How much Power did the king of germany had in the hre

So i was looking through habsburg history and a i saw some early habsburgs were elected as the king of Germany but not as the holy roman emporer so i wonderd how much power did whoever was the king of german kingdom inside of the holy roman empire actually have for example in 1400.
Was it just a title but not much actuall power or more?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was a feudal system meaning the nobles and cities nominally paid homage to the king but were otherwise self-ruling.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It seemed to me more like a honorary title tho like as if the nobels didnt even pay taxes or give levies and it was just there because some 400 years ago it was created and has no big function

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Swiss cheese though vassalage

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It just meant for whatever (probably political reasons) they weren’t crowned as Emperor. But there really isn’t any real distinction. The Emperor is always also the king and mostly the other way around too.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It varied from king to king

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Completely depended on the period. There is effectively one major breaking point in Royal power in Medieval Germany, which is the later 13th century and the Great Interregnum, for a period of 30 years there was effectively no German King and Royal power collapsed and would never return. What remained was hacked away at by the non Dynastic Kings of the 14th century, so by the time the Habsburg actually came into power the rights of the Crown and Royal lands were basically nominal and afforded only legal supremacy. In the 10-11th centuries before the 1070's the German King was the most powerful monarch in Western Europe, both in terms of resources and in central power, in the reign of Henry IV roughly 60% of all positions in Germany were direct appointments by the King, and not Feudal inheritence. Until the Investiture Controversy effectively all bishops were chosen by the King, which had been true in the Carolingian period too. Even in the later 12th century Frederick I despite the attacks on Royal perogitive still held a tight grip on his secular vassals, and tried to with his Bishops. Saxony, Austria and Bavaria had all their Dukes confirmed by him by being put into power through his rights. Of course everybody needed at least a formal confirmation but he still had a very real power like Henry IV did of just choosing whoever he wanted.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just summarizing your excellent post:
      Staufer = SOVL
      >inb4 Guelph noises
      don't care.

  6. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    Well, they weren't called "King of Germany." They were called "King of the Romans," and it was supposed to be the equivalent of the Crown Prince of the Holy Roman Empire, or as a placeholder title before the Pope could crown the Emperor at Rome, not like that stopped a lot of them from just calling themselves Holy Roman Emperor (of the German Nation) until they could be elected anyhow.
    "King of Germany" did exist for a period between the death of Charlemagne and the (re?) establishment of the Empire under Otto I, but it was more as if it was the Kingdom of East Francia / essentially Germany. And still in German the title is more like "German-Roman Emperor" and not Deutsche Kaiser, but the Emperor was called Kaiser in his time.
    It's really damned confusing.
    At any rate the "King" of Germany had little power ex officio. There was only one Habsburg that I know of that wasn't Holy Roman Emperor, Albert II, but he had all the power of one and was also the King of the Romans. I have no idea why he was never coronated; I think it had something to do with his especially vicious anti-Semitism, which Popes disapproved of for a variety of reasons.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Well, they weren't called "King of Germany."
      They were, it was interchangable. They first used it in the 10th century and in the 12th century it was used in offical documents. Although it remained 'the Romans' as a more popular term.
      >and it was supposed to be the equivalent of the Crown Prince of the Holy Roman Empire
      The King of Germany was not a 'Crown Prince'. In the eyes of the German Crown, Imperial power started with the ascension to Kingship and not with Imperial crowning. The Kingdom was a real entity which acted independently of the Empire and Emperor. Henry V was King of Germany while his father was Emperor.
      >"King of Germany" did exist for a period between the death of Charlemagne and the (re?) establishment of the Empire under Otto I
      Not really. East Frankia was transitory and wasn't so much a Kingdom as the later 11th century Germany and France. Eastland was a part of Frankia, it took until the 10th century for it to really become more solid of an entity
      >At any rate the "King" of Germany had little power ex officio.
      The Royal power of the Crown of Germany was the same as Imperial power in reality. It was for all purposes the base of power.

      • 1 month ago
        Radiochan

        >They were, it was interchangable.
        The preferred nomenclature by the Imperial houses was "King of the Romans." The Pope called him "King of the Germans" to try to say that he did not have universal imperium.
        >The King of Germany was not a 'Crown Prince'. In the eyes of the German Crown, Imperial power started with the ascension to Kingship and not with Imperial crowning.
        From what I've read typically the person meant to accede to the Imperial crown was first crowned King of the Romans, then crowned Emperor. The electorate of the Holy Roman Empire is actually pretty confusing to me.
        >Henry V was King of Germany while his father was Emperor.
        so uh, crown prince
        I don't know what the King of Germany did as policy that would have been different from his father as Holy Roman Emperor.
        >Not really. East Frankia was transitory and wasn't so much a Kingdom as the later 11th century Germany and France. Eastland was a part of Frankia, it took until the 10th century for it to really become more solid of an entity
        see all the places I've said where it's really confusing
        >The Royal power of the Crown of Germany was the same as Imperial power in reality. It was for all purposes the base of power.
        glad we can agree on something

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The Pope called him "King of the Germans" to try to say that he did not have universal imperium
          While that did happen it doesn't take away the fact that the term was used by the Crown to refer to itself. The Papal usage was in response to Henry V and by 1130 with Lothar the usual adress became 'Romanorum Rex'. Henry IV used the term 'regnum Teutonicum' in 1105 in a letter to Pashcal II before it's first offical usage in the Concordat of Worms where it was legally defined when distingushing the rights of church election in Italy and Germany. The term existed popularly well before it was first seen on a document on Henry IV clearly had no issue using it to refer to the Kingdom.
          >From what I've read typically the person meant to accede to the Imperial crown was first crowned King of the Romans, then crowned Emperor.
          That is how it happened on paper, but Kings usually just ignored this and called themselves Emperor without Papal crowning and even if they didn't they exercised all the rights of the Emperor and believed that Imperial authority stemmed from when they were elected, or inherited the Crown. Lothar, Conrad and Frederick I basically ignored any Papal authority when determining Imperial authority and just used it anyway in titular and in official documentation before they were crowned.
          >so uh, crown prince
          No. It was its own thing. It did not equate to being in waiting for the Empire. The Kingdom of Germany was a constituent part of the Empire it was in the eyes of the people and in reality the centre of all Royal and Imperial power but that does not mean it was a Prince of any sort. Henry V was made King by his father because it was a way of giving power to his son and still being superior role. It wasn't really any different from Henry the Young King or the Capetian junior Kings. The only difference being the amount of power afforded to Henry V was vastly greater than the English and French counterparts.

          • 1 month ago
            Radiochan

            see uh
            the holy roman empire lasted for so long and had a bunch of weird confusing shit in it
            what was current in say the early period was not at all true in the later period
            even then you also have what the italians had to say about the whole arrangement which makes it more confusing
            even then there was a time in which the monarchs of england and france deferred to the emperor, until they stopped doing it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The electors chose the king of Germany, and then the Pope crowned that person as emperor. It wasn't a separate position within the empire.

      The title of king of Germany was held by the emperor, king of the Romans by the imperial heir.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Crazy how nature does that

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It varied greatly over the centuries and from ruler to ruler. Initially the position of King of the Franks (early Ottonian period, the dynasty of the Otto the Great, the guy who re-united Germany) was supposed to be a 'first among equals' sort of thing - the king was elected by the nobility and ruled with their consent. They swore fealty to him and had some feudal obligations, like providing soldiers in time of war, and he some obligations to them like settling legal disputes and traveling across the realm to essentially hold court and govern fairly. The king would have some power in the form of his own possessions, as whatever noble who was powerful enough to bribe, buy or fight (or all three) his way to the throne would have, and some "crown lands", which belonged to the office of being king/emperor and would be transferred if a new family replaced the previous one as king, unlike the king's "family" possessions. In the early periods of the HRE the king's foremost power came in the form of being able to appoint people to desirable positions like a bishop or a duke. Almost all titles were transferred back to the king once the person had died and he was free to hand it out again to whoever he pleased. This and cold hard cash was the king's best bargaining chips to bribe his nobles into going along with his plans. Some nobility managed to negotiate or bribe their way into certain positions becoming inheritable titles, a practice that only became more common over the years. The electoral system of the HRE resulted in weak kings having to make a ton of concessions in order to buy enough votes to get elected, weakening central power over time - some kings managed to reverse this temporarily but on average the princes gradually gained more privileges over the centuries.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is an idea called "hausmacht" which means that the power of a king comes primarily from his own territorial possessions rather than the assets of the imperial office, an idea that became more popular in (I think) the 13th century but really accelerated towards the 14th and 15h. In the earlier days of the HRE you could have more idealistic kings/emperors who sought to expand the empire itself and the privileges of the royal office with it, a pursuit that almost always meant trying to subjugate northern Italy because it was monstrously rich and on paper (which meant nothing in practice) the man crowned Emperor of the Romans was technically emperor of the people living in Italy and had the right to collect tax from them. The Italians sometimes played along because a German king would usually just travel down to Rome, get crowned emperor then frick off, but every now and then you had someone like Barbarossa who wanted to overstay his welcome which led to brutal wars with the Italians who hated each other but especially hated some guy from across the Alps who felt entitled to their money. Later on you had kings who preferred to use the power of their office to expand their own hausmacht instead of the glory of the empire, a practice that became the norm later on. The Habsburgs and house of Luxemburg are the two best examples. Both started out as counts in the HRE and were elected because the fit the bill of what was needed at the time (e.g someone with SOME power but not TOO much, someone who is malleable to the will of the electorate but not too inept to rule, someone with some experience in war but -- you get the idea) and they were incredibly successful at expanding their own family's power through the office they were elected too, the first Habsburg managed to get his sons into ducal positions in Austria and almost Bohemia, a very wealthy part of Europe that the Luxemburgers managed to secure.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is an idea called "hausmacht" which means that the power of a king comes primarily from his own territorial possessions rather than the assets of the imperial office, an idea that became more popular in (I think) the 13th century but really accelerated towards the 14th and 15h. In the earlier days of the HRE you could have more idealistic kings/emperors who sought to expand the empire itself and the privileges of the royal office with it, a pursuit that almost always meant trying to subjugate northern Italy because it was monstrously rich and on paper (which meant nothing in practice) the man crowned Emperor of the Romans was technically emperor of the people living in Italy and had the right to collect tax from them. The Italians sometimes played along because a German king would usually just travel down to Rome, get crowned emperor then frick off, but every now and then you had someone like Barbarossa who wanted to overstay his welcome which led to brutal wars with the Italians who hated each other but especially hated some guy from across the Alps who felt entitled to their money. Later on you had kings who preferred to use the power of their office to expand their own hausmacht instead of the glory of the empire, a practice that became the norm later on. The Habsburgs and house of Luxemburg are the two best examples. Both started out as counts in the HRE and were elected because the fit the bill of what was needed at the time (e.g someone with SOME power but not TOO much, someone who is malleable to the will of the electorate but not too inept to rule, someone with some experience in war but -- you get the idea) and they were incredibly successful at expanding their own family's power through the office they were elected too, the first Habsburg managed to get his sons into ducal positions in Austria and almost Bohemia, a very wealthy part of Europe that the Luxemburgers managed to secure.

      tl;dr depending on the century and the ruler itself the power of the king of the germans/holy roman emperor (which was almost always the same person, whoever was crowned king of germany would try to get crowned holy roman emperor and the only time the positions were held by different people is when a very successful ruler managed to get himself crowned emperor while also having a son old enough to be crowned king, setting up his son's succession in advance while the real power stayed with him) varied from "broke guy who had to bargain away the rights of his office for some soldiers and cash" to "arguably the most powerful family in the entire realm and while they still need supporters they can still raise tons of cash and field large armies of their own"
      You should check out the Capetian dynasty in France if you're interested about this sort of stuff, they perfected the art of leveraging royal power to systematically expand their family possessions

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Generally not much. The Diet only gathered every few years to elect new kings (emperors) and resolve issues. Wars did occur between neighbors in the in-between times, and the smaller kingdoms had a lot of independence to rule themselves.

    It was not an absolute monarchy in the way we typically think of with European kings, that concept developed centuries later (in France and Britain). I think it would have been difficult for the emperor to enforce his will and/or muster an army at any given time with the various smaller kingdoms, without relying on political favors and much expense.

    Obligatory, the HRE was not holy, not Roman, and to answer your question: not an empire. I think of it more as a confederation, but as others have said it depends on the time period.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *