The Republic of Rome
- Thread starter GdwnsnHo
- Start date
The main problem in establishing a republic in Rome is obviously the pope. The easiest way I think to clear the way for the creation of a republic in Rome is to find a way to keep the papacy in Avigon rather indefinitely. OTL the Rome lost a lot of revenue and fell into a decline with the absence of the papal court. Perhaps the nobles of Rome get fed up paying homage to the absentee pope and declare independence as a new Roman Republic? The real problem was how to enusre it can not only survive but also expand. I can't imagine any pope willing letting Rome go without a fight.
Not only the pope, but Roman nobility as well (and maybe more so, as the pope could play on populist tendencies, as they tried IOTL) would be definitely opposed to this.
Even when the pope was in Avignon, and some Caesar wannabe took precedence, it didn't take long before Orsini and Colonna forget about their particularly important rivality, to chase him off.
Not because they were opposed to the idea of a civic or nobiliar republic, but because their relations with papacy that gave them not only access to honors and titles within Papal States (hommage, in medieval time, wasn't a burden you were happy to remove, but often the possibility to gain more in a legal manner) but as well to specific prestigious and important posts (such as in the College of Cardinal) that dependend a lot from the existence of a Roman Papacy.
Let's not forget popular aspirations : Cola Di Rienzo never stopped to call for the pontifical return from Avignon because Romans wanted their bishop back, would it be for a matter of "civic nationalism".
Removing pontifical presence (and that would have to imply an absence of pontifical power eventually, popes weren't going to abide by that) would make such republic quite short-lived in a late medieval era.
Even when the pope was in Avignon, and some Caesar wannabe took precedence, it didn't take long before Orsini and Colonna forget about their particularly important rivality, to chase him off.
Not because they were opposed to the idea of a civic or nobiliar republic, but because their relations with papacy that gave them not only access to honors and titles within Papal States (hommage, in medieval time, wasn't a burden you were happy to remove, but often the possibility to gain more in a legal manner) but as well to specific prestigious and important posts (such as in the College of Cardinal) that dependend a lot from the existence of a Roman Papacy.
Let's not forget popular aspirations : Cola Di Rienzo never stopped to call for the pontifical return from Avignon because Romans wanted their bishop back, would it be for a matter of "civic nationalism".
Removing pontifical presence (and that would have to imply an absence of pontifical power eventually, popes weren't going to abide by that) would make such republic quite short-lived in a late medieval era.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
This is VERY MUCH shooting from the hip, there are little to no details, but please rip it apart.
Potential PoD is that we have the western schism get worse. The northern Europeans who OTL supported the Roman Papacy instead support an antipope in Bremen. The HRE likes having his Pope in Bremen, France likes having one in Avignon - and the other monarchs take sides, rendering the Pope in Rome rather powerless and desperate. A subset of Cardinals elect another Pope that they believe could reunite the Papacy, making matters worse, but gaining support in Northern Italy and Hungary.
In the midst of this all, the nobles and people of Rome form the republic - perhaps because the Pope in Rome offers them the republic in order to enforce the Roman Papacy throughout Italy, and ending the Pisan Papacy. With the gold of the Papacy now at their disposal, large mercenary armies in the name of the "Senate, People and Papacy of Rome" expand to take control of Latium, and central Italy. As the Papacy has relinquished their gold, which now circulates throughout the new Republic, the nobles sideline the Pope's relevance, eventually leaving the Pope practically imprisoned in Rome.
The Roman Pope is rendered toothless, with a French and German pope, and the Republic sets up a number of 'Districts' or 'Provinces' in territories across central Italy, intending to make a play for Northern Italy.
Thoughts?
Potential PoD is that we have the western schism get worse. The northern Europeans who OTL supported the Roman Papacy instead support an antipope in Bremen. The HRE likes having his Pope in Bremen, France likes having one in Avignon - and the other monarchs take sides, rendering the Pope in Rome rather powerless and desperate. A subset of Cardinals elect another Pope that they believe could reunite the Papacy, making matters worse, but gaining support in Northern Italy and Hungary.
In the midst of this all, the nobles and people of Rome form the republic - perhaps because the Pope in Rome offers them the republic in order to enforce the Roman Papacy throughout Italy, and ending the Pisan Papacy. With the gold of the Papacy now at their disposal, large mercenary armies in the name of the "Senate, People and Papacy of Rome" expand to take control of Latium, and central Italy. As the Papacy has relinquished their gold, which now circulates throughout the new Republic, the nobles sideline the Pope's relevance, eventually leaving the Pope practically imprisoned in Rome.
The Roman Pope is rendered toothless, with a French and German pope, and the Republic sets up a number of 'Districts' or 'Provinces' in territories across central Italy, intending to make a play for Northern Italy.
Thoughts?
That's definitely random-looking : IOTL Avignon Papacy was a thing because a Papacy (recognized as legit by everyone) seat there for a time. You simply had not such in Bremen, and I think it's going to scream "I'm an Antipope! Please excommunicate me and whole the people in town!"
HREmperors are not going to like it : it would basically sums up as "We abandon any hope to intervene on Roman policy, and let Italian politics to Italian. That's right we give up, and even if it means delegitimisation of the imperial power, we gonna set up an Antipope. Not that we didn't made such before, of course, but we're not going to do a single effort to put him in Rome".
I'm not sure emperors would be that ready to be labelled "Please kick me" that eagerly
So, basically, we have a Roman Pope that is not supported by any real power, with at best a really really limited political power, and he gives up what remains of his authority to take on more powerful Italian states, on which his own nobility may be allied? That's going to backfire : without at least a territory they could rule directly, it means that the Pope would be at the first ambitious' mercy.
You mean whatever remains after that every antipope get his share of clerical benefits or treasury before leaving, right?
Assuming that condotierres simply doesn't raid the hell out of the Roman treasury without anyone to defend the Roman Pope.
I looks a bit implausible, to say the truth, but it could be overlooked if it didn't made the Roman Pope a poor tool, with Rome being as low it could be historically and either HRE or France just advancing their own pope as the true one (probably putting him in Rome after an expedition against "the idiot that tried to rule Rome and failed spectacularly).
I believe during the 12th century, the Roman Commune was created in opposition to the Pope, and achieved its greatest success under Arnold of Brescia. It was essentially a Ghibeline state, as supported the HRE in its opposition to the Pope, and opposed the Lombard League. So, you just need Barbarossa be more successful, but the breach with the Papacy too deep to be healed so he couldn't just install a pontifical puppet on the Tiber.
Arnold was probably not the actual leader of the Commune, and in any case the citizens gave him up as soon as a pope was elected with sufficient balls to place the city under interdict.
As for Ghibelline status, they were for the emperor initially, but changed sides as readily as any other city - see Monte Porzio in 1167, when an imperial force smashes the commune's army into paste, and Rome is saved by the only weapon aside from excommunication it ever possessed in the Middle Ages: devastating malaria.
The problem with the Roman Commune then is that nobody, neither Pope nor Emperor, was prepared to give the Romans what they really wanted, which was a free commune like the Lombards had. The Pope would never give it to them, because he was the Pope, and Rome was his domain; Barbarossa would never give it to them, because he was the Roman Emperor (tm) and considered the Rome his domain as well, not to mention his nearly pathological hatred of free communes and his well known fondness for the imposition of podestas upon them. Their fever dreams of once again becoming the capital of the Roman Empire were even more implausible; the chances that Barbarossa would rule from their dump of a city, rather than heading back over the mountains with an imperial prefect left behind to dominate them, were nonexistent.
12th century Rome, for a time, could play off the weakness of the pope and the distance of the emperor to achieve a sort of spurious independence. In the end, however, there is no political power in the region possessed of interests that aligned with their own, and they lacked the geography or resources of a Genoa or Venice to turn to the sea and "go it alone." It's a weak city in a weak place that nobody is willing to see go its own way.
Of course, this is a diversion from the OP, who seems expressly interested in a Cola-era Roman Republic.
Last edited:
GdwnsnHo
Banned
I may well edit the OP, to allow 1200's, I wasn't aware that it was such a fertile period for this sort of political change, I chose after the Golden Bulle, because I thought it would create opportunities for this, but wasn't sure.
I chose Bremen because it would be firmly under pressure by the HRE - and if the Germans are subservient to the German Pope in religious matters, the HRE can apply pressure on the German Pope to endorse his decisions. Risky gamble for a long term tool, but potentially do-able. If there is a better seat for a German Papacy, I'm game.
Fair point that they'd want to install him in Rome, but defeating the French Pope is likely to be needed first to ensure they don't install their Pope first. The installation of the Pope can wait - after all, the Pisan Pope/Roman Pope isn't strong enough to depose the German or French Popes on their own, and why bother fighting the Pisan/Roman Pope for the moment - they can be defeated later.
Admittedly it might be more likely if the Pisan Pope appears after the French Pope, but the Pisan Pope doesn't endorse the HRE - and those dastardly Italians want to support him in order to legitimise their independence, and the German Pope is supportive of crushing the Pisan Pope.
Well the idea is that outside of Rome, I imagined that the other nobles may support the Pisan Pope, especially if they are pro-Italian Independence, after all, the Italians never seemed to enjoy being part of the HRE, and as such there aren't that many I thought who would be Pro-Roman, considering they've already been asked to choose between the Roman, Pisan, and French Popes - and later the German.
I was referring to the gold that is within the vaults. Without some serious resources, no Antipope is going to be able to take vast amounts out on the sly. The Roman Pope still has money, just not income.
The original Roman Commune is actually in the 1100s; it's essentially dead by 1200. It owed its existence to the fact that papal authority had been seriously degraded in the wake of the Investiture Controversy by a series of schisms and weak popes. It's often overlooked that in a forty year period between 1100 and 1140 the Latin west had eight different antipopes (not at the same time, obviously).
Ultimately, Roman independence could only exist in the breach, when other power structures fail. This occurs in the 10th century, when Alberic II uses the complete failure of authority in Italy to turn Rome into his own principality; it occurs again in the 12th century, when the Roman Commune is established in the midst of constant schism and profound papal weakness; and it occurs yet again in the 14th century under Cola di Rienzo in the vacuum left by the Pope's residence in Avignon. But it never lasts, and I'm not sure how it could have been made to last.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
Right, I've done a bit of reading and came across this battle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Porzio
It seems the major issue was that the army was too large and cheap.
Considering that Christian of Buch didn't really capitalise on his victory in OTL due to plague, could there have been a victory if the Roman army had been purposely made smaller (say 5000) but much better equipped, and given proper drilling, to a standard not dissimilar to that of Christian of Buch's army?
Could that have helped the Roman Commune survive? If they win the battle of Tusculum, and use freshly trained and drilled troops to replace any lost in battle/during the plague that hit or avoid that plague entirely, could the Roman Commune have expanded to taken control of all of Lazio? It may well have put the commune on a stronger footing. I'm just unclear of what power that the Pope had in the city a this time. (Since he was there, apparently)
Additional Thoughts :
If the Roman Commune was able to expand and stablise itself, what would be the wisest diplomatic channels to assure their survival? Discussions with the ERE? Alliances with Naples? Trying to form a League of Italia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Porzio
It seems the major issue was that the army was too large and cheap.
Considering that Christian of Buch didn't really capitalise on his victory in OTL due to plague, could there have been a victory if the Roman army had been purposely made smaller (say 5000) but much better equipped, and given proper drilling, to a standard not dissimilar to that of Christian of Buch's army?
Could that have helped the Roman Commune survive? If they win the battle of Tusculum, and use freshly trained and drilled troops to replace any lost in battle/during the plague that hit or avoid that plague entirely, could the Roman Commune have expanded to taken control of all of Lazio? It may well have put the commune on a stronger footing. I'm just unclear of what power that the Pope had in the city a this time. (Since he was there, apparently)
Additional Thoughts :
If the Roman Commune was able to expand and stablise itself, what would be the wisest diplomatic channels to assure their survival? Discussions with the ERE? Alliances with Naples? Trying to form a League of Italia?
Last edited:
The problem with that is that Rome was not like the Lombard communes. Milan, Brescia, Cremona, etc. derived their strength from what we would call their "middle class" population, which constituted their civic militias and supplied the forces that would eventually humble even Barbarossa. But Rome, being an economic backwater, was rather feeble in this regard. We don't know a lot about the forces they did field in the Commune period, but their resources to do so were not great.
If they win at Tusculum, it might accelerate Barbarossa's ultimate defeat, though the main body of his force was not committed at Monte Porzio. But an accelerated defeat of Barbarossa does not necessarily help the Romans, because once Alexander wins, he can afford to turn all his attention to ironing things out in Rome instead of running around Europe trying to wage a war against the Empire. As soon as Pope and Emperor are reconciled, the Commune's chances of survival lower dramatically.
Honestly, they might have done better by switching sides and handing over Alexander to the emperor. Barbarossa hated communes, but he loved winning, and maybe such an act of pro-imperial treachery would induce him to give them some of the possessions and liberties they wanted so badly. (Or maybe not.)
In general, Roman Commune politics are really, really weird. The Commune was ostensibly founded as an anti-Papal, anti-noble (sort of) movement, and yet in 1167 the Romans are fighting alongside the nobles for the Pope.
This is the best explanation I have: The Roman Commune was basically a reactionary movement aimed at restoring the prominence of the city that had been progressively lost - what triggered the revolt, after all, was the Pope's decision to let Tivoli off without being destroyed after the Romans had defeated them. Two centuries earlier and the idea that Rome wouldn't be dominant over Tivoli would be laughable; now they were deadly rivals. Encastellation and feudalization came much later to the Papal State than to Lombardy, but they did come, and this had the effect of moving power from the urban center of Rome to the countryside. Roman nobles used to be urbanites; now they were gaining country estates and living in castles. Tivoli and other towns used to be fortified villages cowering behind their walls at the threat of Saracen raids; now they were communes who were not only much stronger vis-a-vis Rome, but also freer and more privileged in an absolute sense, because the Pope could grant them charters and civic liberties the likes of which he would never agree to give Rome. Even the Roman clergy was degraded, because in an effort to reduce the role of the Romans in Church politics, the 12th century popes had drastically lowered the number of Roman clerics given episcopal and cardinalate sees.
And so, the proud Romans, confronted with the fact that the Pope (their "own" bishop) had prevented them even from humbling Tivoli, lashed out at the Pope, his prefect, the nobility, and drove them all out; and then they proceeded to attack Tivoli, Tusculum, Albano, and other local power centers that symbolized the degradation of their influence and the humiliation of their city. When Barbarossa arrived, they loftily offered to "bestow" the imperial crown upon him in lieu of the Pope, as if they were already great again and it was theirs to give. Arnold of Brescia briefly gave this revolution the character of a religious reform movement, but it was never really about religion, or the emperor, or even the pope. It was about making Rome a place of consequence again.
Could it have been? I'm skeptical, for reasons I've already mentioned. Sure, local success was possible, but the Pope wouldn't have allowed Rome to start bulldozing the Roman Campagna. Those castles belonged to his feudatories, and those towns paid him taxes. As long as the Pope was weak and oppressed, they could get away with it, but they just don't have a lot of resources to work with. By the mid 12th century things are just too far gone.
I'm not sure what Rome has to offer any of these factions. It produces nothing of value and has little strategic relevance. Anyone who controls it is going to be hated by the Pope until they give it back. Manuel Komnenos, at this point, is devoted to a pro-Papal strategy in order to hold back the HRE; he's not going to side with the Commune against the Pope. Sicily isn't going to join them for the same reason.
Last edited:
Resolute Supporter
Banned
What about a constitutional papacy? Pope as Head of State, but with a Prime Minister as Head of Government?
In Middle-Ages? That's not really going to happen : political conceptions wouldn't really allow a XIXth-like constitutionalism to appear.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
Ok, so it isn't as simple a problem as switching from quantity to quality.
Admittedly the battle was 40 years after the Commune formed, what exactly could the commune do to revitalise Rome? Powerful economic reforms, investing heavily in trade?
I can't find anything that suggests that the Commune took advantage of the wealth of the Church, what if the leaders of the commune took the stance that the wealth of the Church was forfeit, a form of pre-Dominician or Francsican movement, and flat out taking Church gold. It probably requires a powerful religious figure involved in the establishment of the commune (likely wanting the position of bishop of Rome).
What if they did, it does amuse me to think of the Papal States former wealth in Rome being used to forming banking institutions, there has to be some way that gold could be used to create a strong economy. Perhaps it could be used to float a lower tax rate, encouraging people to move from the other Italian states to Rome. Perhaps some of it could be used to rebuild the port at Ostia (or whatever replaced it).
Admittedly the battle was 40 years after the Commune formed, what exactly could the commune do to revitalise Rome? Powerful economic reforms, investing heavily in trade?
I can't find anything that suggests that the Commune took advantage of the wealth of the Church, what if the leaders of the commune took the stance that the wealth of the Church was forfeit, a form of pre-Dominician or Francsican movement, and flat out taking Church gold. It probably requires a powerful religious figure involved in the establishment of the commune (likely wanting the position of bishop of Rome).
What if they did, it does amuse me to think of the Papal States former wealth in Rome being used to forming banking institutions, there has to be some way that gold could be used to create a strong economy. Perhaps it could be used to float a lower tax rate, encouraging people to move from the other Italian states to Rome. Perhaps some of it could be used to rebuild the port at Ostia (or whatever replaced it).
Thing is the leaders or "intelligentia" of the Commune weren't really economically-driven (it seems that landed or wealth elites didn't much participated in the whole thing) : not that Arnold of Brescia didn't advocated some confiscation of clerical property, but as Carp said, it was extremely tied to antipapalism when it came to Roman matters.
And in spite of regular anti-pontifical outburst, the pontifical figure was a really important marker of Roman identity, in spite of "Holy Senatorial" attempts of the Commune.
Such radicalisation, IOTL, didn't only affected Pontifical structures : by claiming only the Holy Senate could give imperium or really rule politically, its logical outcome was to deny imperium both to the Pope and the Emperor, if they didn't abide by their conditions.
If you couple ongoing radicalisation ("reactionnary" in the sense it constantly called for archaic or revived institutions that ceased to exist) with the non-participation of Roman elites...Having such a state economical program (that barely exist, even in the great states of feudal Europe at this point : the economical power and decisions are within families and parties) would be a bit inchoerent to me.
At best, the outright confiscation of clerical property would have even more estrangered the elites and whatever passed as middle-class in Rome, and would have been at best a redistribution : the whole point of the confiscation was moral, after all.
And in spite of regular anti-pontifical outburst, the pontifical figure was a really important marker of Roman identity, in spite of "Holy Senatorial" attempts of the Commune.
Such radicalisation, IOTL, didn't only affected Pontifical structures : by claiming only the Holy Senate could give imperium or really rule politically, its logical outcome was to deny imperium both to the Pope and the Emperor, if they didn't abide by their conditions.
If you couple ongoing radicalisation ("reactionnary" in the sense it constantly called for archaic or revived institutions that ceased to exist) with the non-participation of Roman elites...Having such a state economical program (that barely exist, even in the great states of feudal Europe at this point : the economical power and decisions are within families and parties) would be a bit inchoerent to me.
At best, the outright confiscation of clerical property would have even more estrangered the elites and whatever passed as middle-class in Rome, and would have been at best a redistribution : the whole point of the confiscation was moral, after all.
They've got nothing to trade. The basis of the medieval Roman economy is the Church; most of their income is from pilgrims and investments by the Church. If you kick the Pope out of Rome, you are ultimately undermining the only thing Rome really has going for it.
That's not to say they had no industries whatsoever - there were fishermen and dyers and smiths and everything else a large city had - but they didn't have the harbor to be a port of trade, they weren't on any major trade routes, and they didn't have any natural resources that were theirs in particular. Controlling the Tusculum and the Alban Hills and territories to the east would have given them some command of the sheep runs from the interior, but they're probably not going to become "the Flanders of the south" as a result. Lombard cities are by this point already getting into the wool business themselves.
The Arnoldist view was essentially that the Church should be divested from material interests, but this never translated into "take the wealth of the church." In the first place, the wealth of the Church was mainly in land, and the Commune simply couldn't physically dominate all that land - they didn't have the military or administrative capability. Additionally, Arnoldism was never the raison d'etre of the Commune; it dovetailed nicely with their own ideas about Roman supremacy and reducing the secular power of the Pope, but they were ultimately not religious fanatics like, say, the Cathars.
Arnold was in a sense a pre-Dominican, but he probably went further than that. From what we can tell, his view was not only that some clergy should live lives of apostolic poverty, but all should to some degree, even the Pope. He didn't believe that benefices were wrong as such, but that they had become abused (which was true) with some clergymen taking multiple benefices and many others owning non-benefice property. What he wanted was a more "heaven-focused" church, exerting little direct political power but devoting itself to the religion, and also an economically simplified church which kept the lands it needed to sustain its parishes and dioceses but nothing more.
Arnold may also have been a pseudo-Donatist, since it's claimed he also believed that priests who owned property or profited from multiple benefices were not empowered to give sacraments. Such priests were powerless, and they were of no use in saving your soul, which implicitly meant that a whole lot of people the church was ostensibly "saving" were actually still damned. The problem is that we don't have any source for this beyond his detractors, so it's hard to say if this was an accurate depiction of his beliefs or an attempt to smear him by associating him with other heresies.
One interesting AH possibility is that of Arnold living longer. I seem to remember one biographer saying Barbarossa came to regret having Arnold killed.
Now, Barbarossa was probably never going to go full Arnoldist, for the simple reason that the building blocks of his administrative and military power in Germany were large, wealthy bishops, abbots, and archbishops. At the time many imperial knights were in fact ecclesiastical knights, because the bishops were more dependable than the great feudal dukes of Germany. If he were to go fully Arnoldist, that would mean cutting his own base out from under him.
But as the schism went on, his own bishops became less dependable; the reform spirit that sparked the Investiture Controversy was in the air, and he didn't have the same control over his "national church" as Otto the Great had possessed. Even the Archbishop of Salzburg, one of the great Imperial churchmen, took Alexander's side. And in Rome, the supposed Arnoldist program - Divest the Church of its surplus lands, strip it of its secular power, put all temporal authority in the hands of the princes/emperor - is more or less in line with what Barbarossa already wants.
Arnold only died because Adrian demanded that Barbarossa get rid of him, and at the time Barbarossa needed the imperial crown from Adrian. But it's interesting to speculate what would happen if Arnold had somehow evaded death for 4-5 years, long enough for Adrian to die and the schism to erupt.
Nothing replaced it, predominantly because medieval Romans lacked the technology of the ancient Romans, and because it made no sense to make a massive undertaking to give Rome a decent port when you already had other decent ports. When later Popes tried to make a better port, they focused on Anzio/Nettuno, not Rome/Ostia. You'll note that even today in the 21st century they haven't replaced it; if you want to take a ferry to Rome you go through Civitavecchia to the north.
LSCatilina said:
Most landed elites did not, but the Commune was probably only as anti-noble as, say, the Tuscan communes. They didn't like independent castles like Tusculum, they wanted the nobles of those castles to live in the city and be part of Roman society and serve the Roman polity. Rome's situation wasn't dissimilar to that of Siena or Florence or other nearby 12th century cities trying to assert regional hegemony over their contado, which was often accomplished by razing castles and/or forcing the nobles to live within the city for part of each year. The main - and critical - difference was that while those communes had to deal with the power of their bishops (which they usually overcame), Rome had to deal with the Pope, who was never going to relinquish secular control as other bishops eventually would.
Indeed, even Rome at the height of the Commune era loved the Pope "in theory;" they just wanted the control they had once had. The schism of 1159 was partly their fault because they had demanded that the election be in Rome, not Anagni where Adrian had just died. In other words, they wanted the "good old days," when the Roman mob had influence over papal selection, but melded with the modern trend towards communal governance. By no means were they "anti-Papal" in terms of opposing the existence of the Pope or his presence in Rome. They just wanted the Pope to be their loyal bishop, not their ruling prince.
Last edited:
That said, and it's basically requiring another PoD, wouldn't an earlier discovery of alunite in Monti della Tolfa could change that?
Of course, you would have to count on lords of Civitavecchia, but the region doesn't seem to have been that outside the Roman reach before the XIIIth century (I may be wrong, tough, Latium's medieval politics aren't my best feat).
At least, it would make Rome more attractible.
I could agree on "Arnoldism", tough I'd point that the Roman Commune get more and more radicalized partially due to its influence; but I never encountered much "fanaticism" of Cathars economically or socially, in Languedocian medieval societies myself. Would have they tried something like that, they would never have been that successful in urban settings.
Arnoldism was as well a problem for imperial legitimacy : it came to the point where the Commune claimed only the Senate could make an Emperor and where it pressed Barbarossa to abide by their demands and to pay the retrospective laudae.
Eventually, not only challenging the Roman-clerical legitimacy in favour of a Roman-senatorial one could be really problematic for inner matters; but if it was to change one structural issue with another (critically when it concerned a structure that went less and less compliant and more deluded with time). There was not much benefit for the HREmperor, safe using them as a pressure against the Papacy.
Eventually, and in spite of what Barbarossa may have tought later, I think Arnold simply outlived his usefulness when he died : Communal claims became too exagerated to represent a viable threat or pressure on the pontiff.
It's less, for me, that the Commune was anti-noble (I agree it was no more, no less so than other Central Italian communi), but that Roman elites depended a lot from the existence of a strong (relatively speaking, and not too strong) Roman Papacy, would it be on redistribution of honores.
Getting rid of a strong, politically-involved, Papacy would have deprived Roman elites from their "natural" source of seats, functions, legitimisation and wealth. Eventually it made the Commune much more dependable on lower classes, and made upper layers much less enthusiasts about the whole thing, while the civic patriotism you mention indeed didn't made them hostile (at least at first) because a "truly" Roman Pope (not chosen or seating elsewhere) represented an obstacle to aformentioned benefits and influence over Papacy.
I actually wrote a whole post on that once planning to make a thread about it but never got around to posting it, maybe I'll do that.
The short version is that the evidence for the ability to exploit Alunite at that time is thin, and depending on your outlook may border on ASB, but because of the lack of information I can't completely discount it as impossible. But you'd need a rather unusual confluence of circumstances.
As for political plausibility, Tolfa is probably outside the Commune's capability to take. But even if it wasn't, Civitavecchia is under heavy Pisan influence. They are going to be the ones who gain control of trade - and if they don't, Genoa will step in. 12th century Pisa is at nearly the height of its power, and Rome has no fleet. Even if Rome somehow manages to control the source, they are going to end up like Byzantium, with a parasitic foreign power controlling the trade of their resources. The best they can do is try to play the Genoese and Pisans off each other and hope to get better contracts in the process.
"Fanaticism" was the wrong word. I suppose what I meant was that "Arnoldism" was not really a new religious movement, later references to "Arnoldists" notwithstanding; the people who followed Arnold never ceased to be essentially standard Catholics, and nobody in the Roman Commune seemed to have developed a separate religious identity. They were always Romans first, and were in fact ready to give up Arnold to the Pope the very moment they thought the Pope was going to separate them from God's grace (and pilgrims' money).
I think you're confusing "Romanism" with "Arnoldism" too much. Arnold, in his career prior to Rome, was not a Romanist; his ideas got caught up with revanchist Romanism in the Commune but his core ideas were all about purifying the church and had nothing to do with the source of imperial power. If Arnold is separated from Rome I highly doubt he's going to be preaching about the Senate making an emperor, he's going to be preaching about monks with property and bishops with multiple benefices. He's a highly educated scholar whose overriding passion is the sin of the Church, not imperial theory.
Also recall that Arnold had enjoyed the protection of imperial magnates before. In Germany, the Prefect of Zurich Ulrich von Lenzburg sheltered him and was thought to be sympathetic to his teachings, perhaps because his theology bolstered the claims of von Lenzburg against some of his ecclesiastical neighbors with whom he struggled for power. Von Lenzburg was a Barbarossa loyalist who had been on crusade with him and was a permanent member of the imperial court, he's probably not going to be keeping around a guy who is a danger to imperial authority. That tells us at the very least that Arnold, pre-Rome, posed no challenge to imperial legitimacy.
Certainly the Commune can't get what it wants; their delusions were too great. But as leverage against the Pope, the Commune has at least temporary value, and even if it's confined to the Papal States, Arnoldist doctrine might be deployed in the name of "purification" to pry away Church properties and establish more imperial control over the patrimonium.
The key is to separate those two things, the Commune and Arnoldism, and to refine them for their imperial utility. The Commune, in its original incarnation, is too radical and presumptuous, but the existence of an autonomous Rome of some kind is a useful tool. As you say, the nobles (barring defectors like Giordano Pierleoni) were too dependent on the Pope to be interested, but if imperial power dominates and supplants the Pope as a source of benefits and authority, their tune might change. (Whether imperial domination in central Italy is even possible is another question altogether.) One possibility is that, with imperial support, a nobleman sets himself up with hegemonic power like Alberic II had in his "Roman Principality" of the 10th century, though this is much harder to accomplish in the Saeculum Obscurum than in 12th century Rome.
In the same way, "original" Arnoldism is too extreme - Barbarossa doesn't want to start a war with his own bishops, and if Arnoldism really does have a Donatist tinge, that's got to go too. But the essential argument that the church should shed its temporal power and abandon its excess land and wealth is one that Barbarossa no doubt would approve of. It simultaneously allows him to claim the regalia in Italy that's been "usurped" by the bishops, reduce the independent power of the papacy, and portray himself as a purifier of Christianity. This is the age of the Gospel of the Mark of Silver, after all; it's not just Arnold who sees how venal and corrupt the Curia has become.
I agree : the region seems to have been a bit too remote at this point to allow an earlier discovery. Still, it would be more interesting than seeing Rome gaining the upper hand on Central Italian wool to me, even if it's inherently unlikely to happen.
I was less thinking, eventually, about a direct political control (even if it was an option I was thinking about. Apparently it's not a viable one) than seeing Rome beneficing from this relatively close production, with a more important commercial role (on which it would be essentially producer/transmitter, and probably as you said, dominated by someone else).
Not exactly Peru there, but could have been more interesting than other options.
I'm not sure it was wholly different for Lengadocian cities, to be really honest : what played there were familial and political solidarities, granted*
Interestingly, a part of Catharism particularities or even identities is a creation of Cistersian and Catholic missions and descriptions, that needed a clearly distinct and coherent heresy to fight.
* Mostly explained, IMO, by the fact Catharism was essentially a knighthood (more poor, numerous and politically "weak" on one hand, and more banded together on the other, in southern France than in Western Europe as a whole) and urban elite heresy. (Middle Class, when heterodoxials or paradoxials were more touched by Valdenism).
It doesn't prevent the existance of a civic patriotism, highlited during the Crusade in Carcassonne or after in Albi.
I don't want to digress, so I'll get to the point : similarly to southern French cities (that were, at various degree from quasi-independent consulates with contado as Toulouse, to stillborn consulates as Albi), a Romanism that would come from Roman upper classes rather than appealing to them in a first time, then seeing them being more cautious in a second, could help a lot.
But maybe I'm copy/pasting a situation that I'm more familiar with on Rome.
I agree, but that would be another PoD, rather than just making him living longer. While Roman patriotism was distinct from Arnoldism, they became more mixed as time went (or rather, a radical, popular Roman patriotism).
After all what interested the emperor was that he had not only an anti-pontifical (politically speaking) entity, but as well one that proposed an alternative to imperial legitimacy while (at first) still referring to him.
Eventually, I think Arnold gave to the Commune a coherence that it might not have IATL, or at least not one as relevant, assuming nobody fills the place anyway. (As you said, Roman political uprising attracted, with the political vaacum, theorists and/or tribunes whom "radical" Romanism is the common point and are doom to fail).
True. That's said it's how it get develloped and "absorbated" by Romanism that's more at the center of things.
I'm not sure : without clear political coherence from Roman upper classes, the Commune is bound, IMO, to get more radical with the obvious inneficiency of "moderate" claims. For Arnold to keep as much influence, fuite en avant seems quite logical.
Eventually, the key ITTL may be seeing Roman upper classes develloping a political/religious...I wouldn't say "identity" but concepts of its own on which Arnoldism could be tied rather than a ever more radicalized Commune.
I don't think there was a tradition of parage in Italy (outside Norman Italy), so collegial/parage-like lordship is most probably to forget...
So, I'd see only a "foreign" noble able to pull this (being called as some nobiliar/imperial equivalent of a podestat) but Romanism isn't going to appreciate much and giving the state of desintegration in Central Italy, I don't see how could have pulled this. Maybe a noble (a Italo-Norman?) pushed by Pisa or Genoa? It wouldn't last too much, IMO
The Curia was always like this, at least since Ostrogothic control of Papacy. With the growing monetarisation of society and growing position of the pontiff (after Ottonian and Gregorian Reforms) it's just showing more.
Eventually, it's less corruption and venality, at least for me, than an institution deeply rooted into political matters (Romans didn't complained much during Tusculani Papacy, they did when the Pope get a more "international" role).
Last edited:
GdwnsnHo
Banned
Regarding trading from Rome (assuming perhaps the alumite deposits, or other resources being discovered/captured in some plausible way)
Perhaps since we're only a decade after the fall of Amalfi to the Pisans, some of the traders from Amalfi may well get involved in trade near Rome - a bit of extra hands, knowledge and contacts could go a long way in giving Rome an edge in playing Pisa and Genoa off of one another, until they can supplant them.
What other powers of the time were against these two republics in the western med? I am aware Aragon and Genoa didn't get along near this point in time, but I'm unaware of if they had issues already. If they could play Pisa of off Genoa, whilst using the threat of an external naval power interfering, then they could certainly gain an advantage.
(Even better would be the rather drastic measure of Pisa somehow falling into the possession of the Commune, but that may be getting ahead of ourselves).
Perhaps since we're only a decade after the fall of Amalfi to the Pisans, some of the traders from Amalfi may well get involved in trade near Rome - a bit of extra hands, knowledge and contacts could go a long way in giving Rome an edge in playing Pisa and Genoa off of one another, until they can supplant them.
What other powers of the time were against these two republics in the western med? I am aware Aragon and Genoa didn't get along near this point in time, but I'm unaware of if they had issues already. If they could play Pisa of off Genoa, whilst using the threat of an external naval power interfering, then they could certainly gain an advantage.
(Even better would be the rather drastic measure of Pisa somehow falling into the possession of the Commune, but that may be getting ahead of ourselves).