WI: No Habsburgs?

The Habsburgs lost the throne briefly in the late 14th/early 15th century, but regained it after the death of Emperor Sigismund von Luxemburg. What if the latter had sired a male heir, and that heir had gotten elected to the HRE, continuing the rule of House von Luxemburg? Do the Habsburgs get the throne back ever---is it just a matter of time for them?
 
They'd still rule over the Austrian Hereditary Lands and thus are amongst the most important dynasties in the Empire.

Unless the house of Luxembourg goes extinct in the male, the best chance the Habsburgs have, will be a Luxembourg monarch, who leaves behind an under-age heir. Or a ruler from the house of Luxembourg, who is very unpopular.

OTOH they were denied an electorate by Charles IV of the Luxembourg dynasty, so the Luxembourgs and the Habsburgs did have some points of disagreement.
 
They'd still rule over the Austrian Hereditary Lands and thus are amongst the most important dynasties in the Empire.

Unless the house of Luxembourg goes extinct in the male, the best chance the Habsburgs have, will be a Luxembourg monarch, who leaves behind an under-age heir. Or a ruler from the house of Luxembourg, who is very unpopular.

OTOH they were denied an electorate by Charles IV of the Luxembourg dynasty, so the Luxembourgs and the Habsburgs did have some points of disagreement.

What made the von Luxembourgs so unpopular? Wenceslaus was a drunk idiot, but Sigismund was a very successful emperor, no? And Charles IV before him?
 
What made the von Luxembourgs so unpopular? Wenceslaus was a drunk idiot, but Sigismund was a very successful emperor, no? And Charles IV before him?

I was referring to a potential future ruler from the house of (Limburg-)Luxembourg (or von Luxemburg/de Luxembourg), not the house as a whole. IOTL Roman-German king Albert of Habsburg started as an Anti-King, though an Emperor might fail to have his chosen heir elected.

As for Charles IV, after his reign every Emperor/king of the Romans had to rely on his own dynastic lands, during his reign the once widespread imperial demesne shrunk into insignificance (granted it wasn't, what it used to be, but he granted away most of the leftovers).
Then there's the Golden Bull and the special privileges granted to the Prince-Electors; it's no coincidence duke Rudolf IV of Austria responded with the Privilegium Maius. Denying the duke of Bavaria and the duke of Austria some compensation can in part be seen as a deliberate policy against dynastic-political rivals.
 
I was referring to a potential future ruler from the house of (Limburg-)Luxembourg (or von Luxemburg/de Luxembourg), not the house as a whole. IOTL Roman-German king Albert of Habsburg started as an Anti-King, though an Emperor might fail to have his chosen heir elected.

As for Charles IV, after his reign every Emperor/king of the Romans had to rely on his own dynastic lands, during his reign the once widespread imperial demesne shrunk into insignificance (granted it wasn't, what it used to be, but he granted away most of the leftovers).
Then there's the Golden Bull and the special privileges granted to the Prince-Electors; it's no coincidence duke Rudolf IV of Austria responded with the Privilegium Maius. Denying the duke of Bavaria and the duke of Austria some compensation can in part be seen as a deliberate policy against dynastic-political rivals.

Sigismund controlled significant hereditary lands---Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia, the latter in personal union, but still, they paid taxes to him. He was OTL the richest and most powerful emperor until Charles V. What I'm wondering is, can his successes continue under a male heir, and for how long can the Luxembourgs remain on the throne? Basically, is a Habsburg resurgence inevitable, or can they be butterfly'd away---basically, reduced to the stature of the Wittelsbachs, or some similarly eminent-but-not-dominant house.

My TL has Sigismund inherit Bohemia about a decade sooner, and elected and installed as emperor about twenty years sooner than OTL. He is also elected to the Polish Crown after Jogaila dies at Grunwald. In other words, he's even richer and more powerful than OTL. I'd like to give him an heir and have that heir get elected to the throne as well, but I think there ought to be an interlude of some kind to break things up a bit. I want Sigismund to die and have a Habsburg get elected, but then I want his heir to take over. I need to know if that's doable, or if the Habsburgs, once back in power, will stay on the throne for good.
 
Sigismund controlled significant hereditary lands---Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia, the latter in personal union, but still, they paid taxes to him. He was OTL the richest and most powerful emperor until Charles V. What I'm wondering is, can his successes continue under a male heir, and for how long can the Luxembourgs remain on the throne? Basically, is a Habsburg resurgence inevitable, or can they be butterfly'd away---basically, reduced to the stature of the Wittelsbachs, or some similarly eminent-but-not-dominant house.

As long as the Luxembourgs have adult male heirs, then they are in a good position to keep the throne. A Habsburg resurgence is not inevitable, though they could obtain the position as the first behind the prince-electors in the order of precedence (one of the things claimed by Privilegium Maius) and maybe eventually an electorate way down the line.

My TL has Sigismund inherit Bohemia about a decade sooner, and elected and installed as emperor about twenty years sooner than OTL. He is also elected to the Polish Crown after Jogaila dies at Grunwald. In other words, he's even richer and more powerful than OTL. I'd like to give him an heir and have that heir get elected to the throne as well, but I think there ought to be an interlude of some kind to break things up a bit. I want Sigismund to die and have a Habsburg get elected, but then I want his heir to take over. I need to know if that's doable, or if the Habsburgs, once back in power, will stay on the throne for good.

Throwing in the Polish Crown is a bit too much, IOTL Mary getting Hungary-Croatia and Jadwiga getting Poland was deliberate, since AFAIK the Polish nobility wasn't happy with the personal union.
The house of Luxembourg with Bohemia & Hungary-Croatia as their Hausmacht will be able to be re-elected again.
The Habsburgs in the long rule would need something like the OTL Burgundian Inheritance to become a significant counterweight again.

Also Rudolf I of Habsburg didn't manage to pass the crown directly to Albert I of Habsburg, who's reign was cut short since he was murdered by his cousin John Parricida (though to be fair his uncle Albert basically stole his inheritance); this paved the way for the rise of the house of Luxembourg. Then the house of Luxembourg needed to go extinct and the (Albertine branch) house of Habsburg being their heirs for the Habsburg to regain the throne.

Personally TBH I find the career of the houses of Habsburg and Luxembourg after the Great Interregnum rather interesting. The house of Nassau with Adolf of Nassau shows, that making the leap from a prominent comital house to one of the important dynasties of the Empire wasn't guaranteed by being elected king of the Romans. AFAIK Adolf of Nassau initially had slightly more modest aspirations, since he bought the landgraviate of Thuringia and seized the margraviate of Meissen as an reverted imperial fief. However expanding there brought him into conflict with Bohemia, Mainz and naturally the Wettins, and he also managed to antagonize both the Wenceslaus II Premyslid king of Bohemia and the Albert of Habsburg duke of Austria & Styria (Adolf's successor as king of the Romans after Adolf was deposed).
 
The thing that virtually made the Habsburgs almost unexpellable from the imperial crown was the series of lucky marriages and deaths that happened in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Holding Austria and the Bourguignon heritage, then gaining Castile and Aragon and all their overseas possessions, and then gaining Bohemia and Hungary made them far far far more powerful than any other dynasty inside the HRE. In christian Europe, only the french Valois could compete (and then needed the alliance with the protestant princes and the Ottomans).
 
OTOH individually the kingdom of France was by far the most powerful state in Western Europe; the Trastamaras (Castille-Aragon) and the Habsburgs (Austria-Burgundy) had to cooperate to match France. All in all the Valois and Habsburg camps were pretty even; it usually was England, which could tip the scale in one side's favor (and they tended to switch sides, when it suited them (=their King)).
 
Top