Ottonians start hereditary dynasty

What if the ottonians managed to do away with the election process and made the title of holy roman emperor hereditary? What would be a good point for this to happen? What are the results? Does germany screw around with italy or does the empire remain german and evolve into a kingdom later? Will the emperor be able to centralize the empire eventually, or will we just end up with the powerful nobles struggling with the emperor for authority?

wiking said:

What if the ottonians managed to do away with the election process and made the title of holy roman emperor hereditary? What would be a good point for this to happen? What are the results? Does germany screw around with italy or does the empire remain german and evolve into a kingdom later? Will the emperor be able to centralize the empire eventually, or will we just end up with the powerful nobles struggling with the emperor for authority?

Click to expand...

The best two PODs for this are either much longer life for Otto II (who died fairly young), or survival of Otto III, whose marriage with Zoe (Byzantine Emperor Basil II's niece) goes through, and who takes on more Byzantine ideas than he already had (he was very influenced by Byzantine political thinking as it was, and it would not be a stretch). By the time their son (who didn't exist in OTL) is born, Otto III tries to change the laws, and because of an alliance with the Byzantines, who, at this time, are a major power in Italy, he manages to basically strong-arm the Pope into making the title hereditary, while subduing the unruly German barons with the force of arms.

In France, the dynasty wasn't hereditary until the 12th century (Philipp Augustus).

Maybe something happens, a prolonged war that makes the nobles rally around the strong emperor... more successful Hungarians and Vikings?

If the Hungarians are more successful, the Empire might as well never be born (Otto dies in 955). I don't know about the Vikings.

If the POD is with Otto III, we might see very close ties with Constantinople for a longer while: after all, Otto III's mother was a Byzantine as well. It depends on how long his descendants would view themselves as Franks/Byzantines and when they start thinking that they are Germans.

Kabraloth said:

If the Hungarians are more successful, the Empire might as well never be born (Otto dies in 955). I don't know about the Vikings.

If the POD is with Otto III, we might see very close ties with Constantinople for a longer while: after all, Otto III's mother was a Byzantine as well. It depends on how long his descendants would view themselves as Franks/Byzantines and when they start thinking that they are Germans.

Click to expand...

From what I know, Otto III viewed himself as a Roman Emperor, and therefore could have really done something to restore the Empire in the West... the "German" identity might not have ever emerged other than maybe much later, and in the countryside/with smaller barons, suppressed by the new "Roman" identity at the court.

midgardmetal said:

From what I know, Otto III viewed himself as a Roman Emperor, and therefore could have really done something to restore the Empire in the West... the "German" identity might not have ever emerged other than maybe much later, and in the countryside/with smaller barons, suppressed by the new "Roman" identity at the court.

Click to expand...

True (although I think it would have been an universal empire, not the Roman one). Do you think, if his father lived longer and his empire is secure that he would attempt to go after the West Franks, to reunited the Carolingian empire?

Kabraloth said:

True (although I think it would have been an universal empire, not the Roman one). Do you think, if his father lived longer and his empire is secure that he would attempt to go after the West Franks, to reunited the Carolingian empire?

Click to expand...

Possibly - but I think Italy would have been his first priority. There is also another, more important matter... the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantium will have gone extinct by 1050 or so... and Otto III is married to one of its last scions... If they have a son (Otto IV, let's call him), he may be a technically legitimate successor to the Byzantine crown as well

Hmm..
Let's see. This is a rough idea and I am not that familiar with the byzantine empire at the time, so I welcome corrections and additions:

13. July 982: The battle at the Cap Colonna against the Saracens ends victorious for the empire, Abu’l Kasim falls.
POD: Following a hunch, Otto II. insists on staying on guard and watching for enemy activities. The attack by the Saracen's reserve is beaten back handily, but Otto II. barely escapes death, as he is in the front row.
The Saracens flee back to Sicily, Otto II. adds „Romanorum imperator augustus“ to his titles. A reaction from Byzantium did not occur immediatly, as Emperor Basileios II. was busy strenghtening his own empire. For the time being, southern Italy is put under western imperial rule.

983: Due to his brush with death, Otto II. has his son Otto elected as German king. He also reorders some duchies and starts the integration of southern Italy into the empire.
The great Slav uprising demands his attention north of the alps, however, due to various crisises in Rome, he cannot personally depart.
Butterfly: Otto II. does not suffer from Malaria, is not treated with Aloe, and does not die young.

984: Unrest in souther Italy forces Otto to start another campaign. During his absence, the roman patrician Crescentius I. Nomentanus manages to overthrow pope John XIV., all the while the estern frontier of the Empire is reestablished at the Elbe, with everything east lost in the Slav uprising.

985: To secure his position in Constantinople, Basileios II. has to find a way to regain the "festering wound" of the lost Italian possessions to the Westerners. Since he cannot use his military powers (due to the army being in reorganisation and too many internal problems), he offers Otto II. silent approval of the officially unrecognized title of Roman Emperor and the hand of a princess for his son. Otto, who is currently dealing with the crisis in Rome, agrees. To strenghten the ties further, Basileios marries Otto's daughter Adelheid.
Meanwhile, the coup of Crescentius is over, he himself is beheaded on behalf of the emperor, and pope John is reinstated. Otto departs northwards, back to German lands, as the nobles are becoming rebellious again.

After that, I am kind of in an impassé. I'd imagine that Otto III. would make the empire hereditary eventually, out of a position of strength. With Basileios married, he could have a son (he did not OTL), which could further bind both empires together, which could allow the HRE to eventually build a bureocracy like Byzantium, marginalizing the position of the nobles, and the hereditary empire much more likely and secure.

Well, much of the problems that faced Byzantium past 1025 (Basil II's death) were due to the fact that he did not provide for real succession - his brother, who inherited, only had two daughters, who were by then a bit too old to give birth to an heir; their (or, specifically, Zoe's - she is the one who was betrothed to Otto III in OTL) husbands were enthroned only to prove either incompetent or power-hungry, while most were overthrown - only Michael IV (the Paphlagonian) and Constantine IX (Monomachus) died a natural death, and even then, Michael's physical condition ensured that he died well before he would have otherwise (apparently, he had something akin to epilepsy that, given medicine of the time, resulted in his early death), and Constantine was, well, an incompetent.

Now, give Basil II a son, and there is no major problem with shifting succession as to who would be Zoe's latest husband or such. As long as his son is not a rambling idiot, and is at least moderately competent, he will be able to keep most of Basil's conquest, and maintain Byzantine strength in a crucial period when it was needed the most to withstand the Turks. This also means very significant implifications on the Crusades - with no Turk menace, the Byzantines will not be likely to summon help from the West, and any Crusading activity will likely be limited to Spain, possibly Sicily, and maybe North Africa. In other words, a huge boost for Byzantium, for whom the Western "allies" proved to be more dangerous than the Turkish "invaders".

Okay, let's try this...

986: Otto II. reasserts full Imperial control in the Reichstag of Aachen. He also starts mounting a campaign against the West Frankish kingdom, where king Lothar I. was putting the old ally and follower of Otto I., Adalbero of Reims on trial for high treason.
Basileious II. marries Otto's daughter (who is 19 at the time) and solidifies his rule after retaking southern Italy. He now starts setting his eyes on his most dangerous outside enemies: the Bulgars. But for now, he is busy pacifying his new territory and keeping the patricians in check.

987: After Lothar I. has been killed by Hugo Capet to save Adalbero, Otto II. puts Hugo Capet on the West Frankish Throne after he swears fealty to him (the western electors don't dare to stand up against an emperor who has so far successfully defeated everyone who stood against him). Louis V. is sent into a cloister. The Western/Eastern Frankish alliance that Adalbero and Otto favour is slowly progressing, as the Emperor's ability to constitue bishops as he desires.

988: Basileious II. starts his campaign against the Bulgars.
The roman patricians under Johannes I. Crescentius enthrone John XV. as pope, against the wishes of Otto, who in turn starts mounting yet another Italian campaign. Respect before the pope reaches an all-time low and the nobles start looking towards the emperor as both worldly and spiritual ruler.

Reasonable? The idea is still to get Otto II. so strong that Otto III. can make his lineage hereditary without problems.

Kabraloth said:

Okay, let's try this...

986: Otto II. reasserts full Imperial control in the Reichstag of Aachen. He also starts mounting a campaign against the West Frankish kingdom, where king Lothar I. was putting the old ally and follower of Otto I., Adalbero of Reims on trial for high treason.
Basileious II. marries Otto's daughter (who is 19 at the time) and solidifies his rule after retaking southern Italy. He now starts setting his eyes on his most dangerous outside enemies: the Bulgars. But for now, he is busy pacifying his new territory and keeping the patricians in check.

987: After Lothar I. has been killed by Hugo Capet to save Adalbero, Otto II. puts Hugo Capet on the West Frankish Throne after he swears fealty to him (the western electors don't dare to stand up against an emperor who has so far successfully defeated everyone who stood against him). Louis V. is sent into a cloister. The Western/Eastern Frankish alliance that Adalbero and Otto favour is slowly progressing, as the Emperor's ability to constitue bishops as he desires.

988: Basileious II. starts his campaign against the Bulgars.
The roman patricians under Johannes I. Crescentius enthrone John XV. as pope, against the wishes of Otto, who in turn starts mounting yet another Italian campaign. Respect before the pope reaches an all-time low and the nobles start looking towards the emperor as both worldly and spiritual ruler.

Reasonable? The idea is still to get Otto II. so strong that Otto III. can make his lineage hereditary without problems.

Click to expand...

As long as the Byzantines are not interfering in Italy (and there is a good chance they wouldn't, under the circumstances), it is looking good. Remember that it is also the time of so-called "pornocracy" (yes, that's the right word), which was probably the lowest point in the Papacy's temporal and spiritual power due to its prestige severely damaged. So, a strong, long-lived Emperor who can basically subdue all of the Italian barons, and who is not on the receiving end of the Byzantine intrigues (which was often the case in OTL) could possibly reunite Italy and Germany into a true Western Empire.

so is it possible to see the west and east frankish kingdom united with italy? What would this do to the rest of europe? I think that the byzantines would do everything possible to prevent this from occuring. How does that affect the east? Do we see a rise of nationalism later and a civil war?

This is all very sketchy in my mind yet. I do not see west and east Franks reuniting yet - maybe never. More like west Franks being a vasall now and maybe in a couple of centuries integrated as a kingdom into the empire (a bit like Bohemia).
Not sure about Byzantium - I think midgardmetal can tell the long-term effects better than I. But as of now, the emperor is busy crushing his real enemies. He got southern Italy without losing a single man and has stronger ties now with the west. But the Saracens might make a comeback sooner or later anyway, so that could divert his attention long enough to not go after the kingdom of Armenia (which was a nice buffer country whose removal led to Manzikert, IIRC).

Nationalism is so far off that it is totally irrelevant.

989: After settling some more internal matters, Otto II. and a large army move towards Rome. Otto's feelings by now could be summed up by "rabid rage". He enters Rome in mid June. Within two months, the whole conspiracy has been reduced to rubble, the patricians are beheaded as well as the pope. Otto II. declares that from now on the pope will "for his own safety" be traveling with the emperor as his personal advisor, but without any worldly power.
With Rome cowed, the princes at home in awe, and the Western Franks and Byzantines both not really in the position to do anything about it, this command goes by and large unchallanged.

990: Otto spends most of the time between Rome and Verona.
Meanwhile, Basileios is busy fighting Bulgars. His niece Zoe has been seen to adequate education for her future role as empress, and his wife is pregnant. While the public assumes that it happend when he was home during his campaigns, the rumor mill (and he himself in his darker hours) believes that a member of her guard is actually the father.

interesting, please continue

I don't really see how one emperor - even a strong, maybe beloved one with a weak pope - can make the throne hereditary. This should be a long process, as it was in France and Germany in OTL. As soon as Otto II. dies, his heir will face problems: The nobles in Germany will try to get more power and more independence and maybe set up a counter-king, the popes will try to regain power and independence, the Nobles in the City of Rome will try to make their own intrigues, and then there are the French, the Hungarians, the Slavs, the Danes, the Poles, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Vikings and so on.
Otto I. was a great emperor (he was even named "the great"), and he faced many revolts, even of his family members (I think even his own brother revolted against him although Otto gave him a duchy).
Thus there should be a couple of strong emperors, following each other on the throne. Each emperor should live long enough to have an adult heir, who himself had time to show that he is a capable leader.

Ah, but this is not the HRE after the interregnum. This is the HRE where in OTL Heinrich der Zänkerer tried to set himself up as antiking when Otto II. was dead and Otto III. was still a child.
He failed to even gain substantial support among his own servants. The nobles at that time felt like they belonged together, they were very loyal. The Reichsidee was not dead yet.

The pope is pretty much a non-factor now. With a strong, long-lived Otto II. he is being reduced to a mere spiritual ruler, like the patriarch of Constantinople. The pope at the time was no Gregor and the Ottonians weren't the Salians.

The French are ruled by the pro-HRE Hugo Capet who, to first be able to fight against the HRE would have to get rid of the emperor-appointed bishops in his country, which he will be loathe to do. The Slavs and Danes will be trouble, yes, but they were OTL when there was de facto no emperor. The Byzantines are busy battling the Bulgars. Ties between the two empires were never stronger than right now, even though the feeling is lukewarm at best. It most likely will break out in hostilities sooner or later, but not while Otto II. or Otto III. (who is half-byzantine and will be married to princess Zoe anyway) are alive.

The idea is not that Otto II. can make the throne heritary - if he did, it probably would have been ignored after Otto III. died, but that Otto III., growing up under a strong father, lives longer as well and establishes a heritary system. This would be three strong emperors, which makes about two generations which have seen a strong, central figure. I find it plausible that at this time, a heritary system could be established (there were really only two times when this was possible: if Otto II. had lived longer and if Barbarossa had lived longer).

[quote:Kabraloth]
The idea is not that Otto II. can make the throne heritary - if he did, it probably would have been ignored after Otto III. died, but that Otto III., growing up under a strong father, lives longer as well and establishes a heritary system. This would be three strong emperors, which makes about two generations which have seen a strong, central figure. I find it plausible that at this time, a heritary system could be established.[/quote]

Okay. Agreed. That's true given the successes of Otto II. and the successes still to come (I hope you'll go on with your timeline!). The church really is not that problem right now, the pope always at the side of the emperor.
But what when the pope dies? Who will elect a new one? Clerics? Romans? How many new popes will they elect? Will the emperor have to catch every pope from now on? Probably you're planning more surprises for the ottonians by the church?

Kabraloth said:

The nobles at that time felt like they belonged together, they were very loyal.

Click to expand...

Heinrich, the brother of Otto I., participated in a revolt against Otto I., his own brother, and later in a intrigue against him. Otto I. faced revolts of the mighty dukes so the nobles weren't that loyal, Otto II. had to fight Heinrich den Zänker 4 years. Thus every emperor would have problems with the dukes or other mighty nobles, as Otto the Great had. If the emperors live in Italy for a long time, they will loose in Germany and vice-versa, as in OTL.

On the other side, I never understood why the emperors gave most land away to infidel nobles instead of keeping them - only Otto the Great kept at least Frankonia together with his own heritage Saxony. So maybe those strong emperors simply get hold of all or at least most of the duchies and somehow find a way to prevent the local nobles from building up new dynasties and new domains, which could become a danger. Maybe the feudal system of Britain would help (Ligian fidei)?

And I never really understood why the partition of power by Friedrich II. never really worked out: his son was king in Germany, he himself was emperor in Italy. But when his son tried to reestablish imperial power in Germany, Friedrich II. gave the Statutem in favorem principum. What a failure.

[quote:Kabraloth]
The French are ruled by the pro-HRE Hugo Capet who, to first be able to fight against the HRE would have to get rid of the emperor-appointed bishops in his country, which he will be loathe to do.
[/quote]

But Otto I. had to fight several times over Lothringia with the French. 978 the French attacked Otto II. surprisingly at Aachen. Even if Hugo Capet is pro-HRE, he could fight the Ottonians. As stated above, even Otto I.'s brother did.
Hugo Capet swore fealty in your Timeline, but that doesn't mean too much in those days. And the next king could be a new threat to the emperor.
Otto II. was married with Teophanu, but still had to go to Italy 980-983 because of Arab raids AND growing tensions with the Byzantine Empire!

Homer said:

Okay. Agreed. That's true given the successes of Otto II. and the successes still to come (I hope you'll go on with your timeline!). The church really is not that problem right now, the pope always at the side of the emperor.

Click to expand...

Of course. The popes really started to get uppity with Gregor VII.

But what when the pope dies? Who will elect a new one? Clerics? Romans? How many new popes will they elect? Will the emperor have to catch every pope from now on? Probably you're planning more surprises for the ottonians by the church?

Click to expand...

Of course. As soon as Otto II. has been away from Rome for a longer while, a new pope will pop up.

Heinrich, the brother of Otto I., participated in a revolt against Otto I., his own brother, and later in a intrigue against him. Otto I. faced revolts of the mighty dukes so the nobles weren't that loyal, Otto II. had to fight Heinrich den Zänker 4 years. Thus every emperor would have problems with the dukes or other mighty nobles, as Otto the Great had. If the emperors live in Italy for a long time, they will loose in Germany and vice-versa, as in OTL.

Click to expand...

That is true. Otto I broke the nobles for the time being, however, and when Otto II. was dead, Heinrich was not successful after all (although his son became Emperor). I do think this is because of Otto's "afterglow".

On the other side, I never understood why the emperors gave most land away to infidel nobles instead of keeping them - only Otto the Great kept at least Frankonia together with his own heritage Saxony.

Click to expand...

There are a couple good reasons for that:
- The feudal system is pretty ingraned. People just didn't know any better.
- Efficient bureucracy. Byzantium had it, the Ottomans had it, even Rome had it, the HRE didn't. The Ottonians got by with keeping the nobles short (which started to stop working after the Ottonians and finally after Friedrich II.) and using the bishops as counterweight bureocrats (which died with Canossa).
- Lack of efficient communication. In such a giant empire, you either need a good bureaucracy where people don't get too uppity or you need to delegate power.

So maybe those strong emperors simply get hold of all or at least most of the duchies and somehow find a way to prevent the local nobles from building up new dynasties and new domains, which could become a danger. Maybe the feudal system of Britain would help (Ligian fidei)?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of how the feudal system of Britain worked. Care to elaborate?

And I never really understood why the partition of power by Friedrich II. never really worked out: his son was king in Germany, he himself was emperor in Italy. But when his son tried to reestablish imperial power in Germany, Friedrich II. gave the Statutem in favorem principum. What a failure.

Click to expand...

He needed the nobles to fight the pope. After Gregor, the emperors were constantly between a rock and a hard place. Friedrich's son paid the price for that.

But Otto I. had to fight several times over Lothringia with the French. 978 the French attacked Otto II. surprisingly at Aachen.

Click to expand...

True, but that was Lothar.

Even if Hugo Capet is pro-HRE, he could fight the Ottonians. As stated above, even Otto I.'s brother did.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Realpolitik is never dead.

Hugo Capet swore fealty in your Timeline, but that doesn't mean too much in those days. And the next king could be a new threat to the emperor.
Otto II. was married with Teophanu, but still had to go to Italy 980-983 because of Arab raids AND growing tensions with the Byzantine Empire!

Click to expand...

Agreed. Afaik the Byzantines didn't want imperial presence in souther Italy - which is, at least in the short to medium time frame - solved.
Hugo Capet is currently in the Canossa-trap: on the one hand, he has the nobles which see him as an imperial tool and scheme to remove him from power. On the other hand he has the (emperor-appointed) bishops who try to impose imperial standards and (at least a degree of) ruleship over France. He might try to strike out as a desperate measure to save himself, but not when he can think, he can break either of his two opponent blocks with other means.

Kabraloth said:

I'm not aware of how the feudal system of Britain worked. Care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

The basic difference between the feudal systems in Germany and England is how they dealt with the top of the feudal pyramid.
In England, every noble had to follow his Lord - but not against the king.
Thus every noble had to be loyal to his Lord AND to his King.
In Germany they had to be loyal to their direct Lord only, not to the King.
In the feudal pyramid of Germany every step had only
connections of loyalty to neighbouring steps, in England every step had
these connections and ADDITIONAL connections to the top of the pyramid by establishing loyalty to the king for every member of the feudal system:
dominus ligius ante omnes - the King is Lord above all others.

I'm sorry, I couldn't find the proper english word for this concept.
William the Conwuerer established it after 1066 in England.

Of course, this would not mean that there's no revolt of nobles against the emperor. But there will be less then in the HRE of OTL, and that's all you want, isn't it?