Germany always seemed to me in Europa Universalis in part too chaotic and in part too unified to be interesting. I mean, we got so many german states with german culture. How to be surprised that the big Austria eat through it and prosper so much? Reading about the history of the catholic church, I was surprised to read that the conflict between the German Emperors and the Pope had been a major reason of that chaos. It was before the timeframe of EUII, but one of the big consequences of that conflict was the strength of the Catholic Church in Germany. And not so much strength in spiritual power as in temporal power. Let me quote one of the easiest sources of the net in matter of history http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm:
It goes better. The church lands of germany were under the authority of what been called Prince-Bishops, meaning powerful and independant Bishops or Archbishops. They were elected, and most of the time it was some landless aristocrat from some neighbouring family that was elected. It does not mean that such Prince-Bishops were free from the rule of the Holy See, and neither it means that they were under the thumb of their neighbour. Quite the contrary. Almost all the catholic church hierarchy, italian or not, were coming from the aristocracy. All the bishops and archbishops had some autonomy. All had conflicting sympathies with their neighbours. All had in the end to bow before the holy see. It was part of the job. The exceptions had to do with a powerful central power, as the King of France, who was able to contest the power of the pope and had much authority on the hierarchy of the church in his state. And it was not the case in Germany.
The strength of the temporal power of the Church in Germany was one of the direct cause of the Reformation. The German Princes, as their Emperor, did not like that 25% of Germany was under control of a Church with a Italian leader. In fact, many in the german church hierarchy did not like either. They were the ones to convert. Of course, I don't deny there were spiritual reasons too. I would rather think that the spiritual reasons helped people in germany to keep the catholic faith, and not the other way around.
Anyway, that's not what I want to discuss here.
We could always think that the Prince-Bishops power was not the Pope power. However, in 1763 unformally and in 1786 formally, these Prince-Bishops had to protest against the papal interference in the exercise of episcopal powers. It was not that the papal interference had grown, but that the nationalist ideas had gained quite some ground in Germany. Personally, I think that the power of the Pope in the timeframe of EUII was only limitated by the distances: culturals, geographics, and politicals distances.
So that's why I think the provinces of Mainz (343), Salzburg (350) and Köln (344) at least should be part of the Papal States, with cores, and their corresponding states forgotten. To simulate the weakness of the Papal States in Italy in 1419, I would be a supporter of the italian setting of Mad King James in his Setup Discussion thread. That's mean one province less as core (391), and a vassal state as neighbour (392), keeping the core on this province.
Gamewise:
1- The Papal States should not be overpowerful in this setting because it would lack any land connections between their provinces and most of them would not have the italian culture.
2- The diplomatic scene in germany would be now of the utmost importance for the Papal States. The Reformation would became much more dramatic. The defense and the attack from such divised state would be very interesting.
3- The events from these germans minors should be integrated in the events of the papal states. Some changes would be needed, of course. I think in particular at some events written by Twoflower.
Well, that's it. What do you think?
The Church in Germany guaranteed his power by playing the power gamers against each other. Same thing as in Italy. And as in Italy, it worked. The ecclesiastic states who did not turn protestant lasted until 1803. In the actual setting of EUIII, they are the first states to be annexed, one way or another. Not so historical. But were they really states, or were they pretty big church lands? I read on that subject, and I was surprised that the Church Hierarchy had more power in these lands that in the most part of the Papal States before the end of the XVth century. IIRC, Caesare Borgia had to go to the conquest of much of the Papal States, who were not really under the authority of the Pope, and neither under the authority of local bishops, but of local aristocrats.What was going to be the continuing problem for this new Empire [the future Germany] was just money. Without much in the way of trade, cities, or industry, there just wasn't any. Without money there could be no paid army or paid administrators. For military force the Kings were thus dependant on feudal loyalty, which was rarely entirely reliable and depended on the personality of individual rulers. For administration, however, the Kings could long use the Church, educated and self-supporting, until the Popes decided that the Church should be independent.
[...]
The Popes wanted an independent Church, which they fought for in the Investiture Controversy of 1076-1122. An excommunicated Emperor Henry IV, standing penitently barefoot in the snow outside the Tuscan castle at Canossa, is one of the most striking images of the Middle Ages. To the Germans this would later be one of the most humiliating events in their history.
[...]
Henry V achieved what looked like a favorable compromise to the Controversy, but the damage had been done and the precedents set. The Imperial grip in both Germany and Italy had been loosened, many concerns neglected, and the Popes knew what they could do to preserve their independence and powers, however little they were able to maintain themselves sometimes even against the people of the city of Rome. The spirit of resistance in both Germany and Italy was heartened; the German Church began to exercise even its own territorial sovereignty (with independent states, like that of the Archbishop of Salzburg, that persisted until Napoleon); and subsequent history would be a steadily losing battle for the Monarchy.
[...]
The successes of the Popes crippled the authority of the German Throne, and ensured that Germany and Italy would enter the Modern period fragmented and anarchic.
It goes better. The church lands of germany were under the authority of what been called Prince-Bishops, meaning powerful and independant Bishops or Archbishops. They were elected, and most of the time it was some landless aristocrat from some neighbouring family that was elected. It does not mean that such Prince-Bishops were free from the rule of the Holy See, and neither it means that they were under the thumb of their neighbour. Quite the contrary. Almost all the catholic church hierarchy, italian or not, were coming from the aristocracy. All the bishops and archbishops had some autonomy. All had conflicting sympathies with their neighbours. All had in the end to bow before the holy see. It was part of the job. The exceptions had to do with a powerful central power, as the King of France, who was able to contest the power of the pope and had much authority on the hierarchy of the church in his state. And it was not the case in Germany.
The strength of the temporal power of the Church in Germany was one of the direct cause of the Reformation. The German Princes, as their Emperor, did not like that 25% of Germany was under control of a Church with a Italian leader. In fact, many in the german church hierarchy did not like either. They were the ones to convert. Of course, I don't deny there were spiritual reasons too. I would rather think that the spiritual reasons helped people in germany to keep the catholic faith, and not the other way around.
We could always think that the Prince-Bishops power was not the Pope power. However, in 1763 unformally and in 1786 formally, these Prince-Bishops had to protest against the papal interference in the exercise of episcopal powers. It was not that the papal interference had grown, but that the nationalist ideas had gained quite some ground in Germany. Personally, I think that the power of the Pope in the timeframe of EUII was only limitated by the distances: culturals, geographics, and politicals distances.
So that's why I think the provinces of Mainz (343), Salzburg (350) and Köln (344) at least should be part of the Papal States, with cores, and their corresponding states forgotten. To simulate the weakness of the Papal States in Italy in 1419, I would be a supporter of the italian setting of Mad King James in his Setup Discussion thread. That's mean one province less as core (391), and a vassal state as neighbour (392), keeping the core on this province.
Gamewise:
1- The Papal States should not be overpowerful in this setting because it would lack any land connections between their provinces and most of them would not have the italian culture.
2- The diplomatic scene in germany would be now of the utmost importance for the Papal States. The Reformation would became much more dramatic. The defense and the attack from such divised state would be very interesting.
3- The events from these germans minors should be integrated in the events of the papal states. Some changes would be needed, of course. I think in particular at some events written by Twoflower.
That's precisely the point. There could be no independant policies for the ecclesiastic states. So, rather that a vassalage, these events should rise the relation between the papal states and the respective countries. High relation means less war, and wars more costly for stability. And it would be more realistic all around.For all times when somebody from one of these families was elected (Arch-) Bishop, there is an event vassalising the bishopric to the respective country, and usually the vassalage is broken by another event after his death (unless the family managed to get another member elected, that is). They may appear quite deterministic, however it is in my opinion historical that it's difficult for a bishopric to pursue an independent policy. [...]
Well, that's it. What do you think?