperor? Maybe this person would have seen what Henry III failed to see, that the church reform would weaken the emperors power, as the emperor had a huge interest in appointing the higher clergy.
 
At the time it was Henry III, who managed to have 4 Germans of his choosing being elected as Pope. At the time it may have looked that the Roman Emperor in the West could imitate the Emperor of the Romans in the East and establish a similar Caesaropapism. Loosening the grip of the Roman Aristocracy on the Papacy at the time benefited the Emperor, that only started to backfire with Investiture Controversy.
Under Henry II the number of Bishops, which were invested with counties, to be able to appoint rulers and prevent them from becoming dynastic possessions was another policy, which initially seemed to strengthen the position Emperor, but eventually became something which started to erode it a bit.
In both cases it's an example of policies, which only work with the right persons on certain position; the tables were turned, when either the Pope was more capable and/or the Emperor was still rather young.
 
At the time it was Henry III, who managed to have 4 Germans of his choosing being elected as Pope. At the time it may have looked that the Roman Emperor in the West could imitate the Emperor of the Romans in the East and establish a similar Caesaropapism. Loosening the grip of the Roman Aristocracy on the Papacy at the time benefited the Emperor, that only started to backfire with Investiture Controversy.
Under Henry II the number of Bishops, which were invested with counties, to be able to appoint rulers and prevent them from becoming dynastic possessions was another policy, which initially seemed to strengthen the position Emperor, but eventually became something which started to erode it a bit.
In both cases it's an example of policies, which only work with the right persons on certain position; the tables were turned, when either the Pope was more capable and/or the Emperor was still rather young.

But Caesaropapism would mean that the emperor became both pope and emperor, would it not? In the Byzantine Empire the emperor had more control over the church than did any emperor or king in the Catholic countries.
 
No quite, yes in the East the Byzantine Emperor of the Romans had a lot more influence over the Patriarch (a relative new one compared to Antioch, Alexandria and Rome) of Constantinople, but it doesn't mean the Emperor is both Emperor and Patriarch. It's closer to the relationship Charlemagne and Otto the Great had with the Papacy, who figuratively and literally defended the Papacy in the West and in return had the backing of the Church. After the Investiture Controversy, and it saddens me to say as a Roman Catholic, long before Protestants were a thing the Church moved from Rightful Spiritual authority to also being an Important Political actor.

Anyway until the Investiture Controversy ended that process, the Carolingian, Ottonian and even early Salian Emperors were moving in the same direction as their Byzantine Imperial Counterparts, and even after that point really great medieval Emperors could obtain almost similar authority, which ended after the Great Interregnum.
 
No quite, yes in the East the Byzantine Emperor of the Romans had a lot more influence over the Patriarch (a relative new one compared to Antioch, Alexandria and Rome) of Constantinople, but it doesn't mean the Emperor is both Emperor and Patriarch. It's closer to the relationship Charlemagne and Otto the Great had with the Papacy, who figuratively and literally defended the Papacy in the West and in return had the backing of the Church. After the Investiture Controversy, and it saddens me to say as a Roman Catholic, long before Protestants were a thing the Church moved from Rightful Spiritual authority to also being an Important Political actor.

Anyway until the Investiture Controversy ended that process, the Carolingian, Ottonian and even early Salian Emperors were moving in the same direction as their Byzantine Imperial Counterparts, and even after that point really great medieval Emperors could obtain almost similar authority, which ended after the Great Interregnum.
Does that mean that something similar could have happen in the Byzantine Empire? If the relationship between the Holy Roman emperor and the pope was comparable to that between the Byzantine emperor and the patriarch, I would assume that it could. I always assumed that the situation in the Byzantine Empire was more comparable to that between protestant monarchs and their arch bishops after the Reformation.
 
The Emperors wanted to get a position comparable position to their Byzantine counterpart and the powerful early emperors came close, but never managed to make that permanent. In terms of a more lasting arrangement Protestant (that is Lutheran and Anglican, not Calvinist) monarchs came much closer to that on a more local level. The Pope is head of an universal church, which transcends national borders, whereas many Protestant churches are/were organized on a smaller national scale; scope including having political rivals (like the kings of France) with the same head of religion made achieving this extra hard, a politically smart Pope could switch between worldly protectors.
 
The Emperors wanted to get a position comparable position to their Byzantine counterpart and the powerful early emperors came close, but never managed to make that permanent. In terms of a more lasting arrangement Protestant (that is Lutheran and Anglican, not Calvinist) monarchs came much closer to that on a more local level. The Pope is head of an universal church, which transcends national borders, whereas many Protestant churches are/were organized on a smaller national scale; scope including having political rivals (like the kings of France) with the same head of religion made achieving this extra hard, a politically smart Pope could switch between worldly protectors.

Yes, that is why I thought the comparison between the early Holy Roman emperors relation to the church with that of the Byzantine emperors was a bit strange. The Catholic Church was after all supranational and the area of western Christendom was a lot more fragmented politically than that of the Byzantine Empire. Even at its early stage the Holy Roman Empire was more fragmented than the Byzantine Empire, at least that is my impression. After all there were several stem duchies in the Holy Roman Empire. Of course in the pre-Investiture Controversy world, the Holy Roman Empire was totally dominant compared to neighbouring countries. France was after all totally fragmented. Still, the pope could at least to some extent switch between worldly protectors.
 
The early Emperors from Charlemagne until the investiture controversy (though the idea only permanently died with Charles V) saw themselves as the worldly counterpart of the Pope, religious head of the Catholic world. The comparison with the Byzantine Emperor isn't strange in terms of ambition, it's what the early Emperors wanted to emulate. A few managed to achieve it, it didn't stick though. In a sense what's called the Holy Roman Empire was the worldly powerbase of the Emperor in theory and ideologically the Emperor was the worldly counterpart of the Pope. Again ambition and actual situation didn't match most of the time, it at best was a honorary position, which had to be matched with actual power to have some meaning (some certainly not all (nor most and certainly not after the Reformation) managed to achieve it).
 
Top