>>888275
Constant clashes between the Emperor, Church, and local barons and princes over power and rights.

Typical Germanic disdain for the centralization of power

The fact that castles are a huge bitch to take.

>>888275
as far as I know it was their
>retarded succession laws
>electivity
>The Kaiser himself didnt want them to unite so they wouldnt create some big super state to rival his power
(Keep in mind most of the time Kaiser was the nigga that was leige of Österreich and Königreich Böhmen,
which gave him considerable power in the Empire and with this power came all the petty votes from all the electors)

Maps of the HRE + my autism make my penis erect

>>888275
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutum_in_favorem_principum

>>888275
A lot of German Free Cities are powerful enough not to be fucked with.

>>888275
> H
> R
> E

>>888275
It's a long story.

Whereas most realms of Europe had long-running dynasties in the middle ages (most notables are the Capets and the Plantagenets), Germany/the HRE had none, from Louis the Pious to 1453 France had 3 different houses in the throne: Carolingian, Bossonids and Robertinians/Capets, Germany had: Carolingians, Corandinians, Ottonians, Salians, Supplinburgs, Hohenstauffers, Welfs, Habsburgs, Nassaus, Wittelbachs and Luxemburgs. The lack of dynastic stability strenghted the Elective process of succession, granting the nobles more saying in who is going to become King (even more so after the Great Interregnum), whereas in places like France the continuous succession from father to son made the primogeniture aspect more "natural" to the point that Philip II didn't even bother to call an election and Louis VIII succeeded him smoothly.

The very aspect of the Empire also meant strong ties with the church and also conflict with it. Earlier emperor actually had a strong leash on the church, even choosing who was going to be the Pope, however this created a resentment on the church that culminated in Gregory VII instigating the Investiture Controversy. Emperors often appointed Bishops as feudal lords, since it was a non-hereditary office the ambitions of the bishops were restricted, making them excellent bureaucrats for the imperial administration, Gregory decided that only the Pope could appoint (invest) a Bishop, the controversy would plague the Empire the empire for nearly 50 years, half a century of internal strife greatly weakened the crown authority, local princes used Papal legitimacy to ignore the Emperor and rebelled, sometimes with success.

Continues...

>>890912
Even son the Empire remained mostly intact, Frederick I of Hohenstauffen (Barbarossa) managed to restore order on Germany (albeit by losing it in Italy), his successor, Henry VI, pulled a great victory by conquering the Norman Kingdom of Sicily in South Italy (one of the wealthiest in Europe by the time), once again creating conflict with the Pope (now surrounded by the Empire), Henry then died young with a 2 years old son, to prevent a Regency Philip of Swabia, Henry's youngest brother, volunteered to take the crown, the anti-Imperial faction named Otto of Welf (House of Welf had been long-time enemies of the Hohenstauffens) an Anti-King (with Papal support) and a 10-year long civil war ensued, Philip and Otto fought for support by offering privileges (Philip named Ottokar, Duke of Bohemia the first hereditary King of Bohemia) and promising land from the rival party, further weakening Royal Authority.

Philip got the upper hand in this conflict, gathering most of the princes under his banner, before marching to deliver a decisive blow on Otto, he stopped to the wedding of his niece in Bamberg, Bavaria, however he was murdered there by the Duke of Bavaria, that was mad Philip refused to marry one of his daughters to his son). With Philip dead Otto become the uncontested Emperor (though now he had to deliver all his promised to his allies AND placate his former rivals) with the Papal condition that he wouldn't invade Sicily (still ruled by Henry VI's young son Frederick).

Obviously Otto broke the promise, getting excommunicated and having Frederick crowned Anti-King. To expand the political scenario, note that Otto was John of England's nephew and Philip II of France has been supporting both Philip of Swabia and now Frederick, taking opportunity to defeat an enemy, the Emperor joined his uncle in 1214, but was destroyed at Bouvines, Otto gave the crown to Frederick of Sicily the following year.

Now it gets interesting.

>>890956
Frederick II was an able administrator, but he didn't had his priorities right and wasn't really the most pious guy.

Growing up in the wealthy Kingdom of Sicily, Frederick ruled the Empire from there (it's like a POTUS ruling from Miami) and he not really interested in German affairs, treating the lands north of the Alps was more a source of revenue and knights. Once again sandwiched by the Empire and with an Emperor with Neo-Roman ambitions, the Papacy entered in a struggle with Frederick that would only end with the emperor's death. Frederick was excommunicated three times (thrice he gave no fucks) and he was once called "the Antichrist" by a pope (he didn't care about it either).

As I said, Frederick had no interest in ruling Germany, issuing this >>890065 guaranteed Germany would be mostly safe from rebellion (he was wrong). Frederick's struggles with the Pope ended badly, he died in 1250 shortly after losing to his rivals in Parma, his dynasty crumbled shortly after, his heir Conrad IV of Germany died shortly after, his other son Manfred was killed by French invades bankrolled by the Pope that conquered Sicily.

In German history the events following Conrad IV's death are called "The Great Interregnum".

>>890983
Germany would endure 20 years without an king that actually ruled (the pro-Stauffen party elected Alfonso of Castille, grandson of Philip of Swabia, while the anti-Imperial party elected Richard of Cornwall, neither set a foot in the Empire).

During this time the princes decided to handle their affairs by themselves, local rule increased. The interegnum ended in 1273, when a very minor count, Rudolph of Habsburg, was elected king. His election was opposed by Otokar II of Bohemia, that has also claimed Austria, Styria and Carinthia, with Hungarian help Rudolph defeated and killed Otokar, claiming Austria and Styria to his son Albert (the princes didn't allowed him to keep Carinthia, the Habsburgs would get it 100 years late alongside Tyrol), thus beginning the Habsburg dynasty in Austria we all love.

Rudolph astronomical rise didn't please the nobles, now comfortable with the profits of the interregnum, they refused to elect Rudolph's son, fearing the rise of a strong crown once again, they elected Adolph, Count of Nassau instead.

Adolph proved to be ambitious and not really trustworthy, breaking many promised and alliances, resulting in this deposition, the Habsbugs rose up again, only to fall in 10 years, their king Albert of Austria was murdered by his own nephew, this event resulted the rise of a new dynasty, the Luxemburgs.

Henry of Luxemburg, Henry VII of Germany, became the first crowned Emperor since Frederick II (forgot the tell, being elected by the princes resulted in becoming King of the Romans, to become Emperor you needed to be crowned by the Pope) and tried to restart the Italian Ambitions, but followed the Imperial tradition of dying earlier, he had a son, John also King of Bohemia, but he was too powerful for the prince's liking, so the other candidates were: Frederick of Austria (a Habsburg) and Louis of Bavaria (a Wittelbach), the pro-Luxemburg party had a virulent hatred for the Habsburgs, so they choosed Louis.

Continues :DD

>>891039
Louis, now Louis IV, came in conflict with Frederick of Austria (that was elected Anti-King), Louis eventually won, but became very pro-Habsburg, even offering joint reign with Frederick, blocked by the Pope.

Crowned Emperor, Louis turned against the Luxemburgs aggressively, once the Ascanians of Brandenburg died, he gave Brandenburg to his son and granted Hainaut and Holland to his wife (despite Philipa of Hainaut, queen of England, having a better claim), this gave him much opposition from the pro-Luxemburg party. Charles, son of John of Bohemia, was elected Anti-King with Papal support and many princes flocked under his banner. Louis had great support from the minor nobility and the Habsburgs, though Louis seemed to have the upper hand (Charles' father, John, has died in Crécy, with Charles barely avoiding it) he suffered a stroke and died before a full-scale civil war, the Luxemburgs were on the throne once again.

Charles IV is the guy you know from the Golden Bull, that fixed the 7 prince electors (before that anyone could attend the election and vote, though those seven were the most notable), Charles was also a skilled politician, greatly enlarging the estates of House of Luxemburg (Silesia, Lusatia and Brandenburg), however his son, Wenceslaus, was less stellar, a drunken fool he was deposed by his brother Sigismund, also King of Hungary, with support of the princes.

Sigismund's reign was plagued, Jan Huss and his execution at the orders of Sigismund (despite being promised safe passage) triggered the Hussite Wars, also the Ottomans were entrenching in the Balkans and treating Hungary, to add salt to the wound, Philip of Burgundy had inherited Brabant and Limburg and proceeded to invade Holland and Hainaut, despite the Emperor's protests.

Sigismund died without heirs in 1439, and Albert of Austria (his son-in-law) succeeded him.

>>891099
To finish: the Habsburg would retain the Imperial dignity for the next 300 years, however, they once got this after a long process of disintegration and declining royal authority, the elective monarchy not only was natural to the people and nobility it had also become codified, so the Habsburgs had to waste a lot of resources by bribing electors.

Despite this, as the 1495 diet showed the Empire still had balls to reform in something cohesive, however (yeah, in HRE history something bad always happens when it is inconvenient) the Reformation happened and I assume you know the rest.

>>888275
Parts of Germany were occupied by the Roman empire but were never fully civilized, violently rejecting literacy, sanitation, trade, medicine, public baths, science, architecture, technology and anything that requires intellectual effort like some middle school bully with ADHD who gets mad at the kid quietly reading and studying.

Eventually Charlemagne figured out how to bring the Saxon warlords to heel and set up a system based on the holy church and a loose imperial apparatus which the largely foreign aristocracy adhered to. Though the commoners were slow to learn, this new noble class at least managed to hold the empire together using knowledge and values drawn from the rest of Europe.

Unfortunately this system fell apart. After the 30 years war the Catholics felt guilty for their popery allowing the protestants to become ever more decadent and faithless removing a vital pillar of support. Later a new class of native Prussian junker warlords began to rise in power gaining much strength after claiming vast tracts of land during the partition of Poland. They did not practice noblesse oblige like Charlemagne's chivalrous knights, neither did they have any interest in peace, prosperity and the advancement of civilization, considering themselves in a constant state of aggression against their mostly neutral neighbors and only showing interest in military technology, the importance of which took centuries to dawn on them. Though they believed themselves to be strong, their existence depended on the fidelity of the rest of the aristocracy and Britain's rivalry with the French. The greatest glory of the anglo was perhaps also their greatest mistake, for a greater evil was rising in the east, the Prussians would gradually rise in power during the 19th century eventually dismantling the final remnants of the empire, and then it got worse.

>>890912
>>890956
>>890983
>>891039
>>891099
>>891121
cool story bro

>>891337
You're an idiot

File: HRR_1789_EN.png (3 MB, 2650x2160) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 2650x2160

>leftists claim to love diversity
>they hate the Holy Roman Empire

I will never understand that. In it's decentralization of power, the Holy Roman Empire was the most diverse political entity that ever existed.

Unfortunately, most historians are communists who believe that "progress" is based on how much a central government authority is able to extract resources from civil society, so they consider the HRE outdated and on the "wrong side of history" (Voltaire meme is basically about that). They love shitholes like Jacobin France, which enforced conscription, or the Kingdom of Prussia, with it's centralizing reforms that would later led to Nazism, instead.

>>892162
Good job grouping the opinions of a vastly diverse and vague group of "leftists" into one. I've never known a communist who had a hateboner for the hre, I speak as one.

Anarchists and libsocs I'm sure just love central authority.

>>892162
This, Germans always had a more natural inclination towards freedom and checks on the power of their government, though not necessarily democracy.