I’m going to need to rename the title. Maybe to “AHC: Have the HRE Stable” or “AHC: Centralize the HRE”Is the goal to make the HRE work, or is the goal to flip it into something else?
Not really, but that one movement (who originally had NO intention to create a scission from the church) acquired the OTL power and force BECAUSE the Emperor do not stopped itBecause movements divergent from Catholicism were already proliferating in Europe (hussitism in Bohemia) and the princes were becoming more assertive in their relations with a weaker Papacy. It did not help that in that period the Pope was starting to resemble one of the petty dukes of Italy and not the theocratic ruler of western christianity.
I believe that you see the emperor as approaching the status of an absolute ruler which in my perception is not the case: there is a great deal of difference for example between the power that Charles V could exercise in the duchy of Burgundy and Hungary. Sure on paper his power is formidable but in practice he was bound by the legal practices in place in all the different territories of HRE. In some places he had significant authority, in others the estates were so powerful that he was just a figurehead with no real authority.
It was not the single one. There were other movements which started to evolve in Europe from the 12nd century, some criticising the corruption inside the Catholic Church, some which disagreed with the central dogmas (waldensians, lolards, hussites). And the ideas are atractive not only to the common people but also to nobles and monarchs, which could levy taxes from the archbishoprics to finance an incresingly expensive state organismNot really, but that one movement (who originally had NO intention to create a scission from the church) acquired the OTL power and force BECAUSE the Emperor do not stopped it
And they were still kept under control or dealt with, without any breakup of the Church until that one who was not stopped in his infancyIt was not the single one. There were other movements which started to evolve in Europe from the 12nd century, some criticising the corruption inside the Catholic Church, some which disagreed with the central dogmas (waldensians, lolards, hussites). And the ideas are atractive not only to the common people but also to nobles and monarchs, which could levy taxes from the archbishoprics to finance an incresingly expensive state organism
Yes but it was like putting a lid on a boiling pot. The intelectual environment created by the Rennasaince and Humanism is perfect for the proliferation of movements of dissent from the established cultural currents. No amount of coercion can change the evolution in thought which occured at that point in time. It was not about just corruption it was about a new mode of governing the state, the birth of a new report between State and Church, between Church and common people etc.And they were still kept under control or dealt with, without any breakup of the Church until that one who was not stopped in his infancy
The Papacy destroyed dynasties that actively challenged the Pope. Those who did not, such as Lothar III and his Saxon allies, were not in danger. Every major Pope in the High Middle Ages had a pro-Imperial mentality until said emperor began to attempt to steal away power from the Holy See.The Pope's where a big reason what no dynasty could dominate and reform the holy Roman Empire but what killed it permanently was the reformation and nationalism
That just proves my point I like to think of the Roman Catholic church like the United Nations but with actual power.The Papacy destroyed dynasties that actively challenged the Pope. Those who did not, such as Lothar III and his Saxon allies, were not in danger. Every major Pope in the High Middle Ages had a pro-Imperial mentality until said emperor began to attempt to steal away power from the Holy See.
Why you are so sure who a Reformation MUST happen? In OTL happened because an absent Emperor ignored the question until was way too late for stopping it. ATL the Emperor will be present and active on reinforcing his power on all the Empire.
If the papacy plays its cards right, especially after Innocent III, Europe might be subject to a literal papal monarchyThat just proves my point I like to think of the Roman Catholic church like the United Nations but with actual power.
Large states don't need the Emperor as their ruler. Small subjects of HRE was the only support of the Emperor because they need imperial institutes for their survivalHRE ends up as a federation of 9 or so electors and the emperor is seen as a first among equals instead of above the electors.
Except electors would want the opportunity of being emperor and the emperor also provides protection against the big blue blob as well as other much larger foreign enemies.Large states don't need the Emperor as their ruler. Small subjects of HRE was the only support of the Emperor because they need imperial institutes for their survival
emperor also provides protection against the big blue blob
Church electors was Austrian allies because it was religious conflict, and only Bavaria was Austrian ally from secular electors because they received this title as an ally of Austria during this warnone of the electors would have sided with Austria
As others have said, the Holy Roman Empire was as Holy, Roman, and Imperial as it wanted to be. If you were a person of recognized saintly goodness or a church organization in OTL HRE, you had a recognized place. Roman law was the law. And the Emperor had armies. Centralizing the HRE would make it Greater Germany or something. Keeping it a loose confederacy sometimes turtling up against threats or to grab opportunities could have happened if:I’m going to need to rename the title. Maybe to “AHC: Have the HRE Stable” or “AHC: Centralize the HRE”