What if Germany unified as early as say Spain or Britain?

What if in a different Era, Germany, like the Romance States (no matter how unlikely) managed to get it together as early as, say, Spain or Britain or France. How would that change the politics of the European Continent? And how would they approach colonization?
 
What if in a different Era, Germany, like the Romance States (no matter how unlikely) managed to get it together as early as, say, Spain or Britain or France. How would that change the politics of the European Continent? And how would they approach colonization?
France, Poland and Denmark likely have a harder go of things beyond that hard to say, lots of butterflies
France will still be the supreme power on the continent until the industrial age but a unified Germany puts a big check on their expansion.
I feel bad for Poland they may never see prominence at all.
Denmark won't be able to look to North Germany to expand and could very well loose jutland.
Colonisation could very well end up being more like russia simply opting to Germanize territory directly to germany's east instead of looking to other parts of the world, Germany is not in the best geographic position to go out colonising great swaths of the world, it needs to maintain as much strength as it can on the continent in order to keep its borders secure.
 
For @ExNovus : It's going to be a bit long, so feel welcome to pass parties that bores you)

For what it matters, Germany wasn't as unified as France or Spain.
It was more unified at least until the XIIIth century, thanks to imperial structures and prestige, and didn't really knew the important feudal desintegration that happened in France (at the exception of atlantic principalties), Burgundy (which is admittedly an extreme case, tied up with the particularily important desintegration happening in Aquitaine) and Italy (especially after the death of Matilda of Tuscany).
It didn't either knew the several divisions of Christian Spain underwent until the XIIth.

It's not even a case of not catching up with the growing bureaucratisation and unifying trends, as a lot of these originated from Imperial Italy and Germany.

So, what got wrong? At which point Germany underwent changes that make it unable to undergo the same changes that in France?
Well, it's mostly due to a whole array of political and institutional reasons, which separatly were managable (and generally were managed) but taken together, much less so.

First, it's the imperial character of medieval Germany and Italy : these existed as cultural, political and proto-national ensemble, but the overlording body was the Empire. It led the various strong dynasties to live up to their quasi-universal pretentions if they wanted to legitimize their rule. It led to clashes with Papacy, itself quite bound on universal hegemony, and the various city-states, duchies, etc. that could benefit from the big extension of the Empire (HREmperors could be forced to end a revolt in Italy, mere years after having dealt with Germany) and from pontifical support (HRE, too far from God, too close to the pontiff).
And there's the kicker : while other kings and great nobles didn't THAT feel threatened trough excommunication (they still did a bit, sometimes), HREmperors did. They needed the pontifical aquescit to legitimize their rule as emperors, and excommunication didn't just meant for them that Rome was very, very, disappointed. It meant they were theoritically deprived to their right to rule as emperors, which litterally everyone could use as a pretext to revolt : the strong papacy Ottonian supported at first in order to legitimize their imperial claims became more and more of an hinderance.

It doesn't help that Germany itself harboured, at first, relatively unified feudal entities : where the Kings of France eventually had to deal with neighbouring entities that looked like confetti on a map (usually pledging alliegance to several overlords because why the fuck not) and could benefit from this as any overlord as Plantagenets would see their rule itself build on political moving sands (half of the rebellions against Henry II can be explained as such); the HREmperors had to deal with big, self-important and rivaling aristocracy.

When Capetians were perfectly able to build-up their power in north France (the weakness of early Capetian is generally grossly exagerated tough : in spite of their relatively small holdings, it was still more unified than their immediate neighbours, was set on a prosperous region, and they beneficied a lot from the suzerainty link over great nobles), Ottonians and Salians had to go trough an higher road than "Well, today I'm going to war against a vassal then change sides in order to get a territory no greater than a sous-préfecture".

That alone, tough, wouldn't have been that handicapping if HRE didn't suffered dynastical instability in the XIIth. Early French or German kingship became somehow elective by the Xth century (altough it's more of a case of dynastical popularity contest among potentes), but in both of these regions, it quickly became ceremonial elections only by the end of the century (mostly trough the use of co-rulership in France, and coronation as king of Romans for Germany).
The sudden disappearance of Ottonians already was a blow when it came to a big succession crisis, but it went worse than that with the return of elective kingship, which settled the agreement of nobles and demonstrations of strength as the norm of deciding a succsession when it went relatively smoother in nobiliar successions elsewhere : at worst, elections weren't seen as the normative regulation.
By the death of Henry V, it became an anti-dynastical kingship for centuries, when in France or England, the dynastic principle was well established as even in a succession crisis, elective matters payed little to none influence (and certainly not trough the election of whoever was more popular along nobility). Arguably French kingship beneficied from the sacre which made sovereigns not only coronated, but consecrated beings (increasingly immensly their legitimacy and prestige).

You litterally have to wait for Habsburgs to take the imperial crown in the early XVth century, to really give HRE succession a real stability. By then tough, the ingoing bureaucratisation and unification that went trough all Europe allowed not only the neighbours of the Empire to grow in power, but it did happened to all the inner states of the HRE (dukedoms, city-states, principalties, etc.), which saw themselves reinforced and autonomized when it came to imperial order (it did happened in France, similarly, but it was mostly concerning great princes as Burgundy's and even there, it wasn't that solid)
It doesn't mean that medieval HREmperors past the XIIth century were weak (Honestaufen dynasty would be a good counter-exemple) but the shaky succession and the quasi-legitimized nobiliar revolts meant they weren't able to gradually curb down feudal autonomies and had to establish a working relationship with them (whereas English kings dealt with this in England proper since the Norman take-over, and French kings establish a feudal hegemony from the XIIIth onwards which only greater princes were able to fight back) : the Golden Bull of 1356 is basically an acknowledgement of this, and an mostly successful way to establish a legal hegemony of the emperors over their imperial subjects.

Nothing sudden in this case, but gradual.

By the Late Middle-Ages, tough, nothing was irremediably done : HREmperors still beneficied from the unyfing tendencies (it would be the least, giving they provided a good part of incitative to them), and were still able to call on impressive ressources they could on their own nobiliar demesnes. But they lacked the same systematized unifying and centralizing structures that had centuries to dominate elsewhere, and had to deal with subjects that didn't wasted their time using these for themselves. Habsburgs remains, still, a dynasty that were mostly successful enforcing their domination in the XVth century, in spite of divisions and foreign intervention : remember that by the XVth and early XVIth, while more unified, France still was including important and quasi-independent principalties as Louis of Bourbon's.

And that's where Protestantism kicked in. Religious fervour, regardless if sincere, convenient or (probably) both, provided a huge bundled opposition to Imperial rule, supported by neighbours (France, Sweden, Papacy), and ended with a huge financial blackhole, forcing Charles V to split up his pretty much immense holdings. HRE managed to maintain itself as a power, as emperors still managed to pretty much balance between the needs of imperial unity and their own interests (while France underwent the joys of civil war), but only for a while as the gap widdened between Protestant nobles' demands, Catholic nobles' demand, Pontifical's demands and Imperial policies (which were generally more or less moderate, a bit like French politiques) which explain (but only partially : bad political choices from Rudolf and Matthias as well) why HRE didn't went the way of Bourbons when it came to re-establish orders (as well, the lesser financial capacities of HRE since the XVIth).

The last proverbial and historical last drop was the Thirty Years War, which was a full-scale, bloody and devastating conflict with virtually everyone in the HRE switching side, and all neighbours as Sweden or France from one hand, Spain and Poland from another taking sides, the former interested on durably crushing the imperial power, the latter more interested supporting Catholicism and catholic factions than increasing imperial power.
At the end of the war, the principle of quasi-independence of HRE states (what we ended up to call the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty) was established, and HREmperors definitely unable to push their authority over a collection of quasi-independent states. The dissolution of HRE in 1806 was more or less a formality.

TL;DR
Germany not unifying as France or England did can be attributed trough History to these non-conflicting, non-simultenous and non-exhaustive factors
- Size
- Imperial kingship conflicting with Papacy
- Dynastic unstability and permanence of elective kingship
- More powerful aristocracy on the whole
- Lesser financial capacities
- Subjects of HRE going trough the same phase of unification and bureaucratisation than other European states
- Protestantism
- intervention of more unified and bureaucratised neighbours

For allowing Germany to go a similar unification, you'd need to deal with these : more you want a late unification, more to deal with.
I suggest you to read up at What If? such as this one where the prospect of Ottonians non forming HRE and imperial structures could lead to an early unifying Germany, paralleling (but still largely its own thing) the Capetian development.
 
I was going to post something on this, but LSCatalina posted that epic response that made anything I could have said look wimpy. :)
 
Well done LSCatalina, that was very thorough. I was also going to post something about Westphalian Sovereignty, but definitely not after that amazing response!
 
What if in a different Era, Germany, like the Romance States (no matter how unlikely) managed to get it together as early as, say, Spain or Britain or France.

Germany not unifying as France or England did can be attributed trough History to these non-conflicting, non-simultenous and non-exhaustive factors
- Size
- Imperial kingship conflicting with Papacy
- Dynastic unstability and permanence of elective kingship
- More powerful aristocracy on the whole
- Lesser financial capacities
- Subjects of HRE going trough the same phase of unification and bureaucratisation than other European states
- Protestantism
- intervention of more unified and bureaucratised neighbours

For allowing Germany to go a similar unification, you'd need to deal with these : more you want a late unification, more to deal with.
I suggest you to read up at What If? such as this one where the prospect of Ottonians non forming HRE and imperial structures could lead to an early unifying Germany, paralleling (but still largely its own thing) the Capetian development.
Well, the OP said Britain, not England, and that means that the 1603-1707 period seems feasible, so perhaps Sweden and France do not interfere in the 1630s, and the Empire is united by brutal military force or something.
 
Well, the OP said Britain, not England
Which use happens VERY often to be confused on this board for what matter medieval era (one exemple among many). You'd notice as well that the OP wrongfully (but probably as a typo) qualified Britain as a "Romance state".

The OP as well stated to unify "as early" as Britain and France, which clearly set the question on medieval era.

I think you're quite playing on words for the sake of it there, honestly.
 
Which use happens VERY often to be confused on this board for what matter medieval era (one exemple among many). You'd notice as well that the OP wrongfully (but probably as a typo) qualified Britain as a "Romance state".

The OP as well stated to unify "as early" as Britain and France, which clearly set the question on medieval era.

I think you're quite playing on words for the sake of it there, honestly.

I'm sorry for the lack of clarity. I would never qualify Britain as a Romance-speaking state. And I set the stage at the early medieval era, if that's possible. Not Charlemagne early, but 1200s.
 
Which use happens VERY often to be confused on this board for what matter medieval era (one exemple among many). You'd notice as well that the OP wrongfully (but probably as a typo) qualified Britain as a "Romance state".

The OP as well stated to unify "as early" as Britain and France, which clearly set the question on medieval era.

I think you're quite playing on words for the sake of it there, honestly.
No, I did not mean to offend. It was just how I thought of it, and that was before reading your massive post and the others' posts.

And I did not notice the "Romance" before now, but that is not all wrong. French speakers ruled as kings and lords in both England and Scotland in the high middle ages, but that is of course too early for me.

Anyway, was not Spain united in around 1492 and later, and France before and after 1600, and Britain after 1603? That is how I understand the OP.

Why would anyone write "Britain" for England? It usually is "England" for Britain. Winston Churchill commented that foreigners often used the old name, so he did likewise when he wrote his history.

I'm sorry for the lack of clarity. I would never qualify Britain as a Romance-speaking state. And I set the stage at the early medieval era, if that's possible. Not Charlemagne early, but 1200s.
Darn. But is not that kind of unity what was the case OTL for Germany throughout history until unification? Several competing entities in a power struggle?
 
Last edited:
Thoughts for a 1600ish German HRE as Germany.
Juan of Asturias survives and becomes King of Spain.
Phillip the Handsome remains in the Burgundian Netherlands. His sons are tutored by Erasmus instead of Spanish Jesuits.
Phillip establishes primogeniture as a policy for the HRE.
Successive Emperors promote religious tolerance and increase centralization.
Problem of Italy might be addressed by support of Savoyard expansion in Italy. If successful declare the Savoyard monarch King of Italy.
 
I'm sorry for the lack of clarity. I would never qualify Britain as a Romance-speaking state.
No problem : typo and mis-used labelling happens to everyone there, myself included. At least it was a common enough typo that it caused none big issue ;)

And I set the stage at the early medieval era, if that's possible.
I tried to provide with some elements for that, altough I don't think we could consider Germany being a distinct cultural and political ensemble as soon as the IXth, but rather in the Xth and the transformation of Ludovicenses as Germans (the same way as Karlenses as French)

Not Charlemagne early, but 1200s.
1200's are generally considered as part of the Classical Middle-Ages, tough : the Renaissance of the XIIth century really set it apart from the High Middle Ages (themselves distinct from Early MA, but that another story).
By the early XIIIth century, HRE institutions suffer from some of the aformentioned point : quasi-anti-dynastical elective kingship, powerful papacy and neighbours, powerful aristocracy.
Investiture Controversyand, its sidekick the struggle of scacerdocy and Empire, was lost to emperors (altough pontifical gain seems shaky at best). At this point, regardless of a pontifical or imperial victory, the HRE is really weakened and the local aristocracies have obtained much free rein, Honestaufen being unable to secure the imperial title, a situation which ended up with decades of Interregnum.
The XIIIth, eventually, can easily be considered as, for its main part, as the medieval nadir for HRE, while its neighbours and subjects enjoy a significant growth.

You first need to deal with the civil disorder, and having at worst Conrad being acknowledged as HREmperor, and Honestaufen being able to maintain their hegemony, if weakened, over their subjects. I'd fully expect a Golden Bull equivalent in the late XIIIth, giving and acknwoledging a large autonomy to their vassals when it come to the imperial institutions. But ITTL, this GOlden Bull equivalent would be made in a better reach for Honestaufen, mostly because you wouldn't have as much de facto independence for every imperial prince and city-states as it was humanly possible.
So, as far as use of legalism and institutionalism goes, I'd expect Honestaufen of the late XIIIth being in a better position than XIVth Luxemburgs.

That said, going for an unification of HRE in the XIIIth is quite tought : at best, I think you'd end up with HRE slowly catching up on France or England, but still pretty much tied to already established elective and decentralizing features. It could be resolved and absorbated in time, Habsburg-style, but it would ask for an evolution that couldn't end in the XIIIth IMO.
 
And I did not notice the "Romance" before now, but that is not all wrong. French speakers ruled as kings and lords in both England and Scotland in the high middle ages, but that is of course too early for me.
Point taken, but for what matter Scotland, most of its instutions were rather "Normanized" than Normans, and only after the Davidian Revolution.

Anyway, was not Spain united in around 1492 and later
Yes and no : Castille managed to unify a good chunk of the peninsula, and some of its medieval rulers claimed the title of "basileus" or "emperors". The latter part is not entierly anecdotical but should be contextualised, tough.

Why would anyone write "Britain" for England? It usually is "England" for Britain.
Beats me. I think it could be an over-compensated typo to avoid calling Britain "England". But it's rather common.
 
Point taken, but for what matter Scotland, most of its instutions were rather "Normanized" than Normans, and only after the Davidian Revolution.


Yes and no : Castille managed to unify a good chunk of the peninsula, and some of its medieval rulers claimed the title of "basileus" or "emperors". The latter part is not entierly anecdotical but should be contextualised, tough.


Beats me. I think it could be an over-compensated typo to avoid calling Britain "England". But it's rather common.

To answer your question I tried to avoid calling Britain "England" XD But I mean the stronger English power on the Isle when I say "Britain."
 
The equivalent of WW2 centuries earlier. Result: Either Germany takes over the continent, or they're crushed by an alliance. After that...
 
Why would anyone write "Britain" for England? It usually is "England" for Britain.

Carelessness and ignorance. Last night, I glanced over a National Geographic special issue on the history of Christianity. There was a section on the Crusades, with a map showing the routes of Crusading armies to the Holy Land. This map showed a fleet which sailed from England around Iberia and through the Mediterranean. The fleet stopped off in Portugal (at that time, still only northern half), and the Crusaders helped the Portuguese fight the Almohads. (They also sacked Lisbon.) The map refers to these Crusaders as British.
 
Carelessness and ignorance. Last night, I glanced over a National Geographic special issue on the history of Christianity. There was a section on the Crusades, with a map showing the routes of Crusading armies to the Holy Land. This map showed a fleet which sailed from England around Iberia and through the Mediterranean. The fleet stopped off in Portugal (at that time, still only northern half), and the Crusaders helped the Portuguese fight the Almohads. (They also sacked Lisbon.) The map refers to these Crusaders as British.

In most non-anglophone countries, the opposite is true: everything "British" is usually called "English", with "England" being commonly used as a pars pro toto regarding the British Isles. Much like "Russia" was interchangeable with URSS in the US's perspective.
 
Carelessness and ignorance. Last night, I glanced over a National Geographic special issue on the history of Christianity. There was a section on the Crusades, with a map showing the routes of Crusading armies to the Holy Land. This map showed a fleet which sailed from England around Iberia and through the Mediterranean. The fleet stopped off in Portugal (at that time, still only northern half), and the Crusaders helped the Portuguese fight the Almohads. (They also sacked Lisbon.) The map refers to these Crusaders as British.

Americans often say "British" for things that are more specifically English. If someone speaks of a "British accent," for example, they're almost never speaking of a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish accent.
 
Top