WI The emperor won the Investiture Controversy?

(I'm new here, if there are any errors in my understanding of the Investiture Controversy, please tell!)

If the Salian Emperors were successful in limiting the Pope's power in the 1100's, during the Investiture Controversy, would the Holy Roman empire be any better off? Would it have become more centralized and perhaps stronger? And, would the Salian dynasty be able to continue longer if they had "won" against the pope?
 
There's the question if anyone could have really won Investiture Controversy.
Rome didn't had a clear "victory" IOTL, and eventually went trough a compromise or agreement with temporal powers (HRE, but as well other realms).

A total victory would have been out of reach, as asking for the irremediable disappearance of one of the actors, destabilizing enough feudal society to assure huge troubles for the victor.

Now, could HRE have a better deal off the controversy? I think it's possible.
A first possibility would be to get rid of the Controversy as it happened IOTL by a more smooth gregorian reform : having Ottonian dynasty living on, by exemple, could allow a better (if still troubled) relationship between a politically growing papacy and the emperors.

Emperors as Henri III, skilled enough to not have huge revolts and sit on the fence between great lay lords and ecclesiastical power, could allow the situation to decant more or less as IOTL but at the difference emperors would be actor of this change and not accepting it eventually.

If you still want a Controversy as it happened IOTL (as it, after Dictatus Papae) , the best would be that Henri IV imposing a pope after Gregorius' death. It shouldn't be Clementus III that is completly discredited, but someone else elected at this occasion, while the emperor still have a real grasp on Italy.

In order to do that, however, Henry IV should make actual compromise with Italian nobility and clergy. If not this election wouldn't be acknowledged.

Whatever the cause, if it succeed, you'll end probably with an integration of laicisation of ecclesiastical demesnes into imperial administration, rather than being apart.
Immediate consequences wouldn't be that different, but it would certainly prevent the theocratical monarchy conception of papacy to fully appear, and critically prevent later conflicts as during Frederic II's reign.

As for "centralization" of a feudal empire, I'm afraid that's not possible. It's actually a contradiction, feudality being about delegation of property and power.
Now, if you meant "unified" HRE, then it's more probable, but wouldn't be a direct consequences, especially regarding lay lordship that would be relativly untouched institutionally.

Having more close ecclesiastical vassals, on the other hand, could prevent more critical aspect of political crisis.
Rather than allowing more unification, it open possibilities.
 
If you still want a Controversy as it happened IOTL (as it, after Dictatus Papae) , the best would be that Henri IV imposing a pope after Gregorius' death. It shouldn't be Clementus III that is completly discredited, but someone else elected at this occasion, while the emperor still have a real grasp on Italy.

In order to do that, however, Henry IV should make actual compromise with Italian nobility and clergy. If not this election wouldn't be acknowledged.

Thanks for your reply!

This sounds interesting, I think I may use that as a possible PoD, with Henry IV, as you said, making some sort of compromise, and putting another pope in power after Gregorius' death. I also think that I will incorporate your suggestion of having the ecclesiastical territories of the empire being put under the direct control of the Emperor (If I am understanding what you said correctly). The most appealing aspect of this to me is the possible avoidance of the civil war that took place during the reign of Frederick the Second. The implications of having no conflict with the pope in the 1200's could possibly mean that Freddy wouldn't pass the two acts (Of which I forget the names of) that gave tons of power to the princes. If I am wrong in the understanding of your post, please correct me!
 
I also think that I will incorporate your suggestion of having the ecclesiastical territories of the empire being put under the direct control of the Emperor (If I am understanding what you said correctly).
It's wasn't really the point.
Ecclesiastical demesnes were going to go trough a process of laicisation. The point of emperors was they wanted to keep bishops and other landed clergy inside their court rather than treat them as landed lords on their own, under pontifical influence.

Sooner or later, this process would achieve. If the emperors manage to keep not a control other them, but to acknowledge it under their conditions (as in keeping an influence other german ecclesiastical demesnes), situation could be far better for them.

While pontifical power would be still an important possible opponent. But if emperors tries to keep a co-operative work with Rome, more or less as Henry III did, bloodier crisis can be avoided.

The most appealing aspect of this to me is the possible avoidance of the civil war that took place during the reign of Frederick the Second.
However, a PoD in the late XIth century is likely to butterfly Frederic II as a person. I was more thinking about avoiding crisis as such that happened IOTL rather than avoiding this precise crisis.
 
Top