Yeah, but that's exactly my point, there was variety of opinions and not every elective monarchy was keen of electing child kings, and more often than not, elective monarchies tended to distrust child kings.
WI: Frederick III marries Anne of Bohemia?
Yeah, but that's exactly my point, there was variety of opinions and not every elective monarchy was keen of electing child kings, and more often than not, elective monarchies tended to distrust child kings.
Idk about that. The election of Wlaydslaw III was in order to genuinely overstretch their king, he was already king of Poland and grand Duke of Lithuania (although his brother was mostly running Lithuania at this point)
Genuinely speaking while yes elective monarchies may elect adult kings over child kings it is only because they believed the adult was weak willed. Ladislaus was a wild card during 1444 so they genuinely did not know but after varna they realized Ladislaus would not govern the lands himself nor would he be forceful about it either that's why they elected him. Frederick is neither of those. He was slow patient and evasive so the nobility had no clue what he wanted to do with Bohemia or Hungary. Importantly he was also the Holy Roman Emperor which could make him too powerful and allow him to rein in the nobility quite easily.
Well, the actual argument given by the nobles electing Vladislaus of Varna instead of Ladislaus the Posthumous was the fact that Hungary was threatened by Turks and that they need adult king to lead them against the Turks.
There's also the matter of his guardianship for Ladislaus, when Albert II died they did not elect him since Elizabeth claimed sole guardianship but after Wladyslaw's death the guardianship was to Frederick III, and they specifically said Frederick has to give up guardianship in order for Ladislaus to be proclaimed king. Which he didn't do and the compromise was that he would be elected by Janos Hunyadi who was one of their own was basically regent for Ladislaus in Hungary. The same thing applies to Bohemia although the issue wasn't necessarily Frederick's guardianship. I feel like the ottoman invasion reasons was just more justification for just not having another Habsburg on the throne after all the Holy Roman Emperor would be far more powerful in a crusade than the king of Poland. Like Frederick could take Bohemia three times, first was for Ladislaus as regent and second was after George of Podebrady's ascension as king and his death, conversely the same applies for Hungary. He could not take those thrones three times 
There's also the matter of his guardianship for Ladislaus, when Albert II died they did not elect him since Elizabeth claimed sole guardianship but after Wladyslaw's death the guardianship was to Frederick III, and they specifically said Frederick has to give up guardianship in order for Ladislaus to be proclaimed king. Which he didn't do and the compromise was that he would be elected by Janos Hunyadi who was one of their own was basically regent for Ladislaus in Hungary. The same thing applies to Bohemia although the issue wasn't necessarily Frederick's guardianship. I feel like the ottoman invasion reasons was just more justification for just not having another Habsburg on the throne after all the Holy Roman Emperor would be far more powerful in a crusade than the king of Poland. Like Frederick could take Bohemia three times, first was for Ladislaus as regent and second was after George of Podebrady's ascension as king and his death, conversely the same applies for Hungary. He could not take those thrones three times
How HRE would be more powerful in it's crusade when no one actually listened to Emperor and especially Frederick was having troubles with even his brother and was beaten by Matthias Corvinus who took away his capital by force?
The same logic that got him elected unanimously I guess
Frederick was pretty good in diplomacy, there's a reason why the term AEIOU was formed I think under Frederick.
His military skills though suck ass.
The same logic that got him elected unanimously I guess
Frederick was pretty good in diplomacy, there's a reason why the term AEIOU was formed I think under Frederick.
His military skills though suck ass.
He was good in diplomacy, but it doesn't change the fact that no one in HRE really listened to emperor and thus he would have only forces of his small principality.
The same logic that got him elected unanimously I guess
Frederick was pretty good in diplomacy, there's a reason why the term AEIOU was formed I think under Frederick.
His military skills though suck ass.
sorry, but I slightly disagree with your arguments, first of all let's analyze the situation in which Frederick found himself upon his accession to the throne in 1440, first of all he had the limited resources of his archducal possessions at his disposal ( i.e. only Inner Austria , because the rest of the archduchy was in the hands of his brother Albert VI, who was hostile to him, of Sigismund and finally of Ladislaus, without forgetting that the whole of Austria was devastated several times by the incursions of the Hussites, with the aim of breaking their support to Sigismund's campaigns ) as if that wasn't enough you immediately have to face a war against the Swiss, and the last slag of the Western schism ( the Council of Basel and the Anti - Pope Felix V ) then there was the need to try to rebuild a semblance of central authority in the Reich, knowing that we could not count on a position of strength or an aggressive policy towards the princes ( given that unfortunately for him he did not have a clearly superior state property to his "vassals", in fact he preferred to opt for a more collegial policy or one aimed at creating solid ties with allies in strategic positions (1) for the rest he certainly was not a capable figure to impose himself militarily like his three main rivals ( Philip the Good, Charles the Bold and obviously Matthias Corvinus ) and which therefore disfigured him in comparison to them but only because the starting conditions in which he finds himself reigning and his propensity for soft power they made him a different ruler than them, but that didn't mean he was any less competent, now he certainly made mistakes or thwarted important opportunities to consolidate his influence as emperor ( especially in Italy, but also occasionally in Germany / Bohemia ) but all in all he was a discreet Caesar who tried to implement his own policy with the few means available its disposition
1 ) see his policy in Italy, which was based on a profitable alliance with Rome and Venice ( which I personally visit several times ) or in the Reich, as can be seen in these two articles : https://academic.oup.com/gh/article/42/1/1/7485842 and https://books.openedition.org/efr/42208 , even Sigismund, who unlike Frederick could have a much superior initial power base, had to struggle to impose some of his policies in the Reich, and his previous attempts to carry out a Romzung or to bend Venice were thwarted several times ( see this article on the matter : https://journals.openedition.org/mefrm/2820 )
@Kellan Sullivan @isabella
Last edited:
I didn't say that by the fact that no one listened to him Friedrich/Frederick was incompetent, in fact I am of opinion that overall effectiveness of the state is more important than competency of person running it (to some extent, naturally) and strong state with effective apparatus ruled by mediocre person would do overall better than paralyzed, weak state with little to no apparatus ran by a genius. And what you describe - raided (by Hussites) archduchy, divided between many Habsburgs who often were hostile to Friedrich, with his part of the duchy not being that much bigger even in comparison to them and seeming even smaller in comparison to princes electors is why I said "no one really listened to Friedrich in Reich" thus invalidating @Liminia1 's opinion than Frederick could provide more help as HRE than Vladislaus III as king of Poland.