Interesting series of updates, but I want to know the status of the Bishopric of Trent after the conflict: it is or not under jurisdiction of Venice after the Imperial defeat? Its fate its unclear, besides we could assume instead to attack from the Adige valley it passed through the Dolomites, so bypassing Trent...
I was also curious about the B. of Trent but it seems I was writing too Veneto-centric, forgetting to mention the small states around the conflict. Partly because I'm not really sure how things would play out for them, I'm still confused about how the Empire really worked.
The B. of Trent is now nearly 85% surrounded by Venetian territory, the only exit to anything non-Venetian is located in its far northwest. The nearest major Imperial city being Innsbruck to the north. I don't believe this would make it fall under Venetian jurisdiction (if you can tell me otherwise however, please do), especially since no Venetian troops invaded it. But surely I assume this would put Trent in a sphere of Venice's control. If not immediately then surely as time goes on.
Again, I'm not sure exactly its relation with the Empire so I hope my answer is sufficient/makes sense. Help here appreciated.
Port Said and Ismailia were both named after the Khedives who were involved in the building of OTL Sues-canal - Ismail Pasha and Muhammad Said. So TTL those towns (if they exist) will have different names - probably names of persons involved in building the canal.
Ah I understand. ITTL I don't see those 2 cities being around, seeing as the Ptolmeic Channel follows quite a different route, but I have given thought to renaming the cities of Hermopolis, Kibrit, and maybe Serapeum as they contribute to or having a major role in the construction of the canal.
My two cents on this: Venice lost out on two avenues in trade: competition and government interference.
Due to the lack of an agricultural hinterland, Venice has traditionally gained most of its revenues from tariffs: which by the 17th century was standing around 50% of all trade. The money went to various government expenses, the worst of which were the quality committees: which oversaw and over-regulated industry under the emphasis of "prevailing through higher quality". (which in practice meant ignoring the competition's products meant for both the mass and luxury markets and focus on just the luxury market) High taxes, an overbearing government combined with a high wages from high standard of living made Venice noncompetitive compared to imitators such as French silk or German porcelain of whom were subsidized by their respective governments.
Also it was shown that the route around Africa was a minor role in the decline of Venice, according to Professor Javier Cuenca of Waterloo university the Portugese merchants did not compete with the core manufactures in Venice (silk, glass, furniture, and sugar refining) and that profits quickly reached saturation due to the relative compact and high value nature of spice.
Good point about the agricultural lands. Even ITTL Venice is feeling that pinch, which played a major factor in its taking of the land from Otranto to Brindisi, located in Italy's breadbasket of Apulia.
Yes, Venice's economy was highly focused on the collection of tariffs. While I'm still looking for a way to maybe diversify the economy, the major detriment I have seen is, as you have stated, the completely overbearing government and needless agencies being a huge financial drain, and tendency to cater solely towards the luxury aspect of the manufacturing spectrum. These are complicated issues for the republic to get around. Also as you've stated the nation is highly urbanized, with a high cost of living.
My stance is if the tariff revenue structure, at least in the next century, is quite fixed without much ability to reform itself, the needless costs incurred by these agencies will have to be eliminated. This will be a huge part going forward about a decade ITTL as Venice has to deal with presently unforeseeable issues. In regards to the luxury manufacturing situation, you'll have to keep reading to see what plays out!
Now that being said a suez Canal for Venice would have quite an effect, not in the direct trade income but in terms of what triangular trades Venice can get from this. (specifically industrial goods such as sugar, cotton, and so on...)
One must remember that many of the struggles Venice faces that have been brought up are current issues and ones that continued in OTL. The new canal will be the point where TTL's history changes drastically from OTL, and Venice (as well as several other Eropean powers) will eliminate some issues while taking on others. I can't comment on the triangular trade atm so as not to reveal too much.
Also Franciscus I'm just curious, how is the internal dynamics of Venice? I was always under the impression that the actual citizens within Venice enjoyed special status over the territories.
At the moment citizens of the Venetian Stato da Mar and Domini de Terraferma enjoy similar, if not equal rights and privileges as those inhabiting Venice proper. Areas such as the Ionians currently under Venetian control share a strong sense of Venetian identity. This Venice is more progressive, as is seen with its acceptance of nearly 20,000 Iberian Jews in 1492. Freedom of mobility is quite prominent. There will be more of a mention to the lives of Venetians in the republic shortly.
