These Hills Sing of Saxon Kings - Page 7

Thermopylae · #**121** December 14th, 2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Sinister

There's one important difference between Ottokar and Richard (who was only one of two Roman kings elected, BTW - the other one was Castillian king Alfonso): Ottokar was the mightiest and the richest ruler in the HRE. Richard was living far away. Besides, Ottokar was so sure he'd be elected for his wealth that he didn't even bother to attend the election.

I had the idea that Ottokar's elder brother might survive, so they divide the Przemyslid lands, and the other electors deem Ottokar less dangerous.

Well without others (such as Richard, who for all intents and purposes bought the title) to act as a counterweight to Ottokar, wouldn't Ottokar be the only logical choice?

IIRC, Vladislav basically died because of Ottokar's actions. So that Vladislav would live basically means we must write Ottokar out of history (we can easily do it with butterflies. A gust of wind, carrying the pox, when Ottokar was but a child...)

But then Vladislav would be in the same position as Ottokar. But he would have stepped on fewer toes to get what he wanted, which might give Vladislav a leg up when pushing himself as a candidate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Robinson

I would still expect small butterflies, and resulting differences in details that would gradually multiply. We tend to slip into a dichotomy of "butterflies change everything" or "butterflies change nothing."

The Third Crusade, at least, ought to be very substantially changed by replacing Richard I with a "Saxon" English king. The basic outcome may not be much different (if Richard couldn't get Jerusalem back from Saladin, probably no one could), but the way it plays out would be shaped by a different personality at the center of events.

-- Rick

Oh, butterflies are changing things, you can be sure of that.

The end result of the 3rd Crusade was set in stone, basically, with the Rise of Saladin. His predecessor Nur-ad-Din preached the message of jihad, and once Saladin encircled the Crusader States, the Crusaders were from that point on somewhere between doomed and screwed.

And it is the inevitability of the outcome of the 3rd Crusade which drove me to not focus on it so much, because I would get the same result anyway.

Max Sinister · #**122** December 14th, 2006, 08:47 PM

AFAIK Ottokar was very shocked when Vladislav died.

And the electors are free to elect any king or duke of Europe Roman king. As I said, they elected two kings in 1256 - Richard and Alfonso of Castille.

Thermopylae · #**123** December 14th, 2006, 08:55 PM

Ottokar was shocked? Hm. Well then I suppose no need to write him out.

So, who, in your opinion, is most likely to be elected? I'm thinking whoever is King of Bohemia, (Ottokar/Vladislav) for the sheer wealth factor, and for the lack of a counter-weight like Richard, but I'm just checking.

Or should I just assume that basically anyone could be elected and consider it an academic matter?

Thande · #**124** December 14th, 2006, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

Ottokar was shocked? Hm. Well then I suppose no need to write him out.

So, who, in your opinion, is most likely to be elected? I'm thinking whoever is King of Bohemia, (Ottokar/Vladislav) for the sheer wealth factor, and for the lack of a counter-weight like Richard, but I'm just checking.

Or should I just assume that basically anyone could be elected and consider it an academic matter?

Your general possibilities in cases like this would be:

1. Same guy as OTL

2. A different guy, but still an OTL person (or at least someone with the same name etc if you want to go all Chaos Theory), e.g. someone who was an alternative candidate.

3. Random guy.

I think 2. is the most interesting possibility myself.

Thermopylae · #**125** December 14th, 2006, 09:00 PM

The AltHistorian in me says to go with Option 2, because it would be oh so fun. I already made up a Przemyslid Holy Roman Emperor shield (see below, I can't help but show off.

)

But the Writer in me says go with Option 1 to avoid all that extra work, and still save the chance of the update getting out on Friday as opposed to Saturday...

El Shield-o for the Hetereconquista!

Thande · #**126** December 14th, 2006, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

The AltHistorian in me says to go with Option 2, because it would be oh so fun. I already made up a Przemyslid Holy Roman Emperor shield (see below, I can't help but show off.

)

But the Writer in me says go with Option 1 to avoid all that extra work, and still save the chance of the update getting out on Friday as opposed to Saturday...

El Shield-o for the Hetereconquista!

Great work, Thermo.

"Polish Germany?!" Come on, you know you want to

Thermopylae · #**127** December 14th, 2006, 09:05 PM

Hi Everyone. My name's Thermopylae.

Hi, Themopylae.

And I have a... Cultural Kaleidoscope problem.

Thande · #**128** December 14th, 2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

Hi Everyone. My name's Thermopylae.

Hi, Themopylae.

And I have a... Cultural Kaleidoscope problem.

[Heavy handed X-men type social commentary] It's not a problem, Thermo, it's a gift!

[/Heavy handed X-men type social commentary]

Max Sinister · #**129** December 14th, 2006, 09:21 PM

I checked wikipedia: Alfonso was suggested/proclaimed by the legates of Pisa first. France and the pope supported him too. Henry III feared this and thus suggested his brother Richard.

The election itself was a bit confused either.

Take king Alfonso X of Castille. He was elected IOTL together with Richard.

Thermopylae · #**130** December 14th, 2006, 09:25 PM

His connection to Philip of Swabia is butterflied away ITTL.

Thermopylae · #**131** December 15th, 2006, 12:03 AM

All right, guys. A little preview, and I want your opinion on the way I have handled the whole Ottokar business:

Quote:

1269 AD - Ottokar II, after much political maneuvering, is elected King of the Romans, through bribery of the Archbishoprics, and marrying his daughter off to the Duke of Saxony.

1273 - 1274 AD - Ottokar did not go unchallenged. Rudolph I of Austria claimed Austria and Styria as his own, and he had the support of the Duke of Bavaria and (to some extent) the Count of Palatinate. But Bavaria quickly withdrew support of the Duke when many of the German states warned that should the conflict escalate, they would back Ottokar completely. Rudolph basically found himself alone in his opposition to the German King.

1276 AD - Ottokar is crowned Holy Roman Emperor. His services to Christendom (foundation of the Cistercian monastery of Goldenkron, Crusade against the Prussians) did not go unrecognized. The support of the Papacy of the Przemyslid rulers ensured stability in the Holy Roman Empire.

1301 AD - The death of Ottokar I, Holy Roman Emperor. He had proven far more popular with the Church than the Hohenstaufen rulers, and this ensured the election of his son, Wenceslaus II (Wenceslaus I, HRE). This had profound ramifications, as Wenceslaus was also the Duke of Krakow, and by extension the King of Poland. He was also recognized by some factions in Hungary to be the King of Hungary. To sum it up, Wenceslaus II was the Holy Roman Emperor, King of the Romans, of Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and Duke of Austria, Styria, Carniola, Carinthia, and Krakow.

1305 AD - After procuring Papal recognition of his right to the throne of Poland, Wenceslaus defeats the rival claimant to the Polish throne, Ladislaus, lord of Pomerania, Kuyavia, Łęczyca and Sieradz. Ladislaus is assassinated under mysterious circumstances soon after the battle.

1306 AD - Wenceslaus is recognized as King of Hungary by all factions. With the threat of invasion looming (Wenceslaus could draw manpower from most of the Holy Roman Empire, most of Poland, and loyal parts of Hungary), the Hungarian factions decided to grant Wenceslaus the throne, rather than face near-certain destruction.

1321 AD - Death of Wenceslaus. His son Wenceslaus III is elected.

Plausible? I'm not sure of a few things:

1. Would Wenceslaus be elected after his father Ottokar?
2. Would he really be able to overcome Ladislaus? I figured so, since he could draw from his subjects in the HRE.
3. Would he really be able to take the Hungarian throne? IOTL, his rivals were an Angevin (who in all likelihood is butterflied away) and Duke Otto III of Bavaria. Way I see it Wenceslaus II would give an Imperial bitch-slap to Otto is he were to claim the Hungarian throne, so Otto gives up his claim...

I only ask, as I wish to avoid gratuitous Czechwanking.

Max Sinister · #**132** December 15th, 2006, 09:09 AM

Ottokar has accumulated quite some power. The other electors might fear he'll become too powerful, and they could be next. Maybe they'll elect an anti-king somewhen during his reign. Maybe even the French king.

And BTW, who's Roman king in 1256-69? Does Wilhelm of Holland survive longer?

Thande · #**133** December 15th, 2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

All right, guys. A little preview, and I want your opinion on the way I have handled the whole Ottokar business:

Plausible? I'm not sure of a few things:

1. Would Wenceslaus be elected after his father Ottokar?
2. Would he really be able to overcome Ladislaus? I figured so, since he could draw from his subjects in the HRE.
3. Would he really be able to take the Hungarian throne? IOTL, his rivals were an Angevin (who in all likelihood is butterflied away) and Duke Otto III of Bavaria. Way I see it Wenceslaus II would give an Imperial bitch-slap to Otto is he were to claim the Hungarian throne, so Otto gives up his claim...

I only ask, as I wish to avoid gratuitous Czechwanking.

I can't comment on plausibility, but I like it.

Thermopylae · #**134** December 15th, 2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Sinister

Ottokar has accumulated quite some power. The other electors might fear he'll become too powerful, and they could be next. Maybe they'll elect an anti-king somewhen during his reign. Maybe even the French king.

And BTW, who's Roman king in 1256-69? Does Wilhelm of Holland survive longer?

From 1256-69 just assume it was various unimportant peoples across Germany, and nobody could really agree on who was to be King. More than likely a Wittelsbach or Welf or something of that nature.

You're quite right. Which shall result in a very different HRE post civil war (Hungary/Bohemia/Austria/Poland/Maybe the Pope vs. Rest of HRE)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thande

I can't comment on plausibility, but I like it.

Thank you! I may even yet get it out today...

Thermopylae · #**135** December 15th, 2006, 08:26 PM

Okay guys. Update will have to come sometime tommorow. I'm aiming for the AM (EST). But the good news is that I think I have finally worked out the whole problem concerning the Holy Roman Empire, so we'll have a (IMHO) high-quality update...

Thermopylae · #**136** December 16th, 2006, 05:14 PM

Here we go guys. And I'm working on a full (!!!) map of Europe to go with it.

Hope you enjoy. Not as long as the last update, but I would say that it's plausible. In order to resolve the whole Ottokar thing, I took inspiration from Justin Pickard's "The Lantern Empires". Apparently, in TLs like this, without Rudolf von Habsburg being in a strong position Ladislaus IV of Hungary would be able to focus on domestic matters, and the Arpad dynasty continues to rule over Hungary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1267 AD - Death of Edwyn II. Edwyn II did have two sons. One died of smallpox at an early age. His son, Edwyn was at the time of his father’s death in Holland, and had to sail back to claim his throne. However, when Edwyn II died in a freak storm, there was no one descended from Edwyn II left. His only daughter had become an Abbess in Lundenwic.

And so the throne passed to Edwyn II’s cousin, Albert II. Albert II was a very old man at the time of his inheritance, and knew it wouldn’t be long before the throne passed to his son, Albert III.

1267 - 1280 AD - The short reign of King Albert II. There wasn’t much to say about old King Albert. He did a fine job of ruling as Count of Flanders and Hainaut, and did a fine job ruling as King of England, Count of Holland, Zeeland, Flanders, and Hainaut as well.

The one consequence of the passing of the throne passing to Albert II was that now the Kings of England were, simultaneously, in the peerage of France (via the County of Flanders). This had little impact initially, however in the coming years this would begin to matter more.

Albert II died in 1280, and was succeeded by Albert III.

1269 AD - Ottokar II, after much political maneuvering, is elected King of the Romans, through bribery of the Archbishoprics, and marrying his daughter off to the Duke of Saxony.

1273 - 1274 AD - Ottokar did not go unchallenged. Rudolph I of Austria claimed Austria and Styria as his own, and he had the support of the Duke of Bavaria and (to some extent) the Count of Palatinate. But Bavaria quickly withdrew support of the Duke when many of the German states warned that should the conflict escalate, they would back Ottokar completely. Rudolph basically found himself alone in his opposition to the German King.

1276 AD - Ottokar is crowned Holy Roman Emperor. His services to Christendom (foundation of the Cistercian monastery of Goldenkron, Crusade against the Prussians) did not go unrecognized. The support of the Papacy of the Przemyslid rulers ensured stability in the Holy Roman Empire.

1279 AD - Ladislaus IV of Hungary successfully crushes internal dissent. Royal power in Hungary is largely restored.

1280 - 1291 AD - Albert III’s reign was marked by peace, but with growing tensions with the Scots. For over two hundred years the Scots and English have been friends. But the only reason for this was because the two houses that ruled the respective countries owed each other so much. To the Godwins the Atholls owed the entire reason they ruled Scotland. To the Atholls the Godwins owed the flowering of Northumbria, by reining-in the Scottish raids that had taken place for centuries previous.

Now things were changing. The Scots were getting antsy. They were a bit big for their britches now that they were, effectively, masters of Ireland. The Scots were beginning to take up old habits.

Albert III would prove to be the last Godwin king traced through the male line. He had four daughters, and his eldest daughter had married an earl by the name of Alfred Ealdgar. According to the laws of succession, the eldest son of the eldest daughter has the right to the throne. Alfred Ealdgar had a son named Harold Ealdgar. Because he was only ten years old at the time, the Witanegamot served as regent until Harold turned twenty.

1291 - 1301 AD - The regency of the Witanegamot. The Witan had presided over a mixed period as well. The situation with the Scots continued to deteriorate. Raids had started back up, and while they were not officially backed by the Scottish royalty, the fact that they even took place showed that the Scottish king tended to look the other way. In the private thoughts of the Scottish king, one might imagine the argument that any need to be civil to the English died with the death of Albert III.

However, England’s clout in the Netherlands continued to expand. The English were, arguably, the wealthiest state in Europe at this time. The residences of the Earls who invested in the “wool circle” became more and more opulent, and overall the country prospered.

1291 AD - The fall of Acre.

1295 - 1297 AD - Troubles in France. Louis IX has to contend with what is basically the dissolution of the Champagnian-Aquitanian “Empire” that had formed. Greed and malice had finally taken over. Over the last few centuries the Angevins and Bretons had drifted out of the Champagnian sphere of influence, as did Toulouse. Now Henri and Thibaut were fighting amongst themselves as to who shall have Champagne and Aquitaine.

Rather than allow his kingdom to be torn apart by this, Louis IX finally convinces the brothers to cease the fighting. The counties were now thoroughly divided, there was now no internal threat to the French crown’s power (theoretically).

1301 AD - The death of Ottokar I, Holy Roman Emperor. He had proven far more popular with the Church than the Hohenstaufen rulers, and this ensured the election of his son, Wenceslaus II (Wenceslaus I, HRE). This had profound ramifications, as Wenceslaus was also the Duke of Krakow, and by extension the King of Poland. To sum it up, Wenceslaus II was the King of the Romans, Bohemia, Poland, Duke of Austria, Styria, Carniola, Carinthia, and Krakow.

1305 AD - After procuring Papal recognition of his right to the throne of Poland, Wenceslaus defeats the rival claimant to the Polish throne, Ladislaus, lord of Pomerania, Kuyavia, Łęczyca and Sieradz. Ladislaus is assassinated under mysterious circumstances soon after the battle.

1307 AD - Wenceslaus, elevates the various duchies

1310 AD - Wenceslaus notices that things in Rome have reached their nadir. The Papacy was actually considering a move! So Wenceslaus offers the Papacy moves for one year to Graz, while he takes care of the problem in Rome. Wenceslaus succeeds in persuading the Pope.

1311 AD - The Papal Exile. On January 1, 1311, the Pope rang in the new year in Graz. Whilst this was going on, Wenceslaus marched on Rome, in order to take control of the city. The fighting was fierce, but by September most of the anti-papal elements had been thoroughly rooted out.

Wenceslaus found himself in a very tempting position. He COULD try to (diplomatically) keep the papacy in Graz, where he could keep a close eye on it. Ultimately, however, it was not religion that moved him to return Rome to the control of the Papacy, so much as it was his situation. If he had the nerve to keep the Papacy captive, his son Wenceslaus III would stand no chance of winning the election, as the support of the Archbishops were instrumental to the security of the Imperial office for the Przemyslid line.

1312 AD - The Papacy returns to Rome, from what could have been a very, very long Captivity.

1321 AD - Death of Wenceslaus. His son Wenceslaus III is elected. But there are grumblings, which stemmed from the fact that he ruled over such a vast territory. The princes called for a Diet at Nuremburg to hammer-out, among other things, exactly who had the right to elect, and the seemingly rising power of the Emperor.

They finally set into law the electors. They would be the Archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, and Trier, the King of Bohemia, the Duke of Saxony, the Margrave of Brandenburg, and the Count Palatinate had the right to elect the King of the Romans. And the King of the Romans was to be crowned by the standing Pope as the Holy Roman Emperor.

1301 - 1346 AD - The reign of King Harold IV. Harold assumed power once he turned twenty, claiming that he had come of age. Harold IV reigned over a prosperous kingdom, and was one of the last to do so for a while (the Black Death made its entrance into Europe in 1347). Harold put this wealth to good use.

He understood the situation with the Scots. He knew that he had to, in a sense, prove himself to the Scots that the Ealdgar dynasty was to be respected, perhaps more so than the Godwins. He began first by increasing the kingdom’s military strength and presence in the region of Northumbria. What he was doing, essentially, was goading the Scots into attacking. And in 1312, it worked.

A number of Scots got it in their heads that they would pull off a daring raid by sea, like the Vikings did. This was backed by the Mormaer of Moray, brother of King Duncan III, who even provided an amount of ships. The Mormaer’s son was even one of the leaders of the raid. This was dangerous political ground on which to be treading. On March 1, 1312 the Scottish raiding party had, under the cover of night, arrived at Myton (OTL Kingston upon Hull). It was a small port, but it was close enough to Eoforwīc to make the Earl of Northumbria very nervous.

During the raid of Myton the son of the Mormaer, Malmure, was killed by arrow fire. The body was seized by the English during the raid, and once the raid was over, Scottish captives positively identified it as Malmure, the King’s nephew. This enraged the English. A member of the royal family of Scotland was at the head of a raid within a day’s ride or so of Eoforwīc!

This caused an uproar in both Witanceaster and Perth. Many in the Witan were crying for war, and Harold was happy to oblige. Harold himself wrote a scathing letter to Duncan, King of Scotland, demanding that the King of Scotland not simply act to cease the raids on Northumbria, but in addition to cease the buildup of the Scottish navy, and to even curb their expansion in Ireland. (The first words of the letter were “Lysergic Scotisc” --- [You] vile Scot.)

And when presented with these outrageous demands, what really got the Scots’ blood pumping was that rather than fight, Duncan III considered bowing to these demands. Whether or not that’s actually true is debatable, but his immediate actions following the reception of the letter (which were to return all Scottish ships to their ports post haste and to send a letter of apology) did not help his standing amongst the many Mormaers who clamored for action. Duncan’s actions are puzzling to many historians, but it seems most likely that these actions were meant only to pacify the English at the moment, to avoid immediate war. Duncan III’s other actions in his reign showed no real signs of being an English lap-dog, as some of his contemporaries had painted him to be.

Thus, in the middle of the night, November 4, 1312, as Duncan III was returning to his estate, was attacked by a group of men headed by Ferchar III, Mormaer of Ross. Duncan III was slain in the fighting, and on November 12 Ferchar had enough support in Perth to crown himself King of Scots, Leinster, Dublin, and Ulster as Ferchar I. Duncan III did have a son, and Duncan IV had little choice but to flee to England, where he really wasn’t welcome. But Harold IV welcomed him anyway, knowing him to be a useful pawn.

Toward the end of winter, in 1313, the Scottish campaign began in earnest. The fighting would rage on for four years. Mostly the fighting had been confined to Scotland, although Alfred the Earl of Cornweall (OTL Cornwall) led a daring (and successful) raid to seize Dublin and other Irish coastal cities during the height of the war in 1315.

Meanwhile, in Scotland proper, the war was raging. Unlike the last time England went into Scotland, over two centuries ago, this time the Scots were, more or less, united in their opposition to English invasion. What it ended up coming down to was the relative wealth of the two countries: how long they could sustain a prolonged conflict. The English were able to hire wave after wave of mercenaries from the continent and Ireland to bolster their forces, and to reduce the number of English dead (which turned out to be good P.R. for Harold).

Meanwhile, the Great Famine had struck Europe. From 1315 - 1316 the fighting had ground almost to a halt, as it was difficult to feed a stationary man in a foreign land, let alone an army on the move.

Ferchar simply could not keep up the fight, after four years of fighting, and being often unsuccessful in the field (the English were in control of Perth, the Hebrides [thanks to another naval raid by the Earl of Cornweall], Edinburgh, Glasgow, and several other key locations. Ferchar died under mysterious circumstances in August of 1317. The war weary Scots sought peace with the English, and they got it on September 27, 1317. The terms of the peace were that Cumbria and Edinburgh were to be given to England, and that England have full control of Irish ports on the Irish Sea The terms were harsh, but workable.

Duncan IV was allowed to take his throne, however he was to marry his son to Harold IV’s daughter, Edith. This helped to ensure a familial alliance of sorts, at least for now.

The rest of Harold IV’s reign was spent in relative peace. His son and heir-apparent, Sigemund, marries Joanna Duchess of Brabant in 1334. This was an important marriage, because with the death of Harold IV in 1346 Brabant is also joined to the English crown, making the English the uncontested masters of the Netherlands (sans Guelders and Luxembourg).

In 1346 Harold IV passes away. He is succeeded by his son Sigemund.

1346 - 1366 AD - The reign of King Sigemund was fraught with peril. The Black Death made its debut in Europe not one year after his coronation.

The Black Death had ravaged Europe, and by 1349 Yersinia Pestis had, like Julius Caesar, William of Normandy, and Harald Hardrada before him, arrived on the shores of England. Within weeks the whole of England had been effected, and within just a few months the disease worked its way to Ireland. The fast spread of the disease can be attributed to the fact that travel between Flanders and England was facilitated due to political unity, and the fact that the roads of England were among some of the best-maintained and easiest-traveled in the whole of Europe (thanks to the work of King Harold III, many years previous).

England came through the Black Death a lot worse off than before. There was now a labor shortage of sorts. And because the importation of textiles from the Low Countries was essentially cut off for two years or so, the English had to look for other ways to make their money. The result, was the creation of a textile industry in England itself. It had always been there, but it had for centuries played second fiddle to the Dutch textile mills. Now it had a real chance of overtaking Flanders. But, for now, this was of only minor concern. If the English wouldn’t buy from Flanders‘ mills, then Flanders’ mills would go market their goods elsewhere.

The rest of King Sigemund’s reign was more or less spent in rebuilding after the Black Death. England, that placid island kingdom, stayed largely out of the affairs of the continentals, when it could. But the King of England at this time was technically subservient to the Crown of France, as the County of Flanders was in the crown’s peerage. Sigemund didn’t like the idea one bit. It felt to him as though the King of France had some sort of power over him, and he wished to avoid that sticky situation.

And so he did. He effectively turned Flanders into an apanage, by resigning the title of “Count of Flanders”, and giving it to his son, Sigemund II. (Sigemund would then later grant the title to his son, and so forth) It still wasn’t ideal, but it was better than the King himself being subservient to the French crown. And while he was at it, he granted the Duchy of Brabant to the second-in-line to the throne.

Sigemund would die, and would be remembered as a mediocre king, that one who had to deal with the Black Death, and whose handling of it, while far from an exhibition of incompetence, was also far from an exhibition of administrative mastery. He did, however, show an understanding that in order to maintain England’s prosperity (or, because of the Black Death, regain it), he had to keep England off the continent politically. His successors would slowly find it more and more difficult to not be involved on the continent.

1350 AD - Death of Wenceslaus II (III of Bohemia), Holy Roman Emperor. His son Ottokar III was then elected as the Holy Roman Emperor. He would be the fourth Przemyslid to reign as Holy Roman Emperor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hope you guys enjoy it, I've been really wracking my brain over this one!

As for discussion/suggestions, anything goes. But in particular, I would like your opinion on how the lack of a Hundred Years' War will affect France/England, and Western Europe in general. I feel like I could make ATL France really interesting, but I'm not quite sure how. Oh, and speculations on the effect of the lack of a Babylonian Captivity on the Catholic Church are big on the agenda...

Question: Since the HRE rules over Poland, would Poland be considered a part of the HRE? Or would it be ruled separately?