An early united Italy, directions of expansion?

I am not that sure that the papal alliance will be very stable, because there is such strong tension between the Pope's idea of being the liege of Sicily and the immense ecclesistical privileges given to Roger and his heirs, who had received the jus legationis on Sicily the island (it is not clear to me if some parts of the mainland were included too, but at least Frederick II acted as if it were the case). This meant a very high level of royal interference in matters of ecclesistical jurisdiction and administration as well as receiving the revenues from vacant episcopal seats, which happened quite often.
I am also quite skeptic about a long-term stability of the relations between the Holy See and Sicily.
Besides the Church being unhappy about the ecclesiastical privileges "usurped" by Roger, there is the old (and never neglected) claim over Campania and the potential trouble spot in Benevento. The Church will be willing to play games with the barons from Apulia at any possible moment, and any time a new king is crowned there will be a more or less veiled attempt to roll back the ecclesiastical privileges. On the Norman side, the need to have a strong position in Rome can only be neglected at the cost of be willing to run a significant risk (look at the mess that Manfredi put himself in by failing to understand the need to build up a significant Ghibellin faction in Rome and to secure the election to Senator before 1260). OTOH a strong Norman or Ghibellin party in Rome makes it also easier to influence the papal elections, or in any case to be in a position to play with the lords of Latium the same games that the pope played with the barons of Apulia. The 13th century is not exactly the same as the 10th, when the dukes of Spoleto could elect and depose popes almost at will, but it is not too different either.

In any case this Sicilian power would have a great xiii century with very limited military adventures in the North (maybe a weak pope could give Spoleto as a fief to a cadet Hauteville branch after they prove decisive in evicting from Rome some particularly persistent Emperor?
In any case what is more interesting is what happens a century or so later, if/when papal power wanes and the northern cities start coalescing into regional states that can be inherited or conquered a bit more easily. Of course you could have the same dynastic mess happen which befell Anjou Naples, but if it doesn't Sicily Naples will be a player that dwarfes all others in Italy in the late middle ages (apart from the Papacy, which is really difficult to reduce once it becomes a secular state tied with the immense ideological power of the Holy See) even if Florence, Milan and Venice will be richer.
Maybe, but a kingdom of Sicily which has not been thrown in a mess as happened IOTL with the continuous wars between Aragon and Anjou Naples will have most likely managed to sort out the unruly barons of the mainland, and will have found ways to get involved in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ultimately it will depend how strong and rich they would be, and where their priorities are. I don't see them being ultimately successful if they try to go north through Latium and Tuscany (marching along the Adriatic coast might be easier) but it is clear that either way their logistics are weaker than comparable logistics for a northern player coming down through Tuscany. The example of Ladislaus of Durazzo is obviously not enough to establish a trend, but it is certainly easier for a northern army to take Tuscany one bite after the other, bypass Rome and march on Naples than it would be for a king of Sicily and Naples to march north, bypass Rome, take Tuscany one bite after the other and then force the Appennine passes along the via Francigena.

This said Italy is in a bad position for expansion really unless most of her neoghbours get screwed and does it actually need it? Once the "natural" alpine border is achieved it looks to me that most avenue of expansion are rather too costly for what they offer or require the formation of unwieldy personal unions (with Hungary, with Aragon, witg Burgundy) which, like for the Spanish Habsburgs will end up being a disaster after at most a century of splendor and hegemony.

I am also quite skeptical of the real possibility of annexing the Papal States, even under the pretense of being a papal vassal. It was difficult enough during the xix century, but after the investitures controversy I don't see many chances for the whole middle and modern ages.
In principle, it is not harder for an army to force the val di Susa or the Maritime Alps from the east than from the west, and the same would apply to the Brenner pass too. It will depend on the relative strength of invader and invaded.
Again in principle the Alps should form a good natural border, but if it is possible to gain rich lands beyond them and at the same time secure a good defensive border (such as the Rhone, for example) why not? It would add another layer of defense of the core lands.

The Papal States are certainly a hard nut to crush, but the meat is pretty sweet;)
There was a window between 1370 and 1420 when there where at least two popes around, the HRE was pretty weak, Aragon had a succession crisis and France and England were going to war for another 40 years or so. It was a perfect storm, and certainly the best opportunity ever to unify Italy since there was also a potential claimant, Gian Galeazzo, who had already swallowed most of north and central Italy and was on the verge of taking Florence. Give him Florence (and Genoa would have followed a few years later), and 15 years to consolidate and it will be very hard for anyone to cut him down to size.

Lost that opportunity, it was game over until the 19th century: such a waste, since papal administration was usually abysmal. I do however wonder what would have happened if Charles had been unable to secure the Spanish crown in 1516 (at a certain point it might have been touch and go): might a Charles V still HRE but not king of Spain be more sympathetic to Luther and the Reformation? If the answer is yes, the following butterflies might end up destroying the papal states, and possibly even the concept of universal papacy. However this is a completely different story ;)
 
Might a Visconti-unified Italy see a Turkish conquest of Constantinople to be a threat to their interests and prop it up before the Ottomans can get a foothold? If a Visconti Italy absorbs Venetian holdings in Morea, Crete, Cyprus, and Attica, taking Thessaloniki and coastal Thrace at the very least seems relatively simple. Maybe later, an ambitious King might even set his sights on all of Thrace and Thessaly, and the lands of the old Empire of Nicaea and between this and his holdings in the old Exarchate of Africa and the protectorate over Egypt, he might call himself Eastern Roman Emperor?
 
Last edited:
The problem is not taking Thessaloniki (which IOTL asked Venice to be allowed to submit to the republic hoping to be saved from Ottomans) but keeping it safe. There is not even an economic incentive, since an Italian (or Venetian) Thessaloniki would not bring any commercial benefits if the hinterland is in Ottoman hands.
It would be obviously different if a Visconti ruler decided to launch a crusade into the Balkans starting from Thessaloniki, but there is a very narrow window of opportunity for annexing Thessaloniki and it is in a time frame when other concerns (Anjou for example, or the Aragonese crisis) may be very distracting. Funnily enough it might have been a possibility in @The Undead Martyr TL: Filippo Maria married a Palaiologos Montferrat, which might bring him a two-fold claim to the Latin kingdom of Thessaloniki and to the ERE (the latter is pretty weakish, but still is there.
Overall it looks to me a very chancy proposition
 
Top