Hre

[unmerged(6473)]

HRE.

Once in the 1970's, I sat in a lecture from a visiting American professor of medieval history. He said of the Holy Roman Empire: it was not Holy, not Roman, and not Empire. Great joke.

Well, I must admit that I do not know very much about the HRE. I wonder how it will be treated in the game. Is it a country, a confederation of separate entities, or a fiction? I know its geographical location, but I do not have an understanding of how it worked in terms of power and structure. I will have to get some books on this, as I have none right now. In later times, such as in EU2, which is from 1419 to 1819, the HRE does not seem very important--an "Emperor" is elected every once in while, and that country gets some none-too-sparkling benefit. If I recall correctly, it was free transit rights across HRE territory. Oh, boy!

Then when I play MTW (I hear you already hissing about its dubious historical accuracy), which covers 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, up to 1453, the HRE is presented as a mighty, unified German Reich, and it is routinely praised as "with the strongest military might of all" and so forth.

Well, I am confused then as to what to expect from CK with respect to HRE. Mighty or weak? Real or fake? What the heck is it?

I bow to you who are more educated on this matter than I am--I seek to learn something here.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

Well the HRE was one of the three kingdoms after Louis the pious (son of Charlemagne) It was the most prosporus of the three in the early middleages and expanded its might northward (toward denmark, wich it claimed was a vassal) and eastward towards the "heathens". It's more or less powerperiod lasted until the feud with the pope (just forgot what it's called in english) about who was higher in the hierarchy (this is in crued terms, it is a lot more complicated). After this the Holy roman emperor lost a lot of his power and the minor lords gained a lot more independence... this is the short and very crude version. I have no doubt that others are better informed than me and will elaborate.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Lasse Nielsen
Well the HRE was one of the three kingdoms after Louis the pious (son of Charlemagne) It was the most prosporus of the three in the early middleages and expanded its might northward (toward denmark, wich it claimed was a vassal) and eastward towards the "heathens".

The HRE stem from the Papal coronation of Charlemagne in Rome, doesn't it? That's where the title comes from. His son, Louis the Pious, held the empire united, but divided it between his three sons Lothar, Pippin and Louis in 817. See The Ordinance of Louis the Pious Division of the Empire of the Year 817.

The Carolingian dynasty held the Imperial title until 911 when the title went to the Franconian house, then in 919 to the first Emperor of the Saxon house.

It's more or less powerperiod lasted until the feud with the pope (just forgot what it's called in english) about who was higher in the hierarchy (this is in crued terms, it is a lot more complicated).

You're thinking of the Investiture conflict I presume.

After this the Holy roman emperor lost a lot of his power and the minor lords gained a lot more independence... this is the short and very crude version. I have no doubt that others are better informed than me and will elaborate.

After the division of the Carolingian Empire the power of the Emperor waned outside of their own domain. It was greatly strengthened by Otto the Great, but I believe this was only the two eastern kingdoms. France was drifting away from the Emperors control...

*sits down, waiting for BarbarossaHRE to arrive... *

Originally posted by EB.
Then when I play MTW (I hear you already hissing about its dubious historical accuracy), which covers 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, up to 1453, the HRE is presented as a mighty, unified German Reich, and it is routinely praised as "with the strongest military might of all" and so forth.

Just goes to show how accurate MTW is, doesn't it?

When mustering all its troops the HRE was indeed a mighty force to recon with. The main problem with the way MTW portrays this is that these troops could only be fielded for a short time, and rarely collected in one campaign since the princes were usually only called up in their local regions.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

Thanks! I told you that there was more informed braines around Thanks for elaborating Harvard

 

[unmerged(11206)]

As Havard said, HRE had potentially the largest army in the West. Problem is vassals werent always cooperative. However, the emperors werent bound by the 40 days service thing; the Dukes were required to serve as summoned (with certain caveats), the Margraves only in adjacent regions (since their duty was to guard frontiers). To offset the Dukes' reluctance to serve far afield, the emperors usually called them out based on which were nearest the objectives. So for Polish campaigns, he'd take the Saxons, for Hungarian, the Bavarians, etc. There was a traditional method of raising armies; emperor had to announce the campaign at the Diet a certain time before forces were to assemble and assign a mustering point (Italian campaigns usually had to be announced a year in advance and forces usually assembelled at Augsburg).

Those emperors able to tame the imperial princes could field some large armies; Conrad II conquered the kingdom of Burgundy in a pincer-campaign with large armies from Germany & Italy invading north and south and linking up in the center. Henry III campaigned all over central Europe and Italy, but even he was plagued by rebellious vassals.

Numbers for Frederick I's forces drawn from several sources:
-1st Italian Campaign (1154): 4000.
-2nd Italian Campaign (1158-1162): 10,000 Germans+5,000 Italians. This shows whats possible when all vassals appear; 3 armies from Germany, Burgundy, & Bavaria/Austria invade through west, center, & east Alpine passes and converge on Milan where theyre joined by the Italian vassals.
-4th Italian Campaign (1165-1167): 8000 including most great vassals and some elite Brabantines.
-5th Italian Campaign (1174-1176): Emperor w/6000 Germans & Burgundians through western passes into Piedmont, while a few thousand under Archbishop of Mainz advance from east.
-3rd Crusade (1189-1190): Huge turnout in Germany produces a vast army said to number 15,000-30,000 (contemporaries put at 100,000!).

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by EB.
HRE.

Once in the 1970's, I sat in a lecture from a visiting American professor of medieval history. He said of the Holy Roman Empire: it was not Holy, not Roman, and not Empire. Great joke.

Well, I must admit that I do not know very much about the HRE. I wonder how it will be treated in the game. Is it a country, a confederation of separate entities, or a fiction? I know its geographical location, but I do not have an understanding of how it worked in terms of power and structure. I will have to get some books on this, as I have none right now. In later times, such as in EU2, which is from 1419 to 1819, the HRE does not seem very important--an "Emperor" is elected every once in while, and that country gets some none-too-sparkling benefit. If I recall correctly, it was free transit rights across HRE territory. Oh, boy!

Then when I play MTW (I hear you already hissing about its dubious historical accuracy), which covers 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, up to 1453, the HRE is presented as a mighty, unified German Reich, and it is routinely praised as "with the strongest military might of all" and so forth.

Well, I am confused then as to what to expect from CK with respect to HRE. Mighty or weak? Real or fake? What the heck is it?

I bow to you who are more educated on this matter than I am--I seek to learn something here.

Actually, theyre not too far off in 1000-1200...except that the Empire doesnt include Italy. Notice how their starting position gets restricted to just Germany in the late campaign to reflect the damage done by the Interregnum and the Swiss revolts against the Habsburgs.

The fragmented patchwork we're familiar with from EU2 was originally the strongest kingdom in the West, which itself was the core of the HRE (911-1250). During and after the Interregnum (1250-1273), the large tribal Duchies were split up, the royal lands dwindled, and Italy and Burgundy were lost. Meanwhile the Electors did their best to keep a strong Emperor from holding the throne.

 

[Xoxxon]

I understand that the medieval kingdoms of Germany and Italy existed, in theory, at this point. What was their relation to the Empire? Or am I way off?

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Xoxxon
I understand that the medieval kingdoms of Germany and Italy existed, in theory, at this point. What was their relation to the Empire? Or am I way off?

The King of the Germans was the only person that could be crowned Emperor. When an Emperor died a successor was elected. He was then Crowned king of the Germans. When this was done he had to get the Pope to crown his as Emperor. There are several examples of Kings of Germany that never became Emperors (like Richard of Cornwall, who was KotG for 15 years without becoming Emperor).

The HRE/ king of the Germans was also also entitled to the title king of Italy. That demanded another coronation (at Pavia) with the Iron Crown of Lombardy.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by Xoxxon
I understand that the medieval kingdoms of Germany and Italy existed, in theory, at this point. What was their relation to the Empire? Or am I way off?

-Kingdom of Germany formed when the 4 German tribes elected their first king, Conrad I (911). Included the former East Frankish kingdom (Duchies of Franconia, Saxony, Swabia, & Bavaria) plus the Duchies of Lower & Upper Lotharingia, the North Marches (Brandenburg, Misnia, Lusatia, Mecklenburg) & the East Marches (Austria, Styria, Carinthia, & Carniola). Nominal capital at Aachen.

Map of German kingdom: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/central_europe_919_1125.jpg

-Kingdom of Italy was first vassalized (951) and then conquered (961) by Otto I. Its capital was Pavia. It included Lombardy, the western marches (Piedmont, Ivrea, Aosta, Montferrat, etc.), eastern marches (Verona, Treviso, Friulia, Istria, etc.), Liguria & Venetia, the Duchies of Tuscany & Spoleto, plus Emilia, Romagna, Anconitana (Marche), Corsica, & Sardinia.

-The Empire was formed from the union of these 2 kingdoms (961) plus Latium/Patrimony of Rome. But they werent actually "united" (see below). So the emperor was first elected and crowned King of Germany, then King of Italy, then HRE. The imperial coronation could only be performed by the Pope. So it was possible to be only German king (Conrad I, Henry I, Rudolf I), or only King of Germany & Italy (Conrad III), without ever being Emperor.

-The Kingdom of Burgundy was first vassalized by Otto I (900s), then Henry II secured the right of succession (early 11th c.), which Conrad II used to conquer it (1030s). Henceforth, the emperor was King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy, as well as HRE. All 3 kingdoms remained separate and retained their own capitals and crowns.

-The Kingdom of Sicily was added by Henry VI (1194), giving the emperor his 4th royal crown. Again, it was never "united" to the Kingdom of Italy but retained its own capital & crown.

Map of HRE showing all 4 kingdoms & German eastward expanison: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/roman_empire_1138_1254.jpg

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Woops, Havard beat me to it!

Combine his clear, concise post with my long-winded, rambling mess and there you have it.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

One more thing before the inevitable MTW question gets asked. Since the 4 kingdoms remained separate, it was possible to break them off from the Empire.

-An Italian prince, Arduin of Ivrea, took advantage of Otto III's death to obtain the crown of an independent kingdom of Italy (1002-1014). Henry II reconquered it and ousted him as it was of paramount importance if the King of Germany was to remain HRE. Henry IV's son Conrad rebelled and tried the same thing (1093), as did Conrad III when revolting against Lothair II (1128).

-The Pope was adamant that the Kingdom of Sicily was never to be annexed to the Kingdom of Italy, although this was exactly the situation pre-Norman, when the Ottonian & Salian emperors tried with varying degrees of success to unite all of Italy. Pope claimed it was a papal fief (which technically it was after the Normans). This was a constant bone of contention between emperor and pope, and the Staufen bastard Manfred eventually had himself crowned King of Sicily without reference to the Empire, Germany, or Italy. Thereafter it was lost to the Empire.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
Woops, Havard beat me to it!

Combine his clear, concise post with my long-winded, rambling mess and there you have it.

I was counting on you to fill in with some more details, as you did

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
One more thing before the inevitable MTW question gets asked. Since the 4 kingdoms remained separate, it was possible to break them off from the Empire.

I believe I have also seen mentioned the possible secession of the kingdom of Arles (= the k. of Burgundy mentioned above) through a treaty of marriage between the Angevines and the Hohenstauffens... Hm... now, where can that have been mentioned...

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by Havard
I believe I have also seen mentioned the possible secession of the kingdom of Arles (= the k. of Burgundy mentioned above) through a treaty of marriage between the Angevines and the Hohenstauffens... Hm... now, where can that have been mentioned...

Yes, there were a couple. During the negotiations over Richard I's release, Henry VI soured on France and offered to give Burgundy to Richard I as his vassal. Dont know why it didnt work out. Then the one you mentioned.

When its ruling dynasty died out in 1030s, the Count of Champagne-Blois claimed succession and conquered much of it. He was successful until the Duke of Lotharingia killed him in battle and Conrad II conquered the kingdom.

Later, the Zahringens got their hands on the "upper" duchy (1090s?), then claimed succession to Franche Comte, married their way into alliance with Savoy, and were granted the Rectorate of Burgundy (1127) which was supposed to extend over the "lower" area too. These claims werent enforced because the Diet refused to attack the Aragonese in Provence, and Frederick I later recognized their position there.

I think Frederick II made the Counts of Savoy "vicar" or something in Burgundy, too, didnt he?

 

[unmerged(11206)]

PS: Just added links to 2 pretty good maps of areas in question to original post on HRE above. 1st is a map of Kingdom of Germany, 2nd is the HRE at its height under the Staufen showing all 4 kingdoms up until death of Frederick II and the start of the Interregnum. That oughta make this easier.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
I think Frederick II made the Counts of Savoy "vicar" or something in Burgundy, too, didnt he?

First he appointed a viceroy (William of Baux, the prince of Orange) in 1215, then he apointed William of Montferrat as Imperial Vicar in 1220. William was succeded by Henry of Revello and William of Manupello.

The Savoiard Counts (Tommaso I (1189-1233), Amedeo IV (1233-53) and Tommaso II (1253-59)) were Imperial vicars over Piedmonte.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by Havard
First he appointed a viceroy (William of Baux, the prince of Orange) in 1215, then he apointed William of Montferrat as Imperial Vicar in 1220. William was succeded by Henry of Revello and William of Manupello.

The Savoiard Counts (Tommaso I (1189-1233), Amedeo IV (1233-53) and Tommaso II (1253-59)) were Imperial vicars over Piedmonte.

Youve always got the answers. Thanks!

I just remembered, he also gave his son Henry the Zahringen "duchy" in Upper Burgundy along with the Imperial Rectorate when the Zahringens died out (1218). As Henry was already Duke of Swabia, he may've been setting his boy up for the Burgundian crown before his rebellious streak manifested itself.

 

[Archeolooginspe]

A question related with the HRE. How important was the duke of Brabant or Lotharingia in the empire?

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by Archeolooginspe
A question related with the HRE. How important was the duke of Brabant or Lotharingia in the empire?

The Duke of Brabant was the most powerful prince in Lotharingia after the death of the Ardennes/Bouillon family, and succeeded them as Duke of Lotharingia (1101). This was contested by the Limburgs (supported by the Welfs), but the Brabants (supported by the Staufen) were militarily stronger and managed to keep the Limburgs out of the Lotharingian capital at Aachen.

As they controlled Brussels, Louvain, & Antwerp, they were rich compared to most other German princes. After the death of Godfrey VII, the duchy itself disintegrated, but his heirs didnt give up their claims and were generally able to dominate the lands of the old duchy until their own extinction.

The Dukes of Lotharingia were very important in imperial politics because:

1. They controlled the border with France and access to England.
2. Lotharingia was the most populous region of Germany, and Cologne its largest city; this made it a chief exporter of military manpower, like the famous "elite" Brabantine mercs used by Brabant, Hainaut, Cologne, and the Emperor.
3. The Rhine trade made Lotharingia one of the richest regions of Germany; Rhenish wines were exported to Flanders & England, English wool was imported to fuel the Brabantine cloth industry, which itself produced lucrative exports. It also sat astride trade routes from the east to the west and north to south, like to the Champagne and Frankfurt fairs.
4. Lotharingia was symbolically important as the seat of Charlemagne's empire and the site of his imperial capital at Aachen (which was now the nominal capital of Germany).

 

[unmerged(6160)]

The HRE was the Catholic Roman Emperor, most Catholic countries reconized him as the heir of Rome, and refered to Constantinople as the Greek Empire.

In later centuries 16th-early 19th the Empire was controlled by the Haspburg house, and in 1808 Napolean disbanded it...