Without the HRE.

Your challenge if you choose to accept it is to have the HRE never form with a POD of 950 AD. What would be the main effects of no Large but decentralized state holding most of Europe.
 
With a PoD of 950, it's nearly impossible. Even with a german defeat at Lechfeld in 955, the german kings managed to impose their authority to surrounding nobles and to make papacy aknowledging this.

From the moment where Dukes of Saxe, that benefited from a strong military power, were made kings of Germany, it was quite bound to happen : having definitely taken over Lotharingia, defeated the Slavic raiders and while Henri died to soon to do that, he planned to intervene in Italy, as his son did after him.
From this point, the reconstitution of an imperial feature at the benefit of German kings is only a matter of time, that is possible to delay but not butterfly.

You may need, at best, a PoD in the 900's, more probably up to 880's or 890', to be really sure to deal with that.
 
Well an ATL HRE might instead form from West Francia, which at least encompasses West Francia, Burgundy (almost a necessity to play a role in Italy for West Francia) and Italy.

Also the HRE didn't have to decentralize the way it day.

OTOH even without the HRE East Francia will be important in the region.
 
Well an ATL HRE might instead form from West Francia, which at least encompasses West Francia, Burgundy (almost a necessity to play a role in Italy for West Francia) and Italy.
Not with a PoD in 950 or later. At this point, West Frankish carolingians counted their teeth, hoping really really hard they could keep the throne just a bit longer.
And Ottonians clearly made a point in the early X about who would have the lead.

Also the HRE didn't have to decentralize the way it day.
Well, it would need to be centralized in first place : people tend to believe early HRE was centralized only because the post Westphalian HRE was a clusterfuck of statelets. But medieval empire wasn't much more unified than other medieval states around.
 
@ LSCatilina: I only took a brief glance at the OP (didn't have too much time, hence my equally brief post), so I missed the very important restriction of 950.

OTOH others seem to believe that the HRE was predestined to decentralize. In 950 the Carolingian states and/or Carolingian successor states, were not that different from each other (yet).
 
OTOH others seem to believe that the HRE was predestined to decentralize. In 950 the Carolingian states and/or Carolingian successor states, were not that different from each other (yet).

I would nuance this : while they didn't differed much structurally, their political situation was quite different.

In Germany, we have a saxon dynasty managing to get the hegemony within the kingdom, thanks to its victories against Slavs, and Western Franks (and in later, against Magyars) and compromises they passes with aristocracy.

In Francia, the late carolingians kings are struggling, and eventually loosing, against Robertians that manage to get the main part of nobiliar support (you could say that Robertians did then what Ottonians already achieved before as they beneficied of a less confrontational situation)

There's still an institutional difference that count a lot : the german kingship tended to be more unstable than the frankish, as the latter benefited from a sacre that granted them an unic position. Dynastic unstability preventing emperors (depsite their objective power) to gradually impose an hereditary succession de facto then de jure to the throne.

This alone, of course, doesn't doom the HRE, but certainly is an handicap.
 
Both the French and German kingship evolved from the Frankish kingship. West Francia was in a better position to continue the Frankish traditions than East Francia.

The dynastic development is, where East Francia and West Francia also drew a different card. The Robertian male line still exist at the present time through the Capetians. Their counterparts in East Francia/ the German Kingdom/ the Holy Roman Empire were less lucky. One could argue that the Habsburgs eventually were the most successful dynastically, but they only rose to power quite late and by that time certain (many) developments were already set in motion.
Changing the dynastic fortunes can be a POD. Though maybe a less successful Robertian/Capetian line is more likely than a more successfull East Francian/German/Holy Roman Empire.
 
Both the French and German kingship evolved from the Frankish kingship. West Francia was in a better position to continue the Frankish traditions than East Francia.
Sorry, I meant *western* frankish (I have a good excuse though, german and french kingship distinguishing themselves quickly).

The dynastic development is, where East Francia and West Francia also drew a different card. The Robertian male line still exist at the present time through the Capetians. Their counterparts in East Francia/ the German Kingdom/ the Holy Roman Empire were less lucky.
I think you may seeing the issue upside-down : Robertians/Capetians managed to have an existing continued line because the dynastic inheritance wasn't challenged.

In Germany and HRE, however, the dynastic inheritence wasn't fully enforced : at the exception of Ottonian dynasty, the eventual successions were less wars of inheritence than wars of sucession in the proper meaning : Staufer or Lothar struggle is quite symptomatic of this, to not speak of anti-rex popping there and there.

If Salian, would have been able to form a more cohesive and enforcable succession and dynastic law, you could have ended with a dynastic transmission not unlike Capetians to Capetians-Valois that wasn't really challenged within the kingdom itself.
 
Sorry, I meant *western* frankish (I have a good excuse though, german and french kingship distinguishing themselves quickly).


I think you may seeing the issue upside-down : Robertians/Capetians managed to have an existing continued line because the dynastic inheritance wasn't challenged.

In Germany and HRE, however, the dynastic inheritence wasn't fully enforced : at the exception of Ottonian dynasty, the eventual successions were less wars of inheritence than wars of sucession in the proper meaning : Staufer or Lothar struggle is quite symptomatic of this, to not speak of anti-rex popping there and there.

If Salian, would have been able to form a more cohesive and enforcable succession and dynastic law, you could have ended with a dynastic transmission not unlike Capetians to Capetians-Valois that wasn't really challenged within the kingdom itself.

Having a hold on the throne and have a dynasty survive are not (or at least don't have to be) the same thing. Most of the dynasties, which held the Imperial throne didn't even manage to survive like the Robertians/Capetians. An exception would be the (younger) house of Welf with the house of Hanover as a cadet branch. And the house of Wittelsbach with the Pfalz-Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld branch.
Regarding the difference between war of succession and war of inheritance both played a role, since each Emperor had a Dynastic Lands and a Imperial/Royal demesne.
OTOH even during the period of the rivalry between the Staufer (Hohenstaufen) and the Welfen (Guelph/Welf) the succession de facto often came close to be hereditary. As it would be for most of the remainder of the history of the HRE, though there was a succession of dynasties and there were a few less stable periods. Another thing which shouldn't be forgotten, that in the early Empire there still was a Imperial/Royal demesne (Reichsgut), so the monarch didn't have to totally rely on his dynastic powerbase. During the reign of Charles IV of Luxembourg most of the remaining significant Imperial lands were sold or granted away; making the Emperor mostly dependant on his own dynastic lands and also regions with a reduced ability of the Emperor to intervene (whereas originally Imperial lands were spread out through the Empire). A policy more beneficial for the house of Luxembourg and other influential houses, than for the Empire as a whole.

Instead of the Salians, the Conradines might also have been in a position to try to do so. Unlike the later Liudolfings (Ottonians) they only had a real powerbase in Franconia, though in the region they had a dispute with the Franconian Babenbergs (also Robertians), they might have to make or restore them as duke of Thuringia, however the Conradines will have to at least keep Franconia, if they want to hold on to the throne.
Frankfurt am Main might develop into the capital.

Since at this point Lotharingia (= northern Middle Francia) with Aachen/Aken/Aix-La-Chapelle) had switched allegiance to the West Francian Carolingians (though they would just as easily switch back, if it might suit them). East Francia probably still has the ambition to regain Lotharingia, but at the moment they face outside threats from the Magyars and internally many of the stem dukes are still very strong. OTOH this might also lead to a surviving Carolingian Lotharingia even after West Francia and East Francia both might have gained another dynasty (well East Francia already had).
 
Top