Earliest possible unified Italy scenario?

Was there any time during the 14th-18th centuries that Italy could have emerged as a unified independent and sovereign nation similar to France or Spain? And no the Holy Roman Empire doesn't count.
 
There was for a while a feud between Venice and Milan ongoing. I'm not sure of Venice's ability to control the whole of Italy but the Milanese, specially under the Visconti I believe, could do it, if you could give them better-than-average good luck and prevent an alliance forming to stop them. Then again, that's just Northern Italy. The Papal States forms a block to any Italian Unification as, so long as the Pope is revered, there's little chance of the Papal States being conquered (invaded perhaps, Rome sacked sure, but no-one ever pressed the Pope to cede land as the Pope was supposed to be an unquestionable character as God's representative on Earth. Similarly, the Pope has little interest in conquering Italy. So really, a united North Italy is probably the best option available.
 
Yeah something like that crossed my mind, I was thinking about Milan defeating both Genoa and Venice and settling the dispute between the two over who controlled what in the Med. I guess if the Pope was in Avignon that would make takin the Papal States abit easier.
 
Milan allies with Austria to remove Venice from Terra firma; the Venetians maintain an empire-in-exile in the Stato de Mar and will make sure Italy is never a naval power before eventually either getting conquered by the Ottomans or establishing themselves solidly in Greece. Probably the former.

After Venice is ejected, Genoa falls easily. Again, the Genoese may establish a state-in-exile in their colonies; who knows, Venice and Genoa might even overcome their differences! Or, you know, Venice might conquer the Genoese remnants. Or the Ottomans might.

Milan now starts slowly absorbing all the little Lombard states, and reaches down a little further than Rome before running into trouble in the form of Naples (or Aragon, depending on the time period). It would take a while - probably at least a century - for Lombardia to conquer the rest of the boot, and then some time again to take Sicily. Still, it could probably be all done before, say, 1600.
 
There was for a while a feud between Venice and Milan ongoing. I'm not sure of Venice's ability to control the whole of Italy but the Milanese, specially under the Visconti I believe, could do it, if you could give them better-than-average good luck and prevent an alliance forming to stop them. Then again, that's just Northern Italy. The Papal States forms a block to any Italian Unification as, so long as the Pope is revered, there's little chance of the Papal States being conquered (invaded perhaps, Rome sacked sure, but no-one ever pressed the Pope to cede land as the Pope was supposed to be an unquestionable character as God's representative on Earth. Similarly, the Pope has little interest in conquering Italy. So really, a united North Italy is probably the best option available.

Perhaps if the area around Rome is left to the Pope, the conquest of the other territories would be acceptable?
 
Perhaps if the area around Rome is left to the Pope, the conquest of the other territories would be acceptable?

Not really. Wars involving the Papal States unanimously had the Papal States as an aggressor, and when the Pope got involved it was always as part of an alliance to keep Italy balanced (to prevent one country becoming dominant). Popes never tried conquering land, they always claimed to be fighting simply to keep Italy free of domination. This isn't to say that they would always win, of course, but the Papal States really were off-limits for capture. As a combatant Rome was at times open to attack, but this was only spoils of war. Actually trying to take land off the Pope would be universally condemned and would probably prompt France or Spain jumping in to revert the land swap. The first time the Pope properly lost land was the last time it happened - when Italy unified, at a time when people no longer believed in the Pope's right to temporal (non-religious) authority. You won't get that attitude before about 1800 though. For this reason, while the Pope is in Avignon the same stands - then again, most of the time the Pope was in Avignon there were two Popes. Any successful conquest of the Papal States in the name of the Avignon Pope would oblige you to cede the entire Papal States to the Avignon Pope as "his right of office" so no potential for landgrab there.

You do have an option in about the 1300s, though. The Pope's authority had slipped, leading to a lot of people, such as Papal condottieros (mercenary military commanders) exerting their authority claiming to be Papal representatives. The Pope kept control over roughly what is nowadays known as Lazio, but the rest of the Papal States broke up into what were essentially nominal Papal vassals as the Pope was in a weak position. If these usurpers were ever threatened they could always claim to be under the Pope's command, which was an argument which essentially could not be contested - even if these lands were conquered, the Pope would demand them back anyway. Since these men never technically claimed independence from the Pope they survived for about 50 years before the Popes had strengthened their position and were able to re-exert control. Say the Pope invades to re-exert control and fails badly. If you can have an uneasy stand-off between the Pope and his supposed vassals then there's a small chance that eventually the Pope can publicly relinquish suzerainty over the land in the hope that someone else (Milan par exemple) will do the hard work for them and give the Papal States the land back as tribute. That could give you the chance to let the entire Papal Adriatic coast go free, which also lets you link North and South Italy up.

But it's a really dicey thing, mainly due to the way the Pope is never supposed to be challenged. Personally I would just limit early Italian Unification to North Italy.
 
Could our hypothetical Milanese "Empire" deal with the Pope such that their merchants and armies are allowed passage to take Naples & Sicily, perhaps as a "unified buffer against Islam" or some other such pretext? This unites all but the Papal States and has the Papal States semi-on-board in a quasi confederation.
 
There's no need to have land passage, landing troops by sea would be just as effective. And "a barrier against Islam" wouldn't cut the mustard, but land claims or dynastic claims are easy enough to invent instead. Naples is an interesting case, however, due to its large size meaning a conquest is harder, and its repeated links to the Spanish and French thrones, meaning both countries might want to get involved if it were being invaded. I doubt that the Pope would concede to joining an Italian Confederation, though - when the Pope still claims to have authority over all Kings, agreeing to a confederation would be an admittance of weakness and inferiority. The Papal States really are something of a block to alternate history scenarios - because of the Pope's religious status, the Papal States emerged as a country with unrealistic ideas of their position in the world, and stayed that way for centuries.
 
Thanks, Falastur. Great points. BTW, by "quasi-Confederation" I meant basically de facto economic and political ties without any de jura connection. I probably should have said "strong alliance" or "partnership" to be more clear.

And yes, it's a stretch either way.
 
Perhaps have Gian Galeazzo live longer.

Gian Galeazzo Visconti had a good chance of conquer all Northern Italy (except Venice), but I doubt his conquest could be held for a long time. Eventually succession wars would split his gains, unless he manages to have just one successor who is also a good military leader and with diplomatic skills.
 
A very early Italian unification

I posted a similar post on the thread AH Challenge: Italian Colony/ies in the Americas. Here are two ideas:

An idea is to have the italo-normans Hauteville in south of italy not dieing out. Roger II should have an heir and not giving his daughter Costance in marriage to the Holy Emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_II_of_Sicily

Even more strong option would be for Frederick II (son of Costance which was actually quite italianized). The options here are many. He could not to lose to the northern league and put the pope to its place. I don't know if he could turn the king of germany and italy hereditary (resulting in a italianized HRE-wank). But even with keeping the king of sicily and parts of central/northern italy you get a regardable power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederi..._Roman_Emperor
 
. This isn't to say that they would always win, of course, but the Papal States really were off-limits for capture. As a combatant Rome was at times open to attack, but this was only spoils of war. Actually trying to take land off the Pope would be universally condemned and would probably prompt France or Spain jumping in to revert the land swap.
[...]
But it's a really dicey thing, mainly due to the way the Pope is never supposed to be challenged. Personally I would just limit early Italian Unification to North Italy.
I dunno. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were the era of the Western Schism and Conciliarism - proof that even then the Pope was not universally seen as an infallible head of the Catholic world.

Also, I don't think there was much of a crusade or even a response from France or Spain when Ladislaus of Naples annexed most of the Papal States in 1413. So obviously attacking the Patrimonium was a less-than-unthinkable option, and was not cause for a crusade - as you seem to think.
 
Like I posted on the Challenge thread:

Lombard League does not dissolve instead becomes defacto country after defeating the HRE(possibly with a similar structure to HRE).
MUCH later:
With immense riches from trade and the Renaissance and such it buys Aragonese Sardinia, Sicily, and Malta (woot). After the Pope leaves for France it conqueres the Papal States (yes, it is possible).
Then it supports Colombus and discovers the New World (for the other thread). Sometime later it attacks and conquers Naples and established a proper Kingdom. This would include Savoyan, Milanese and Venetian territory outside Italy.

There you go, a Medieval Uber-Italy by 1500. Im planning a TL about it, possibly.

Jim
 
The main problen, as has been said, are the Papal states on the middle... so let's make the Papal States the ones to unite Italy.
Perharps the Borgia pope (Alejandro VI, I think) was succesful in conquering Italy. But by then Spain ruled Napoles, so it would be hard to manage. A first stage of conquest on northern italy, minus the spanish and french posessions, and then a second or even third stage of conquest decades or even centuries later by another ambitious Pope.
 
What about Caesar Borgia? Has there been a TL with him conquering Italy?

After all he was Machiavelli Prince. Unification of Italy has always been complicated by the papacy and the empire. However if you are the pope (or the emperor).

However even if he conquers or subdues the italian states, the papacy is electoral by all catholic church, somehow he has to either guarantee future popes will support the italian papa state, or set up a sort of civil rule only formally dependant on the Pope.
 
Southern route

I still would like to see an unification and/or colonization from the south, just for a change ...

Hipothesis:
Houtvilles
Frederick II
Successful sicilian vespers
ideas?
 
Top