Should the HRE be a big confederation?

[Taerys]

As the title implies, to me it makes more sense that the HRE will be some sort of "permanent confederacy".

If someone daclares war on any member than the HRE emperor can levy the troops of all other members to defend the Empire.
But if one member declares a War as an atacker he is verry much on his own.

Obiviously a dedicated expansion would be awesome. But we know for a fact it wont be coming this year and i'm looking at an easy fix imo (the HRE is too strong and agressive curently).

 

[Cyhort]

My reading of confederations is that they're supposed to be temporary and mostly in response to an other nearby ruler being too powerful, which...does not fit what the HRE was at all.

 

[Taerys]

My reading of confederations is that they're supposed to be temporary and mostly in response to an other nearby ruler being too powerful, which...does not fit what the HRE was at all.

Yeah, the mechanic would need a little adjustment, make the "confederation" permanent (or dissolvable by decision) and keep the elective succesion law.

This way the HRE won't randomly dissolve after a few generations like the other confederacies.

I know this isnt the most perfect fix to the HRE, but maybe it fits better than what we curently have.

 

[Ethereld]

Absolutely no.

The Holy Roman Empire when founded in 936 was probably the most centralised nation in Europe after the Romans in the east and the Ummayad Caliphate in the west (before collapsing)

It was only after the investiture controversy and the failures of the Hohenstaufen dynasty when the imperial authority in HRE really started weakening.

But still, for most of the game timespan it was nowhere as decentralised as in EU4. So a confederation would not be a good representation.

 

[IngvarBS]

No. The hre was unified until the interregnum.

 

[DeanTheDull]

As the title implies, to me it makes more sense that the HRE will be some sort of "permanent confederacy".

If someone daclares war on any member than the HRE emperor can levy the troops of all other members to defend the Empire.
But if one member declares a War as an atacker he is verry much on his own.

Obiviously a dedicated expansion would be awesome. But we know for a fact it wont be coming this year and i'm looking at an easy fix imo (the HRE is too strong and agressive curently).

Rather than HRE-specific, this is along the lines of how I'd like low-centralization Feudal-Confederations in general to work.

There's an element that was added to the patch pre-release notes that confederations can form into a Kingdom with confederate elective. This is tribal/clan-specific (since only those can form confederations), and it presumably removes the confederation common defense.

My wish for the Coronation DLC to enable is that it could bring in feudal-confederations, and use regency/coronation activity mechanics for a sort of 'moot for the next leader' succession activity. As in, the feudal-confederation exists as a confederation-kingdom for the lifetime, but devolves into a 'normal' (and temporary) confederation on the ruler's death unless the 'heir'/regent calls a Coronation soon enough (say within a year or two). At which point, the coronated/elected ruler gets to be a King in confederation with the dukes once more, until the next succession.

The coronation activity, or in this case moot, would be in part ratification but really a negotiation. Call it a three-round negotiation with the strongest vassals trading for support, such as in promises of support/votes in exchange for lowered confederational centralization, privileges like to create new titles for themselves (normally forbidden in a confederation), and so on. Ideally these conditions carry risks for the confederation-ruler's ability to keep control across generations.

In this way, an elective-confederation has a 'King'- or eventually Emperor- and be defensively strong against foes who could bring more / better MAA than a top-level King could bring. That'd be good against more centralized pure-feudal realms (France), conquerors (anywhere), or administrative realms (MAA spam). But it'd also be unwieldy to keep expanding / controlling over generations (not a blob-threat on its own), and subject to political focus to manage keeping getting elected (not an auto-pick for players who want to expand).

 

[ArynI]

Absolutely no.

The Holy Roman Empire when founded in 936 was probably the most centralised nation in Europe after the Romans in the east and the Ummayad Caliphate in the west (before collapsing)

It was only after the investiture controversy and the failures of the Hohenstaufen dynasty when the imperial authority in HRE really started weakening.

But still, for most of the game timespan it was nowhere as decentralised as in EU4. So a confederation would not be a good representation.

that’s it. People are obsessed quoting Voltaire but during the timeline of the game - in many periods - the HRE was as unified realm as any other.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

No, because we'll see strong imperial rule within a few decades of 1066, the dukes of swabia and bavaria are deposed and replaced

 

[tokinoha]

Absolutely no.

The Holy Roman Empire when founded in 936 was probably the most centralised nation in Europe after the Romans in the east and the Ummayad Caliphate in the west (before collapsing)

It was only after the investiture controversy and the failures of the Hohenstaufen dynasty when the imperial authority in HRE really started weakening.

But still, for most of the game timespan it was nowhere as decentralised as in EU4. So a confederation would not be a good representation.

It is good to have mechanism to make it decentralized. But definitely not a conferderation in any start date.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

that’s it. People are obsessed quoting Voltaire but during the timeline of the game - in many periods - the HRE was as unified realm as any other.

It certainly wasn't holy, unless you count being the nominal protector of the papacy as holy. It certainly wasn't Roman. And in Voltaire's time, it certainly wasn't an empire.

The Lombard league in Italy in 1178 should be a confederation, because it existed in order to try to keep imperial power in northern Italy to a minimum.

Maybe there could be a reworking on how Switzerland is formed. Currently in game, all you need to form Switzerland is the duchies that formed the old Swiss confederation. But the in game Switzerland isn't anything like how the old Swiss confederation was. It is just a fancy new kingdom title that is feudal.

 

[BoomKidneyShot]

It is good to have mechanism to make it decentralized. But definitely not a conferderation in any start date.

We already have that, it's called the lowest level of Crown Authority.

 

[Voy]

We already have that, it's called the lowest level of Crown Authority.

It doesn't feel like decentralisation if you can call all your vassals troops at will, regardless of what they think about you.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

It certainly wasn't holy, unless you count being the nominal protector of the papacy as holy.

It was sacral in that emperors could interfere with the church on a greater level than many other kings at the time could, whether appointing bishops, passing reforms, or installing anti popes

It certainly wasn't Roman.

It held Rome, was christian, and used roman laws at various points

And in Voltaire's time, it certainly wasn't an empire.

Even in voltaire's time it included both germans, slavs, and italians, enough ethnic groups to make it an empire

The Lombard league in Italy in 1178 should be a confederation, because it existed in order to try to keep imperial power in northern Italy to a minimum.

I deffo hope it'll be in with the update but we'll see, as at present the ai is likely to just become vassals of the emperor at low tax rates

Maybe there could be a reworking on how Switzerland is formed. Currently in game, all you need to form Switzerland is the duchies that formed the old Swiss confederation. But the in game Switzerland isn't anything like how the old Swiss confederation was. It is just a fancy new kingdom title that is ffeudal.

If peasant revolts could actually generate independent counties again instead of just lowering control, we could maybe see the Swiss confederation. But theres also a thing of when ingame should the swiss be no longer a vassal of the hre, given how much the wittelsbachs would favour them, after they trounced hapsburg emperors. Peasant revolts having cities usurp the county title from the owner so you get republican election could be fun too

 

[apollo1989vieten]

It was sacral in that emperors could interfere with the church on a greater level than many other kings at the time could, whether appointing bishops, passing reforms, or installing anti popes

It held Rome, was christian, and used roman laws at various points

Even in voltaire's time it included both germans, slavs, and italians, enough ethnic groups to make it an empire

I deffo hope it'll be in with the update but we'll see, as at present the ai is likely to just become vassals of the emperor at low tax rates

If peasant revolts could actually generate independent counties again instead of just lowering control, we could maybe see the Swiss confederation. But theres also a thing of when ingame should the swiss be no longer a vassal of the hre, given how much the wittelsbachs would favour them, after they trounced hapsburg emperors. Peasant revolts having cities usurp the county title from the owner so you get republican election could be fun too

Interfering in the church wasn't exclusive to the empire. The size of the Empire that it had more church offices to fill, but the level of interference based on size was not bigger. Holding Rome doesn't make u roman, else the germanics that conquered Italy were Roman. And the status of Rome within the Empire is debated. And by the 18th century, the Empire only existed on paper

 

[tokinoha]

It doesn't feel like decentralisation if you can call all your vassals troops at will, regardless of what they think about you.

I believe that opinion & personality should always influence taxation and levies to some extent in CK3, regardless of the contract or how centralized the system is. A greedy vassal is likely try to conceal their income no matter how friendly he is.

 

[vyshan]

in some ways yes and in some ways no. I am going to ignore the whole stupid voltaire quote here.

So what do I mean here. the yes part for me is refering to the Stammesherzogtum, the stem duchies for the swabians, bavarians, saxons, and franconians. These were based on pre-exisiting lines of tribe identies and played a major role in the politics of the HRE during the ottonian era, though afterwards they would decline till they were being abolished by Barbarosa. Now not having played with the confederation system yet I don't know if the stem duchies would best be repersented this way or not.

The no part is that they were certainly a centralized state, and argueable one of the more centralized ones in europe at the time. its only later on that other states became more centralized as the HRE remained the same. sure no adminstrative empire.

One key thing that IMO should be part of the HRE gameplay is appointment. See the dukes were appointed, now this could be a formality or not. At the same time their are the elections for emperor. so the player as a duke or count should feel like their goal is to make the dynasty hereditary and not appointed, while the emperor wants to keep it appointed so he can give it to his allies/family members

 

[vyshan]

It certainly wasn't holy, unless you count being the nominal protector of the papacy as holy. It certainly wasn't Roman. And in Voltaire's time, it certainly wasn't an empire.

So here is the thing the Holy Roman Empire at least as founded by Otto the great wasn't holy. It was just the Roman Empire, or the Christian Empire. It was not till the reign of Barbarosa that it became the Holy Roman Empire. But this needs a further explanation on latin here as this is very important.

In latin there are two words for something being Holy, Sacrum and Sanctum. When something is Sanctum that is because its holiness is given by a higher power. The church for example is IIRC sancta ecclesia, its holiness derives not from itself but from Christ and his Apostles. When Barbarosa called the empire Sacrum however that meant that the empire was holy in and of itself, and critically not because the church made it so. Basically this was a PR move.

however the church played a major role, and in the early days of the Ottonians they and not the pope had more power and influence over church matters. though this changed with the gregorian reforms and the whole invistiture controversy.

As for the Roman part that rests on the medieval concept of Translatio imperii and that they had restored the roman empire and that its dignity was trasnfered to them. That is why they are roman. They did have rome despite all the feuding with the pope. Not to mention they did use roman law, part of the conflicts with the Lombard league was him try to revive roman laws and force them onto the people of northern italy after they haven't been used in centuries.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

So here is the thing the Holy Roman Empire at least as founded by Otto the great wasn't holy. It was just the Roman Empire, or the Christian Empire. It was not till the reign of Barbarosa that it became the Holy Roman Empire. But this needs a further explanation on latin here as this is very important.

In latin there are two words for something being Holy, Sacrum and Sanctum. When something is Sanctum that is because its holiness is given by a higher power. The church for example is IIRC sancta ecclesia, its holiness derives not from itself but from Christ and his Apostles. When Barbarosa called the empire Sacrum however that meant that the empire was holy in and of itself, and critically not because the church made it so. Basically this was a PR move.

however the church played a major role, and in the early days of the Ottonians they and not the pope had more power and influence over church matters. though this changed with the gregorian reforms and the whole invistiture controversy.

As for the Roman part that rests on the medieval concept of Translatio imperii and that they had restored the roman empire and that its dignity was trasnfered to them. That is why they are roman. They did have rome despite all the feuding with the pope. Not to mention they did use roman law, part of the conflicts with the Lombard league was him try to revive roman laws and force them onto the people of northern italy after they haven't been used in centuries.

The transfer of the imperium was later known to be a forgery concocted by the papacy to crown its own champion as emperor. So the not Roman part of the quote is true, though it wasn’t viewed that medieval period when the knowledge wasn’t known.

 

[Citizen Caen]

Interfering in the church wasn't exclusive to the empire. The size of the Empire that it had more church offices to fill, but the level of interference based on size was not bigger. Holding Rome doesn't make u roman, else the germanics that conquered Italy were Roman. And the status of Rome within the Empire is debated. And by the 18th century, the Empire only existed on paper

The Ottonians which founded the empire claimed imperial supremacy and guardianship over the church, they had ratification power in papal election and Otto III directly nominated (and arranged) the election of his preferred candidates. They had far more power than mere interference. It was only during the Salians and the resulting investiture controversy that this came undone, but emperors well into the Hohenstaufen period continued to push this conception of the empire.

The entire investiture controversy was ultimately about who held supremacy in Christendom: the empire or the church. The church won. And IMO it isn’t a coincidence that the Empire fell to pieces shortly after that. Their ideological authority had been shattered. Thus it devolved into the mess it was by the early modern period, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a real empire prior to its decline.

 

[Citizen Caen]

The transfer of the imperium was later known to be a forgery concocted by the papacy to crown its own champion as emperor. So the not Roman part of the quote is true, though it wasn’t viewed that medieval period when the knowledge wasn’t known.

You have to understand. In medieval thought There was an interpretation of Old Testament prophecy (I think from the prophets Daniel and Isaiah) that said the Roman Empire was the fourth and final empire of the world before the end of days and return of God’s kingdom. Therefore Rome couldn’t fall, nor could there be an empire after Rome. That is what motivates the conception of Translatio imperii. It more than mere trickery, its the fulfillment and obedience to God’s plan for humanity to have a “Roman” Empire.