What would a Protestant/Reformed Holy Roman Emperor look like?

The point of this exercise is to see if we can find a way of changing that ideological construction in a way that justifies Protestant leadership of the Empire. The Empire can continue as the idealized protector of the world, simply joining the spiritual defense to its list of tasks. If you believe that the Pope is the Anti-christ (which the protestants largely claimed) then you need to find some way of restoring Christian control over the Empire. You can't leave the "Devil" in control of the world's defenses, either spiritually or physically.

You can still have a protestant ruler claiming a to be a universal ruler, that part of the bible was used to justify the more absolutist regimes in protestant lands later on.

The integration of Rome into the second coming came as part of the reforms associated with the early Ecumenical Councils, which a range of protestants dismiss as being against the beliefs of the early Church which they viewed as having been corrupted by Imperial involvement.

Very interesting point here- that's honestly something I have not ever considered. The problem, I suppose, is getting the protestants to form a cohesive social "bloc". As I think was already mentioned on this thread, the protestants were often fighting amongst themselves just as much as against the catholics (same could be said about the catholics as well, but imo, given their strength and size, banding together wasnt a extesenial need). The electors need to have some sort of a legal method for generating cohesion.

Here's what I think could lead to better cohesion (and thus, more chance to elect a protestant). I believe that a more permanent and institutionalized imperial government as proposed at the imperial diet in 1495, especially the creation of a permanent Imperial Diet (this failed OTL within 20 years of its creation due to Maximilians stubborness). This would be a huge benefit to both the protestants and catholics in the Empire as it would provide a formalized system for imperial policy making. In many ways, it could even benefit the emperor, as he would have a method for legislating while still cooperating with the princes, thus reducing conflict, and fostering the growth of a bureaucratic and more institutionalized HRE.

This body, imo, could really benefit the protestants if they play their cards right. The diet could help foster closer bonds among protestants, in order to oppose catholic expansion.

Thoughts?
 
Very interesting point here- that's honestly something I have not ever considered. The problem, I suppose, is getting the protestants to form a cohesive social "bloc". As I think was already mentioned on this thread, the protestants were often fighting amongst themselves just as much as against the catholics (same could be said about the catholics as well, but imo, given their strength and size, banding together wasnt a extesenial need). The electors need to have some sort of a legal method for generating cohesion.

Here's what I think could lead to better cohesion (and thus, more chance to elect a protestant). I believe that a more permanent and institutionalized imperial government as proposed at the imperial diet in 1495, especially the creation of a permanent Imperial Diet (this failed OTL within 20 years of its creation due to Maximilians stubborness). This would be a huge benefit to both the protestants and catholics in the Empire as it would provide a formalized system for imperial policy making. In many ways, it could even benefit the emperor, as he would have a method for legislating while still cooperating with the princes, thus reducing conflict, and fostering the growth of a bureaucratic and more institutionalized HRE.

This body, imo, could really benefit the protestants if they play their cards right. The diet could help foster closer bonds among protestants, in order to oppose catholic expansion.

Thoughts?

I can see how an Imperial Diet would be able to push things in that direction, but would it be allowed to continue existing when it undermines Imperial power. I doubt the Electors are going to be very interested in keeping it running either as it cuts into their elavated degree of power. Keep in mind that this weakens the power of stronger actors in the empire in favor of the weaker ones, which is inherently going to face opposition from the start.

All of that said, I think that a more powerful forum for debate and a platform from which Protestants can push their platform could stengthen their hand significantly. This brings to mind the conflict surrounding the 1529 Diet (might be a later Diet but i seem to remember it being 1529) where Phillip of Hesse and his supporters were prevented from sharing their program at an official event. With a permanent Diet it would be far easier to present the Protestant message.

Nice idea :)
 
I'm pretty bad about starting to write TLs and then abandoning them. I had one where Edward IV is healthier and lives longer, with an ATL Reformation happening about 30-40 years after POD. Protestantism does pretty well in many regions of the Empire, and a dispute over the appointment of bishops sparks a break with Rome.
 
The OTL elections in that time period were:
1531 - Ferdinand I
1562 - Maximilian II
1575 - Rudolf II
1612 - Matthias
1619 - Ferdinand II
1636 - Ferdinand III

Which of these was closest to Habsburg losing the election to a Protestant emperor (most prominent Protestant prince probably Saxony)?

Of the seven electors, three were Catholic archbishops and the other four were secular rulers. Three of the princes were Protestants but the fourth, the King of Bohemia, was a Habsburg and thus Catholic. Bohemia needs to break free from Habsburg rule - and stay that way - for a Protestant to win the election. IOTL when it broke free, it triggered the Thirty Years' War. Maybe with an earlier POD it is possible?

The other possibility would be for the Habsburgs themselves to convert, although that is tough.
 
Clearly the answer is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gusta..._of_Sweden_1611-1632_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Attributed_to_Jacob_Hoefnagel_-_Gustavus_Adolphus%2C_King_of_Sweden_1611-1632_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Gustavus_Adolphus_of_Sweden
 
I can see how an Imperial Diet would be able to push things in that direction, but would it be allowed to continue existing when it undermines Imperial power. I doubt the Electors are going to be very interested in keeping it running either as it cuts into their elavated degree of power. Keep in mind that this weakens the power of stronger actors in the empire in favor of the weaker ones, which is inherently going to face opposition from the start.

All of that said, I think that a more powerful forum for debate and a platform from which Protestants can push their platform could stengthen their hand significantly. This brings to mind the conflict surrounding the 1529 Diet (might be a later Diet but i seem to remember it being 1529) where Phillip of Hesse and his supporters were prevented from sharing their program at an official event. With a permanent Diet it would be far easier to present the Protestant message.

Nice idea :)
If I recall correctly, the proposed imperial diets gave the electors some sort of elevated status in politics, but I forget the exact details. But yeah, as you said, the question is what circumstances could allow for the emperor to keep the diet around.

I'm toying around with this concept of a more successful 1495 reichsreform ATL - basically the goal is to create a semi-federal HRE (kinda like OTL modern Spain) based around the idea of imperial power being shared and balanced between the princes and emperor.
 
Of the seven electors, three were Catholic archbishops and the other four were secular rulers. Three of the princes were Protestants but the fourth, the King of Bohemia, was a Habsburg and thus Catholic. Bohemia needs to break free from Habsburg rule - and stay that way - for a Protestant to win the election. IOTL when it broke free, it triggered the Thirty Years' War. Maybe with an earlier POD it is possible?

The other possibility would be for the Habsburgs themselves to convert, although that is tough.

In the second half of 16th century, Habsburgs were not particularly zealous Catholics. Rudolf II, Matthias...

If either of them outright converted to Protestantism, who´d overthrow him?
 
Of the seven electors, three were Catholic archbishops and the other four were secular rulers. Three of the princes were Protestants but the fourth, the King of Bohemia, was a Habsburg and thus Catholic. Bohemia needs to break free from Habsburg rule - and stay that way - for a Protestant to win the election. IOTL when it broke free, it triggered the Thirty Years' War. Maybe with an earlier POD it is possible?

Actually, the Bohemian vote isn't necessary (although it's the easiest way to get a fourth Protestant Elector). The three Archbishops were chosen not by the Pope but by the local Cathedral chapter, and thus weren't strictly required to be Catholic. There was a point at which the Archbishop of Cologne was actually a Protestant, although he was quickly deposed in the Cologne War of 1583-1588.

Reading up on it, Archbishop Gebhard converted to Protestantism after his election by the Cologne Cathedral chapter. Also, the Peace of Augsburg had stipulated that any Prince-Bishop or Prince-Archbishop who converted to Protestantism would thereby resign his post. So, we might need a POD before the Peace of Augsburg (1555) to have a Protestant recognized as Archbishop-Elector.
 
There was a point at which the Archbishop of Cologne was actually a Protestant, although he was quickly deposed in the Cologne War of 1583-1588.

Reading up on it, Archbishop Gebhard converted to Protestantism after his election by the Cologne Cathedral chapter. Also, the Peace of Augsburg had stipulated that any Prince-Bishop or Prince-Archbishop who converted to Protestantism would thereby resign his post. So, we might need a POD before the Peace of Augsburg (1555) to have a Protestant recognized as Archbishop-Elector.

Cologne War did last 6 years.
So WI Gebhard wins Cologne War? Would that make Peace of Augsburg a dead letter?
 
I'm pretty bad about starting to write TLs and then abandoning them. I had one where Edward IV is healthier and lives longer, with an ATL Reformation happening about 30-40 years after POD. Protestantism does pretty well in many regions of the Empire, and a dispute over the appointment of bishops sparks a break with Rome.

Sounds interesting, though how exactly England is able to influence the rest of Europe at that point in time has always puzzled me a bit. After the 100YW and the Wars of the Roses and into Queen Elizabeth's reign England was something of a second-rate power particularly when compared to the HRE, Spain or France. That is why a PoD in continental Europe would probably make more sense. Personally I lean towards something in the pre-Peace of Augsburg Era either related to the Italian Wars, Wars of Suleiman or directly with the Reformation if this should have a chance of working. You really need to work with the period before Lutheranism, Reformed and Radical Reformations start finding their final forms, and the same with Catholicism. Intervention either in the pre-Counter-Reformation or during the Counter-Reformation would probably also be important if something like a Protestant Emperor is to work.

Of the seven electors, three were Catholic archbishops and the other four were secular rulers. Three of the princes were Protestants but the fourth, the King of Bohemia, was a Habsburg and thus Catholic. Bohemia needs to break free from Habsburg rule - and stay that way - for a Protestant to win the election. IOTL when it broke free, it triggered the Thirty Years' War. Maybe with an earlier POD it is possible?

The other possibility would be for the Habsburgs themselves to convert, although that is tough.

As mentioned, I think that a pre-Peace of Augsburg PoD would work best for this. I was wondering what the likelihood of Albrecht von Hohenzollern, Elector of Mainz, providing support for a candidate in return for secularizing the Archbishopric. The Elector of Cologne also expressed significant pro-Reform sentiments in the pre-1540s crisis period, so there should be plenty of opportunitites to turn the Archbishoprics in favor of a Protestant Emperor if you time it correctly.

If I recall correctly, the proposed imperial diets gave the electors some sort of elevated status in politics, but I forget the exact details. But yeah, as you said, the question is what circumstances could allow for the emperor to keep the diet around.

I'm toying around with this concept of a more successful 1495 reichsreform ATL - basically the goal is to create a semi-federal HRE (kinda like OTL modern Spain) based around the idea of imperial power being shared and balanced between the princes and emperor.

You need to keep in mind that the princes are by no means equal, and that there is a layman-clerical division between them. There are hundreds of petty duchies who would be insulted to find themselves relegated below the Duke of Bavaria or the like, but at the same time the larger Dukes would be unwilling to share power equally with the petty dukes. At the same time you have the Electors who would view this as an attack on their priveleged position unless they receive special extra powers of one kind or another.

In the second half of 16th century, Habsburgs were not particularly zealous Catholics. Rudolf II, Matthias...

If either of them outright converted to Protestantism, who´d overthrow him?

Rudolf and Matthias both faced significant opposition from within their family, and publicly converting would have served as a perfect excuse for their own rivals to attack them and their supporters to turn on them. That said, particularly Rudolf II has quite a lot of influence from the Spirituali movement in Italy during the 1520s and 1530s with many of the reformist ideas being considered for adaptation by the wider Church, although after the 1541 crisis the Spirituali were driven into exile and joined the Reformers, particularly Jean Calvin, in Geneva or Strassburg.

Actually, the Bohemian vote isn't necessary (although it's the easiest way to get a fourth Protestant Elector). The three Archbishops were chosen not by the Pope but by the local Cathedral chapter, and thus weren't strictly required to be Catholic. There was a point at which the Archbishop of Cologne was actually a Protestant, although he was quickly deposed in the Cologne War of 1583-1588.

Reading up on it, Archbishop Gebhard converted to Protestantism after his election by the Cologne Cathedral chapter. Also, the Peace of Augsburg had stipulated that any Prince-Bishop or Prince-Archbishop who converted to Protestantism would thereby resign his post. So, we might need a POD before the Peace of Augsburg (1555) to have a Protestant recognized as Archbishop-Elector.

While the Cologne War and Archbishop Gebhard could work very well, there were also several earlier bishop-electors who could work as mentioned above.

That said, I agree that a pre-Peace of Augsburg PoD would definitely work best for this.

Cologne War did last 6 years.
So WI Gebhard wins Cologne War? Would that make Peace of Augsburg a dead letter?

I am unsure fo the effects of a victorious Cologne War for Gebhard, but it could well provoke a Empire-wide war. Could be an interesting PoD...
 
Sounds interesting, though how exactly England is able to influence the rest of Europe at that point in time has always puzzled me a bit. After the 100YW and the Wars of the Roses and into Queen Elizabeth's reign England was something of a second-rate power particularly when compared to the HRE, Spain or France. That is why a PoD in continental Europe would probably make more sense. Personally I lean towards something in the pre-Peace of Augsburg Era either related to the Italian Wars, Wars of Suleiman or directly with the Reformation if this should have a chance of working. You really need to work with the period before Lutheranism, Reformed and Radical Reformations start finding their final forms, and the same with Catholicism. Intervention either in the pre-Counter-Reformation or during the Counter-Reformation would probably also be important if something like a Protestant Emperor is to work.
I'm going to guess you mean "Protestant England influences HRE turning Protestant as well"? In that case, not exactly. I was exactly considering having England stay Catholic, but with an important Protestant minority (same for France). England and France could threaten Rome with leaving unless they are given power over appointing major church positions.
 
There were branches early on who flirted with Protestantism, probably most notably Isabella of Austria and her husband Christian II of Denmark, though Christian later turned his back on it. Further, I read somewhere that Joanna "the Mad" had significant interest in protestant teachings, one of several reasonns she was kept from power. There are others, but I can't quite remember who. Most of them flirted with Protestantism, but I think it was exceedingly rare for any of them to actually convert.

Wasn't just Isabella, but most of Karl V's sisters, except Katharina (Marie of Hungary was regent of the Netherlands when this was all coming in, and didn't really lift a finger to stop it; I think Eleonore only refused to have ladies-in-waiting who were Protestant/Huguenot, but she was okay with it otherwise; Isabella the Habsburgs actually had to issue a statement swearing up and down that she had died a Catholic). Hell, Ferdinand I was likewise a lot more tolerant than Felipe II would've liked, and when his nephew objected, he shrugged his shoulders, said 'what can I do?' and carried on carrying on.

As to Juana, from what I've read, she wasn't Protestant per se, but she preferred the more "liberal", free-thinking Catholicism of the Low Countries to the petrified, oppressive (as she saw it) Inquisition-dominated Spanish version. One of the letters written during her tenure as duchess, states that she has forsaken her Spanish father confessor, and was surrounded rather, by a swarm of "gay Parisian fathers", led by the bishop of Besancon; in Spain, they kept sending her Dominican priests (which she hated), and closed her eyes at the elevation of the host, refused to attend mass (because she was normally breakfasting at that time (as she had learned in Burgundy where mass was said much later)); and regularly when offered the communion, refused to accept it, but motioned that the priest was to offer them to D. Katharina instead. To the Catholic Spaniards (particularly her mother, surrounded by a swarm of Dominican friars), this was horrifying. Isabel was uncomfortable leaving the government of the Spain she had made Catholic, in the hands of a person seemingly so lax in religion, which is why she included the codicil in her will that should Juana be "absent, unable or unwilling" to govern Spain, Fernando was to serve as administrator.
 
One issue, if we're maintaining the Holy part, is that it increases the threat to the authority of other Protestant powers in a way that had already been accounted for* in Catholicism. One of the perks of becoming a Protestant king was that religious authority itrn devolved into the hands of the secular authority, as per in England. This in some ways resolved an age old conflict that had only been semi-patched with the IC resolution.

So, if this process we're discussing happens early it somewhat reduces the appeal of changing, and if it happens later it's a direct challenge to the religious authority some Protestant rulers had already assumed.

I suppose it depends when, exactly, this happens, but it might prove a boon to the counter-reformation.

*more in terms of exhaustion than actual resolution.
 
Top