1. Philip of Swabia wasn't killed on 21 June 1208.
2. Philip decisively defeated Otto of Brunswick.
3. Pope crowned Philip as Holy Roman Emperor.
What do you think about this idea?
1. Philip of Swabia wasn't killed on 21 June 1208.
2. Philip decisively defeated Otto of Brunswick.
3. Pope crowned Philip as Holy Roman Emperor.
What do you think about this idea?
Assuming all that goes off without issue, you end up with another Hohenstaufen ruler earlier essentially. Probably would face the same problems as the later Frederick II, as well as a possible war against England, with France on his side.
Frederick II deliberately weakened the royal authority in Germany to have the support of the German nobility in Italy, where he fought against the Papacy. There Philip Hohenstaufen reconciled with the Papacy and can start centralizing policy in Germany.
Without the German attack on France (Bouvines), Philip Augustus throws all forces against England and conquer Aquitaine. He doesn't need help of Philip Hohenstaufen.
The pope for the most part supported anyone who impeded the unification of Sicily with the Holy Roman Empire, which in this case was Philip via Swabia. Note that the pope then turned on Otto too, and Otto was excommunicated.
When I said same problems as Frederick II, I meant he too would quarrel with the pope. He too would have wars in Italy. So either way he probably weakens central authority too, or doesn't as much and loses more easily.
The war between France and England was much more than some German attack. The entire conflict between Philip and Otto was essentially a proxy war; Philip was aligned with the French while Otto was aligned with the English. England's eventual defeat was a major reason why Otto ended up losing in the end.
Philip of Swabia would not qualify for the Sicilian kingdom.
Legitimate king of Sicily is his nephew Frederick Staufen.
In OTL, threat of Otton distracted French powers from English front.
In ATL, Philip Augustus can defeat English and conquer Aquitaine.
Doesn't matter really, the pope still acted against the Hohenstaufens, even when one was king but not emperor. See Conrad II for example.
France was fairly successful either war. The war in 1214 wasn't a war for Aquitaine necessarily. In 1200 France repelled an English invasion via Normandy to gain Normandy, Anjou, and Maine. In the lowlands the war against England was less decisive until Bouvines, but nevertheless allowed to conquer Flanders.
Otto didn't distract the French much, considering the French decisively defeated both Otto and England at the same time, and to gain a lot of territory at that. And why did France not take Aquitaine? In addition to already taking an amount of territory much larger than Aquitaine, France was too busy invading England itself.
Not only was Otto a minor deterrent to the French, especially considering that by Bouvines he had already lost widespread support in Germany and financial aid from England, but his hypothetical lack of involvement does little to change the amount of territory France receives. Even with Otto the French still won, and still acquired a lot of territory. Plus even if France somehow did annex the rest, doesn't change much in the end.