WI: Germany unified at the same time as France and England?

[Boto von Ageduch]

@MontyBurns: Lotharingia was almost completely German-speaking until 1918.

Moreover, countries like Flanders were also considered "thiudisc" (Germanic speaking) although a French feud virtually all the time.

Basically, ethnicity and cultural identity was an important notion in the Middle Ages as well, but it didn't have anything to do with politics. Therefore, the power of a monarch has little to do with the cultural differences of his population.

I agree that the claim to Rome, the claim to incorporate a renewal of the Roman Empire, the goal to make the Popes vassals to the Emperors overburdened their power. However, centralization of the HRE failed for many other reasons as well - most importantly the drive for independence and privileges of the princes.

So I firmly believe that for a realistic scenario of centralization, you'll have to have a situation at some point where a majority of the most important princes has a strong motivation to sacrifice a significant share of their power more or less voluntarily, and their successors cannot undo that afterwards.

 

[Simon]

Maybe a POD for Habsburgs victory in 30-years war? And then they unite Germany?

As others have mentioned it is rather later than the original poster was looking for by 700 odd years. A better bet might be finding some way for Henry VI to achieve his plan to make the HRE an elective monarchy. Granted it's still roughly 200 years later than American Empire was looking for but it's the earliest I can think of. It might be a slow process but once you've got a hereditary monarchy over time I think they would have slowly worked to whittle down the nobility's powers and try and centralise the state.

 

[Scipio Africanus]

This is a very interesting idea (early unification of germany). I have always wondered about the future of Europe if Otto I had not revived the empire. Perhaps a strong kingdom of Germany with fewer interests/commitments in Italy and a more evenly matched competition with France? Succession laws were very unclear at the time, early kings of France had their successors crowned before the king's death to ensure proper succession because France did not have a clear succession law.
Scipio

 

[SavoyTruffle]

This is a very interesting idea (early unification of germany). I have always wondered about the future of Europe if Otto I had not revived the empire. Perhaps a strong kingdom of Germany with fewer interests/commitments in Italy and a more evenly matched competition with France? Succession laws were very unclear at the time, early kings of France had their successors crowned before the king's death to ensure proper succession because France did not have a clear succession law.
Scipio

Not to mention that Otto I ascended the Imperial throne way before Hugh Capet ascended his, so this changes a lot of the Franco-German dynamics.

 

[Scipio Africanus]

Not to mention that Otto I ascended the Imperial throne way before Hugh Capet ascended his, so this changes a lot of the Franco-German dynamics.

Indeed it does, but you can probably expect the Capet to take the throne since the were strong in northern France before Otto I took the throne. I actually have a tl idea were Hugh the Great (Hugh Capet's father) take the throne in 945/946 because Louis IV dies in captivity (how does that sound?).
Scipio

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

Otto I sure had good chances to achieve that.
The various attempts at installing a hereditary kingdom/empire suggest that the whole concept was conceivable and relevant for a long time.

But I would still like to remind you that "hereditary" doesn't mean "strong".
The late Habsburg Emperors practically inherited the Iimperial title, but had the least influence on the rest of the Empire. On the other hand, elected Emperors can prove strong as well.

 

[Monty Burns]

@MontyBurns: Lotharingia was almost completely German-speaking until 1918.

Nitpick: You mean Alsace-Lorraine. Of these, Alsace was part of Swabia. Lotharingia roughly encompassed Belgium and French Lorraine.

Other than that, I fully agree with you. Early-centralized Germany can have other ethnicities in its borders without harm, even Italians. The Problem is the pope and Rome/the imperial idea that comes with Italy. And you're also right that a hereditary monarchy isn't necessarily better as the Hapsburgs show.

What about the Welfs winning their fights with the Stauffen? The Welfs had Bavaria AND Saxony, wheres the Stauffen had only Swabia. By the territorial nature of their holdings, the Welfs could concentrate more on the east and limit themselves on Verona as a landbridge to the Med. If the Welfs organize Eastern colonization accordingly, those newly conquered lands would fall to the king and never get independence.

 

[Intosh]

After Charlemagne reinvented the Roman ideal for Western Europe, Germans fully shared in it.

The Germans fully shared the Imperial Charlemage ideals after the Franks have killed half the Saxons and converted by force the rest. It was the sames with the Bavarians.

The "Saxons" wars lasted nearly 30 years... And it was rather bloody...

I think that the POD is possible 100 or 200 hundred years after Charlemagne, otherwise, Germany (Frankony) will be too dominate by the Franks and their "latin" influence with a imperial capital in Aachen but dominated by the big towns of central (Paris) and southern France (Lyon)... The rest of eastern and northern Germany being vassals duchies and marches...

 

[Intosh]

Nitpick: You mean Alsace-Lorraine. Of these, Alsace was part of Swabia. Lotharingia roughly encompassed Belgium and French Lorraine.

To nitpick more, it was Alsace-Moselle and before 1871, the alsatian and mosellan dialects were quicky disasppearing, they don't have a real written form before...

The alsatian had a huge revival because people were forbidden to speak french and they didn't like to speak german.

If a frankish (german) state develop around Aachen, it will have big consequences on French and German, french will become a more germanized language or all these people will speak some kind of Dutch...

Paris wasn't the biggest town in the territory of France, it just happend to be the biggest town of Hugues Capet fief...

 

[Janprimus]

@MontyBurns: Lotharingia was almost completely German-speaking until 1918.

Moreover, countries like Flanders were also considered "thiudisc" (Germanic speaking) although a French feud virtually all the time. (...)

Nitpick: You mean Alsace-Lorraine. Of these, Alsace was part of Swabia. Lotharingia roughly encompassed Belgium and French Lorraine.
(...)

The majority of Lotharingia spoke Germanic dialects. Furthermore it depends on which Lotharingia, the Alsace was (originally) a part of the original kingdom of Lotharingia, but it later became a part of the Swabian Stem duchy. This kingdom of Lotharingia encompassed Belgium, Luxemburg, Lorraine, for a while the Alsace (when Lotharingia was a kingdom), but also the Netherlands and some territories now a part of Germany (East Frisia, Julich and parts of the Palatinate).
Certain territories were lost or transferred once Lotharingia became a (arch-)duchy in East Francia, which later was divided in a Upper Lotharingia, which became Lorraine and Lower Lotharingia, which ended up as Lothier and was a title held by the dukes of Brabant (and later also Limburg), which also were the last dukes of the larger Lower Lotharingia.

 

[VictorLaszlo]

The problem of a medieval unification of Germany is the very nature of the HRE. It was a rather loose confederation of larger and smaller principalities, both secular and ecclesiastical, and free cities. All of them used every possibility to weaken the position of the emperor and thus to strengthen their own. The electors often elected emperors they considered weak (like Rudolf of Habsburg rather than the at this time very powerful King Otokar II. of Bohemia or even foreign princes like Richard of Cornwall, who was elected as emperor, but did not dare to come to his coronation, because his opponent made it public, that should Richard enter the territory of the HRE, assassins would be waiting for him) and every attempt to make the position of emperor purely hereditary were succussfully thwarted. Another important fact is, that the peoples of Germany, and I'm using the plural form here deliberately, did not consider themselves as part of a german nation, being artificially devided, but as descendants of different germanic peoples (Franks, Saxons, Alemanni ...).

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

What about the Welfs winning their fights with the Stauffen?

Very much to the point. I too believe the Welfs proved very smart in establishing, maintaining, and executing power. The Hohenstaufens were very powerful for some time, but I find it somewhat ironic that they are often considered romantically as the archetype of powerful Emperors: Because they too often secured their power by giving out privileges for eternity, and thus bought their power on their successors' credit.

The problem of a medieval unification of Germany is the very nature of the HRE. It was a rather loose confederation of larger and smaller principalities, both secular and ecclesiastical, and free cities.

For a very long time, the competences and privileges of the Emperor in contrast to the princes was unclear and subject to intense juridical debate. To begin with, free cities didn't really exist until the time of Welfish-Staufen opposition which we are discussing at the moment.

All of them used every possibility to weaken the position of the emperor and thus to strengthen their own. The electors often elected emperors they considered weak

True, but in the course of time, people always make mistakes when considering others weak. And the princes (and later: electors) did so as well (see the Hohenstaufens).

Another important fact is, that the peoples of Germany, and I'm using the plural form here deliberately, did not consider themselves as part of a german nation, being artificially devided, but as descendants of different germanic peoples (Franks, Saxons, Alemanni ...).

Yes, in 800, but definitely not in 1100.
You are right in that no German in 1100 would weap over an "artificially divided" country (as people would do in 1800 or 1950). As little would a Frenchman in the 12th century deplore that he is subject to a Plantagenet and some of his fellow-countrymen to a Capet - unless he is a merchant having to cross borders often, or paying more taxes than his neighbors.

But a strong sense of commonness, togetherness among Germans is perceptible since the Battle of Lechfeld in 955. This is an often forgotten, but significant point in defining a German nation.