AHC: Italy becomes Major Power by 1900

With a POD in the Renaissance era, make Italy a major power by 1900.
Major power means,
1. Extensive modernisation and urbanisation of society
2. Lesser North-south divide
3. Libya, Chad, Ethiopia and Somalia as a colony
4. Steel production competing with that of Japan
That is all.
 
Steel is complicated. Neither iron ore or coal are plentiful in Italy.
However, starting from Renaissance there's plenty of possibilities.
 

Deleted member 67076

I forgot if the Visconti unification of Northern Italy was entirely plausible, but I suppose if they don't attack Florence and expend themselves there they can hold those lands, which will give them a huge advantage in size over most of northern Italy. Then over a period of several decades perhaps, they can one by one take over the rest of the Italian states.

If you have them unify by 1500, then that's probably a major power right there. Very wealthy, very modern, rather large, high levels of urbanization and education (for the time) which would only increase as the realms are linked together through infrastructure.

From there it wouldn't be too hard to expand into a colonial empire. Although you've likely butterflied away any reason for taking Chad or Ethiopia. Egypt, Libya and Tunis are going to be much higher priority targets. (Assuming they can take the former 2 from the Ottomans)

Steel is complicated. Neither iron ore or coal are plentiful in Italy.

However, starting from Renaissance there's plenty of possibilities.
Nor are they in Japan.
 
I forgot if the Visconti unification of Northern Italy was entirely plausible, but I suppose if they don't attack Florence and expend themselves there they can hold those lands, which will give them a huge advantage in size over most of northern Italy. Then over a period of several decades perhaps, they can one by one take over the rest of the Italian states.

If you have them unify by 1500, then that's probably a major power right there. Very wealthy, very modern, rather large, high levels of urbanization and education (for the time) which would only increase as the realms are linked together through infrastructure.

From there it wouldn't be too hard to expand into a colonial empire. Although you've likely butterflied away any reason for taking Chad or Ethiopia. Egypt, Libya and Tunis are going to be much higher priority targets. (Assuming they can take the former 2 from the Ottomans)


Nor are they in Japan.

If Italy managed to take control of Egypt, they'd be very well-placed to exploit trade in the Far East, especially if they managed to build an early Suez Canal...

That said, I'm not sure how plausible such a conquest would be before the 18th century or so, since Europe in the Renaissance didn't have the same military edge over other civilisations. Also, colonisation in the Atlantic would be difficult without controlling at least one half of the Straits of Gibraltar, as otherwise Spain could essentially cut Italian communications with their colonies at will.
 
With a POD in the Renaissance era, make Italy a major power by 1900.
Major power means,
1. Extensive modernisation and urbanisation of society
2. Lesser North-south divide
3. Libya, Chad, Ethiopia and Somalia as a colony
4. Steel production competing with that of Japan
That is all.

Italy was a major power by 1900. Do you mean a first rate Great Power? Because a P.O.D. for an Italian Unification at any point before 1900 is going to be a Great Power. A second tier one, but one none the less.
 
Nor are they in Japan.

True.
And Japan's attempt at becoming a major power in her own right (as opposed to be an important power more or less in someone else's orbit) didn't end that well.
In a sense, I'd guess this could help explaining how Japan and Italy were on the same side in WWII, both as revisionist powers even if they were among the victors in the first round. However, I understand that there are very important differences (and that Japan's perfomance was militarily way more impressive than Italy's).
 
Italy was a major power by 1900. Do you mean a first rate Great Power? Because a P.O.D. for an Italian Unification at any point before 1900 is going to be a Great Power. A second tier one, but one none the less.

Sure, I believe that to be a semantic difference since I bulletpointed what I believe to be the requirements.
 
Sure, I believe that to be a semantic difference since I bulletpointed what I believe to be the requirements.

Sorry. Some people forget, so I felt the need to say it.

1) It really depends. An Italy that unifies during the Renaissance has ample time to modernize. But who would unify it and when would it happen? Northern Italy was industrialized by the 1900's OTL, with a high literacy rate and standard of living. Southern Italy, on the other hand was mostly agrarian and with a low literacy rate. It was bringing down the rest of the country. So for a completely industrialized and powerful Italy, fixing the North-South divide is key.

2) I wrote that paragraph above before reading 2. Same as the 1st answer.

3) The reason Italy went for Somalia and Ethiopia OTL was because African and Asian territory in it's sphere were already taken by the French and the British. An earlier Italian unification would probably mean that the Italians would start by taking over land in it's own area, the Mediterranean. Although they'd probably have to wait until the 1700's when Spain and the Ottoman Empire are in decline.

4) Competing with that of Japan, when? Because in 1900, OTL Italy was producing more steel than Japan. Japan had only recently modernized and joined the ranks of the Great Powers around the turn of the century, and while it was set on the path and had the population to surpass Italy and France for that matter, it still took a while.
 
I forgot if the Visconti unification of Northern Italy was entirely plausible
I'd say it's possible to have the grounds for by 1500, but would be a financial drain (it already was such IOTL) critically in face of Aragonese, French and Habsburg pressure.

If they manage to dodge this bullet (and it probably means no Visconti Naples in a forseeable future), the decline of European presence in Mediterranean trade would be another issues once coupled with the American market. I could see Milan attempting to have its share on Brazil or Guyana for sugar cane plantations, but not at the same scale than Atlantic powers.
 
Not to mention that AFAIK bankers from non-Visconti Italian states were very much willing to co-finance any French, Aragonese and/or Habsburg campaign against the Visconti.
 
I'd say it's possible to have the grounds for by 1500, but would be a financial drain (it already was such IOTL) critically in face of Aragonese, French and Habsburg pressure.

If they manage to dodge this bullet (and it probably means no Visconti Naples in a forseeable future), the decline of European presence in Mediterranean trade would be another issues once coupled with the American market. I could see Milan attempting to have its share on Brazil or Guyana for sugar cane plantations, but not at the same scale than Atlantic powers.

The Visconti attempt to set up the strongest state in Italy [IMHO we should all be in agreement that it does not make a lot of sense to speak about "Italian unification" so early] was played between 1350 and 1402.
When Gian Galeazzo Visconti suddenly died in late 1402, his domains stretched from Lombardy to Piedmont, from Veneto to Emilia, Romagna, from Tuscany to Umbria and upper Abruzzi. Bologna had surrendered two months earlier, Florence - the last great enemy - was besieged by Visconti troops and was negotiating her submission. GG is enjoying a great window of opportunity: the Great Western Schism is in full blow, with a pope in Avignon and one in Rome, the HRE is in a very parlous state and needs money more than anything else (unsurprisingly GG has been able to purchase the title of Duke of Milan (and later those of count of Pavia and duke of Lombardy notwithstanding the large sums invested by Florentine bankers to oppose him at the imperial court, and the only time the emperor deicided to try and move into Italy he got a bloody nose near Trento). The relations with the king of France are good enough (obviously neither the king nor the duke have a lot of confidence in the other one, but still...) and Aragon's horizon is mostly concentrated in keeping hold of Naples and Sicily rather than looking into adventures in central or northern Italy. Things will become even better around 1410, when there will be a nice succession crisis in Aragon and France will get involved in the last installment of the 100 years war.
Of the remaining Italian states, Venice is reasonably friendly (and anyway not too strongly interested in what happens on the Italian mainland) while Genoa is (at least for the time being) under the French crown (and still smarting from the disaster of the war of Chioggia). Once Florence gives up, no one else can credibly oppose GG.

If GG survives whatever happened him IOTL (plague? malaria? poison?) his prospects look nice enough.
While setting up a strong and centralized state will not be too easy, he can certainly give it a try (he's just 50 and can look forward to another 15+ years of rule, has already started a major revision of the fiscal administration and can have a hands-on approach in the grooming of his heirs.
Problems that GG has to overcome include avoiding the traditional partition of the state among all the heirs and recognizing that Venice is better as a willing ally rather than a conquered vassal.


Not to mention that AFAIK bankers from non-Visconti Italian states were very much willing to co-finance any French, Aragonese and/or Habsburg campaign against the Visconti.

Once Florence has fallen to Gian Galeazzo, there are no other "Italian bankers" willing to stake up the king of France or the emperor: at the beginning of the 15th century Genoese finances are quite depleted, Siena and Pisa are Visconti domains and Venice should have no pressing interest in subsidizing the HRE assuming that GG is smart enough to be friendly to the Serenissima.
 
The Visconti attempt to set up the strongest state in Italy [IMHO we should all be in agreement that it does not make a lot of sense to speak about "Italian unification" so early] was played between 1350 and 1402.

My bad. For some reason I put it one century later. Should have checked before.

Problems that GG has to overcome include avoiding the traditional partition of the state among all the heirs and recognizing that Venice is better as a willing ally rather than a conquered vassal.
Would it be possible to have an apanage-like system, where the divison happens to be still under the "royal" rule? It wouldn't be a guarantee of inner peace (critically after his death, giving the frustrations and delayed ambitions of both sons and former vaniquished elites), but it may help.

Once Florence has fallen to Gian Galeazzo, there are no other "Italian bankers" willing to stake up the king of France or the emperor
Roman bankers could be still an annoyance as the Pope was. Elsewhere, financial elites weren't only political elites or totally dependent of them, being more organised along factions. If cracks appear in the super duper-Milano, you could see many using them to finance (either by conviction, familial solidarity or only for business) anti-Milanese (ncluding sons with holdings or not, depending of their loyalties)
 
My bad. For some reason I put it one century later. Should have checked before.
NP

Would it be possible to have an apanage-like system, where the divison happens to be still under the "royal" rule? It wouldn't be a guarantee of inner peace (critically after his death, giving the frustrations and delayed ambitions of both sons and former vaniquished elites), but it may help.
I suppose it's the only way to go, unless one wants to set up an Ottoman-like system. I'm also convinced that in a couple of generations the "frustrations" of the younger sons would abate quite a lot. Frankly I never understood why the Visconti got stuck with this very old-style and awkward succession system. Salic law is bad enough of itself, but Salic law plus partitioning the feudal possessions is absurd.


Roman bankers could be still an annoyance as the Pope was. Elsewhere, financial elites weren't only political elites or totally dependent of them, being more organised along factions. If cracks appear in the super duper-Milano, you could see many using them to finance (either by conviction, familial solidarity or only for business) anti-Milanese (including sons with holdings or not, depending of their loyalties)

With a pope and an anti-pope (or more than one) there is always some room to maneuvre. Siena, Assisi and Spoleto are Visconti possessions, and close enough to Rome to keep a close oversight of what's happening in the city. Not to mention that there are the usual factions of the Roman aristocracy who can be played against each other. Which means that Roman bankers (who are not many nor exceptionally wealthy at this stage) should move pretty carefully.
I am not sure what would happen to the schism in a TL where there is a solid Visconti state controlling northern and central Italy: maybe the schism would end with a compromise same as IOTL; maybe it would go on and on. I could make a case where papacy would be abolished and national churches would be the norm. What I would be quite sure of is that a surviving GG would find plenty of opportunities to prosper and the final solution would be something he can well live with.
 
Frankly I never understood why the Visconti got stuck with this very old-style and awkward succession system. Salic law is bad enough of itself, but Salic law plus partitioning the feudal possessions is absurd.
Mostly for the same reasons than everyone : because it fit their world conceptions. Unlike what Paradox taught us about historical mentalities, you can't just switch from Male Primogeniture Law to Primogeniture Law because you feel like it.

For diverse reasons (whom not the least was tradition, quite an important concept then), successions change were more defined by events, crisis, etc, that forced to make choices that weren't obvious before (the absence of feminine transmission wasn't something in french succesion law before the problem existed).

With a pope and an anti-pope (or more than one) there is always some room to maneuvre.
Eventually it would be resorbated, sooner or later. With every intellectual or many political power at least agreeing that it had to be done (and many actually doing something on it), it was a given.

I am not sure what would happen to the schism in a TL where there is a solid Visconti state controlling northern and central Italy:
The most likely outcome is a huge attempt from Visconti to resorb the schism in order to seat their legitimacy as Italian rulers, and not only super-über Milano, that was always tied up with a "special relationship" (at least theorically) with papacy.

I could make a case where papacy would be abolished and national churches would be the norm.
Extremly unlikely, unless everyone just change mind and undergo huge cultural shift. Even "counciliarists" of the XVth century were really about papacy and its maintain.
 
Mostly for the same reasons than everyone : because it fit their world conceptions. Unlike what Paradox taught us about historical mentalities, you can't just switch from Male Primogeniture Law to Primogeniture Law because you feel like it.

For diverse reasons (whom not the least was tradition, quite an important concept then), successions change were more defined by events, crisis, etc, that forced to make choices that weren't obvious before (the absence of feminine transmission wasn't something in french succession law before the problem existed).

OTOH GG is the first Visconti with an imperial title (duke of Milan and Lombardy) to pass over to his heirs. His OTL will partitioned his possessions between his two legitimate sons (and his bastard son) in the traditional way but it would be quite possible that a few more years (and a more stable state) might change his mind.
Mind, I do agree that tradition and social inertia are quite difficult to overcome.


Eventually it would be resorbated, sooner or later. With every intellectual or many political power at least agreeing that it had to be done (and many actually doing something on it), it was a given.


The most likely outcome is a huge attempt from Visconti to resorb the schism in order to seat their legitimacy as Italian rulers, and not only super-über Milano, that was always tied up with a "special relationship" (at least theorically) with papacy.


Extremly unlikely, unless everyone just change mind and undergo huge cultural shift. Even "counciliarists" of the XVth century were really about papacy and its maintain.

The Great Western Schism lasted for 70 years. It does not look to me that it was such a huge problem for the political powers, much less for the common people. It might have gone on for another 70 years, and maybe after such a time the need for a pope might have been no more there.
This said, I do agree that GG will approach the question from the POV of a man of his times, and that any concept of separation between church and state would have been incomprehensible to him. OTOH his probably genuine desire to re-unite the western church under a single pope will certainly be moderated by political and diplomatic considerations: a single pope will be a good thing if there are practical benefits for the house of Visconti given that the same Visconti can quickly project power in Rome and Latium.

It's quite obvious that the abolition of the papacy is not yet a priority or a shared goal in Europe; OTOH the counciliarist movement is quite active between the late 14th and the early 15th centuries, and Wycliffe and Hus are preaching in these years too. The 15th century is a time of great changes.
 
Honestly, even at cost to contradict my past TL, not necessarily a strong Italy pre-1800 had to pass over a necessary reduction of the Papal power. Without the Catholic Church's approval or support, no minor Italian faction could achieve unity. Unity without Rome, eventually, but it will be a wank united Italy nevertheless in modern age.

And of course, French support is necessary in almost every unification scenery.
 
but it would be quite possible that a few more years (and a more stable state) might change his mind.
The stabilty of a late feudal state isn't really function of its transmission. GG would have to deal with the same issues than similar "border states", such as Burgundy later, meaning many distinct identities to deal with, trying to compromise between an idealized feudal mindset (even if I agree heartily that it wouldn't be at the same scale than Burgundy in its time)and dynastic necessities.

As I tried to point, I don't think having a succession crisis after his death would be a bad thing on the long run : it would force the apparition of a more "updated" and precise conception of political inheritency. At the cost maybe of part of GG's conquests, that said.

The Great Western Schism lasted for 70 years. It does not look to me that it was such a huge problem for the political powers, much less for the common people. It might have gone on for another 70 years, and maybe after such a time the need for a pope might have been no more there.
It lasted for 39 years. 1378-1417. You may have added the Avignon Papacy, that is a distinct feature.

If something, the number of unsuccessful attempts to resolve it, and the fact they still tried to make it during this period, should point out that yes, it was a thing.
As for the common people, in a time where religion was a really important identitary factor? Yes, it played quite well, especially in urban settings (due to the clerical, in the non-social meaning, presence).

It doesn't mean that heterodoxial practices doesn't emerge face to the crisis, but it was one more factor motivating secular powers to try resolve the crisis themselves (Heresies were often a destabilizing factors, and almost always attacking the power in place. For exemple Lollards attacked heavily the late feudal system, something that rulers couldn't really accept)

OTOH the counciliarist movement is quite active between the late 14th and the early 15th centuries, and Wycliffe and Hus are preaching in these years too. The 15th century is a time of great changes.
And again, Conciliarist movement never was about removing the pope or even limiting its powers. These councils were essentially representative of high clergy and nobility, whom legitimacy depended from pontifical hegemony and coudln't have touched to this without having a huge backfire.

Their main goal was being some sort of collaborating weight, critically when it came to everyday administration. They weren't that much different from the late feudal ideology that argued that the kings and princes should live from the revenues of their lands and not use taxes that were supposed to be exceptionnal.
Basically a tendency going against the formation of modern administrations and bureaucraties, praised by a body that wanted to be part of this bureaucracy.
 
The stabilty of a late feudal state isn't really function of its transmission. GG would have to deal with the same issues than similar "border states", such as Burgundy later, meaning many distinct identities to deal with, trying to compromise between an idealized feudal mindset (even if I agree heartily that it wouldn't be at the same scale than Burgundy in its time)and dynastic necessities.

As I tried to point, I don't think having a succession crisis after his death would be a bad thing on the long run : it would force the apparition of a more "updated" and precise conception of political inheritency. At the cost maybe of part of GG's conquests, that said.

The second imperial rescript of October 1396 (which extended the validity of the ducal title to all the Visconti possessions) specified that inheritance should follow the legitimate male primogeniture. The will of GG (written in 1401 and slightly amended in April 1402) called for the ducal title to be inherited by his elder son (Giovanni Maria) together with the bulk of the Visconti domains. The younger son (Filippo Maria) would get the count-ship of Pavia and the lordship of the easternmost and westernmost towns in Northern Italy (therefore lacking territorial contiguity). His bastard son Gabriele was awarded Crema and Pisa.
The sudden demise of GG and the minority of Giovanni Maria precipitated a major crisis which resulted in the loss of the possessions in Veneto and eastern Lombardy as well as the recently acquired towns in central Italy. However the heartlands of the duchy were kept together and this should be a tribute to the reorganizzation of the Visconti possessions carried out from 1390.
Furthermore GG had a very bad experience with shared leadership from the death of his father in 1378 to the elimination of his uncle Bernabo' in 1385. Matter of fact his difficulties did not end even then since the sons and daughters of his uncle (he had almost 30 of them, between legitimate and bastards) were married into a lot of major European houses (including the houses of Bavaria, Armagnac and Valois - Jean d'Armagnac and Stephen of Bavaria married daughters of Barnabo' and his grand-daughter Isabelle of Bavaria married the king of France) and went on making troubles for him. I'd like to believe that the lesson to be learnt from his own difficulties might be valuable to shape his domains and the inheritance procedures.


It lasted for 39 years. 1378-1417. You may have added the Avignon Papacy, that is a distinct feature.

If something, the number of unsuccessful attempts to resolve it, and the fact they still tried to make it during this period, should point out that yes, it was a thing.
As for the common people, in a time where religion was a really important identitary factor? Yes, it played quite well, especially in urban settings (due to the clerical, in the non-social meaning, presence).

It doesn't mean that heterodoxial practices doesn't emerge face to the crisis, but it was one more factor motivating secular powers to try resolve the crisis themselves (Heresies were often a destabilizing factors, and almost always attacking the power in place. For exemple Lollards attacked heavily the late feudal system, something that rulers couldn't really accept)


And again, Conciliarist movement never was about removing the pope or even limiting its powers. These councils were essentially representative of high clergy and nobility, whom legitimacy depended from pontifical hegemony and coudln't have touched to this without having a huge backfire.

Their main goal was being some sort of collaborating weight, critically when it came to everyday administration. They weren't that much different from the late feudal ideology that argued that the kings and princes should live from the revenues of their lands and not use taxes that were supposed to be exceptionnal.
Basically a tendency going against the formation of modern administrations and bureaucraties, praised by a body that wanted to be part of this bureaucracy.

Matter of fact I exchanged the duration of the Avignon papacy for the duration of the Western Schism, my bad.
Still putting together both periods there is quite a long hiatus with the pope not in Rome or the presence of both a pope and an anti-pope: this may have weakened the papacy as an institution same as the princely way of living adopted by the papal court in Avignon and the increasing need for money which resulted in sales of indulgences and offices.

This said, GG was certainly a practical soul and never took a decisive position in the dispute between Rome and Avignon, preferring to keep his hands free and negotiating with both claimants.
While it may look like GG had a predilection for the French alliance (and therefore for the Avignonese claimant) his main goal was securing an imperial title and a recognition of his acquisitions in Northern Italy.
I suppose his ultimate strategy was to re-absorb the schism and get a papal appointment to administer the towns in Umbria, Marche and Romagna against an annuity to be paid to the pope. It would have been the best of possible worlds for him.
 
Top