Why weren't Hungary, Croatia and the like part of the HRE?
- Thread starter jkarr
- Start date
I would think besides increasing the borders also more votes to the Habsburgs so less need to bribe their way to the throne every generation
Zlorfik
Banned
The Habsburgs would rule those lands either way.
The electors were already solidly on their side, with a long precedent for electing Habsburgs. They seemed to have had that handled pretty competently
Not sure if I'd be worth it to somewhat increase their (already virtually guaranteed) odds of re-election by declaring their personal subjects as new electors and angering the existing ones.
The electors were already solidly on their side, with a long precedent for electing Habsburgs. They seemed to have had that handled pretty competently
Not sure if I'd be worth it to somewhat increase their (already virtually guaranteed) odds of re-election by declaring their personal subjects as new electors and angering the existing ones.
The eastern frontier of the Holy Roman Empire pretty much remained stagnant after the Kingdom of Bohemia lost Upper Silesia in 1469.
Were the Hungarian and Czech nobility willing to join the Holy Roman Empire? The decision isn't solely that of the monarch - maybe in theory, but not in practice.
Were the Hungarian and Czech nobility willing to join the Holy Roman Empire? The decision isn't solely that of the monarch - maybe in theory, but not in practice.
They didn't add them to The Empire because there was no reason to do so. This isn't EUIV where adding provinces to The Empire gives you Imperial Authority. None of the Electors or Princes would give the Habsburgs anything just because they added some land to The Empire.
They didn't add the Kingdoms because there was nothing to gain and a lot to lose, since as stated the Hungarian Magnates would not have approved of their Kingdom becoming De-Jure the Vassal of another Power.
In truth, all it would do is mean that the Habsburgs would not possess any extra-Imperial land should they lose the Imperial Crown, which did technically, albeit briefly, happen. If they had lost the crown of The Empire but retained Hungary they would still be independent Kings in at least part of their realm.
They didn't add the Kingdoms because there was nothing to gain and a lot to lose, since as stated the Hungarian Magnates would not have approved of their Kingdom becoming De-Jure the Vassal of another Power.
In truth, all it would do is mean that the Habsburgs would not possess any extra-Imperial land should they lose the Imperial Crown, which did technically, albeit briefly, happen. If they had lost the crown of The Empire but retained Hungary they would still be independent Kings in at least part of their realm.
The Czech lands (Bohemia-Moravia) were already in the HRE, so the Czech nobility didn't have to join, they were already there.
I think that the main reason the Hapsburgs didn't have those other areas join the HRE was because it would have destabilised the HRE by affecting the balance of power, and actually made the rest of the Empire LESS likely to accept Hapsburg authority. Would've been a big opening for the French, Swedes, Poles etc. to carve off some of the imperial periphery.
Having the same ruler as other states doesn't make you a part of it. Otherwise you would through in the Wettin-run Poland-Lithuania, the Hanoverian British Isles, the areas the Prussians took form Poland, etc. Also keep in mind that thought people still make jokes about the place not being Holy, Roman, or an Empire, the full name later on was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Also, you cannot really add kingdoms, since there were some rules that only had Kings for Germany, Bohemia, the Romans, and maybe something else. I more wonder about later on when the Germans were able to threaten the Netherlands to make Limburg into a part of their economic group just because the Dutch lost Belgium. Come to think of it, during the early periods I think that Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, and Croatia had the same rulers.The Hapsburgs didn't really go that direction until after they started losing loads of land in Swabia and when the senior branch took a lot of the good stuff.
First off, admitting Hungary and Croatia into the Empire would no doubt require the consent of the Diet, and getting them to approve two massive territories would be next to impossible. Second, to be quite honest the Empire's de jure borders remained very much stable for most of the HRE's existence. From the Kingdom of Burgundy's annexation to the Empire in 1033 to the legal independence of Switzerland and the Netherlands in 1648 the borders were the same. Even up till 1806 the medieval Kingdom of Italy continued to legally exist, with Northern Italy (excepting Genoa and Venice) owing fealty to the Emperor.
Third, there's the fact that only four Kingdoms can exist in the Empire, three of which are legally tied to the Emperor: Germany, Italy, Burgundy and Bohemia. The only possible time that Hungary and Croatia could be added would be during the Turkish occupation of the two kingdoms. The parts still controlled by the Habsburgs would be so minimal that adding them wouldn't be a threat to the Empire. Of course that chance is very small at best.
Third, there's the fact that only four Kingdoms can exist in the Empire, three of which are legally tied to the Emperor: Germany, Italy, Burgundy and Bohemia. The only possible time that Hungary and Croatia could be added would be during the Turkish occupation of the two kingdoms. The parts still controlled by the Habsburgs would be so minimal that adding them wouldn't be a threat to the Empire. Of course that chance is very small at best.
Napoleonrules
Banned
The HRE was always seen predominately as a "German" empire despite the Roman name. Even when northern Italy was a part of the Empire it was partly based on historical events of German tribal groups that had set up kingdoms and then Charlemagne (who was a German, not a Frenchman!). Even the Czechs did not take up much of Bohemia/Moravia back then, Germans were dominant in a lot of what is today the Czech Republic; the Czechs back then were heavily Germanized in culture as well. The Habsburgs never tried to reform the HRE by adding in Hungary (which you'd have to in order to add Croatia, Croatia was subservient to the Hungarian Crown, not the Austrian) because Germans would never have allowed it.
Now, a good AH story could be made about Habsburgs some how getting the British after the Napoleonic Wars to allow them to throw off Hungary as independent in return for Bavaria, Wurtemburg, Baden and Saxony and therefore be stronger against Prussia. Would that allow the Habsburgs to unite Germany, if even using alien bats to force the British into this POD.
Now, a good AH story could be made about Habsburgs some how getting the British after the Napoleonic Wars to allow them to throw off Hungary as independent in return for Bavaria, Wurtemburg, Baden and Saxony and therefore be stronger against Prussia. Would that allow the Habsburgs to unite Germany, if even using alien bats to force the British into this POD.
Just about Charlemagne. The Franks were a Germanic nation, but he cannot be truly be called a Frenchman or a German. And he was born in West Francia according to probabilities (Francia's capital was Paris).
And I think calling Charlemagne a Frenchman is more appropriate than a German, since it's mostly French kings who sought to recreate his empire.
POD is obviously ASB, and I think Baden is too close to France to accept such a deal - the small polity would more likely end up being eaten up by France on the long term than Austria. Factor in the 1859 Franco-Austrian war (on Lombardy and Venetia, won by the French and the Savoyards) and it's a waste of diplomatic capacities.
Napoleonrules
Banned
In reality it was the German nation that saw itself as the heir to Charlemagne. Charlemagne's empire was considered the 1st Reich, even before Hitler's belief in his being the 3rd Reich. Otto the Great considered his Holy Roman Empire to be a "modern" extension (from his point of view modern) and every history textbook is going to agree that's how it was viewed and considered. Charlemagne being "French" is anachronistic, however saying he was German is not anachronistic because the idea of he being from a German tribe or ethnicity was acknowledged at the time, the Lombards, Goths, and even Angles and Saxons were all considered "Germans". There's a difference between a "German race" as they called it then (or ethnic group as we would say today) and a "German nationality" which was constructed in the mid to late 1800s and is a modern abstract forced upon the German ethnicity by Bismark and the Prussian elites.
West Francia, despite the similarity in name and overlapping geography, did not imply "French" nationality nor was it seen as anything other than an easy and ambigious geographic expression. Later as nationality came into play and a French language and culture expressed itself with a Roman/Latin underpinning did West Francia lend it's name as France to a real national identity. Please don't use anachronistic ideas of nationality onto a person like Charlemagne.
West Francia, despite the similarity in name and overlapping geography, did not imply "French" nationality nor was it seen as anything other than an easy and ambigious geographic expression. Later as nationality came into play and a French language and culture expressed itself with a Roman/Latin underpinning did West Francia lend it's name as France to a real national identity. Please don't use anachronistic ideas of nationality onto a person like Charlemagne.