HRE-level of decentralization the norm for European countries
- Thread starter Atterdag
- Start date
Have the first few Capetians be as unlucky as the first few Ottonians. In the 900s, Hugh Capet ruled France from Paris and Otto ruled Germany from Saxony. The sudden deaths of Otto II and III and childlessness of Henry II firmly established election of the Holy Roman Emperor and itinerant court, while the Capetians slowly grew their influence and made Paris the ever more important center of the realm.
Skallagrim
Banned
An idea I've been toying around with recently is that of an ATL analogue to the Investiture Controversy, but early on, in a timeline where Charlemagne's empire stayed united a bit longer (and grew a bit bigger). The increasingly large size of the empire makes any meaningful central control difficult to impossible. Nevertheless, rivalry between the Church and the Emperor does arise over a number of matters. At one point, a particularly devout younger son ascends to the throne unerxpectedly-- after the indended heir dies young in a plague that kills quite a lot of aristocrats. As Emperor, he grants a lot of local fiefs to the Church directly (as Prince-Bishoprics etc.) and allows the Church an inordinate amount of power in decided which aristocrat is entitled to which secular fief. This then causes the exiting tension to boil over, and the next emperor dukes it out with the Pope. The Emperor loses, mainly because the Church has the backing of a large portion of the local aristocrats now. (Not to mention the Church states.)
This then leads to a situation where the Church is dominant in secular politics, and very deliberately keeps all of the (sprawling) Empire decentralised. Makes sense, sinxe centralised secular authority is the only thing that could threaten the primacy of the Pope. To keep potentially troublesome aristocrats out of the way, the Church actively encourages crusades in Eastern Europe, with the undertstanding that the Church will divide the conquered lands into new Imperial fiefs, and select which Crusaders will be granted the titles to those fiefs. (Spoiler: it's the aristocrats who are most loyal to the Church.)
Thus, you'd end up with a Europe that is united under a single Empire, where the secular emperor is a relatively powerless figurehead, where the Church is very powerful, but where temporal authority is intentionally decentralised to a very great degree (and will presumably stay that way for a long time).
This then leads to a situation where the Church is dominant in secular politics, and very deliberately keeps all of the (sprawling) Empire decentralised. Makes sense, sinxe centralised secular authority is the only thing that could threaten the primacy of the Pope. To keep potentially troublesome aristocrats out of the way, the Church actively encourages crusades in Eastern Europe, with the undertstanding that the Church will divide the conquered lands into new Imperial fiefs, and select which Crusaders will be granted the titles to those fiefs. (Spoiler: it's the aristocrats who are most loyal to the Church.)
Thus, you'd end up with a Europe that is united under a single Empire, where the secular emperor is a relatively powerless figurehead, where the Church is very powerful, but where temporal authority is intentionally decentralised to a very great degree (and will presumably stay that way for a long time).
Like above, somehow have the HRE keep all of Charlemagne's empire and adding the converted peoples as new dukes. It would be so large that it would be impossible to centralize, especially if you added short lived dynasties.
With this you can keep a largely decentralized empire covering everything from the Vistula to Gibraltar until gunpowder and early modern firearms and artillery either blows it apart or forges it together.
With this you can keep a largely decentralized empire covering everything from the Vistula to Gibraltar until gunpowder and early modern firearms and artillery either blows it apart or forges it together.
The centralstation of France as we know it should be averted. It was a early Role model for a Nation state.
Of course even if we managed to break up western Europe there does happen to be your namesake who would serve just as well if not better.
A late PoD for this could be a much shorter 100YW. At least France experienced a real boost in Centralization in its last decades.
Then, No Iberian Union and No Columbus, instead some Comunero Revolution in Castile triumphing, creating three distinctly different cultural-political paths on the Peninsula: the centralised, navally colonising Portugiese Kingdom, a Castile-Leon shaped more by its proto-bourgeoisie (plus religious societies of course) and permanently riddled with internal strife, and Aragon, which is a decentralised Mediterranean behemoth anyway.
Nothing needs to be changed about Italy.
Then, No Iberian Union and No Columbus, instead some Comunero Revolution in Castile triumphing, creating three distinctly different cultural-political paths on the Peninsula: the centralised, navally colonising Portugiese Kingdom, a Castile-Leon shaped more by its proto-bourgeoisie (plus religious societies of course) and permanently riddled with internal strife, and Aragon, which is a decentralised Mediterranean behemoth anyway.
Nothing needs to be changed about Italy.