Isoroku295

I was informed recently that one of the Holy Roman Emporers (I believe it was Frederick I) focused on the Italian Portion of the Empire, and thus Allowed the German Princes to have too much freedom, therefore contributing to the inabiliy of the Emporer to have absolute control of Germany.
Now, I'm wondering, what if he had paid attention to the German portion of the empire, and brought the Princes under control (we will assume he gets them under control), and allowed future Emporers to maintain control over a Unified Holy Roman Empire, rather then a shattered federation. How would this have changed the future of the continent (and potentially the world).

Do NOT just say "they would just rebel later". that is an arrogant responce that ignors the question entirely.
Thank You
D~N

gaius valerius

They would just rebel later... No but really, the emperor you are talking about is Frederick I Barbarossa of house Hohenstaufen (a rather succesful line of emperors one might say). Frederick fought the unruly Italian city-states, led by Milan and the pope but also had to deal with the German princes, mainly the insurgent Henry the Lion, who was a mighty contender in terms of Hausmacht to the Hohenstaufen. For this is an important thing to remember when looking at the HRE: the emperor was never more a primus inter pares. He was an elected official so to say but overall the title did not bring with it any significant power... that is to say: no significant power that could not be backed up by the "hausmacht" (his hereditary lands) of a reigning dynasty. The result is that the HR emperor often had to reign over men who were equally or just a bit less (or a bit more) powerful, logically this leads to tension.

In any case, you are simply posing the wrong question, for yes, they would have rebelled later, or so to say. What is wrong with your question? It disregards the actual structure of the HRE. The HRE was not as much a state as a self-regulating judicial structure, very ingenious it is indeed and for that matter quite unique in the European political history, most of all because it survived that long on its internal capacities before being torn apart by outside forces. Like I said above: the emperor was merely a primus inter pares amongst his fellow German princes, he had to enforce his will by the strenght of his hausmacht, failure to do so would lead to internal disarray, the loss of support from his allies and the possibility that he would have to make important concessions or be deposed of altogether (counter-emperors, etc). Barbarossa focussed on Italy because it was a source of legitimacy, he was a Holy Roman Emperor, a defender of the faith, it relates back to the struggle for investiture (1076-1122) and the power-struggle between the (reform) popes and emperors, though the former won an institutional victory, the latter did not end their claims to supreme power over the catholic world and the popes would continue to be in a struggle with the rulers from across the Alpes (and soon with the rest of Europe as well). The importance in Italy lay in the legitimacy it gave to the emperor (who could only truly be crowned in Rome). Overall the policy of Barbarossa was not very succesful since his reign was a long stretch of rebellion and supressioin, nevertheless he came out more or less victorious.

The problem is even if he subdued the German princes, it would end up all the same in the future. They weren't his real underlings, he wasn't absolutely lifted above them, far from it actually, he was one of them, one that got to be emperor but only because they let him, that did not automatically mean they would dance at his every whim. The HRE was a perculiar political constellation.

If one thing it wasn't something that would so easily be turned into a "federation" of any sorts, like I said earlier, it was not as much a state as a self-regulating judicial entity.

grusinov

Just take a look at other great and mighty empires in the past. What happened to them? Well, they all declined and fell under the pressure created by them being empires. Let's start with Assyria, then Persia, Rome, the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleon's France, Hitler's Germany, and the Soviet Union? All of them proved to be unable to deal with their inner and outer problems and collapsed because of that. You ask if it would have changed the future of the continent? It most positively would have. Every action in history has its consequences, both important and unimportant, both short lasting and long lasting. I think that a universal Holy Roman Empire would have changed the Continent in the same way as the Napoleon's Empire did. In the beginning it would flourish and prosper, but after some time its economy and military strength will be weakened by the need for control over vast territories with many different ethnic groups living on them. And then the inevitable dramatic collapse would come, summarizing the whole process: A great Empire with great rulers who would be remembered and imitated by later ones had just ceased to exist, but only that.

gaius valerius

Only flaw is that the HRE was not like any of those other emperors nor did it have the institutional basis to evolve into one nor would such an evolution be possible without a near complete overhaul over institutional/political structures, given the period and context, this was not the era where a radical turn like that would easily come to pass.

Isoroku295

ok, let me rephrase for the most part.
What if he had created a unified Germany.
What if Germany had become a single unified nation back then, rather then during the more modern (1800's and 1900's). what would change throughout History? I'm using Frederick I as the Unifier only to give an approximate time period for the unification.
Key Word here: UNIFIED. as in NOT about to rebel...

gaius valerius

Impossible. No really... it would be historically near impossible (only adding 'near' to adhere to the nothing is set in stone approach but that's all), with all the hindsight we have today we can safely say that it wouldn't have worked at all, Frederick Barbarossa could not have accomplished such a feat, nor could any of his successors.

There is no more "what if" to be done about that. Or yes... we can always think we'd be having German space-colonies on the moon and on Mars, but honestly, no, it would have been rather impossible. To have a real discussion on this, you'd need to post in the "specalutive history" methinks, taking historical parameters in mind, the answer remains a clear no.