AHC: Have the most medieval communes possible
The Commune of Thessalonica is worth looking into. They had a rebellion against the aristocracy and a faction called the Zealots took over. They resisted imperial authority for years and played a major role in the Byzantine civil wars in the 14th century. Had they succeeded, it might have renewed Byzantine society. Sadly they failed.
Yeah they are pretty fascinating, if a little mysterious. The Wiki article about the Zealots of Thessalonica has some great material.
"... They roused up the people against the aristocracy, and for two or three days, Thessalonica was like a city under enemy occupation and suffered all the corresponding disasters. The victors went shouting and looting through the streets by day and by night, while the vanquished hid in churches and counted themselves lucky to be still alive. When order returned, the Zealots, suddenly raised from penury and dishonour to wealth and influence, took control of everything and won over the moderate citizens, forcing them to acquiesce and characterizing every form of moderation and prudence as "Kantakouzenism"."
John Kantakouzenos, History
Medieval municipal movements weren't limited to Germany and Italy, and were significantly present in France (communes on the north, consulates on the South) for instance. The difference being that, due to reinforcement of unified royal power in France, it never reallt went very far past the XIVth century except in Flanders.
But the XIIth century was really their golden age in southern France, where cities such as Toulouse or Montpellier were virtually acting as independent municipalities, (in the case of Toulouse, we're talking more of a dual power, on which capitols had the upper hand to the point warring against neighboring towns to enforce free-exchange treaties), and were as widespread and powerful than their Italian models.
It's a bit hard to preserve them as such on the long run, because their existence and prosperity owes a lot to the relative political structural weakness of southern French feudal polities since the Xth, which is a reason why they were taken over relatively easily IOTL. Would you manage to prevent the worst of the Great Southern War AND Plantagenet's ambitions in the region (which was what originally brang Capetians in the regions, as allies of Raimondins), you could end up with long-lasting consulates as municipal polities (rather than municipal autnomies as they lived and declined afterward).
Northern French communes are a bit harder to maintain, because at the contrary of their southern counterparts which were essentially based on urban nobility and upper middle-classes, they were often more concerning the latter : many managed to enforce their program but it was more violent and often trough royal support against his vassals (which turned short once said vassals were replaced by royal agents). Still, you could have similar situation than in Flanders (say in Normandy and Champagne) in the case of a weaker French royal authority.
All this makes me wonder whether World War I and II could have been avoided if France and Germany had remained a patchwork of tiny city states and principalities...
For Italy, avoiding the Norman conquest might give a lease on life to the minor principalties in Southern Italy and, apart from Amalfi, some others could develop as something similar to the northern Comuni. Probably it necessitates nominal Papal overlordship, as otherwise places like Puglia are ripe for Byzantine re-conquest.
After the Vespers revolt, Siciliancities tried to assert a large degree of autonomy, but then the Kingdom of Trinacria evolved differently because of the need for Aragonese military support and dinastic legitimacy.
Ah and Zara could have survived far longer as an independent entity without the IV crusade.
EDIT: But could a system of free cities have developed in the British islands? Possibly without Norman conquest, through Flemish influence? Doesn't sound very likely, but I'd love to hear some ideas on this.
After the Vespers revolt, Siciliancities tried to assert a large degree of autonomy, but then the Kingdom of Trinacria evolved differently because of the need for Aragonese military support and dinastic legitimacy.
Ah and Zara could have survived far longer as an independent entity without the IV crusade.
EDIT: But could a system of free cities have developed in the British islands? Possibly without Norman conquest, through Flemish influence? Doesn't sound very likely, but I'd love to hear some ideas on this.
It would be interesting to see Europe as a series of Switzerlands and Netherlands. Medium sized states of consensual rule between municipal oligarchies/bourgeois democracies, where every national law has to be approved by each municipality. I want to say it wouldn't work, but the Dutch did very well for a long time under the Estates. Possibly there's more small wars and fewer large ones ala the Italian Wars?
I think OTL's Solothorn was a very medieval commune. Maybe not the most medieval commune possible, but definitely up there.
Almost every recognisable shred of European and world history would have been avoided if that were the case!
Also, wars everywhere, every other moon. Medieval municipal autonomies/polities (or, really, mostly Ancient or Renaissances) weren't that known for their pacifism.
Max Sinister
Banned
Charlemagne's empire survives, maybe even expands, the emperors give the communes freedom like they did to the Reichsstädte in the HRE, and you got it.
The problem with most medieval communes is that it requires a strong democratic rule for them to exist. In medieval times, many kings had basically the equivalent of absolute power or divine right of kings. Any commune great enough to be popular and large-enough scale would be seen as a threat by rulers of that time. This is because kings thought they have absolute power, and anything that is a threat to their regime would be suppressed with retaliation such as accusations of treason, sedition and rebellion, open warfare and heavy punisment.
Not really. At least for what concerns absolute kingly power. That was a pretty radical idea, considering that, on one hand, feudalism includes a large set of obligations also by the liege to his vassals and on the other hand, the presence of the Church as an alternate and in fact higher ranked aithority according to dominant ideology made it difficult for kings to just rule according to the "quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem" principle. There is a reason why absolutism devloped in earnst after the decline of Empire and Church as (theoretically) universal institutions.
Interestingly, someone like Frederick II, who tried ruling as an absolute monarch and applying the methods you describe (in his Italian hokdings at least), got excommunicated multiple times and had to fight for his whole life against the Italian comuni, dying without managing to completely suppress them. He did manage to suppress city autonomies in the Kingdom of Sicily, but those had always been weaker and arguably this costed his successor Manfred his ctown and life when the barons and cities of Campania (where there were some proto-comuni like Napoli, Gaeta etc.) actively undermined his defense system in the campaign against Charles d'Anjou.
More in general, of course Kings had authority over cities and true city-states only developed in areas far from central control like Northern Italy or Southern France, but such power was always very precisely codified in sets of kingly (or imperial) privileges and urban freedoms and rights, it never was arbitrary.
Most, to not say all, medieval autonomies were patrician oligarchies with a more or less important mix of urban/court nobility and upper-middle classes. I can't think of one successful commune/consulate/capitolate/reich city that was democratic.
That's a blatant anachronism : the divine right you mention didn't really appeared before the XVIIth century, mostly as a reaction against nobiliar or gentry movements and as a justification against traditional elites power-mongering. It never really entierely got rooted down in western societies in spite of the huge ideological effort.
Medieval kingship was far from being understood as such, let alone acting as an absolute power : the royal abritrary power was importantly limited by the customs of power (notably the necessity to undergo trough informal or formal councils) and the power of their own nobiity (hence why kings and emperors generally favored municipal autonomies when they could because it undermined powerful vassals while giving them their prestige.
Heck, kings didn't even tought having absolute power : even ambitious and ruthless rulers as Philippe IV never really went against this conciliary tradition, and actually created the tools to create bureaucrarized and lay ones. I don't really have an exemple of a municipal autonomy being crushed because it existed : at best, we'retalking the imperial war against Lombards cities which was more driven by the struggles against Papacy, generally municipal autonomies either stagnated on their own until being freezed by foreign powers (cf. Italy) or underwent a long decline due to the slow reinforcement of royal or sub-imperial state by the XIIIth century.