Separate Catholicism before and after the invesituture controversy

[Undead Martyr]

the 867 bookmark opens the difficulty (and possibility) of engaging with the dynamic relationship between the pope and emperors. Prior to the investiture controversy the popes should not generally be elected, but appointed by the emperor, who should also be a co-religious head a la the caliph. I'd suggest making the empire a purely titular title and bumping up the carolingian kingdoms (west Francia, middle francia/ Italy+Burgundy, east francia) to "empires" with their own unique legitimacy_crown authority mechanic. Basically let the Frankish realsm be the diadochi, all fighting to reclaim the imperial crown, as one can see with wg Berengar of Friuli. Whoever possesses rome gets to appoint the pope (the emperors did so, as did Alberic, self styled prince of the roman, who effectively controlled the papacy to the point where IIRC Emperor Hugh was never crowned despite having the italian title). This would also simplify difficulties like how Italy should have de jure claims over the romagna and the southern duchies, or how west Francia and east Francia were both considered de jure lords over aquitaine and Bavaria despite the latter being semi autonomous royal titles.

Really the de jure hre shouldn't exist as a mere title imo until... i'd say the 12th century. IIRC it wasn't until the staufers that the title sacrum imperium romanum even appeared, and the emperors explicitly saw themselves as universal rulers of christendom, not just kings of a greater Germany; making them religious head, and having a guelph-ghibelline system to model their rivalry with the papqcy, would be more authentic and much more engaging. Likewise both the elective systrm and the college of cardinals emerged later, the latter being fixed by the golden bull of 1356 (but being largely an outcome of the anarchy following the staufer collapse, prior to that point normal/gavelkind elective is mostly fine imo) and the former emerging de facto and de jure in the 11th century. It doesn't make sense to have them from the beginning especially given the new religous system.

 

[Battlex]

the 867 bookmark opens the difficulty (and possibility) of engaging with the dynamic relationship between the pope and emperors. Prior to the investiture controversy the popes should not generally be elected, but appointed by the emperor, who should also be a co-religious head a la the caliph. I'd suggest making the empire a purely titular title and bumping up the carolingian kingdoms (west Francia, middle francia/ Italy+Burgundy, east francia) to "empires" with their own unique legitimacy_crown authority mechanic. Basically let the Frankish realsm be the diadochi, all fighting to reclaim the imperial crown, as one can see with wg Berengar of Friuli. Whoever possesses rome gets to appoint the pope (the emperors did so, as did Alberic, self styled prince of the roman, who effectively controlled the papacy to the point where IIRC Emperor Hugh was never crowned despite having the italian title). This would also simplify difficulties like how Italy should have de jure claims over the romagna and the southern duchies, or how west Francia and east Francia were both considered de jure lords over aquitaine and Bavaria despite the latter being semi autonomous royal titles.

Really the de jure hre shouldn't exist as a mere title imo until... i'd say the 12th century. IIRC it wasn't until the staufers that the title sacrum imperium romanum even appeared, and the emperors explicitly saw themselves as universal rulers of christendom, not just kings of a greater Germany; making them religious head, and having a guelph-ghibelline system to model their rivalry with the papqcy, would be more authentic and much more engaging. Likewise both the elective systrm and the college of cardinals emerged later, the latter being fixed by the golden bull of 1356 (but being largely an outcome of the anarchy following the staufer collapse, prior to that point normal/gavelkind elective is mostly fine imo) and the former emerging de facto and de jure in the 11th century. It doesn't make sense to have them from the beginning especially given the new religous system.

Game doesn't allow Co religious heads, nor Co rulers of any kind. The carolingian kingdoms shouldn't be empire tier, because then keeping France in one piece would make them an empire (which is a bug they've done their best to stamp out in eu4 but to no avail)

We have naff all word on the Pope and how cardinals are made or their existence.

Guelph ghibbeline is best shown by the anti popes, which in ck2 allowed for the creation of an anti King faction as happened irl.

Southern Italy was de jure part of the kingdom but still highly autonomous, one reason they could be conquered by the Normans without much protest in Germany or Northern Italy. Being part of kingdom of sicily and de jure byz territory let's them break off more easily without fear of reconquest

Electoral rights should be a special vassal contract you can have, and pre golden bull the electors weren't standardised, as well as having electorates contested when voting

Having the Pope grant a claim to Italy to various warlords before and after the formation of the HRE would be nice, but likely reserved for a future dlc

What is "legimtacy_crown" you speak of?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

the 867 bookmark opens the difficulty (and possibility) of engaging with the dynamic relationship between the pope and emperors. Prior to the investiture controversy the popes should not generally be elected, but appointed by the emperor, who should also be a co-religious head a la the caliph. I'd suggest making the empire a purely titular title and bumping up the carolingian kingdoms (west Francia, middle francia/ Italy+Burgundy, east francia) to "empires" with their own unique legitimacy_crown authority mechanic. Basically let the Frankish realsm be the diadochi, all fighting to reclaim the imperial crown, as one can see with wg Berengar of Friuli. Whoever possesses rome gets to appoint the pope (the emperors did so, as did Alberic, self styled prince of the roman, who effectively controlled the papacy to the point where IIRC Emperor Hugh was never crowned despite having the italian title). This would also simplify difficulties like how Italy should have de jure claims over the romagna and the southern duchies, or how west Francia and east Francia were both considered de jure lords over aquitaine and Bavaria despite the latter being semi autonomous royal titles.

Really the de jure hre shouldn't exist as a mere title imo until... i'd say the 12th century. IIRC it wasn't until the staufers that the title sacrum imperium romanum even appeared, and the emperors explicitly saw themselves as universal rulers of christendom, not just kings of a greater Germany; making them religious head, and having a guelph-ghibelline system to model their rivalry with the papqcy, would be more authentic and much more engaging. Likewise both the elective systrm and the college of cardinals emerged later, the latter being fixed by the golden bull of 1356 (but being largely an outcome of the anarchy following the staufer collapse, prior to that point normal/gavelkind elective is mostly fine imo) and the former emerging de facto and de jure in the 11th century. It doesn't make sense to have them from the beginning especially given the new religous system.

The Holy Roman Emperor (in whatever form) wasn't a religious head.
He had a right (sometimes) to veto a bad choice made by the people of Rome, but this does not make him the arbiter of things like divorces and who has the backing of God to invade someone else. Neither did he make the decisions about church laws and how they should be applied.

Popes were also (generally and formally) elected by acclamation by the people of Rome, although certainly some were forcibly installed by Emperors.

 

[Undead Martyr]

Religious head fits better than merely another layer of de jure, even if it's not ideal.
My main concern is that the HRE is anachronistic, and that there were several emperors between Charlemagne and Otto the Great. There was also a very real de jure claim beyond the actual de jure kingdoms- france had claims over toulouse, Lombardy over the papal patrimony and southern lombard duchies. Both need to be reflected, and adding another layer of de jure ranking seems the most straightforward way of doing so, unless we get a more granular de jure system reflecting multiple levels of claims (ie Byzantium having 10% de jure rights over sicily, lombardy having 10%, the rest to sicily).

The early emperors had considerable power and influence over the church, including full lay investiture and the ability to choose the pope or at least "influence" the choice. Otto the great invaded in no small part to gain a higher legitimacy than being merely king of germany- the imperial title gave him a leg up over his vassals, who otherwise viewed themselves as peers of the king, as well as influence over neighboring countries like Poland, which fought tenaciously to resist german domination over their church in order to avoid becoming a vassal like bohemia did. The current strident separation of church and state was the product of the investiture controversy, and not foreordained; there should be the possibility of an emperor asserting greater influence over the church and translating imperial rule into a more universal monarchy. That was in fact a contemporary name for the carolingian realm- the universal kingdom, eventually just the empire.

 

[Karlington]

Really the de jure hre shouldn't exist as a mere title imo until... i'd say the 12th century. IIRC it wasn't until the staufers that the title sacrum imperium romanum even appeared, and the emperors explicitly saw themselves as universal rulers of christendom, not just kings of a greater Germany; making them religious head, and having a guelph-ghibelline system to model their rivalry with the papqcy, would be more authentic and much more engaging. Likewise both the elective systrm and the college of cardinals emerged later, the latter being fixed by the golden bull of 1356 (but being largely an outcome of the anarchy following the staufer collapse, prior to that point normal/gavelkind elective is mostly fine imo) and the former emerging de facto and de jure in the 11th century. It doesn't make sense to have them from the beginning especially given the new religous system.

The Holy Roman Empire was just known as the Roman Empire until 1157, but that name would cause too much confusion in-game for obvious reasons. It was the Holy Empire from 1157-1254, then the Holy Roman Empire from 1254-1512 when it officially became the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Religious head fits better than merely another layer of de jure, even if it's not ideal.
My main concern is that the HRE is anachronistic, and that there were several emperors between Charlemagne and Otto the Great. There was also a very real de jure claim beyond the actual de jure kingdoms- france had claims over toulouse, Lombardy over the papal patrimony and southern lombard duchies. Both need to be reflected, and adding another layer of de jure ranking seems the most straightforward way of doing so, unless we get a more granular de jure system reflecting multiple levels of claims (ie Byzantium having 10% de jure rights over sicily, lombardy having 10%, the rest to sicily).

The early emperors had considerable power and influence over the church, including full lay investiture and the ability to choose the pope or at least "influence" the choice. Otto the great invaded in no small part to gain a higher legitimacy than being merely king of germany- the imperial title gave him a leg up over his vassals, who otherwise viewed themselves as peers of the king, as well as influence over neighboring countries like Poland, which fought tenaciously to resist german domination over their church in order to avoid becoming a vassal like bohemia did. The current strident separation of church and state was the product of the investiture controversy, and not foreordained; there should be the possibility of an emperor asserting greater influence over the church and translating imperial rule into a more universal monarchy. That was in fact a contemporary name for the carolingian realm- the universal kingdom, eventually just the empire.

Religious head does not fit at all.
There are functions that a religious head exerts that are not even remotely involved with being the Holy Roman Emperor.

Divorce.
Crusades.
Taking payment to remit sins.
Dispansations for marriages and the like.

As the game stands, only one title can have de jure claims on a particular piece of land from a given rank - although several rulers can independently have claims - and a given title can belong to only one chain of dejure vassalhood.

France having claims over Toulouse isn't reflected in game as such - but that's because usually "France" is actually "France-Aquitaine", or France with Aquitaine drifted into it.

Either way though, this won't result in giving dejure claims outside of a kingdom's territory.


Being able to influence (or veto) a papal election is certainly a sign of power, but doesn't in any way make them a "co-head" of the church.
Lay investiture may be available already in CK3, I'm not sure, but it is not something specific only to the HRE, as various kings claimed that right at various times.

 

[Battlex]

Religious head fits better than merely another layer of de jure, even if it's not ideal.
My main concern is that the HRE is anachronistic, and that there were several emperors between Charlemagne and Otto the Great. There was also a very real de jure claim beyond the actual de jure kingdoms- france had claims over toulouse, Lombardy over the papal patrimony and southern lombard duchies. Both need to be reflected, and adding another layer of de jure ranking seems the most straightforward way of doing so, unless we get a more granular de jure system reflecting multiple levels of claims (ie Byzantium having 10% de jure rights over sicily, lombardy having 10%, the rest to sicily).

The early emperors had considerable power and influence over the church, including full lay investiture and the ability to choose the pope or at least "influence" the choice. Otto the great invaded in no small part to gain a higher legitimacy than being merely king of germany- the imperial title gave him a leg up over his vassals, who otherwise viewed themselves as peers of the king, as well as influence over neighboring countries like Poland, which fought tenaciously to resist german domination over their church in order to avoid becoming a vassal like bohemia did. The current strident separation of church and state was the product of the investiture controversy, and not foreordained; there should be the possibility of an emperor asserting greater influence over the church and translating imperial rule into a more universal monarchy. That was in fact a contemporary name for the carolingian realm- the universal kingdom, eventually just the empire.

There were several emperors but they didn't exert much real power. Whereas Charlemagne and Otto really were emperors. Otto was elected by his fellow stem dukes, ofc he wanted to big himself up, being crowned by the Pope meant he could more easily go after the dukes that elected him.
The incredible influence of the early HREmperors is shown by making anti popes and pressing their claim when Rome is weak and they are strong.

De jure will always be tiered, you can have indidvual duchies drift out. Romagna/papal state is fine as is, because those are the lands promised by Pepin and so Pope's rightful claims.

Dynamic Events that give claims is far better than the mixed de jure system you present. Toulouse may have been claimed by the king of france, but it was often able to be very autonomous until the albigensian crusade

Lay ordination is shown by the free rather than papal investiture that ck2 had, that is what should be in, rather than your silly dual religious head idea, as then you'll get arguments about why pre schism the byz emperor isn't a religious head, especially as they had caesaropapism placing the emperor above the patriarch