AHC: Biggest Papal state

with a POD after the catholic/orthodox schism (1054), what are the largest sustained size the Papal State can become?
 
Effective suzerainty over the Kingdom of Sicily would be pushing.

The Pope just doesn't have the resources for "sustained size" of any significance - even temporary significance would mean pouring considerable effort into it at the expense of other things.
 
The Papacy was at its largest expanse in Italy following the Donation by Pepin.

Holding those lands is a different matter however.
 
The Papacy was at its largest expanse in Italy following the Donation by Pepin.

Holding those lands is a different matter however.

That's basically the entire historical extent (barring the Napoleonic era) up until the conquest of the Papal Legations by Sardinia in the 1860s.

Now, the best way is probably to get a pious ruler with no immediate heirs to donate their lands to the Pope, they'll preferably be weak, and close enough to existing lands that the claim can be enforced quickly.

You're probably looking at something like Modena or the brief attempts to enforce Papal control over Siena in the early 1500s being succesful.
 
This is ASB as hell, but a Europe united under the rule of the pope was something I've always thought would be interesting.
 
This is ASB as hell, but a Europe united under the rule of the pope was something I've always thought would be interesting.


Its conceivable--not likely, but conceivable--that the Holy Roman Empire keeps going and gets bigger.

Its also conceivable--though not likely--that as part of the sort out of the conflict between the Pope and the Emperor the Pope becomes the nominal ruler of the Empire, or else the office of Emperor and of Pope become combined. (I don't think its possible that the Pope end up running the HRE).
 
That's basically the entire historical extent (barring the Napoleonic era) up until the conquest of the Papal Legations by Sardinia in the 1860s.

Now, the best way is probably to get a pious ruler with no immediate heirs to donate their lands to the Pope, they'll preferably be weak, and close enough to existing lands that the claim can be enforced quickly.

You're probably looking at something like Modena or the brief attempts to enforce Papal control over Siena in the early 1500s being succesful.

Is it possible for the "states" to be turned into Bishoprics of some kind, the leaders elected by the local clergy, but, for lack of a better term, swear fealty to the Papacy?
 
This is ASB as hell, but a Europe united under the rule of the pope was something I've always thought would be interesting.

It's not ASB. There's a very small window for it to happen, and it would require an immense amount of luck, judgement and forethought, but during the Middle Ages the Papacy publicly acknowledged themselves to be the overlords of Europe and sought to make the Kings of Europe recognise them as their temporal rulers as well as spiritual. Course, most of the time the rest of Europe just laughed off this claim, but there was one time where one HREmperor (I think it was Otto II, but I'm not sure?) was forced to publicly walk bare-foot into Rome (a sign of shame and penance) to seek the Pope's forgiveness, and at the time, the Pope took the opportunity to force the HREmperor to swear homage and recognise the Pope as the legal lord of the HRE. It went to pot and was forgotten about within a decade or so, but if events had fallen into place it could have been the domino which started off the Pope actually having the influence and power to force the rest of Christendom to actually come to Rome to pay homage in order to receive their crowns.

The chances are incredibly slim, though.


Is it possible for the "states" to be turned into Bishoprics of some kind, the leaders elected by the local clergy, but, for lack of a better term, swear fealty to the Papacy?

The swearing fealty to the Pope? Yes. John (he of Robin Hood fame) swore fealty to the Pope as a legalistic "get out of jail card" move when rebels were attempting to overthrow him, but then promptly ignored that he had ever done it as soon as England was stabilised again. And as above, one HREmperor was forced to swear fealty in order to get his crown back.

Turning the rulers into the puppets of bishops? I can't see it. More rather, in this scenario, the Kings would set themselves up as the Pope's enforcers, and the fact that they had an army each would be enough to keep the bishops from dominating them.
 
If Pope Alexander VI can hold power for a while longer, the Papacy might come to control Tuscany (expedition for conquest was underway at time of Alexander VI's death) and the Two Sicilies by 1505. Bologna would still be taken in short order as in OTL and leave the Papacy in charge of most of Italy south of the Po River. Cesare Borgia was apparently quite the tactician and statesmen (oddly enough he looks like a masculine version of the Mona Lisa), and with Da Vinci under Papal/Borgia employment who knows what sorts of military innovations they might come up with.

Although I doubt they could unite Italy in the face of Venice, Milan, and Genoa likely acting together agains them, it might be interesting to see what would happen if the Papacy had managed to hold all of it for a generation or two. It might even spark Italian nationalism earlier than planned though I do not know how far that might go.
 
Although I doubt they could unite Italy in the face of Venice, Milan, and Genoa likely acting together agains them, it might be interesting to see what would happen if the Papacy had managed to hold all of it for a generation or two. It might even spark Italian nationalism earlier than planned though I do not know how far that might go.

Venice, Milan, Genoa, France, who else doesn't want them taking large chunks of Italy?
 
Depending on how you define the Papal State, a successfully formed Italian League under the Pope's suzerainty might count.
 
It's not ASB. There's a very small window for it to happen, and it would require an immense amount of luck, judgement and forethought, but during the Middle Ages the Papacy publicly acknowledged themselves to be the overlords of Europe and sought to make the Kings of Europe recognise them as their temporal rulers as well as spiritual. Course, most of the time the rest of Europe just laughed off this claim, but there was one time where one HREmperor (I think it was Otto II, but I'm not sure?) was forced to publicly walk bare-foot into Rome (a sign of shame and penance) to seek the Pope's forgiveness, and at the time, the Pope took the opportunity to force the HREmperor to swear homage and recognise the Pope as the legal lord of the HRE. It went to pot and was forgotten about within a decade or so, but if events had fallen into place it could have been the domino which started off the Pope actually having the influence and power to force the rest of Christendom to actually come to Rome to pay homage in order to receive their crowns.

The chances are incredibly slim, though.

Its conceivable--not likely, but conceivable--that the Holy Roman Empire keeps going and gets bigger.

Its also conceivable--though not likely--that as part of the sort out of the conflict between the Pope and the Emperor the Pope becomes the nominal ruler of the Empire, or else the office of Emperor and of Pope become combined. (I don't think its possible that the Pope end up running the HRE).

This could make a cool TL
 

Is it possible for the "states" to be turned into Bishoprics of some kind, the leaders elected by the local clergy, but, for lack of a better term, swear fealty to the Papacy?

Nah, even in the Papal States the area beyond Lazio was basically run as a series of republican fiefs under the suzerainity of the Pope.

Tuscany really does seem the best bet.
 
Top