The Investiture Controversy and the weakening of the Holy Roman Empire

The Investiture Controversy was a controversy between the pope and monarchs in various European countries about who should appoint church officials, the monarch or the pope. In this thread I am interested in the effects this controversy had in the Holy Roman Empire. Although no one of the sides had a clear cut victory in the controversy, the outcome, the Concordat of Worms seems to have weakened the emperor and to have been at least part of the reason why the empire became increasingly fragmented. The Emperor had an interest in appointing the upper clergy, because many bishops were given fiefs by the emperor.

What POD would be needed for the emperor to keep control over the appointment of the church officials?
 
Well, you could say that the Concordat was no one's victory, Henry V broke a lot of agreements as soon as he could and the pope just smiled and waved, also it didn't change (de jure) the status of the Papal States, that was a Imperial "vassal" until the Battle of Legnano.

Anyways, a great deal of Henry IV's problems was that he didn't manage score a quick victory, it gave bonus points to the Pope as it looked like the Emperor didn't had divine favor for the task (the Salians resorted the the sacrity of the Emperor to crush their enemies, according to a book I read Conrad II pretty much claimed that opposing the Emperor was "opposing the Almighty himself"), so you need to defeat the Pope fast, preferably Gregory himself.

Have, for some reason, Robert Guiscard don't come to the Pope's aid when he's cornered at Castel de Sant'Angelo, have him be busy at Greece or something, Gregory is captured and tried at a Kangaroo Court set by Henry.
 
Henry III was an important figure in strengthening the Catholic Church. This had consequences that would lead to the Investiture Controversy. 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.
 
Church reform was a necessity, it was on the point of the reformation in the 15-16th century, the celibate stuff was done to prevent the creation of dynasties and nepotism in the church, combat to simony is pretty much self-explanatory and the Investiture Crisis was the culmination of the Papal-Imperial conflict where the Pope tried multiple times to get free from the Ottonian Diploma.

Henry III's policy of strengthening the church was a policy that was happening since Otto the Great, since the patronage of it was vital for legitimacy and Imperial Kingship was tied to Papal support, however one should note that even with the Church getting strong at his reign he was still able to depose a (actually three) Pope(s) and appointed his own, showing that Empire still had balls against a strong papacy. In fact you could say that Henry III don't dying young and living to see his son reaching majority would leave Henry IV with a much more successful reign.

For you question, Henry III dying before his father, unless Conrad II gets a new son, means the end of the Salian dynasty, so a new election for King of Germany, possibly with Papal meddling that can be a regress in royal authority.
 
Church reform was a necessity, it was on the point of the reformation in the 15-16th century, the celibate stuff was done to prevent the creation of dynasties and nepotism in the church, combat to simony is pretty much self-explanatory and the Investiture Crisis was the culmination of the Papal-Imperial conflict where the Pope tried multiple times to get free from the Ottonian Diploma.

Henry III's policy of strengthening the church was a policy that was happening since Otto the Great, since the patronage of it was vital for legitimacy and Imperial Kingship was tied to Papal support, however one should note that even with the Church getting strong at his reign he was still able to depose a (actually three) Pope(s) and appointed his own, showing that Empire still had balls against a strong papacy. In fact you could say that Henry III don't dying young and living to see his son reaching majority would leave Henry IV with a much more successful reign.

For you question, Henry III dying before his father, unless Conrad II gets a new son, means the end of the Salian dynasty, so a new election for King of Germany, possibly with Papal meddling that can be a regress in royal authority.

Celibacy was also in imperial interest, as the emperors used church officials as vassals in order to avoid the problem with hereditary vassals. Still, this was a long time before the Reformation, so a weak church was really not that much of a problem for the emperor. From the Investiture Controversy, any Secular Interference in the investiture of the clergy was defined as simony. This was clearly not in the imperial interest. Without church reform, the emperors would perhaps have avoided the Investiture Controversy and could have used more of their energy on fighting disloyal vassals. As far as I understand, Henry III supported church reforms out of idealistic interests. Maybe he did not see that it would shortly come to weaken the empire. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the empire had got an emperor less supportive of church reform.
 
Top