DBWI: Otto I Conquers Italy?

[AltoRegnant]

OTL, Germany has a very similar history to other western european states of similar size and population- beat up pagans, crusade, go to war with your own nobles because they want to limit your power over your land, repeat a few times, and generally be scared of France.
Now, germany has always been pulled eastward due to being a frontier kingdom during the northern crusades against the pagans, and has good sway over the baltic because of this. but ultimately, it was always a power in western europe. It actually provided a good counterweight to England and France's own ambitious, as neither could afford wars with both the other and germany power.
It also had a damn fine run during the colonial expansion period- grabbed Hollandsfund* and Yucatan, the northernmost of the Congo and connected it to Somalia via kenya and uganda. Of course their best grab was probably malaya.

But all the way back with Otto I, he had a claim to Italy. What if he had acted on it? Now, we might assume this would create a germany wank, but Germany was probably as big as the technology allowed for the time in europe, meaning they'd have issues controlling these italian territories even before we got to the fact that it's all south of the alps, and the duchy of Austria has always been a thorn in the Kingdom's side enough. And honestly, if the germans managed to hold it, i could see tensions with the nobility in germany as the italians were richer than all but the low country merchants, meaning the German capital would probably move south away from Aachen to somewhere in Bavaria.

And all that's assuming that that wouldn't anger/scare the pope, which could easily mean excommunication and France waging war. If they wouldn't anyway because that's a massive shift in power.

So could Otto conquer and hold italy, merging it with the kingdom of Germany?

---
ooc: Venezuela.

 

[Albert Blake]

OTL, Germany has a very similar history to other western european states of similar size and population- beat up pagans, crusade, go to war with your own nobles because they want to limit your power over your land, repeat a few times, and generally be scared of France.
Now, germany has always been pulled eastward due to being a frontier kingdom during the northern crusades against the pagans, and has good sway over the baltic because of this. but ultimately, it was always a power in western europe. It actually provided a good counterweight to England and France's own ambitious, as neither could afford wars with both the other and germany power.
It also had a damn fine run during the colonial expansion period- grabbed Hollandsfund* and Yucatan, the northernmost of the Congo and connected it to Somalia via kenya and uganda. Of course their best grab was probably malaya.

But all the way back with Otto I, he had a claim to Italy. What if he had acted on it? Now, we might assume this would create a germany wank, but Germany was probably as big as the technology allowed for the time in europe, meaning they'd have issues controlling these italian territories even before we got to the fact that it's all south of the alps, and the duchy of Austria has always been a thorn in the Kingdom's side enough. And honestly, if the germans managed to hold it, i could see tensions with the nobility in germany as the italians were richer than all but the low country merchants, meaning the German capital would probably move south away from Aachen to somewhere in Bavaria.

And all that's assuming that that wouldn't anger/scare the pope, which could easily mean excommunication and France waging war. If they wouldn't anyway because that's a massive shift in power.

So could Otto conquer and hold italy, merging it with the kingdom of Germany?

---
ooc: Venezuela.

Cue German nobles screaming about favouritism and Italy will get given to a second Son/brother real quick. I reckon around 1200 the handoff occurs.

 

[DracoLazarus]

OTL, Germany has a very similar history to other western european states of similar size and population- beat up pagans, crusade, go to war with your own nobles because they want to limit your power over your land, repeat a few times, and generally be scared of France.
Now, germany has always been pulled eastward due to being a frontier kingdom during the northern crusades against the pagans, and has good sway over the baltic because of this. but ultimately, it was always a power in western europe. It actually provided a good counterweight to England and France's own ambitious, as neither could afford wars with both the other and germany power.
It also had a damn fine run during the colonial expansion period- grabbed Hollandsfund* and Yucatan, the northernmost of the Congo and connected it to Somalia via kenya and uganda. Of course their best grab was probably malaya.

But all the way back with Otto I, he had a claim to Italy. What if he had acted on it? Now, we might assume this would create a germany wank, but Germany was probably as big as the technology allowed for the time in europe, meaning they'd have issues controlling these italian territories even before we got to the fact that it's all south of the alps, and the duchy of Austria has always been a thorn in the Kingdom's side enough. And honestly, if the germans managed to hold it, i could see tensions with the nobility in germany as the italians were richer than all but the low country merchants, meaning the German capital would probably move south away from Aachen to somewhere in Bavaria.

And all that's assuming that that wouldn't anger/scare the pope, which could easily mean excommunication and France waging war. If they wouldn't anyway because that's a massive shift in power.

So could Otto conquer and hold italy, merging it with the kingdom of Germany?

---
ooc: Venezuela.

Well, as far as I know, Italy was behind the Frankish title of Western Emperor, so I think that the primary result would be Otto getting some Imperial title.
Once Otto is Emperor, I think that his successors will seek to retain that title. I could see Italy being a restive part of this German Empire that it just cannot afford to lose, severely straining it on the long term.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Well, as far as I know, Italy was behind the Frankish title of Western Emperor, so I think that the primary result would be Otto getting some Imperial title.
Once Otto is Emperor, I think that his successors will seek to retain that title. I could see Italy being a restive part of this German Empire that it just cannot afford to lose, severely straining it on the long term.

Probably, but at the same time the coastal Italians had an independent streak otl, ruled by the culturally assimilated Lombards. Can you imagine the tension those very rich people would have with a foreign king? It would be like if the Normans didnt bother replacing the nobility in england. Except worse because you cant replace merchants, really. At best you can restrict Mercantile rights and get rid of troublemakers but the merchants will find a way.

Though with the economic center in the south, we might see tension with the byzantines, so the main crusades might go worse for the empire. Granted it's hard to imagine worse than "greece and northwestern anatolia as a mongol vassal," but who knows

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Just to clear up a point of confusion, Otto did invade Italy on behalf of his wife Adelaide, who had been Queen of Italy, but was defeated by Berengar at the battle of Pavia. I'm presuming that the POD here is that Otto wins at Pavia.

As had been shown by the example of Charlemange, there was probably no administrative capacity in the tenth century (or later) to run two medieval kingdoms and running just one was difficult. There were just too few literate people, really just the clergy (and not all of them) and too much depended on the personality of the ruler and his household, and the ruler could only be in one place at one time. So unless Italy is handed off to a cadet branch, I suspect that both Germany and Italy become decentralized messes.

Italy without the centralization imposed by Berengar and his successors does have a lot of interesting implications. We get a much more independent Bishop of Rome and eve a Norman wank, as Norman mercenaries were building a kingdom in southern Italy before the Italian kingdom put them down. The Byzantines hang to their foothold in southern Italy longer. Also the cities in both Germany and Italy maintain much greater autonomy, you could see this in the contrast between the development of the cities in Holland and Brabant in the low countries as opposed to Flanders, where the Kings of France were never quire successful in maintaining control, and in Venice and Naples as opposed to the other Italian cities.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Just to clear up a point of confusion, Otto did invade Italy on behalf of his wife Adelaide, who had been Queen of Italy, but was defeated by Berengar at the battle of Pavia. I'm presuming that the POD here is that Otto wins at Pavia.

As had been shown by the example of Charlemange, there was probably no administrative capacity in the tenth century (or later) to run two medieval kingdoms and running just one was difficult. There were just too few literate people, really just the clergy (and not all of them) and too much depended on the personality of the ruler and his household, and the ruler could only be in one place at one time. So unless Italy is handed off to a cadet branch, I suspect that both Germany and Italy become decentralized messes.

Italy without the centralization imposed by Berengar and his successors does have a lot of interesting implications. We get a much more independent Bishop of Rome and eve a Norman wank, as Norman mercenaries were building a kingdom in southern Italy before the Italian kingdom put them down. The Byzantines hang to their foothold in southern Italy longer. Also the cities in both Germany and Italy maintain much greater autonomy, you could see this in the contrast between the development of the cities in Holland and Brabant in the low countries as opposed to Flanders, where the Kings of France were never quire successful in maintaining control, and in Venice and Naples as opposed to the other Italian cities.

Honestly otl's 'a duchy the size of the english coast managing to conquer all of england' is probably the biggest norman wank i can see. Norman Sicily was doomed either way simply because of how small the ruling elite was. Though i am curious about the independant bishop of rome deal. OTL, the pope was briefly in charge of a small part of central italy, hence charlemagne showing up to beat up some lombards. A longer lasting Papal State probably means a lot of tension on who's theologically more important- god's chosen king, or the guy who says the other guy is god's chosen king. We might see some schisms with the kings raising their own bishops to the role, especially in france and scandinavia since they always struggled bending knee to theologians in italy and the balkans

 

[AltoRegnant]

Assuming Germany is de-centralized by this italian conquest, what happens to france and england? OTL, they had their spats, moreso than most european states, but with germany around to act as a tipping factor for the continent, the wars never lasted too long. By the time Cabral gets to brazil, there maybe hundreds of thousands to millions less people in western europe, which means
-less pressure to solve the crisis
-smaller economies to fund expeditions
-hell, it could limit technological spread

Would there even be an age of exploration, regardless of the byzantine and ilkhanate protectionism?

 

[AltoRegnant]

Anyone have anything?

 

[Historymaster]

Well, Germany and Italy were very close to dinastic unification several time after Otto, for example when Frederick I Redbeard of Germany married Beatrix, the only daughter of King Reginald III of Italy. But the Barons interferred.