The Holy Roman States of America

We look at the complexity of the Holy Roman Empire, its dispersal of power and need to compromise, and compare it with the United States government of today.  

Transcript

The Holy Roman States of America

October 2025

“It seems likely that, for such ideas to work, participants must accept that politics can no longer be guided by absolutes, rather in the manner that conflict resolution in the Empire was about workable compromises, not questions of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Like current practice within the EU, the Holy Roman Empire relied on peer pressure, which was often more effective and less costly than coercion, and which functioned thanks to the broad acceptance of the wider framework and a common political culture. However, our review of the Empire has also revealed that these structures were far from perfect and could fail, even catastrophically. Success usually depended on compromise and fudge. Although outwardly stressing unity and harmony, the Empire in fact functioned by accepting disagreement and disgruntlement as permanent elements of its internal politics. Rather than providing a blueprint for today’s Europe, the history of the Empire suggests ways in which we might understand current problems more clearly.”

Peter H. Wilson, Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire

“This body, which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire, was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.”

Voltaire

British writer Peter Wilson, centered in Oxford no less, is quite the historian.  Like many, he has staked a claim to a particular piece of geography: Central Europe and, even more specifically, Germany.  Though his books contain a lot of religious and even some social history, he leans towards the old political and military for much of his narratives.  He, like many historians and even a few filmmakers (looking at you, Martin Scorsese), also seems averse to leaving any piece of content on the cutting room floor.  Just because you did the research does not mean you have to include it.  

His 2016 Heart of Europe, about the Holy Roman Empire, clocks in at 1008 pages, or 34 hours of listening pleasure.  His book on the Thirty Years’ War is over 850 pages or 212,000 words by one calculation.  That is a TON of research.  I am currently moving through his latest book, Iron and Blood: A Military History of the German-Speaking Peoples since 1500.  And this one, in the Wilsonian tradition, is over 900 pages.  

I noted that Wilson sticks to a geography, but unlike writers who say focus on World War II or the late Roman Republic, the scope of Wilson’s works is not that constrained.  His book on the Holy Roman Empire Heart of Europe traces the Empire from its origins within Charlemagne’s kingdom in 800 to its demise in 1806. By the mid-tenth century, its core rested in the German kingdom, and ultimately its territory stretched from France and Denmark to Italy and Poland.  This means Wilson needed to research everything from the Franks to the Ottonians, the Hohenstaufens, the Hohenzollerns, and, of course, the Habsburgs.  It is hard to explain to the non-historian just what a titanic task this entails, so Wilson has my deep respect for both his narratives (if often a bit too long and detailed) and especially his historiography.  

If there is a central theme that spans all of his works, it is this: I have found few historians who better explain the transition of medieval government to the early modern and beyond.  I am not talking about the end of Feudalism, the Italian Renaissance, the Humanist movements, the invention of the printing press, or the transition from mounted knights to gun-equipped infantrymen, though all are aspects of emerging modernity. Instead, the concept of government, the administration of lands and peoples, and how the Habsburgs, increasingly dominant from the 1400s, managed the Empire from the medieval period up through modern times.  Germany is especially interesting because, although the Holy Roman Emperor was the nominal overlord, the Empire’s complexity allowed for independence and relative autonomy for the regions Empire, representing various interests not related to the Emperor.  

Its makeup included Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and parts of modern-day Italy and France, with the Habsburg dynasty holding the imperial title. The Protestant Reformation had further divided the Empire along religious lines into Catholic and Protestant regions. In 1600, it comprised dozens of states governed by nobles, merchants, bishops, cities, and the Habsburgs - each one battling for independence and power. In reality, power was held by 50 ecclesiastical princes, 30 secular princes, imperial cities and other magistracies.  

By the late Middle Ages, roughly the 15th to 17th centuries, European monarchs began to consolidate power and weaken feudal structures. Economic changes—such as the growth of trade, urbanization, and a money economy—undermined the manorial system that had supported Feudalism. Monarchs used new sources of revenue, such as taxes from towns and trade, to build bureaucracies and standing armies loyal to the crown rather than to feudal lords.

In France, monarchs like Philip IV strengthened royal administration through appointed officials rather than hereditary nobles. Across Spain, the Reconquista and the unification under Ferdinand and Isabella led to the rise of a powerful centralized state tied closely to the Catholic Church. The late medieval era thus witnessed the emergence of the sovereign state, in which monarchs claimed divine right and absolute power within their territories.

England was the notable exception to this, In England, the Magna Carta of 1215 marked a significant step toward constitutional government, as it limited the king’s authority and established the principle that even monarchs were subject to the law.  In some regards, the inability of English Kings, ranging from Henry III and culminating in the reighn if Charles I, reflected some of the messiness of the Empire.  Not quite so in nations such as Spain, France, Russia and Sweden.  

The Renaissance of the 15th and 16th centuries brought new intellectual currents that questioned medieval traditions. Thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli, in The Prince, examined politics through a secular lens, emphasizing power, pragmatism, and statecraft over divine sanction. Meanwhile, the Protestant Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther in 1517, again within the Holy Roman Empire, shattered the religious unity of Europe. The decline of papal authority in Protestant regions allowed rulers to assert greater control over religious and political life, leading to the rise of national churches and further consolidation of state power.

The wars of religion that followed, such as the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), devastated Europe but also reshaped its political map. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) established the principle of state sovereignty and non-interference, marking a turning point toward the modern system of nation-states. Henceforth, rulers were recognized as supreme within their borders, and Europe’s political landscape shifted from a theocratic to a secular order.

History in this period pointed to greater and greater centralized power.  We have seen nearly all of those states later, in the 1800s and especially after WWI morph into democracies of one sort or another.  But of course not all of them.  Russia is as authoritarian today as ever under the Tsars.  We have actual Kingdoms in the Middle East such Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  And Xi in China, very much the 2nd most powerful nation in the world, has centralized power.  

Germany’s route was more circuitous.  First a patchwork, then division in the mid 1800s, then two different versions of authoritarianism, and finally today, a functioning Democracy.  The very structure of the Holy Roman Empire prevented the nation state consolidation occurring in England, France, Spain, and Russia from happening in Central Europe.  Partly, this was due to the intransigence of some of the Habsburg Emperors in embracing modernity.  “Charles the Fifth, pretty much every way worked to hold up the pillars of the medieval world order: monarchic power, domination by the Catholic Church, feudal land management, divine right, mercantile colonialization, and obedience to authority along the strict metaphysical line of the great chain of being,” notes Russell Shorto, Amsterdam: A History of the World’s Most Liberal City. Yet it was Charles’ father, Maximillian, who first adopted the printing press as a sort of producer or pro-Imperial, pro-Habsburg propaganda, realizing its potential.  

From feudal fragmentation to supranational union, the evolution of government in Europe reflects the continent’s enduring struggle to balance authority and liberty, tradition and progress. The medieval world’s reliance on personal loyalty and divine sanction gave way to centralized monarchy, constitutionalism, and eventually democracy. 

I have several times noted the distinction of the Empire, but in one single stroke of a pen (well after several successful military campaigns), all the electors, the Reichstag, the desires of petty princelings, the balancing of power between worldly dukes and ecclesiastical bishops, between Lutherans and Catholics, after a millennia stretching back to Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire was done away with a simple declaration. On August 6, 1806, Emperor Francis II Habsburg abdicated and formally dissolved the Empire following the creation by French emperor Napoleon of the Confederation of the Rhine from German client states loyal to France. From that moment, the decline of the Habsburgs in Germany, and the rise of the Prussians began, culminating in 1870 with the Hohenzollerns becoming the unquestioned leaders of the Germans. 

We tend to think of history as a continuous arc that leads from Medieval manors to nation-states run by monarchs, and then to nation-states run as democracies.  That history is a line from general servitude to general freedom. The Holy Roman Empire proves that history can often look more like an S-curve than a straight line.  

All of this is context for understanding the nature of the government of the United States.  We were supposed to be governed primarily by Congress, hence featuring the legislative branch as 1st in the Constitution, and endowing Congress with the twin powers of purse and sword: the ability to enact taxes and the power to declare war.  And even Congress itself, with its bicameral nature and pairing proportional representation of population with fixed representation for each state, contains complexity.  Then, when the sausage is made—or how it used to be made—with bills, committees, reconciliation, and filibusters, the whole process can be grinding.  And for me, that is the point.  Passing laws is not supposed to be easy unless it is something like a holiday bill.  Passing laws involving taxation, borders, trade, crime, infrastructure, and the innumerable things of national government is supposed to be hard.   Only through the work of compromise and negotiation can the proper law be crafted.  When it is shoved through, as in the case of the ACA of 2010, do all the innumerable issues with the law come to the fore.  As of this writing, there is a loud debate over subsidizing something called the Affordable Care Act. This begs the question:  if it is affordable, why then is there a need for subsidies?  But the natural tension built into our system by the founders is eroding.  

Yet from the presidency of Andrew Jackson, there has been a creeping transfer of power from the legislative to the executive.  These culminated in high points such as the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with a few small clawbacks during the tenures of Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.  

In the past month, this article from the Wall Street Journal by Josh Dawsey neatly summed up the situation: “Inside the White House, top advisers joke that they are ruling Congress with an ‘iron fist,’ according to people who have heard the comments. Steve Bannon, the influential Trump ally, likened Congress to the Duma, the Russian assembly that is largely ceremonial. When senior White House aide Stephen Miller recently held a party at the exclusive Ned’s Club to celebrate his 40th birthday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) showed up to honor Miller, the people said.”

Even allowing for a few U-turns, the line of power has been relatively continuous from the power wielded by the legislature to that of the executive.  Washington began with just four cabinet-level officials.  Lincoln had seven.  FDR had 11.  And today, Donald Trump has 22 direct reports including the VP and his own Chief of Staff.  New positions since the New Deal include Secretaries of Education, Homeland Security, and Energy.  Add to that the EPA, Trade Representative, Small Business, and Director of National Intelligence, none of which existed before WWII, and you can see the growth of positions to keep pace with modern governmental needs.  But therein lies the problem.  The duties of a Chief Executive have expanded exponentially, but has Donald Trump (or perhaps a better example would be Marco Rubio evolved to manage over 23 direct reports?  Trump would contend so, which is why I included a more, well, normal figure such as Rubio.  

We also have this patchwork: 50 states, 3,143 counties, and 19,000 entities designated as cities. Each retains its own powers and sovereignties.  Just in my new state of Utah, I use Federal Highway 80, State Highway 40, County roads, and my own little street.  A separate form of government maintains each of these.  

When there is complexity, people often desire simplicity.  So the wish for a single person to, in a phrase I despise, “run the country,” is desired.  I want a tax cut, so why go through all the muck of Congress when I could have the president give it to me?  I also want my student loans forgiven (BTW, they are not forgiven or cancelled, they are transferred, but I digress).   I want a home tax credit, a park next to my house, double-laned roads all the way to my work, and pastrami sandwiches on rye delivered to my house with some lovely iced tea.  Why worry about getting it through the sausage factory when a president can simply say, like Yul Brenner’s Ramses II in the Ten Commandments, “So let it be written, so let it be done.”  

But presidents do not run the country or at least not supposed to.  They run one branch out of three of our federal government.  They are not to create law or decide whether that law is constitutional.  They do not command police forces, build state highways, nor assess property taxes.  They do not run schools or decide whether my new house is in code.  

Napoleon may have been better for temporary efficiency than the messiness of the Holy Roman Empire.  One of the many issues with monarchs is that crappy ones almost always follow the best ones.  Augustus was followed by Tiberius, who was okay, who was followed by Caligula, a sociopathic madman who murdered after four years of rule.  Commodus followed Marcus Aurelius.  Heck, Elizabeth II was followed by Charles (it could have been worse; if there had been a tragic polo pony accident years ago, we could be looking at King Andrew of Epstein Island fame).  And another reason I despise monarchs is they operate above law, above representation, above the people, above me.  The President may fly around in a 747, have a motorcade and can get that pastrami with delicious iced tea on demand, but the president works for me.  One of the interesting aspects of the Holy Roman Empire was though the Emperor was overlord, the Duke of Saxony say was fine with challenging him.  That did not work out well for a Spaniard opposing Phillip II of Spain.  

And despite its beginnings, there was an idea of the Empire different from that of the original Romans or later that of Napoleon.  As much as the new Christian Nationalists, and they are brushing up against a particular kind of person who can rule, the United States is based on an idea, not a common people or religion.  Yes, I understand that the basis for our Republic emanated largely from Britain, so there is an Anglo-Saxon Christian core element.  But even that tradition, given by the likes of Locke and Burke, drew much of its thinking from French philosophers and harkened back to the Romans, Greeks, and even Jewish traditions.  

This is not to say that the massive bloat of our government is perpetual or that stickiness is desired for its own sake.  There are several initiatives we can undertake to make our government more efficient.  For example, do we really need cabinet-level secretaries for Labor, Energy, the Interior, and Agriculture?  Could we not combine them in one greater Department of the Interior?  Those who oppose this are the unions, the farming conglomerates, big oil, and conservationists who not only use these agencies for their own special interests, but often staff their ranks.  This list alone is a recommendation for consolidation.  

But for me, the complexity is better than Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or, shiver, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez telling me how to live my life.  The Bourbon “sun king” Louis XIV vastly overshadowed his contemporary, the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I. Louis could do whatever the heck he wanted, and his mad spending set up France for the bloody Revolution of 1789.  The Habsburg survived the dissolution of the Empire by simply creating their own.  It was only the massive conflagration of World War I that upended the complex constraints on Habsburg rule.