AHC: Make the Holy Roman Empire stable.

[GameBawesome]

The Holy Roman Empire is famously known as a joke. It was not Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It was a feudal mess, that lacked the National identity, centralization, and singular leadership to actually function as nation-state. Because of this, it is seen as a joke.

The challenge, with a POD between the 800s to 1800s, have the Holy Roman Empire actually work. Make it the superpower of the continent, a centralized state, under one leadership, and the the Title of Holy Roman Emperor be powerful and prestigious, making it a worthy successor to the Roman Empire.

 

[RedKing]

The Holy Roman Empire is famously known as a joke. It was not Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It was a feudal mess, that lacked the National identity, centralization, and singular leadership to actually function as nation-state. Because of this, it is seen as a joke.

The challenge, with a POD between the 800s to 1800s, have the Holy Roman Empire actually work. Make it the superpower of the continent, a centralized state, under one leadership, and the the Title of Holy Roman Emperor be powerful and prestigious, making it a worthy successor to the Roman Empire.

My first thought is have the Carolingian Empire stick together and hold it's self together long enough for it to transition into the holy roman empire or for a successor state to do so. That or have some emperor centralize the empire.

 

[AltoRegnant]

The issues all tie back to italy and the pope, and most crop up after the crusades. They pulled the emperor away from germany and across the alps, and the north Italians hated being under the german boot. Frederick Barbarossa is a good example- the league of lombardy defeated him and coerced autonomy from him, which caused issues in germany, and them he died on crusade

 

[Avalon]

It was not Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

Please no. Not this stupid quote that barely applied to the era it was said in talk less about all 900 years of the empires existence which even Voltaire acknowledged when saying it. At various points under various emperors, your challenge was successfully completed in terms of power projection on the European continent and the people in and around it did consider it "their" Roman empire even though Byzieboos in today's time later want to beat the dead horse of a thousand-year political argument.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

That the Holy Roman Empire didn't "work" is a historical myth, and we can trace the origin of the myth pretty accurately. The Holy Roman Empire was pulled down partly by Prussia, and partly by revolutionary era France, and since the 19th century unification of Germany was the work of Prussia. it became a custom for German scholars to denigrate the Holy Roman Empire.

You can make the argument that there was no such country as "the Holy Roman Empire". The name was propaganda promoted by Barbarossa, in the twelfth century after the entity had been around. There was just the title "Roman Empire" that Charlemagne claimed. After the Treaty of Verdun, the title became associated with one of the successor kingdoms, the Kingdom of Italy, so whoever was King of Italy was also Roman Emperor.

What we call "the Holy Roman Empire" was the combination of three of the successor states of Charlemagne's empire, Germany, Italy, and Burgundy (Burgundy-Provence or southern Burgundy). The situation with Burgundy was really complicated and it lost all its territory by the middle of the fourteenth century, so it was Germany and Italy that was important. And medieval Germany worked as well or better as any other medieval kingdom. It had common institutions, defending itself from external enemies and expanded its territory, and internal conflicts were the sort of dynastic conflicts that every kingdom experienced. It had post-Reformation religious wars, including a really bad one after 1618, but so did everyone else. Germany only ran into problems when Friedrich II of Prussia started undermining it.

Italy, on the other hand, was in a state of anarchy even before Otto of Saxony showed up, and never developed national institutions, and the city states successfully resisted all attempts to establish them. Italy for some reason is included on maps showing the "Holy Roman Empire" before 1500 but disappears from later maps in historical atlases, with historians meaning just Germany when the talk about the "Holy Roman Empire" post Maximilian I, though there was no change in Italy's status.

 

[mial42]

Considering the HRE lasted for centuries, it absolutely did "work." Most polities don't have the kind of durability. It was really the Reformation and the 30 years war that turned it from a "functional" country to more of an "in-name only" one, so the obvious route to doing this is some kind of alt-Reformation (I don't think no Reformation is likely; Church heresies were quite common and it was only a matter of time for one to get significant elite support once the printing press showed up, especially since the non-Church elite often had their own conflicts with the Church, but it's certainly possible for the alt-Reformation to be centered in, say, France or even Italy instead of Germany, and an alt-30 years war to be less devastating).

 

[hirsch91]

Henry VI succeeding in making the title of emperor of the HRE hereditary would be a huge step forward. And don't make the Hohenstauffen line die out.
And alternative would for the Habsburgs to join the reformation and make their own version of Christianity like the British did.

 

[Socrates]

The best way for it to maintain power and consolidate statehood is for it to have the territory of just Italy, with Gaul and Germany being other splits of the Frankish Empire. An Emperor based in Rome could bring the Pope to heel and the imperial legitimacy could see it consolidate vassals in the North and conquer the South.

 

[EmperorOfTheNorthSea]

Barbarossa not drowning might lead to centralization. I remember a thread from years ago where some user went really in depth explaining it that it convinced me but for the life of me I can't remember what arguments he used.

 

[isabella]

Maximilian I living a little longer AND Charles V not inheriting Spain (so having only Burgundy and Austria, both in the HRE) would help a lot

 

[Wendell]

Save either Miguel de la Paz or John, Prince of Asturias, and you're much of the way there.

 

[JanWellem]

Henry the Lion and Frederick Barbarossa find a working basis for cooperation during Barbarossa's fifth Italian campeign. Henry is granted the City of Goslar and Barbarossa, with the help of Henry's forces wins the Battle of Legnano against the Lombard League. He then success fully besieges Rome, forces Pope Alexander III to abdicate and installs Paschal III and after the latter's death Calixtus III as pliable puppet popes, who surrender the temporal control over the Papal States to the Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[funnyhat]

That the Holy Roman Empire didn't "work" is a historical myth, and we can trace the origin of the myth pretty accurately. The Holy Roman Empire was pulled down partly by Prussia, and partly by revolutionary era France,

I would argue that Westphalia was effectively its death knell. After 1648 it served little real purpose, other than as a courtesy title for the Austrian Habsburgs.

But prior to that point it was a legitimate state like any other.

 

[Socrates]

Save either Miguel de la Paz or John, Prince of Asturias, and you're much of the way there.

Can you explain this one?

 

[Atterdag]

The Holy Roman Empire did work. Most of the various Counts and Dukes saw the centralization that happened in other countries like France as destroying everything about how countries were supposed to work, and stepping on the ancient rights of just about every class in the process. By comparison the HRE was very successful in protecting these old privileges.

 

[Socrates]

I would argue that Westphalia was effectively its death knell. After 1648 it served little real purpose, other than as a courtesy title for the Austrian Habsburgs.

But prior to that point it was a legitimate state like any other.

I don't think anyone is denying its legitimacy, just its effectiveness. I would say the Empire was unravelling from the Investiture Controversy onwards.

 

[Atterdag]

I don't think anyone is denying its legitimacy, just its effectiveness. I would say the Empire was unravelling from the Investiture Controversy onwards.

If an empire can be unraveling but hold on for 700 years it’s doing something right.

 

[isabella]

Can you explain this one?

What I said in the post before the one who you quoted (as they are the most likely way for getting that outcome)

 

[CaptainShadow]

Can you explain this one?

Keeping either of em alive butterflies the Habsburgs getting Spain, so all their focus would be on the HRE. Given the amount of land and influence they have it won't be hard to centralize the HRE, maybe even make it hereditary.

 

[isabella]

Keeping either of em alive butterflies the Habsburgs getting Spain, so all their focus would be on the HRE. Given the amount of land and influence they have it won't be hard to centralize the HRE, maybe even make it hereditary.

Points is who if you keep the Emperor present and concentrated on the Empire in that timeframe (who was crucial for the Empire) you will get the full effect of Maximilian’s reforms, likely stop the Reform and with the Emperor having personal possession of both Burgundy and Austria you get him interested and able to force the whole Empire under his control de-facto