Anaxagoras
Banned
WI Genoa and its allies had won the War of Chioggia in 1381 and sacked Venice as thoroughly as the 4th Crusade had sacked Constantinople in 1204?
WI Genoa Captures and Sacks Venice in 1381?
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
I don't think it would have ended by a sack going through all the city, raiding everything as there was no tomorrow to eventually replacing it with a Genoese state.
Don't get me wrong, there would be damages and Venice would suffer.
Now admitting Genoese sink Zeno's fleet (something necessary to win the war quickly : more they wait, more Venice's odds are rising), something not that easy to do with their forces, you would have probably a shrinkage of Venice's assets in Adriatic, in favour of Aquilea and Hungary; and definitive establishment of Genoese influence on Byzantium.
The peace would be probably as harsh (probably more, as they had superior forces than Geona alone before the war, and that Genoese would want to keep their foes down) than it was imposed to Genoa IOTL : Venice would be reduced to a secondary maritime republic, probably keeping some dominance over southern Adriatic and Western balkanic coast, but not able to compete in Egea or Black Sea.
Still, Venice would have still assets in Egypt for wheat trade, and may be able to fight over it with Genoa for some times and depending on the alliances tied then, may recover some of its power, or loose more of it. Italian situation would be eventually more disfavourable to both maritime republic and peninsular states may take advantage of this.
Don't get me wrong, there would be damages and Venice would suffer.
Now admitting Genoese sink Zeno's fleet (something necessary to win the war quickly : more they wait, more Venice's odds are rising), something not that easy to do with their forces, you would have probably a shrinkage of Venice's assets in Adriatic, in favour of Aquilea and Hungary; and definitive establishment of Genoese influence on Byzantium.
The peace would be probably as harsh (probably more, as they had superior forces than Geona alone before the war, and that Genoese would want to keep their foes down) than it was imposed to Genoa IOTL : Venice would be reduced to a secondary maritime republic, probably keeping some dominance over southern Adriatic and Western balkanic coast, but not able to compete in Egea or Black Sea.
Still, Venice would have still assets in Egypt for wheat trade, and may be able to fight over it with Genoa for some times and depending on the alliances tied then, may recover some of its power, or loose more of it. Italian situation would be eventually more disfavourable to both maritime republic and peninsular states may take advantage of this.
I'm not sure why not. A Genoese-Paduan-Hungarian force actually besieged Venice in 1379; have the siege go better for them, and you could easily have a sack of Venice.
With the only exception of the siege of 1849 (which is a horse of a different colour) the war of Chioggia was the one and only time that Venice had to fight both a landward siege and a naval blockade.
However Venice was protected on landward side by a wide belt of marshes which could be crossed only by causeways and a sea blockade requires not only superior naval forces (which Genoa could manage for a time) but also a detailed knowledge of the canals and waterways that led to inner Venice (and the Genoese proved unequal to this task). Genoa did almost everything best (and with a considerable luck too): Vittor Pisani fleet was defeated off Pola, Lido (the outermost island of the lagoon) was taken and also Chioggia fell. It is not too strange that Venice asked for a negotiated peace, and the Genoese should have accepted. However when Genoese request proved too much, the senate decided to go on and winter (together with the above mentioned knowledge of the inner waterways) turned completely the table. When Zeno's fleet arrived back in Venice from the Levant the war was almost over already.
Even if the peace brokered by the count of Savoy was not too punitive for Genoa, the Ligurian city never recovered from the horrible amount of expenditures (both in terms of human losses and financial losses) incurred during the war. Venice OTOH recovered pretty quickly and the 15th century was one of the best for the Serenissima.
My take is that a negotiated (and moderate) peace would have been quite possible and Genoa would have had the upper hand for a time (although the efforts and expenditures of the war would not have been recovered easily). A complete defeat of Venice (with a sack of the city thrown in the pot) no.
Remember that the coalition arranged against Venice was a motley one, with widely different interests being pursued by each one of the so-called allies.
However Venice was protected on landward side by a wide belt of marshes which could be crossed only by causeways and a sea blockade requires not only superior naval forces (which Genoa could manage for a time) but also a detailed knowledge of the canals and waterways that led to inner Venice (and the Genoese proved unequal to this task). Genoa did almost everything best (and with a considerable luck too): Vittor Pisani fleet was defeated off Pola, Lido (the outermost island of the lagoon) was taken and also Chioggia fell. It is not too strange that Venice asked for a negotiated peace, and the Genoese should have accepted. However when Genoese request proved too much, the senate decided to go on and winter (together with the above mentioned knowledge of the inner waterways) turned completely the table. When Zeno's fleet arrived back in Venice from the Levant the war was almost over already.
Even if the peace brokered by the count of Savoy was not too punitive for Genoa, the Ligurian city never recovered from the horrible amount of expenditures (both in terms of human losses and financial losses) incurred during the war. Venice OTOH recovered pretty quickly and the 15th century was one of the best for the Serenissima.
My take is that a negotiated (and moderate) peace would have been quite possible and Genoa would have had the upper hand for a time (although the efforts and expenditures of the war would not have been recovered easily). A complete defeat of Venice (with a sack of the city thrown in the pot) no.
Remember that the coalition arranged against Venice was a motley one, with widely different interests being pursued by each one of the so-called allies.
A sack may happen. Something as destructive than Constantinople, I don't think so.
And as LordKalvan pointed out, the anti-venetian coalition was fairly desunited with only Genoa specifically interest into "burying" the city : I don't think you'll have forces to go trough a huge devastation (a fortiori to create a puppet venetian state), but enough to ransom the city could be doable (even if it means an earlier PoD to nerf a bit Venetian and reinforce Genoese)
No, a better Byzantium would be still busy at home, enough stuck between Balkanic imperial wannabees and Turks.
1380 is way too early. It's almost a century before the Ottomans start building fleets and contesting the Egean sea. By that time Venice fortune will be restored.
Genoa is a bit too far away from the Levant to step into Venice's shoes, and they will always lack the string of bases in the Adriatic (as well as the supply of materials and manpower from Istria and Dalmatia). Not to mention that Genoa lacks the landward protection which was always the greatest strength and shield of Venice. A victorious (and depleted) Genoa will be an even more appetizing prize for the French or the Milanese (and internal politics in Genoa were always more volatile and less manageable than in Venice: there will always be a faction which starts to cozy up to a foreign power to gain dominance in the city).
Faeelin
Banned
I don't buy this. Genoa can't step into Venice's shoes, but this just means there's a power back in the Aegean. Mythical Venice who recovers from a major defeat with no problem? Why? Other Italian mercantile republics fell and vanished from history. Venice is not magical.
I agree a victorious Genoa is a tempting prize; this is why it will be weaker than Venice was.
I'm not saying that Venice will stand forever or that the Serenissima is magical. It's enough to look at OTL history to see that it is not true. However Venice will always stand (and rebound from defeats) as far as the commercial routes will go through the Eastern Mediterranean. This will go on at least until the beginning of the 16th century and will not be changed by a defeat (which anyway will not be an absolute one: I don't see any one sacking the city unless the willpower of its citizens is completely broken).
There are a number of reasons for this:
- The geographical position of Venice, well located at the top of the Adriatic sea and with access to the main land routes toward central Europe
- The natural defenses of the city, both landward (marshes) and seaward (shallow approaches, sandbanks, channels)
- Most important of all (and unique as far as Italian city states are concerned) the political system worked and worked pretty well. The oligarchic system developed in Venice can certainly be criticised (I am convinced that the closure of the Great Council was a huge mistake for example) and ultimately became too rigid and ossified. OTOH, leaving aside the first couple of centuries of Venice history the number of attempts to change by force the political system can be counted on the fingers of one hand (and a couple fingers can be spared too). Whenever there was an external threat to the republic this system worked at its best (the war of Chioggia is a good example in point, the war of the League of Cambrai is another).
Have a look at the other mercantile republics:
- Amalfi was a smaller city, with no landward protection worth mentioning. It had to fight continuously against encroaching neighbours and in the end fell to the Normans and was subsumed in the Kingdom.
- The great century of Pisa was the 11th. Their landward defenses were better than Amalfi being exposed landward on one side only. The bad points were that its port was on the Arno river and became unviable due to silting. Then there was the close proximity to Genoa with the obvious clash of interest in commercial routes and real estate. Only one of the two cities could prosper and Genoa took the prize (even if it was a close call). Arguably it might have gone the other way and it is possible (but not certain) that Pisa might have extended its dominance over Tuscany. They still would need to set up a working political system since Pisa was rife with factions.
- Genoa won the war with Pisa and slowly came to dominate most of Liguria. Weak landward defenses though, distance from the Levant and incapacity to hammer out a viable political system which could avoid the continuous internecine fighting were its downfall. After Chioggia the Genoese had to submit to one or another of the land powers (France, Milan, Spain). Still they prospered enough and kept a nominal independence (but it was a close run). Winning the war of Chioggia would not have changed much its history.
- Marseilles enjoyed an enviable position in terms of inland market. However their landward defenses were very weak and the lords of Provence too strong. It had really no chance to go on as an independent city.
- Ancona has a very good harbour on the Adriatic sea, and is well located for commerce. Once again the weakness of landward defenses spelled their doom as an free republic.
- Ragusa was a very small city, and its access to export markets by land was practically not there. They survived keeping a low profile but there is no chance for a Ragusan sea empire.
Faeelin
Banned
This is true, but on the other hand, Venice didn't lose. If it had, would the system ahve remained stable, or would the attempts at coups that Venice did experience just be the start of something?
The proposed Venetian terms of surrender were to literally abandon their empire. Maybe Venice could recover, and somehow regain Crete and its Aegean naval bass; but that's a steep hill to climb.
Lucius Verus
Banned
Another thing to mention, Venetian manufacturing was the best of Europe till the 17th century. The skilled labor did not require capital as much as market access, so short of physical destruction I don't see Venice faring poorly; maybe not powerful but still rich.
Venice did not loose, but the cost of the survival was pretty steep in terms of bot manpower and material losses (including the disruption of trade and the complete destruction of Chioggia). Still Venice bounced back very fast (in 1391 in alliance with Gian Galeazzo Visconti defeated the Da Carrara of Padua and took Treviso, in the first decade of 1400 bought back Dalmatia from the Anjou);
Genoa - who had come out of the war with an honorable peace and gained Tenedos - never really recovered.
I've not been able to identify the exact terms of the peace proposal of August 1380 nut the loss of the complete stato de mar would have been a price to steep to pay for a negotiated peace (and the Genoese were out for blood anyway and I doubt a peace could have been brokered).
I know that Venice put out peace feelers to the king of Hungary too, but once again the Hungarian demands proved excessive and nothing came out of it.
It's worth remembering that Venice had allies too: the Visconti of Milan, the king of Cyprus and the emperor of Byzantium (the last two where ill-disposed toward the Genoese). So Venice would not have to re-build from scratch after all. However I've to insist that the key factors were the strength of Venetian institution and the very favourable location of the city.
This. The challenge though is in determining who or what would fill the void left behind.