AHC/WI: Replace Venice and Genoa with their rival maritime republics

Which alternative republics have the best potential?

  • Pisa

    Votes: 52 67.5%
  • Amalfi

    Votes: 23 29.9%
  • Ragusa

    Votes: 38 49.4%
  • Ancona

    Votes: 9 11.7%
  • Gaeta

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Noli

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Total voters
    77
1- it depends on the manner of the victory and it's follow up, but I suppose it is reasonable that there might be a TL where the Genoese fleet gets almost destroyed and the Pisans manage to devastate Genoa's port and it's naval supplies. That said it seems to me that Genoa had better naval manpower reserves and a slightly more stable leadership (see the infamous Count Ugolino which had a very ambiguous role in Pisa's leadership).

That would certainly set Genoa at a huge disadvantage in the short term, and make Pisa the western Mediterranean port of choice. Perhaps Pisa could match Genoese manpower reserves if they an absorb (as others have said) Lucca or Siena or even Florence (i.e. include more of Tuscany)?

2- I think Pisa would have wanted hegemony over Corsica and Sardinia and there would be long negotiations about the fate of the prisoners.

According to this video (
), it seems that one of the terms of peace after Meloria was the cession of Corsica from Pisa to Genoa, though Pisa maintained its influence in eastern Sardinia even after the war. I think we can reasonably conclude that a Pisan victory over Genoa would have resulted in Genoa's expulsion from Sardinia in favour of Pisa, and the retention of Corsica by Pisa. I doubt the Pisans would have much interest in the Black Sea colonies, unless someone wishes to correct me?

3- they would have clearly been quite stronger in their confrontations with Venice and could maybe have carved an Andrea of influence on the near East.

Did the Venetians and Pisans ever actually come to blows in the way Genoa and Venice did? My understanding was that Venice and Pisa were able to negotiate their spheres of influence in the Mediterranean relatively peaceably, possibly due to their similar antagonism with Genoa. Perhaps if Genoa is permanently out of the picture, Pisa simply takes its place as a rival of Venice?

4- this seems too much however: as I said before the Venetian lagoon is too much of a good strategic location for a significant naval power not to develop there (maybe I am being too deterministic here but I don't think Zahra or Ragusa could ever take Venice's place. Aquileia and Grado however might have if Aquileia hadn't been devastated leading to the founding of Venice).

IOTL, Ragusa used its position as a satellite of Hungary and/or the Ottomans as an advantage, and transported its goods from Ragusa to Ancona and thence overland to Florence, as a means of bypassing the Venetian lagoon. While Ancona's harbour is certainly no match for the lagoon, could alternative routes similar to the Ragusa-Ancona relationship develop if Venice experiences a serious enough setback? Could Ancona's harbour be improved to compete with Venice?

Noli was an autonomous region within the Marquisate of Finale. The land covered about a third of the present day Ligurian region within Italy, Noli was an "independent" trade city under the Marquisate up until 1265 when the land was split into three regions, one that remained independent until 1602 when Spain took it over, one that was absorbed by Moneferet and the other that was under the protection of Milan? (It had the support of Milan for over a century but no direct proclamation of protection seemed to be issued) After 1535, Noli was allied with Genoa.

Thank you, that was very interesting :)

Could Pisa somehow gain dominance over Florence and/or Sienna? Could the rest of Tuscany act like the equivalent to the Venetian hinterland?

I think this may be the only way Pisa can match Genoa's OTL performance. Florence might be a difficult nut to crack, but Lucca and/or Siena could be easier to absorb. Not sure how their inclusion could be achieved, however.

Ragusa was supposed to acquire a tiny merchant Empire in exchange for its assistance during the Crusade of 1444; but the failure of the crusade put an end to these ambitions.

I don't think the acquisition of a mere 2 or 3 remote ports/colonies would have propelled them to greatness. But who knows, every empire has to start somewhere. Perhaps it would have allowed them to deal with Venice and Genoa as a slightly more equal partner and make further gains from the rivalry of these two giants.

I thought Ragusa was able to establish its own merchant colonies in the Ottoman Empire after the Venetians/Genoese were evicted, due to its preferential treatment? That was later, of course. Was Ragusa not regarded as an equal to Genoa and Venice? I thought the Ragusans ended up in a pretty good place by the end, relatively speaking.
 
Before the arrival of the Turks, I believe Zara would have been a good contender because of the following:
  • Good port. Flat hinterland+closeness of the Una valley as the easiest way through the Dinaric alps gives it an advantage for access to Slavonia, Hungary & beyond
  • Good fortifications of the city+fortified outposts on the nearby islands and in the hinterland made it difficult to attack. Only a strong combined naval and land force was able to take Zara (Venitians & crusaders)
  • Flat hinterland with rich soil good for agriculture unlike the other Dalmatian cities that were surrounded by mountains.
  • Due to the specific costline of Dalmatia the sea is pretty calm, more safer for shipping. Major sea lanes for the east passed by Zara, making it a common stop for ships to resupply or hide from bad weather.
  • Capital and largest city of Dalmatia during the medieval period. Strong influence on other Dalmatian cities (family ties, financial interests...etc). Dalmatian cites were known to ally when an outside threat would arise and Zara would usually take the lead. Heck, the Zaratin House of Madi almost took over the whole Dalmatian theme and went independant until the Byzantines came to their senses and slashed their power.
If Zara had better luck (which would require Venice to have bad luck, since it is the prime reason of it's downfall) combined with good leadership I could see it becoming much more powerful then in OTL.
 
Could it serve as the port of egress from the Roman Empire or some other polity in the East? All trade/information traveling overland to Ragusa and then to Italy? At the very least, if the European half of the Roman Empire remains intact, or if the Serbs/Bulgarians/others take over, a large portion of that region could flow to Ragusa, especially if there are no other nearby ports.

Be amusing that, if the Romans survive, Ragusa could eventually become the port of call for ships sailing from India and the Americas, especially for the east. maybe not as lucrative as Venice or Genoa, but it's a thought.

AFAIK, that's essentially the position Ragusa occupied IOTL, with the Ottomans instead of the Byzantines. Venice and Genoa were ultimately put at a disadvantage by the Ottoman Empire relative to Ragusa, which maintained good relations. This allowed eastern goods to flow from Konstantinyye and Bursa to Ragusa and then to Ancona, bypassing Venice. IOTL, it doesn't seem like that was quite enough to put Ragusa ahead of Venice, but perhaps if the Ottomans outright embargo the Venetians and give over their commercial rights to Ragusa (I think the Ragusans got the former Venetian Quarter in Constantinople IOTL?) that could do it.

That's quite possible, but Pisa has to move quickly and knock out Volterra or even better Lucca, then she needs to alnlly with Siena to destroy Florence. A possible easy POD is that Florence gets razed to the ground in the aftermath of the battle of Montaperti: the Ghibellini factions relocates to Pisa while the Guelphs disperse in the other Tuscan communes.
It would also help if Charles d'Anjou doesn't come to Italy.

Would that leave Pisa the obvious dominant power of Tuscany, or would they face further difficulties from Siena or Lucca?

Also, as the Battle of Montaperti took place closer to Siena than Florence, was there a realistic chance of Florence's destruction?

Basically my thought. Of course, Hungary would be the greatest opposition to that, especially absent Turkish invasions. But if the Balkans are fragmented with landlocked states, they can act as a neutral port of call.

At times, if I'm not mistaken, Ragusa was a vassal of Hungary anyway. Didn't Venice transfer them into their sphere of influence at the same time as the Fourth Crusade's attack on Zara?

Anyway, my point is that Ragusa could very well get a preferable deal with Hungary a la Zara. Basically what they got with the Ottomans. The potential issue is that Hungary and the Ottomans might compete for Ragusa, which could very well see a foreign occupation of the city.

I think you should take into account the role that the political dinamism of the Republic of Venice played in it's ultimate achievement of hegemony over the other Merchant Republics. If for some reason Venice stagnated earlier, even if just temporarily (so as to give a contenders a chance), and, say, Pisa or Ragusa where blessed with good leadership (one with incentives that lined up with the Republics long-term benefit) you could have them develop into true regional powers.

Let's also no forget that a big part of why Pisa fell behind was the disproportionate ammount of its resources and attention that were consumed in its (more or less pointless) rivalry with Lucca. If you have them destroy or take over the latter, they should be able to focus on the maritimate conflict with Genoa.

Do you have a suitable possible POD for that? Perhaps a decisive Genoese victory in the War of Saint Sabbas? Though that would probably also cripple the Pisans (as allies of Venice) and put them behind as well, possibly removing them as a potential replacement. I suppose a Dalmatian city could rise to fill the gap, or perhaps an earlier Ragusan growth in influence.

What stopped the Pisans defeating Lucca IOTL? If it was Florentine interference, perhaps look at Yanez de Gomera's POD of Montaperti (I don't know how bad the Florentine defeat was, so I'm not sure how viable it is).

Ultimately Amalfi is probably doomed to fall and be replaced in importance by Naples, which actually has a harbor worth mentioning. You can extend its golden age by a bit, perhaps, by keeping the political situation in the region in stasis, but nothing lasts forever and Amalfi is going to end up overwhelmed by its competitors.

Could something sufficiently bad happen to Naples that wouldn't affect Amalfi? Or could Amalfi's harbour be improved artificially?

Naples isn't in the poll but really deserves a mention here.

I agree that Naples is certainly a good contender, but as it wasn't a maritime republic IOTL I didn't include it in the poll. The question is, however, why didn't Naples fulfil this role IOTL? I'm afraid I don't know enough Neapolitan history to know, but perhaps you do.

Before the arrival of the Turks, I believe Zara would have been a good contender.

I agree. Could Zara throw of the shackles of Hungarian vassalage, however? Perhaps, if they do achieve independence, they could join the Ragusa-Ancona relationship?
 
At times, if I'm not mistaken, Ragusa was a vassal of Hungary anyway. Didn't Venice transfer them into their sphere of influence at the same time as the Fourth Crusade's attack on Zara?

Anyway, my point is that Ragusa could very well get a preferable deal with Hungary a la Zara. Basically what they got with the Ottomans. The potential issue is that Hungary and the Ottomans might compete for Ragusa, which could very well see a foreign occupation of the city.

Perhaps. My biggest issue with the one large power granting rights is that it leaves the smaller nation at the whims of the larger one. Ragusa would have to make the utmost of their alloted time and trade deals until the preferences shifted. I'm not familiar with Zara, but would the Hungarians decide to try and play the two off each other to see which would give them the better results?

Further: domination of the Balkans by one or two entities (Ottomans/Hungarians, for example) would lead to that competition for influence. Instead, a more, well, Balkanized Balkans might lead to a captive market that Ragusa could exploit. If the Byzantines/Latin Empire/etc maintain control of the Straits and the northern Aegean littoral, that means that any interior state would either have to trade through the straits (incurring the toll) or would have to trade overland; that is where Ragusa might could have the most success. Take advantage of any relationship that can be established with interior Balkan states with no Adriatic/Aegean coastline on top of whatever trade they can make with the east.

Either way, Ragusa would also need a hinterland to become comparable with Venezia OTL, and I'm not sure how you do that.
 
About Pisa, albeit admitting winning the Meloria would have reinforced her status, seems you forget a simple yet valuable obstacle: the natural interrement of her harbour due to the Arno detrits. Pisa was destined to make the end of Ravenna in that regard.

Otherwise, Florence won't have elected Livorno as their harbour and consequently the Tuscan harbour for antonomasy. The Pisans still today despise Florence for that choice and Livorno above all for what they saw as an usurpation. Curiously the Pisans never held a real grudge with the Genoans after the Meloria. They are quite despised by most Tuscans through; Lucca in particular which was subject of periodic border pillages from Pisa. Hence would have been more difficult for Pisa even unifying the Arno valley as Florence did OTL.
 
About Pisa, albeit admitting winning the Meloria would have reinforced her status, seems you forget a simple yet valuable obstacle: the natural interrement of her harbour due to the Arno detrits. Pisa was destined to make the end of Ravenna in that regard.

Otherwise, Florence won't have elected Livorno as their harbour and consequently the Tuscan harbour for antonomasy. The Pisans still today despise Florence for that choice and Livorno above all for what they saw as an usurpation. Curiously the Pisans never held a real grudge with the Genoans after the Meloria. They are quite despised by most Tuscans through; Lucca in particular which was subject of periodic border pillages from Pisa. Hence would have been more difficult for Pisa even unifying the Arno valley as Florence did OTL.
But was it that inevitable? In an other timeline we could very well be talking about the natural internment of Venice's lagoon. Leghorn could also have been developed as a port for Pisa if that city had been stronger for a longer time. That said you are right that Pisa's hinterland holds likely too powerful and unruly cities to be submitted sion and Pisa's lacking of string natural barriers makes it a very difficult to surmount problem.
 
But was it that inevitable? In an other timeline we could very well be talking about the natural internment of Venice's lagoon. Leghorn could also have been developed as a port for Pisa if that city had been stronger for a longer time. That said you are right that Pisa's hinterland holds likely too powerful and unruly cities to be submitted sion and Pisa's lacking of string natural barriers makes it a very difficult to surmount problem.

Hence we are returning to the main issue for Pisa: control of the Arno Basin. Why Venice managed to act her canalization and Adige deviation projects? Because they controlled Veneto.

OTL Florence tried the deviation of the Arno... to deprive Pisa of her sea access during the siege of the city. Even called Leonardo to do it. But the project never came to realization. Why? Too costly, fine, but also because wasn't easy to do it. Is not a matter of manpower, but also of malleability of the soil.
 
Anyway, my point is that Ragusa could very well get a preferable deal with Hungary a la Zara. Basically what they got with the Ottomans. The potential issue is that Hungary and the Ottomans might compete for Ragusa, which could very well see a foreign occupation of the city.
When the Dalmatian cities accepted Hungarian overlordship they all got more or less the same treatment. Zara was the strongest financially and militarily, more populous and better positioned geographically so it was naturally more successful. During the IV crusade the Venitians didn't pick it for a target randomly. Ragusa was a smaller city more oriented on trade with Bosnia, Zeta and Serbia and it's main competitor was Cattaro (modern Kotor). It wasn't until the Ottomans that Ragusa really started to shine and take off.

Hungarians were smart not to try to take any Dalmatian city by force. Ottomans tried a few times but were unsuccessful. Land forces aren't enough since the cities are all well fortified. To starve the cities you need a strong naval force in the Adriatic. The only navy Hungary had was the one provided by the Dalmatians. So instead they offered them a good deal and the Dalmatians accepted it. It was a win win for everyone (except Venice).

Could Zara throw of the shackles of Hungarian vassalage, however? Perhaps, if they do achieve independence, they could join the Ragusa-Ancona relationship?

I don't think they were worried about it. All the Dalmatian cities were practically independent. Even Šibenik that is a non Latin city got the same privileges. No Hungarian subject could settle in the city without their approval and they retained their own roman based laws and customs. Their merchants had preferential treatment and Hungary provided military protection. The only thing the King asked of them is his cut of the profits (which was allegedly much much less then what they paid Venice for protection) and to provide ships and troops in time of war. The Hungarian rule was not very strong even in Croatia (the medieval definition of Croatia, territory south of the Dinaric alps) let alone in coastal Dalmatia, so it is not out of the question to imagine that Zara or any other Dalmatian city would become independent. After all it did happen in OTL with Ragusa and for a short period with Cattaro. Zara was just unlucky.

Zara already had a good relationship with Ancona. Ancona is much closer to Zara then to Ragusa (its straight across the Adriatic). It was also very close with Naples at that time (probably because of the Anjou connection).

Either way, Ragusa would also need a hinterland to become comparable with Venezia OTL, and I'm not sure how you do that.
Indeed this was always a problem for Ragusa. They did expand along the coast, but going inland wasn't economically or politically feasible. Mountainous terrain inhabited by lots of orthodox christians that was latter controlled by the Ottomans was not very tempting for the staunchly catholic republic with limited resources.

The Ragusans played their cards well considering the circumstances they found themselves in. The Ottomans made them high profile players, but to surpase Venice it would require the discovery of America to be postponed so that trade with the eastern Mediterranean continues to fill their coffers at the expense of the other martime republics.
 
Could something sufficiently bad happen to Naples that wouldn't affect Amalfi? Or could Amalfi's harbour be improved artificially?

Well, any harbor can be improved artificially. Just look at Portus, which the Romans basically conjured from thin air once Ostia got too silted up. Unfortunately, the technologies the Romans used - most critically, concrete that sets underwater - were no longer known.

Obviously having a crap harbor isn't fatal - Amalfi did fine while it lasted. In the long run, however, geography favors the Bay of Naples over Amalfi's shoreline, and even if Naples gets sacked and razed the harbor is still going to be there.

I agree that Naples is certainly a good contender, but as it wasn't a maritime republic IOTL I didn't include it in the poll. The question is, however, why didn't Naples fulfil this role IOTL? I'm afraid I don't know enough Neapolitan history to know, but perhaps you do.

I can't get in their heads or anything, but as I said it may have something to do with the fact that Naples had a decent agricultural hinterland. Naples was certainly involved in maritime trade - they had to export their agricultural goods after all, and IIRC they were a big flax/linen producer - but they never developed into a Mediterranean commercial hub like Amalfi or the other maritime communes mentioned. Perhaps agricultural exports were just too lucrative for anyone to really bother with that, or perhaps the political structure of early Naples was focused around a landowning elite which did not have such priorities. For contrast, Amalfi produces basically nothing - you can't farm anything on the peninsula, and there no significant natural resources that I know of. If you're going to live there, you're going to have to make a living off the sea, either by fishing or by moving other peoples' goods. I suspect the same was true of early Venice.

I'm open to other explanations other than geographic determinism, but that's the most plausible explanation I can think of.
 
Here's another option. The Roman Empire reforms after the Fourth Crusade and hangs on, but existing along Macedonia, Thrace, and Nicaea mainly, and not having access to Hellas proper. If southern Hellas remains under Latin control and, bit by bit, comes under Venetian influence, with them asserting control over the Peloponnese, Crete, and Naxos, might the Roman Empire also try to find away to ship its goods overseas that wouldn't enrich its enemy as well?

Granted, this is rehashing the issue the same for Ragusa, but if Venice takes over Genoa's former Greek colonies due to their collapse (in face of Pisa) then the Romans and others who do not want to trade through Venetian waters might have to find an alternate route. Just a thought.
 
If you're going to live there, you're going to have to make a living off the sea, either by fishing or by moving other peoples' goods. I suspect the same was true of early Venice.

The Lagoon was quite the boon for early Venice, it provided fish farms, waterfowl, defense, special clay material for the famous murano glass, and most importantly salt works. By geography Venice had a lucrative source of income: salt (required to cure food for winter, least you starve) which it used to eventually impose a salt monopoly and clay high in aluminium that gave it nearly exclusive access to fine pottery. At the same time no other city could claim its surrounding land as both productive regions and a formidable defense like the Lagoon. Finally without the need for an army, the natural inclination towards seamanship that Venice had (what other place requires you to float to live everyday?), and the natural inclination towards trade for some basic needs of life supercharged Venice for Adriatic domination. By 800 Venice had already established itself as a medium between the Franks and the Byzantines with special access to both markets. You need an earlier screw for Venice.

I would like to present the possibility of Comacchio, aka Venice-lite as a notable mention.
 
Last edited:
By geography Venice had a lucrative source of income: salt (required to cure food for winter, least you starve) which it used to eventually impose a salt monopoly
Indeed salt was a very important resource. Venice didn't have a monopoly earlier on. They achieved their status after taking over competition like Zara (with it's possession of Pago/Pag island), Chioggia, Piran..etc. So if Venice is less successful in asserting control over it's competitors it could prevent it becoming the juggernaut it was in OTL. Maybe have Venice taken by the combined forces of Louis I of Hungary and the Genoans during the war of Chioggia. This could set them back enough for some other maritime republic to rise in it's place.

I like your your proposal of Comacchio. It has a good geographic position. Close to Ferrara. Don't know much about it's history. Just wondering why it wasn't more successful.
 
Is there a reason why the OP is limited to Italian states?
Do you think there is any possibility of a merchant republic elsewhere? (Cartagena or Barcelona in Iberia, Arles/Marseille/Toulon in Provence, maybe some North African city ? Or Thessaloniki in Greece?)
 
Is there a reason why the OP is limited to Italian states?
Do you think there is any possibility of a merchant republic elsewhere? (Cartagena or Barcelona in Iberia, Arles/Marseille/Toulon in Provence, maybe some North African city ? Or Thessaloniki in Greece?)

Difficult. The Maritime Republics rose in Italy for a simple reason - self defence. They were at the very fringe of the Empires which nominally were part (HRE, ERE) but unable to protect them against Arab raids. In Muslim Mediterranean world, I really don't see for the times some coastal city - except for Sicily maybe - pulling out an autonomous path just because the Caliphate and later Andalusian, Mameluk and Maghrebian central authority remained enough coese to prevent slipping of relevant coastal cities. Maybe Acre if remaining Christian but at cost to pull out the Jerusalemite Kings and then accepting terms with the Mameluks to survive... And in Southern France and in Catalonia the duchies control was either too strong to prevent a definitive slipping of some coastal cities. I remember however to have read Marseilles was at a certain time autonomous from Provence through, unless I am wrong in this.
 
Further: domination of the Balkans by one or two entities (Ottomans/Hungarians, for example) would lead to that competition for influence. Instead, a more, well, Balkanized Balkans might lead to a captive market that Ragusa could exploit. If the Byzantines/Latin Empire/etc maintain control of the Straits and the northern Aegean littoral, that means that any interior state would either have to trade through the straits (incurring the toll) or would have to trade overland; that is where Ragusa might could have the most success. Take advantage of any relationship that can be established with interior Balkan states with no Adriatic/Aegean coastline on top of whatever trade they can make with the east.

IOTL, Ragusa benefited greatly from a unified Balkans due to their vassalage to the Ottoman Empire. This worked well for both - Ragusa got unimpeded, preferential access to the exports and markets of the Ottomans while maintaining great autonomy, while the Ottomans were able to continue commerce with powers with which they were at war via Ragusa. If I'm not wrong, the Turkish name for Ragusa actually means 'good-venice', which gives a good indication of how the Turks thought of the city.

So a divided Balkans might actually be worse for the Ragusans. Or, OTOH, they might not.

Otherwise, Florence won't have elected Livorno as their harbour and consequently the Tuscan harbour for antonomasy. The Pisans still today despise Florence for that choice and Livorno above all for what they saw as an usurpation. Curiously the Pisans never held a real grudge with the Genoans after the Meloria. They are quite despised by most Tuscans through; Lucca in particular which was subject of periodic border pillages from Pisa. Hence would have been more difficult for Pisa even unifying the Arno valley as Florence did OTL.

That does sound rather difficult. Could the Pisans clear their harbour or otherwise keep it competitive? Could the Pisans and the other Tuscans mend their quarrel?

When the Dalmatian cities accepted Hungarian overlordship they all got more or less the same treatment. Zara was the strongest financially and militarily, more populous and better positioned geographically so it was naturally more successful. During the IV crusade the Venitians didn't pick it for a target randomly. Ragusa was a smaller city more oriented on trade with Bosnia, Zeta and Serbia and it's main competitor was Cattaro (modern Kotor). It wasn't until the Ottomans that Ragusa really started to shine and take off.

So, if the Zarans (is that the demonym?) can maintain their independence from Venice and remain an autonomous subordinate to the King of Hungary, is there a chance they could 'unite' Dalmatia - and maybe even Ragusa - into some kind of mercantile confederation? Could the Hungarians permit that? Maybe even Ancona could become associated with it, if the Pope can deal with that.

I doubt they could out-compete Venice entirely, but they could have a virtual monopoly over the Hungarian-Adriatic trade routes. A 'Dalmatian' identity would also add a wonderful new point of contention for the future Balkans.

Well, any harbor can be improved artificially. Just look at Portus, which the Romans basically conjured from thin air once Ostia got too silted up. Unfortunately, the technologies the Romans used - most critically, concrete that sets underwater - were no longer known.

Obviously having a crap harbor isn't fatal - Amalfi did fine while it lasted. In the long run, however, geography favors the Bay of Naples over Amalfi's shoreline, and even if Naples gets sacked and razed the harbor is still going to be there.

Looks like Amalfi doesn't have a very good chance unless it rediscovers lost technology or Naples never rises as a power (preferably both). If Naples' population is reduced by a good enough amount, could it be 'absorbed' into the Duchy of Amalfi and turned into an Almafitan port?

Here's another option. The Roman Empire reforms after the Fourth Crusade and hangs on, but existing along Macedonia, Thrace, and Nicaea mainly, and not having access to Hellas proper. If southern Hellas remains under Latin control and, bit by bit, comes under Venetian influence, with them asserting control over the Peloponnese, Crete, and Naxos, might the Roman Empire also try to find away to ship its goods overseas that wouldn't enrich its enemy as well?

Soverihn did an interesting timeline exploring an idea like this. It's well written and worth a good read - I certainly enjoyed it: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/renovation-an-eastern-roman-timeline.340376/
 
So, if the Zarans (is that the demonym?) can maintain their independence from Venice and remain an autonomous subordinate to the King of Hungary, is there a chance they could 'unite' Dalmatia - and maybe even Ragusa - into some kind of mercantile confederation? Could the Hungarians permit that? Maybe even Ancona could become associated with it, if the Pope can deal with that.

I doubt they could out-compete Venice entirely, but they could have a virtual monopoly over the Hungarian-Adriatic trade routes. A 'Dalmatian' identity would also add a wonderful new point of contention for the future Balkans.

I must say I like the way you think. Yes, I believe that the Zaratins could have united the Dalmatian Latin cities into a very loose confederation. They could have done it on many occasions. It allegedly almost happened in the early 11th century with the Madi family when they spread their influence to the other cities, and planned to rid themselves of the Byzantines. But they got caught and the head of that family (Gregorius Madi if I remember correctly) died behind bars in Constantinople. Prevent him from going to the court in Constantinople or the Emperor from figuring out his plans and theirs your first POD with a united Dalmatia under Zara's lead. A second POD could be that they stay with Hungary and Venice doesn't do much damage as it did in OTL (4th crusade). Without setback Zara builds it's financial and military powerbase. If Hungary for some reason becomes weak (bad king, civil war...etc) and cannot provide protection to the Dalmatians or if the king decides to curb their autonomy or tries to extract more money, then Zara could opt to go independent while convincing the other Dalmatian cities (including Sibenik that was originally a Croatian city) to join in a loose confederation or face Venice on there own. Hungary has no navy to militarily stop the Dalmatians from leaving, and it would be difficult to block them from their market (too interweaved). Venice would probably still invade, but the Dalmatians could fend them off (it wouldn't be the first time) and force a peace treaty by hurting Venetian trade (disrupting shipping lanes that go by the Dalmatian coast) .

Regarding the feasibility of a Zara led united Dalmatia, I would like to point out a few things:
  • The Latin Dalmatian cities (Zara, Ragusa, Spalato, Tragura, Arba, Cattaro ...etc) had a common Dalmatian identity that goes back to antiquity (except for Sibenik). Of course the people would identify themselves first by their city of origin and then as Dalmatians. The Dalmatian identity was used usually when dealing with non-Dalmatians. Zara could use this as a base for unification.
  • They shared a common culture. They spoke Dalmatian up till the 15th century (by that time with heavy Venetian influences). Every city had it's own dialect, but they understood each other. This added to their bond
  • Intermarriages among their citizens were very common. Certain families had property or held high positions in multiple cities. Family ties and common interest could add support for a unification.
  • They shared a dangerous common enemy - Venice. Combined they are stronger militarily.
  • Military and economic alliances among these cities were very common. Zara was usually the leader of these alliances because it was the largest & strongest city. Usually, military campaigns fought between Venice and the Dalmatian cities were actually battles between Venice and Zara. If Zara fell then the other cities usually surrendered. If Zara kicks out the Venetian garrisons so do the others.
  • Except for Venice, no other overlord to my knowledge had a strong grip on the Dalmatian Cities. The Hungarian King was far away, and barely had any control over the Croatian Nobles south of the Dinaric Alps let alone the Dalmatians. That's probably why they were so generous with the Dalmatians. They granted them full autonomy, even to conclude separate alliances with parties outside the kingdom (like the triple aliance between Chioggia, Zara and Tragura against Venice). That's one reason why the Dalmatians would be hesitant to abandon Hungary. The King would really have to mess up to alienate the Dalmatians.

I agree that Zara even with a Dalmatian confederacy could probably not out compete Venice, but I think it could be a strong no 2.
 
I must say I like the way you think. Yes, I believe that the Zaratins could have united the Dalmatian Latin cities into a very loose confederation. They could have done it on many occasions. It allegedly almost happened in the early 11th century with the Madi family when they spread their influence to the other cities, and planned to rid themselves of the Byzantines. But they got caught and the head of that family (Gregorius Madi if I remember correctly) died behind bars in Constantinople. Prevent him from going to the court in Constantinople or the Emperor from figuring out his plans and theirs your first POD with a united Dalmatia under Zara's lead. A second POD could be that they stay with Hungary and Venice doesn't do much damage as it did in OTL (4th crusade). Without setback Zara builds it's financial and military powerbase. If Hungary for some reason becomes weak (bad king, civil war...etc) and cannot provide protection to the Dalmatians or if the king decides to curb their autonomy or tries to extract more money, then Zara could opt to go independent while convincing the other Dalmatian cities (including Sibenik that was originally a Croatian city) to join in a loose confederation or face Venice on there own. Hungary has no navy to militarily stop the Dalmatians from leaving, and it would be difficult to block them from their market (too interweaved). Venice would probably still invade, but the Dalmatians could fend them off (it wouldn't be the first time) and force a peace treaty by hurting Venetian trade (disrupting shipping lanes that go by the Dalmatian coast) .

Regarding the feasibility of a Zara led united Dalmatia, I would like to point out a few things:
  • The Latin Dalmatian cities (Zara, Ragusa, Spalato, Tragura, Arba, Cattaro ...etc) had a common Dalmatian identity that goes back to antiquity (except for Sibenik). Of course the people would identify themselves first by their city of origin and then as Dalmatians. The Dalmatian identity was used usually when dealing with non-Dalmatians. Zara could use this as a base for unification.
  • They shared a common culture. They spoke Dalmatian up till the 15th century (by that time with heavy Venetian influences). Every city had it's own dialect, but they understood each other. This added to their bond
  • Intermarriages among their citizens were very common. Certain families had property or held high positions in multiple cities. Family ties and common interest could add support for a unification.
  • They shared a dangerous common enemy - Venice. Combined they are stronger militarily.
  • Military and economic alliances among these cities were very common. Zara was usually the leader of these alliances because it was the largest & strongest city. Usually, military campaigns fought between Venice and the Dalmatian cities were actually battles between Venice and Zara. If Zara fell then the other cities usually surrendered. If Zara kicks out the Venetian garrisons so do the others.
  • Except for Venice, no other overlord to my knowledge had a strong grip on the Dalmatian Cities. The Hungarian King was far away, and barely had any control over the Croatian Nobles south of the Dinaric Alps let alone the Dalmatians. That's probably why they were so generous with the Dalmatians. They granted them full autonomy, even to conclude separate alliances with parties outside the kingdom (like the triple aliance between Chioggia, Zara and Tragura against Venice). That's one reason why the Dalmatians would be hesitant to abandon Hungary. The King would really have to mess up to alienate the Dalmatians.

I agree that Zara even with a Dalmatian confederacy could probably not out compete Venice, but I think it could be a strong no 2.

Someone could do a really interesting timeline on that. It would be fascinating to explore the butterflies of such a change.

I suppose I could give it a go, as my first ever timeline.
 
I like your your proposal of Comacchio. It has a good geographic position. Close to Ferrara. Don't know much about it's history. Just wondering why it wasn't more successful.

IRCC, Comacchio simply didn't have the scale even by Italian standards, it had 13 islands whereas Venice had over a hundred and it just didn't have the initial population to do much before Venice burned it down- then the Arabs 20 years later, and then the Venetians again within a century.
 
Top