Philip of Swabia, Stupor Mundi, and the HRE

An interesting, yet rarely visited POD: WI Philip of Swabia, King of Germany and Duke of Swabia, is not assassinated in 1208 by mad Otto VIII. Once Frederick II, Stupor Mundi, comes of age, shall these two Swabians partition the HRE, with Philip ruling Germany and Frederick Sicily? What rivalries, conflict and quagmires could one expect to see arise in this scenario? I for one highly doubt that Philip would merely make way for Fred to rule in Germany, much less in their ancestral Swabia...
 
I actually considered doing a timeline on this.

First and most dramatic butterfly (outside of the HRE and Sicily of course) is in France- the Staufers are Capetian allies due to the Welfs marriage alliance with the Plantagenet.

Consequently when King John Lackland is excommunicated in 1209, Crown Prince Louis has a free hand to invade and claim the crown as he did during the barons war, and probably succeeds... also Frederick probably ends up conquering the Latin Empire as a consolation prize, and maybe nabbing Italy and Provence later on when Philip dies in a decade or two as his uncle has no sons of his own.

Germany itself probably splinters between the Capetians in the Northwest, the Staufers in the south (Frederick tried to pull a Habsburg and nab Austria and Carinthia when the Babenbergs died out, here I think he can keep them in addition to Swabia) and whatever power- Poland, Denmark, Brandenburg, or Bohemia- emerges in the northeast.
 
I actually considered doing a timeline on this.

First and most dramatic butterfly (outside of the HRE and Sicily of course) is in France- the Staufers are Capetian allies due to the Welfs marriage alliance with the Plantagenet.

Consequently when King John Lackland is excommunicated in 1209, Crown Prince Louis has a free hand to invade and claim the crown as he did during the barons war, and probably succeeds... also Frederick probably ends up conquering the Latin Empire as a consolation prize, and maybe nabbing Italy and Provence later on when Philip dies in a decade or two as his uncle has no sons of his own.

Germany itself probably splinters between the Capetians in the Northwest, the Staufers in the south (Frederick tried to pull a Habsburg and nab Austria and Carinthia when the Babenbergs died out, here I think he can keep them in addition to Swabia) and whatever power- Poland, Denmark, Brandenburg, or Bohemia- emerges in the northeast.

I don't understand how keeping the Wels around helps Frederick be more successful?
 
I actually considered doing a timeline on this.

First and most dramatic butterfly (outside of the HRE and Sicily of course) is in France- the Staufers are Capetian allies due to the Welfs marriage alliance with the Plantagenet.

Consequently when King John Lackland is excommunicated in 1209, Crown Prince Louis has a free hand to invade and claim the crown as he did during the barons war, and probably succeeds... also Frederick probably ends up conquering the Latin Empire as a consolation prize, and maybe nabbing Italy and Provence later on when Philip dies in a decade or two as his uncle has no sons of his own.

Germany itself probably splinters between the Capetians in the Northwest, the Staufers in the south (Frederick tried to pull a Habsburg and nab Austria and Carinthia when the Babenbergs died out, here I think he can keep them in addition to Swabia) and whatever power- Poland, Denmark, Brandenburg, or Bohemia- emerges in the northeast.
Philip died young with 4 daughters, there is nothing certain that he wouldn't father a son. Also isn't a bit too soon for a mega-French wank? The Capetians would rather concentrate in France for a while before doing a Louis XIV, and the probable target of expansion would be the Kingdom of Arles, not Lorraine.

An interesting, yet rarely visited POD: WI Philip of Swabia, King of Germany and Duke of Swabia, is not assassinated in 1208 by mad Otto VIII. Once Frederick II, Stupor Mundi, comes of age, shall these two Swabians partition the HRE, with Philip ruling Germany and Frederick Sicily? What rivalries, conflict and quagmires could one expect to see arise in this scenario? I for one highly doubt that Philip would merely make way for Fred to rule in Germany, much less in their ancestral Swabia...
Well, the HRE isn't divided... because Sicily wasn't part of it! :)

Ok, I won't be a dick. The developments will depend in how Philip defeats Otto IV (he seemed to be in the upper hand before being murdered) and how he deals with the Princes after. A interesting point in Philip's policies is that he was willingly to deal with the Pope by giving up his lands in Tuscany to one of Innocent's relatives (nephew or cousin, I forgot), this could lead an earlier "Imperial leave" in Italy to concentrate more in Germany, which is a positive for me.
 
Without Otto IV being dealt with, I won't see a clear resolution coming from the survival of Philipp of Swabia.

A likely prospect would be a non-decisive victory over Welfs and Papacy, keeping the first around and giving away part of imperial influence in Central Italy.
Overall, I don't think the situation would have changed a lot in Italy, at least until a separate Honestaufen sicilian kingship. Papacy is still going to feel surrounded, but it would be less of the existential threat that was felt IOTL.

Capetian France could try benefit of the uneasy peace after 1208 to increase its influence, without choosing a definitive side : IOTL they sided with Frederic because Otto IV was too much of a threat on their eastern borders. ITTL, a more divided HRE may even make Philippe Auguste leaning to support Welfs if the opportunity is right. But I don't expect Capetians being too trustful of an Honestaufen HRE.
 
The Welfs were pretty solidly in the Plantagenet camp at this this time though- Otto was John's nephew after all, and Bouvines was the ultimate result of that entanglement. Even if (or when, as I agree a falling out is inevitable) the HRE and France drift apart in the immediate years following Otto's downfall Philip Augustus will have a greater freedom to act in the short term.

Louis VIII invaded England and claimed the Crown during the Barons War of 1214-1216, an earlier English collapse in Normandy combined with a more stable and friendly regime across the Rhine and the probable (as OTL) excommunication of John IMHO would culminate in an earlier and more decisive invasion by the Lion of France, anot invasion Louis could well win. In the long run England is likely to split off, but in the short run the Capetian union will have significant implications for Europe, especially if combined with a different shakeout of the Albigensian Crusade it could lead to a France focused rather more northward and with a stronger hold on the Low Countries.

@LSCatalina I take issue with the idea that French expansion into Burgundy/Arles will be taken equaninimously. The Staufers, based out of Swabia and Sicily, were fundamentally southerly in their outlook- not for nothing did Frederick I become one of the few Emperors to receive coronation in Arles. French expansionism in that direction would not be met passively IMHO.

For similar reason I have difficulty seeing Central Italy passively leaving The Imperial aegis. Spoleto, Ancona, Ravenna, Tuscan6 etc were fundamentally important to the Emperors as a path to rome. As the Emperors power waned it is likely that Frederick would expand his influence and perhaps his kingdom northwards as an Imperial vicar, official or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
But what I am not getting is why does England collapses sooner than OTL?
It's not that England collapses so much that with the Welfs down for the count the French suddenly have their hands free. OTL until Bouvines Philip was constantly fearing a joint German-English invasion (which indeed occured, and was decisively rebuffed...), TTL that would not be the case. Consequently the "timetable" for the whole Barons Revolt etc. is assuredly move up,in the face of mounting french pressure and John's abysmal performance, and as he in 1209 entered into a vicious dispute with the energetic and ambitious Pope Innocent over the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury it seems entirely plausible to me that, just as happened in 1214-1216 when Louis VIII landed in Kent and was acclaimed King of England in London, the mix of princely and papal ambition would lead to a French invasion of England, one meeting with considerable aristocratic support (even more than OTL due to the presumed papal backing- OTL the church's opposition and John's death and the subsequent accession of his weak and pliant son undercut most of the Capetian support and Louis was forced to withdraw his claim and his army) are plausibly enough to give Louis the victory. This in turn suggests that the French will be rat her more preoccupied and powerful in the north, with possible implications for the Toulose conflict and the extension of Royal power into Burgundy and Aquitaine especially if one presumes the Staufers consider said territory their own backyard and exert counterpressure...

It's not impossible that a Capetian monarch could come to rule England, France and pursue the HRE Crown if the Staufers funble- OTL they put forward their claim multiple times:

Common origins allowed the French kings to claim the imperial tradition themselves. King Lothar reacted angrily to Otto I's imperial coronation in 962... from the tenth century onwards, French writers Frenchified Charlemagne and the Franks, stressing an unbroken line of Christian kings since Clovis. They disputed the concept of imperial translation, instead presenting the Empire as a Carolingian creation centered on Paris, not Aachen... unable to ignore Ottonians possession of the actual imperial title, they sought to reduce the emperor's role to protecting the pope, judging the Emperor's actions according to the current state of Franco-papal relations.
The initial goal was to maintain parity with the former East Frankish realm, but after 1100 French writers increasingly distinguished between the German kingdom as a foreign country and the imperial title that they claimed for their king. However, some went further, arguing that, as direct heir to the Franks, the French king should rule all former Frankish territory, including Germany... French kings made serious efforts to secure the imperial title in 1273-4, 1308, 1313 and 1324-28. Charles Valois, brother of Philip IV, even married the granddaughter of Baldwin II, the last Latin Emperor of Byzantium, in the hope of reuniting the eastern and western empires... Propagandists of Philip Augustus already presented him as Charlemagne's true heir. "Augustus" was in fact a nickname given the king by Rigord, a senior monk of St Denis, to celebrate Philips appropriately "imperial" expansion of monarchical authority across France.
 
Even if (or when, as I agree a falling out is inevitable) the HRE and France drift apart in the immediate years following Otto's downfall Philip Augustus will have a greater freedom to act in the short term.
The falling out may end up being quicker : Philippe Auguste's support of Philipp of Swabia wasn't exactly stellar by 1208, probably due to the fact Welfs were going to be defeated and an agreement between the KoR and the Pope about to be issued.

I don't think that it would be as immediatly tense it was with Otto IV, of course, but I don't think that an Honestaufen HRE would be good news for Capetians and, more importantly, they'd know that : I'd even expect some tensions raising about Flanders or french infuence over Barbant.

Louis VIII invaded England and claimed the Crown during the Barons War of 1214-1216
Which quickly died off with the death of John Lackland, and his son being a much more better alternative than he was, or that the son of the guy that put out Anglo-Norman nobles out of Normandy and beneficied from a growing power, was.

The issue was never about military success, but how politically it could be reached. I don't see how an Honestaufen HRE could change that in the latest.

@LSCatalina I take issue with the idea that French expansion into Burgundy/Arles will be taken equaninimously.
Where in frozen hell did I wrote that?

What I wrote was litterally that Capetian policy when it come to an Honestaufen HRE in the first part of the XIIIth century would be ambivalent, rather than the alliance you suggested.

Anyhow : Capetians weren't really interested in imperial Burgundy, not before they managed to get a real hold on their part of the rhodanian corridor which isn't bound to happen as quickly as IOTL. It depends a lot from how the crusade goes, and while a meridional victory isn't that likely (I shouldn't say that, collaborating to a meridional victory TL) without particularily favourable circumstances, a Montfort victory could end up with a large principality that would abort the mediterranean policy of Capetians for the time being.

If IOTL, you didn't have a clear Capetial policy along the Rhone before the XIVth century, I doubt it would appear with an Honestaufen-led HRE in the early part of the XIIIth.

The Staufers, based out of Swabia and Sicily, were fundamentally southerly in their outlook- not for nothing did Frederick I become one of the few Emperors to receive coronation in Arles.
Burgundy was at this point imperial mostly in name, as hinted by the Great Southern War in the XIIth century.
Frederic II's coronation in Arles is more of a symbolical gesture (symbolical doesn't mean void, of course) targeted less at the kingdom of Burgundy than a point made to Italy, following roughly the same policy there that Otto IV did except that Frederick given up on naming imperial agents and named the count of Toulouse/marquis of Provence as his representent which was the admission that a Swabian emperor had few direct powers there.

It's not for nothing that Frederick II was the last emperor to really attempt claiming Burgundy's suzerainty. This beaten horse had long since died.

French expansionism in that direction would not be met passively IMHO.
Again, which French expansionism in imperial Burgundy in the early XIIIth? Even the annexation of Lyon took decades and it wasn't before the XIVth that it became significant.

Assuming that the situation goes more or less as IOTL in the region, you'd probably end as a matrimonial diplomacy to neutralise Provence, which would be far less targeting imperials (that had no real power in the region since litterally centuries), than Aragon.

For similar reason I have difficulty seeing Central Italy passively leaving The Imperial aegis.
I'm afraid I don't see what's really confusing in my post : I said it would be a non-decisive agreement, about giving part of imperial influence.

There's no much difficulty there, mostly because it was part of what Otto IV did, what Philip of Swabia probably negociated with Innocent III (while probably without surrendering everything Otto IV did, especially when it come to imperial suzerainty.

I didn't specifically mentioned the Adriatic region as well (and I think we both agree that Philip giving away everything up to Ancona is not going to happen), even if I think it would be part of negociations, I'd rather see the IOTL proposal (that never went anywhere due to Philipp's death) to give away some influence on western Central Italy, aka Tuscany.

How long such agreement will last is anybody's guess, but it would certainly not last forever : hence why I precised uneasy peace.

As the Emperors power waned it is likely that Frederick would expand his influence and perhaps his kingdom northwards as an Imperial vicar, official or otherwise.
It's possible, but I doubt it would happen easily IMO. Dynastic solidarity played a lot in XIIIth politics (as hinted by the Plantagenet/Welf alliance), and even if Frederick II is at odds with Philip, you'd need a full fledged war between Honestaufen Sicily and HRE to really get rid (temporarily) of the threat of dynastical encirclement for what concerns Rome.
 
Last edited:
An interesting, yet rarely visited POD: WI Philip of Swabia, King of Germany and Duke of Swabia, is not assassinated in 1208 by mad Otto VIII. Once Frederick II, Stupor Mundi, comes of age, shall these two Swabians partition the HRE, with Philip ruling Germany and Frederick Sicily? What rivalries, conflict and quagmires could one expect to see arise in this scenario? I for one highly doubt that Philip would merely make way for Fred to rule in Germany, much less in their ancestral Swabia...

I can only agree, that this is an interesting and not too common POD. Philip of Swabia surviving would have been interesting. Philip would have the time to build up his position and would be benefit from being the 'German' candidate and not a 'Sicilian' like Frederick. IMHO disputes are likely to arise over Italy, but once an agreement, which seems likely, is reached, the Papacy will feel more threatened again. Moreover Philip, unlike Frederick, doesn't have a dynastic claim on Sicily, so he will be more invested in the Imperial and Dynastic Lands, which were still quite substantial. The Great Interregnum might be averted and the Habsburgs and Luxembourgs might never rise to become Imperial Dynasties, both could like the OTL house of Württemberg eventually end up being raised to dukes.

IOTL his daughters married Otto IV (his Welf rival), King Wenceslaus I of Bohemia, Duke Henry II of Brabant and Ferdinand III of Castille. Brabant like Luxembourg were influenced by France, but at the same time the duke of Lothier & Brabant, the successor or continuation of the duke of Lower Lorraine was a prominent imperial noble. The Great Interregnum and no electorate, eventually ensured that they like more border fiefs and later Valois-Burgundy used the French Imperial relations to claim de facto independence. Now Philip ITTL might be able to tie the duke of Lothier & Brabant more to the Empire.

Philip will only make way for Frederick, if he hasn't a son of his own. An ATL son of Philip would even be preferred over OTL Frederick II by the Electors, since he would be the native candidate with a substantial powerbase, moreover he won't be basically be a foreign monarch. TTL Sicilian and Swabian Hohenstaufer would be like OTL Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Top