Earliest possible unification of the Italian Kingdom after Charlemagne

First of all, sorry if this was posted before, I searched for similar threads and didn't find anything on this regard.

So, as the title says, what would be the most plausible scenario to allow for a united Italy after its northern half was incorporated to the Carolingian Empire? For our purposes, let's do it before 1500 A.D., so that at least the former Lombard Kingdom rises as a modern Nation-State like France or England after the 100 Years' War... and later might unite with Kingdom of Sicily/Naples to form a whole kingdom in the peninsula.

Charlemagne conquered the Lombard Kingdom and formally joined the fledgling Papal State inside the Frankish realm. After his grandchildren's civil wars, the crown was eventually obtained by local rulers such as Berengar of Friuli and Guy of Spoleto, all the way until its incorporation to the Holy Roman Empire under Otto I. After that, the title seemed to exist only in name as a royal title to the Imperial dignity, as the Italian principalities and communes became de facto independent. By the end of the Crusading era, it's safe to argue that whatever Medieval kingdom existed in the northern peninsula was no more. Regional powers such as Milan, Florence, Venice, etc. rose to fill this gap, while the southern part eventually was consolidated under the Normans.

So, any suggestions? I chose the post-Carolingian period because I suppose by this time the "barbarian" Lombard identity had already waned, and by then this people was assimilated to the Italian culture, and its feudal structure wasn't so different from that of France, Norman England or Castillian Spain. Neverthless, those countries united into modern States by the 16th Century, while Italy remained divided. Personally I attribute this to the temporal influence of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, which was detrimental to both the union of Italy and that of the Holy Roman Empire, and the consolidation of merchant republics and regional city-states, which prevented the unification all the way to the Napoleonic Wars.

You could have Berengar or Guy do better and keep Italy independent.Tthe latest that could happen is probably the Visconti's of Milan. I'd think about Matilda of Canossa but that seems to CK2ish, given she was legitimately powerful in her own right.

BBadolato said:

You could have Berengar or Guy do better and keep Italy independent.Tthe latest that could happen is probably the Visconti's of Milan. I'd think about Matilda of Canossa but that seems to CK2ish, given she was legitimately powerful in her own right.

Click to expand...

Why not have Canossa marry a Commenian scion..,.

I think Berengar I could be the best bet. His weakness is that he had no male sons, however his daughter Gisla married Adalbert I, marquis of Ivrea and had a son (Berengar II) who later became again king of Italy before she died in 914. Berengar I was a survivor and more than one time managed to come back from very difficult if not desperate situations.
The best POD is that Berengar manages to defeat the Hungars in 899 at the battle of Brenta (OTL was defeated and the great feudatories started plotting against him and offered the crown to Ludwig of Provence). A victory over the Hungars would be a great boost to his popularity both with the nobles and the church, the more so if he manages to anticipate by a few years his expedition against the Saracens in the Garigliano (Berengar defeated them in 915 IOTL, and soon after was crowned emperor in Rome by the pope). For reference, consider the propaganda benefit that Otto I enjoyed after beating the same Hungars at Lechfeld.
It is maybe something impossible for the mindset of the 10th century, but Berengar would make a very good move if rather than being crowned emperor he managed to convince the pope to declare the decadence of the imperial crown of the HRE.
The succession can be assured by recognizing his grandson Berengar as heir to the kingdom of Italy (it would have the added benefit of strengthening the ties with Adalbert of Ivrea, who was quite powerful in western north Italy, while Berengar I power base was in the eastern part of north Italy).

Another later possibility might be Boniface the Black of the house of Canossa, Marquis of Tuscany and lord of many cities in Emilia and Lombardy, including Mantua his capital. Boniface was killed by a quarrel during a hunt in 1053 near Mantua (and it is possible, although unproven, that the emperor was behind this assassination, since Boniface had become too powerful and rich). Boniface had three children (two daughters, one of which was Matilda, the Great Countess, and a son, Frederick) but his son died soon after his death (again in somehow suspicious circumstances). Boniface had strong marital ties with the powerful house of Bar, dukes of Upper Lorraine. Postpone Boniface's death for a few years and it is quite likely that Frederick will come of age and inherit all the Canossa possessions. When the fight for investitures come along, Frederick might be able to expand his possessions even more (in particular with good political marriage arranged for himself and his sister Matilda). He may not be able to get the formal crown of Italy, but would become too powerful to be threatened by the emperor.

Rdffigueira said:

So, as the title says, what would be the most plausible scenario to allow for a united Italy after its northern half was incorporated to the Carolingian Empire?

Click to expand...

There are a couple of possibilities here. One is Arab conquest. The Arabs captured Sicily and they captured Sardinia, they also captured Bari and several other Italian cities on the mainland. They even sacked Rome in the 9th century. The Arabs were eventually defeated by a combined effort from the Byzantines, the German emperor and local Christian cities, but it's not impossible to imagine the Emirate of Sicily growing into a new Arab empire in Italy. After all, the Arabs did conquer Spain and Portugal.

Another possibility is that the Byzantines somehow return in force and take over the whole of Italy. The emperor Basil I did manage to take over much of the south during the 9th century, although they didn't manage to stop the Arab takeover of Sicily. I think a Byzantine reconquest seems unlikely because they had to fight on too many other fronts.

Alternatively, we could imagine one of the German emperors, such as Otto, is more successful in his battles in Italy, and actually manages to unite the country. However again with the state of logistics as they were in that period, it seems hard to imagine a complete conquest (though not impossible).

I can't see the French taking over Italy at this time period, they had too many distractions fighting the Anglo-Norman kings. Ultimately perhaps the best bet is one of the Italian kingdoms - perhaps the Norman kingdom of Sicily. But even this was unlikely, since the Pope's territories cut them off from the rest of Italy and nobody wants to be excommunicated.

@BBadolato - actually, to be honest, I was really thinking about Matilda when I started this thread, I loved to unite Italy under the di Canossa dynasty. Down with the German oppressors!

@LordKalvan - thanks for the info, before posting this thread I read a couple things about Berengar of Friuli, he really managed to outmaneuver his foes in dire situations. Your suggestion about the Magyars is very interesting, I realize his powerbase was shaken by the defeat at the hands of the invaders.

Also, while I knew about Matilda due to CK2, didn't knew about her father. I'll surely research about him. Thanks for the tip!

@Byzantine Fanatic - thanks for the input. I hadn't really considered an Arab conquest of the entire peninsula. While I knew about their incursions in Sicily, never thought that they would have the verge to conquer the entire country. Their sack of Rome was more of a raid than properly a subjugation campaign.

I agree with your other suggestions, though, I actually started to think a bit more about a successful Justinian conquest of Italy (that manages to repel the Lombards, that is, and consolidate the Imperial administration), and how it would serve to the purpose I stated in the OP. I'm sure the Byzantine Emperors would curb any powers the Papacy tried to invest into itself... and maintain the bishopric of Rome in a short leash (as they did IOTL until the Frankish conquest). That, and the fact they wouldn't be prone to allow the expansion of regional city-states like Venice and Genoa might be enough to prevent the fragmentation of political power in the peninsula. Even if some centuries later some usurper manages to carve an independent realm out of the Italian Exarchates, that's a plausible scenario, IMO.

I'm thinking maybe a Hohenstaufen Emperor who gets beaten in Germany. He'll keep wanting to reconquer Germany, and undoubtedly will waste way too much effort on it, but controlling Sicily/Naples and at least nominally Italy is a good start.

Rdffigueira said:

Even if some centuries later some usurper manages to carve an independent realm out of the Italian Exarchates, that's a plausible scenario, IMO.

Click to expand...

This is a great suggestion and it jogged my memory! In the 6th and 7th centuries, the Exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage were actually quite powerful and there was a period during the Arab invasions when the Emperor did consider moving the capital to Carthage.

Another possibility is that Belisarius declares himself Western Emperor, taking the territories of Africa and Italy with him. The new Western Roman Empire would consist of Italy and Africa. It might well have survived better, free from Constantinople.

Another possibility is that some usurper declares independence, perhaps based in Carthage during the 7th century. In fact if I remember rightly, this actually happened, though I don't recall the specific details.

Carthage didn't fall until 698AD, and there was a chance it could have held out. If it had, the Arab conquest might have never progressed further west than the Libyan desert. That would have had a big impact on subsequent world history, especially in Spain, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.

Whatever POD you choose, it would probably be a good idea to stop the Romagna falling under Papal control, since that way you wouldn't have the Papal belt cutting the north off from the south.

Byzantine fanatic said:

This is a great suggestion and it jogged my memory! In the 6th and 7th centuries, the Exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage were actually quite powerful and there was a period during the Arab invasions when the Emperor did consider moving the capital to Carthage.

Another possibility is that Belisarius declares himself Western Emperor, taking the territories of Africa and Italy with him. The new Western Roman Empire would consist of Italy and Africa. It might well have survived better, free from Constantinople.

Another possibility is that some usurper declares independence, perhaps based in Carthage during the 7th century. In fact if I remember rightly, this actually happened, though I don't recall the specific details.

Click to expand...

Well, Heraclius managed to wrestle the Empire from Phokas solely from his powerbase in north Africa.

Belisarius becoming Western Roman Emperor and leaving Justinian to bite the dust, now, if this timeline really exists in a parallel universe, I want to see it

Fabius Maximus said:

Whatever POD you choose, it would probably be a good idea to stop the Romagna falling under Papal control, since that way you wouldn't have the Papal belt cutting the north off from the south.

Click to expand...

That's a crucial observation. From what I've researched the Pentapolis (main cities in Romagna) were given to the Pope by Pepin the Short... and formally attributed in the early 13th Century by Emperor Rudolf. Yet, it remained for centuries under de facto control of regional lords until the 15th century at least, so its not much of a stretch to imagine a powerful Lombard duke in the north manages to conquer it in the meantime.

Venice had partial control of thebRomagna in the early 1500s. If they eon the League of Cambrai war they likely keep or even expand it as well as keeping Trieste from Austria. A stronger Venice could emerge from the Italian Wars as the preeminent power in North Italy and eventually unify all of Padania in the coming centuries before uniting with Naples...
Or just keep Gian Visconti alive for another decade. Hes crushed Genoa and has all of Milan plus parts of the Veneto, and would have taken Florence had he survived. With two popes and the Hundred Years War going on there is a good opportunity for him to consolidate his gains without outside interference.

There's one issue with the last POD, Trieste had been a part of the Habsburg domains since 1382, so an early 1500's POD won't change that.

Janprimus said:

There's one issue with the last POD, Trieste had been a part of the Habsburg domains since 1382, so an early 1500's POD won't change that.

Click to expand...

What you say is not completely correct.
In late 1507 Maximilian of Habsburg invaded Cadore after his request of crossing Venetian territory with an army had been refused. In january 1508 the Austrian forces were defeated at the battle of Ruschetta. A short and successful campaign under Bartolomeo d'Aviano saw Gorizia, Trieste and Fiume taken.

Venetian possession of these cities ended one year later, after the battle of Agnadello against the French, but the point still stands.

The Undead Martyr said:

Venice had partial control of thebRomagna in the early 1500s. If they eon the League of Cambrai war they likely keep or even expand it as well as keeping Trieste from Austria. A stronger Venice could emerge from the Italian Wars as the preeminent power in North Italy and eventually unify all of Padania in the coming centuries before uniting with Naples...
Or just keep Gian Visconti alive for another decade. Hes crushed Genoa and has all of Milan plus parts eof the Veneto, and would have taken Florence had he survived. With two popes and the Hundred Years War going on there is a good opportunity for him to consolidate his gains without outside interference.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with the possibility of Venice succeeding in unifying Italy, and this has nothing to do with the wars of the League of Cambrai (Venice might come out very well of these wars, or the League might be easily butterflied away).
Venice would have to solve a very complicated problem: the government of the Most Serene Republic was by and for the citizens of Venice. People living in the Stato de Mar (Dalmatia, Corfu, Crete and all other Venetian possessions over the sea) or on the Stato de Tera (mainland possessions) were not citizens of the Serenissima and could not become Citizens, although they swore an oath to the Republic and paid taxes: not the best way of forging a unitary state, and not something which might found an easy solution (in 1,000 years of Venetian history no solution was ever proposed for it, even the inhabitants of Venice possessions were traditionally faithful to the Republic).

Your second POD, a longer living Gian Galeazzo Visconti, is much more likely in particular if GG recognises the advantages that would accrue to Milan by being allied to a rich and prosperous Venice (and Venice could understand the benefits of a strong Milan shielding her on the mainland). IMHO Milan and Venice are natural symbiotic partners rather than rivals.
A small nitpick: Genoa was occupied by French troops at the time GG died. Can become again a Milanese possession, the new round of the 100 Years war is not too far in the future.

Maybe, a surviving Svevian house in the Kingdom of Sicily, once securing the country, could have eventually got rid of the Papal States, and then taking the Italian communes one by one... But, I agreed generally the best hope was Berengar, when there was an indipendent Kingdom of Italy.

Don't think Mathilde could have unified Italy, but the possibility could be interesting material for a Medieval TL... Maybe arranging a wedding with Henry IV... Fine, they were cousins, but with a Papal dispensation eventually... Or with things going really nasty between 1076-1077; let's say no Canossa humiliation episode, as Henry refused to humiliate himself and opting for a show of force... The North Italians then coalized around Matilde, they win and she become Queen of Italy earlier and with no ties with the HRE (so through Papal blessing). Then she turned towards South, she arranged agreements with the Normans, and got rid of Byzantines and Arabs. Rome and Latium remains in Papal control, but the Popes accepted to cede suzerainity over other lands to ensure direct connection, Mathilde got an healthy heir, and with a feudalized yet almost compact society, united Italy will become a fixture in Europe, and just in time for the Crusader ages.

And, to reinforce further the TL, let's say Matilde marries Roger I of Hauteville... So to have a Canossa-Altavilla dynasty. And then Henry VI could marry a TTL Constanza of Hauteville and having a TTL Federico II, King of Italy and Emperor of the HRE, with the Italians going north to settle things between the Germans, while the peninsula will live its medieval apex, reached with the rule over Jerusalem. Then things after him will get messy (noble and city riots, strifes, etc) in alternate periods but substantially the Italian Kingdom will hold.