Why did the Holy Roman Empire have such weak central government?
Germans.
They ruin everything even Empire building.
>>920679
That figure is giving me a strong central government right now
Because it wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it most certainly wasn't an Empire.
>>920679
germans are only capable of destruction
The only fields germans are good at, are the catalaunian ones.
When Frederick II was dicking around in Italy he had to give the nobles in Germany a lot of privileges to make up for his absence.
>>920679
Holy shit she was born for sex and breeding.
>>920679
Where in Europe was this pic taken? I'd let to go there quick before her and all her friends have been gangraped
>>920679
Looks like Lena <3
Because the emperor always had to deal with German princes, Italian cities and the pope in order to consolidate his powers. Too much distraction for a single liftetime.
>>921809
Jesus, it IS Lena Meyer-Landrut!
Because the rise of feudalism. Unlike France, they couldn't keep the kingdom together
>>923054
Medieval France couldn't keep a Kingdom together either up until the 1400's.
Kek, 1000's and 1200's France was filled of robber barons and powerful fiefdoms acting on their own accord. Just look at the supposedly nominal Norman subjects of the French.
No Capetian miracle. Meaning the Emperors were not always from the same family.
Also, to better fight the Pope, Frederick II increased the power of the great nobles. This made the life of future Emperors hard.
>>923144
desu its more of a roller coaster for France. You have Kings who got the shit together (like Philip August II) and then those who didn't.
Safe to say that stopped in by the 1500's.
>>923144
1300's.
And even then, they still had to deal with Burgundy and Bourbon.
>>923152
>>923153
1100s. In particular during the reigns of Louis VI (thanks to his minister Suger) and Philip Augustus, who used feudal law to establish absolute monarchy. By the death of Philip Augustus the divine authority of the king was no longer contested by anyone, and it had no serious rivals. Saint Louis and Philip the Fair went even farther in that direction. The 13th and early 14th centuries were a time when France and its royal house became synonymous, and they were the most powerful kingdom and house in the West respectively.
Things went downhill after the direct Capetian line died out in the 1300s and the disasters of around 1350 happened, which destroyed France. Maybe that's the period you're thinking of, but the Hundred Years War only lasted a century, not five.
>>920687
>Lena Meyer-Landrut
kek
>>923173
There were plenty of relatively independent nobles that could give Philip Augustus a headache. he fought with the Count of Flanders, for example.
Also, Philip Augustus was significantly weaker than Barbarossa, his contemporary Holy Roman Emperor.
>>923190
He fought and he won. Just like he fought the Angevins, and the HRE, and won. His reign marks the beginning of French royal supremacy, I didn't say it started off already like that.
>>923199
He fought and won because he was skilled. There were plenty of strong independent nobles that needed no King in his time.
His strength relative to the Holy Roman Emperor depended more on how the Holy Roman Emperor kept his shit together than on how strong Phillip II was. Frederick I and Frederick II were clearly stronger than he was. Otto IV was clearly weaker.
>>923216
Again I'm not denying that, what I said is that after his reign throughout the 13th and early 14th centuries, the French king had no rival.
And the original post I responded to was
>Medieval France couldn't keep a Kingdom together either up until the 1400's.
which is blatantly false and I corrected by saying the 1100s, which is when France went from a loose collection of noble houses to an effectively unified kingdom.
>>923228
But they did have rivals.
Usually, their own vassals. Even St Louis faced his vassals in conflicts.
In reality it has to do with the German nature of Kingship, which was always conceived as something coming from his peers as a first among equals.
>>923261
Having no rival doesn't mean never squashing any bugs.
>>923371
Ironically it went the exact opposite direction in France and in Germany.
In France the king was originally first among his peers as king of the Franks, in Germanic tradition, but evolved into a Roman style ruler. Whereas in Germany the emperor started off in the Roman tradition, but devolved into a Germanic style ruler.
In both cases the country's mentality overcame the foreign tradition.
>>923228
In the 1100's there were still feudal lords that didn't follow the kings orders. It was a "king in France, not king of France " situation.
There is nothing wrong with having a weak central government, though. The reason why intellectuals love absolutism so much is that they are usually employed in the bureaucracy of such absolutist/totalitarian regimes. That's why they are all communists, they can only think of self-benefit.
In truth, the "weak" and "decentralized" Holy Roman Empire was, during it's whole existance, the cultural, intellectual and scientific center of Europe.
It's a shame that Prussia happened and single-handedly ended this glorious German tradition.
>>923458
Also, if you look at the best parts of Europe today, they are all parts that escaped the clutches of centralizing kings.
The Low Countries escaped from the kings of France, the Swiss escaped from the Habsburgs, the Northern Italians escaped from the Hohenstaufens, England as a whole escaped from absolutism. It's not a coincidence.
Meanwhile in places like Portugal and Russia you had the House of Avis and Ivan the Terrible centralizing the country in the 14th and 16th centuries, respectively, now how did that turn out?
PS: I admit that the Poles went too far, though.
>>923458
Also you find that it was when the Habsburgs tried to reassert control as emperor time and time again that things started to get unstable in central Europe once more. When you have only the crown/state to rely on, when that becomes out of commission there's nothing else, but there were so many different institutions in the Empire (a strong church, different nobles, offices, guilds) that there was society even if the Emperor was some inbred retard.
>>923540
That's also why post-Soviet Russia was such a hellhole. The Bolsheviks destroyed or put under their control all intermediate institutions and social authorities that stood in their way in Russia (not that they were so strong to begin with), so when they were gone, there was nothing that stood in the way of a bunch of mafia thugs controlling everything.
Descentralized systems are antifragile, they may not offer you the best plumbing available and universal healthcare, but you won't get dystopian collapses either.
>>921245
Honestly I chuckled
>>920679
Is this Lena?
>>920679
>>921809
>>922330
so pale but >mon dieu
>>923458
>the "weak" and "decentralized" Holy Roman Empire was, during it's whole existance, the cultural, intellectual and scientific center of Europe
Unless you're counting Italy, which you shouldn't because the important parts were out of it by the 12th century, that's total bullshit.
>>923458
Do you think it was Prussia and not the French Revolution/Napoleon that ended the HRE as a viable state?
>>924008
He was talking of Germans as a decentralized people. Napoopy might have ended HRE but it continued under the German Confederacy which...operated like the HRE. States elected who gets to sit as president of the German Confedarcy. And who gets elected? Most of the time German princes, like the Austrian Emperor.
Just like the HRE.
Shit ended due to German Nationalism and Prussia saying "that is stupid. Here, try Empire."
>>924016
Slightly tangential question but you seem to know your stuff;
Why did medieval France not integrate to the HRE? I seem to remember Wedgewood saying that the King of France tried to manoeuvre himself into election as Emperor in the early years of the 30 Years War. I also vaguely remember that during the formation of the Golden Bull the King of France was going to made a Prince Elector.
>>924037
Because Treaty of Verdun and the clear separation Eastern/Western Frankish Empire and that third bit given to Lothar that was lost.
>>924045
Yeah I know they divided back then, I'm just interested as to why that never went back in the other direction.
>>924057
I don't know but I'd make the following guesses:
>King of France or ministers were probably smart enough to realize that the German nobles and the Empire was a ball and chain.
>King of France didn't have to follow Imperial decrees so it would be a big mistake to make him have a say in the empire's politics as essentially a foreign power.
>>923458
I know who I am marching off to the guillotine first
>>923458
>during it's whole existance, the cultural, intellectual and scientific center of Europe.
> whole existance
Before the new world trade, during the northern renaissance, MAYBE. The HRE experienced a severe economic and cultural decline between the decline of the hanseatic league and the 30 years war, which brought it down further.
Honestly, it sounds like you are trying to describe France, which was the cultural capital of Europe by starting in the 16h century.
Absolutely ludicrous exaggeration, you should feel embarrassed.
>>923458
>In truth, the "weak" and "decentralized" Holy Roman Empire was, during it's whole existance, the cultural, intellectual and scientific center of Europe.
That isn't France & Italy
Very nice looking buildings doesn't change that either.
Feudalism is a weak central government in action. More or less why it wasn't viable for long term civilization. And it's not even that government was weak, but it was only really strong at the local individual fief levels.
The big governing body had little actual power over the various fiefs so unless they were incredibly loyal or the king was playing them against one another he could do little more than ask them to do things.
Kind of why Confederacies don't work either.
>>925579
Although it's exaggerated, the whole Renaissance thing took place WITHIN the borders of the HRE. From Flanders to Florence, they're all subjects of the emperor.
>>925637
Aside from Savoy the whole of Italy stopped being part of the hre even de jure well before the renaissance tho.
Florence became indepdendent in 1115. Venice was never HRE at all.
>>925543
I don't care about the French Revolution. By the time it was done, France was already centralized under Louis XIV. I cry no tears for the Bourbons.
I'm the kind of reactionary that laments about the defeat of the Fronde instead.
>>920679
Because it didn't have a central government. In a time when might made right its ruler was elected by popular vote (read bribery) and had no direct power of taxation. Indeed the Holy Roman Empire was the antithesis of central government. Every state notionally owning allegiance to the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was in effect fully autonomous and ruled as a defacto king.
