Earliest post-dark ages united Italy?

[Tyr]

What's the earliest we can get Italy (say at least 90% of it) united as one nation?

Its interesting just how rich and powerful the Italian states were at various points of history, yet due to their disunity they never really accomplished much out of this. That Italy ended up being a battleground for other powers really didn't help either.

Bonus points if you can do this without it just being a Habsburg appendage. At the least there needs to be an actual unified Italy, not just all of Italy happening to be part of the same empire

 

[Simreeve]

A [competent] son for Theodoric the Great, and no Byzantine attempt at reconquest.

 

[AndreaConti]

Death of Charlemagne and his brother Carloman in 771. The civil war of the Franks allows the Lombard king Desiderius subdue the Roman duchy and prepare for an offensive against the Byzantines

 

[LSCatilina]

Death of Charlemagne and his brother Carloman in 771. The civil war of the Franks allows the Lombard king Desiderius subdue the Roman duchy and prepare for an offensive against the Byzantines

Not talking about Charlemagne and Carolman being death at the same moment

Why should have been a civil war? Carloman's son becoming king of the Franks is a most likely outcome, even if it could mean a relative weakening of Frankish's grasp on Vasconia and Rhineland.

My two cents on the OP

- Ostrogothic Italy : You had several supporters of Byzantines even during Theodoric's reign (by anti-barbarism, or opportunism) and you would need to butterfly away Byzantine intervention by weakening the ERE.

- Lombard Italy : maybe the most likely. Have Charles Martel loosing the war that opposed himself against Hugonids and Neustrian Merovingians. You would end with a Francia divided between Neustria, Hugonid Austrasia, Bavaria, Aquitaine (that would have be raised as a sub-kingdom as OTL) and Provencal patricians.
With the Byzantine withdrawal of the VIII century, the Ducatus Romanus wouldn't be able to stand against Lombards for very long (Franks being unable to help, Byzzies being unwilling to, and Visigoths being crushed)

-Carolingian Italy : really hard. It was the junior kingdom of the Carolingians and a easy prey for senior ones as it was often associated with imperial dignity.

 

[AndreaConti]

Why should have been a civil war? Carloman's son becoming king of the Franks is a most likely outcome,

Because from Annales Sangallenses Baluzii e from Annales Petaviani, Pippin, Carloman's son, is one years old.

And for a newborn is difficult both governing, or invade Italy

 

[LSCatilina]

Because from Annales Sangallenses Baluzii e from Annales Petaviani, Pippin, Carloman's son, is one years old.

And? Not only it would be the perfect opportunity for Austrasian families to rule Francia "in the name of" without having actually to report to someone or at least allowing cadet Pippind branches to make a "regency", but you under-estimate how the prestige of Pippinids make them hard to overthrow (whole family being blessed by the pope, strong Pippinid presence in Francia...)

And for a newborn is difficult both governing, or invade Italy

On that we agree. It's why you would more likely end with a Pippinid regent of Carloman's house that was notoriously favorable to Lombards.

 

[Tyr]

I said post dark ages. All this stuff with Germanic tribes and Byzantines is cheating.

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, Dark Ages is a really vague notion at best : ideally it should be reserved to VI/VIII Britain. Could you give us more precise limits, please?

 

[AndreaConti]

On that we agree. It's why you would more likely end with a Pippinid regent of Carloman's house that was notoriously favorable to Lombards.

There is another point to be explored. Charlemagne has another brother Rodthaid, perhaps died in 773 and illegitimate. The regency could the mother of Pepin, daughter of King Desiderius

 

[AndreaConti]

Edith of Wessex don't dies in 946: Otto I can not marry Adelaide of Burgundy and then have an excuse to declare war to Berengar II

Or Arduino of Ivrea in Valsugana defeats Henry II, remaning King of Italy

 

[Tyr]

Yeah, most periods are vague though.
The earliest end of the dark ages I've seen is around 800, but that seems way too early. 1066 is a pretty good date, marking the end of the viking era. I was thinking more towards the 13th century, after imperial authority has waned and we get into the Guelphs and Ghibellines and beyond.

 

[LSCatilina]

There is another point to be explored. Charlemagne has another brother Rodthaid, perhaps died in 773 and illegitimate. The regency could the mother of Pepin, daughter of King Desiderius

I don't think an illegitimate offspring would be favored : OTL Pepin the Hunchaback, illegitimate son of Charlemagne, was considered his successor up to the birth of a legitimate son.

Yeah, most periods are vague though.
The earliest end of the dark ages I've seen is around 800, but that seems way too early. 1066 is a pretty good date, marking the end of the viking era. I was thinking more towards the 13th century, after imperial authority has waned and we get into the Guelphs and Ghibellines and beyond.

Well, academically speaking, Dark Ages was used for describe the situation of the sources in the last period of Early medieval England : there wasn't any written contemporary source. The period, for historians that used mainly written sources before archaeological one, was then "dark".
It was used for other similar periods, as "Greek Dark Ages".

The use of Dark Ages for anything else is frowned upon now, as it's mainly coming from a moral judgment on the period that would have been dark by itself. Since the XX, such denomination is clearly obsolete as it's both extremly vague, and a-historical.

Regarding the period you choose, it would be more precise to use the classical periodization : Early, High, Late Middle Ages.

So, for Early I tried to cover it very quickly and summarized in the first post, and if you want something in the High Middle Ages...

There was a recent thread about it, if you're interested.

I'll copy what I said was, for me at least, the most possible way.

Mathilda of Tuscany is quite well placed for that.

If Henri IV dies earlier than OTL, and the struggle between the pope and emperors continue, it's possible that the next HRE doesn't find the same support Henri had OTL by the Lombard and part of Roman nobility.

If Mathilda, or Mathilda's heir (this is kind of mandatory) receive sort of vice-royalty domination on Italy from the pope, she (and heirs) could try to enforce it with, at least at first, papal support.

See, an Italian unification and independence after the Carolingian era is hard : Italy is associated with Imperial title, and nobody really wanted to have it away. You'll eventually need HRE declining quickly and hugely in order to allow an Italian noble taking over at least the title of "Kings of Romans".

 

[FellowNerd]

I timeline "the brothers of italy" is the earliest time Italy can unify in my opinion. Not necessarily under Tuscany, but around that time frame of 1500 or so

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Regarding the period you choose, it would be more precise to use the classical periodization : Early, High, Late Middle Ages.

Don't forget the Late Antiquity model.

 

[LSCatilina]

Don't forget the Late Antiquity model.

Late Antiquity is more of a transitional definition that overlaps part of the Early Middle Ages (more or less depending on the studied region).

 

[LordKalvan]

Was not the same OP discussed a few weeks ago?

Anyway, the earliest reasonable chance post AD 1000 comes with the Canossa: Bonifacio of Canossa, marquis of Tuscany, count of Modena, Reggio, Mantova, Ferrara and Brescia. duke of Spoleto and Camerino was the most powerful imperial feudatory in Italy. After a long (some sources date his birth in 985, but I would believe he was actually born 10 years later) and successful life he suddenly died in 1052 during a hunt near Mantua (possibly assassinated). Bonifacio had two children: Federico and Matilda. The former died in suspicious circumstances in 1055, the latter survived and against all opposition managed to rule with an iron hand the Canossa domains and to participate on the papal side to the struggle for investitures. However she never had any issue, and at her death the feudal possessions reverted to the empire, while the allodial fiefs were given to the church.
There are at least two possible PODs here: Bonifacio surviving the hunt near Mantua and living until his son Federico gets of age (another 5 or 6 years: in 1054 Federico was still under the regency of his mother); alternatively Matilda being more lucky with her marriages, and producing some healthy (and male) children. Obviously a few more years for Bonifacio would help Matilda to land a better husband (and possibly live a happier life).
If Federico survives his minority and inherits his father's possessions the struggle for investitures could go much more decisively to the papal side, and there might be a window of opportunity for Federico. It would certainly change the next couple of generations quite decisively and there are a lot of things in flux during the XI and XII centuries.
Same thing if Matilda has a strong husband at her side (not that she was a weak reed, quite the contrary ). Her son would inherit great and rich land holdings (and besides Italy he would also have a serious claim to Lorraine, out of his grandmother). A few years ago there was a TL by Shadow Knight (Tuscan Sons) in which I had quite a lot of influence. Maybe you want to have a look at it.

The only other opportunity comes in the 2nd half of 14th century, when the aftermath of the Black Death, the Great Western Schism and the parlous state of the HRE gave to the Visconti of Milan (and in particular to Gian Galeazzo Visconti) a very nice window of opportunity. Unfortunately Gian Galeazzo died suddenly in late 1402 (pestilence, some other illness or poison: take your pick) and the Visconti possessions unraveled. Give Gian Galeazzo another 15 years and the chance to consolidate his domains and groom an heir and things would likely be quite different.
GG would not be able to unify Italy. His son (or his grandson) might manage to.

 

[AndreaConti]

OTL Pepin the Hunchaback, illegitimate son of Charlemagne, was considered his successor up to the birth of a legitimate son.

Pepin the Hunchaback wasn't illegitimate son... For the frank law, fredelehe, temporay civil marriage, gave at the son the same inheritance rights of catholic marriage.

Charle Magne was born in fredelehe. Rodthaid born of a concubine "more danico", for the frank law was not entitled to inherit

King Pépin ans his wife had eight children, legitimate heirs:

1. 1. CHARLES in this POD died in 771
2. 2. CARLOMAN, died in 771
3. 3. GISELA (757-Chelles 30 Jul 810), woman, that can not inherit the Salic law
4. 4. PEPIN, dead in 761
5. 5. CHROTHAIS, woman, that can not inherit the Salic law
6. 6. ADELAIS woman, that can not inherit the Salic law
7. 7. Unnamed daughter is in the Vita Maximini Episcopi Trevirensis which records that "Pippini regis ex filia nepos…Chunibertus" was "atrociter a dæmone vexatus" and cured after he was taken to the saint
8. 8. Another unnamed daughter. The only reference to this unnamed daughter is in the Annales Murbacenses

If Charles and Carloman dead in 771:

1. 1) Rodthaid take power, with some opposition, but died in 773. It's difficult think that he declare war to Desiderius
2. 2) Pippin, Carloman's son, becomes king, with longobard regency

There are two others problem:

1. a: if Pippin, as in our TL, died in 775 who becomes frank king ?
2. b: to some historians, Rodthaid is a woman (CHROTHAIS in other transcription or one of unnamed daughter... Paulus Diaconus wrote a poem in memory of "Rothaidis filiæ Pippini regis", but it could also be a mistake of the copyist, because in some annals is quoted as man )

 

[LSCatilina]

Pepin the Hunchaback wasn't illegitimate son... For the frank law, fredelehe, temporay civil marriage, gave at the son the same inheritance rights of catholic marriage.

Charle Magne was born in fredelehe. Rodthaid born of a concubine "more danico", for the frank law was not entitled to inherit

For what mattered, aka succession to a throne and to a family that based his power to the respect, support and leadership of Christianity, they were considered as illegitimate, because Christian elites didn't know anything but one spouse. Period.
It's why Pepin couldn't repudiate her and didn't dared to do so after the papal interdiction.

Furthermore, I don't see something about Bertha being a friedelfrau. Arguably, the system is far for being the consistency and the institutionalization you give him and it's difficult to make a definitive statement. (BTW, the marriage "more danico" is something else, while related)

According to Michel Rouche (one of the specialist of the period) : one spouse had the first rank, which was considered as the true spouse by the Church, and the others were considered as second rank spouses (mere concubines, still for the Church)

For Bertaldra, I simply didn't found something about it. Could you give us a source please?

Maybe I'm a bit vague, so allow me to clarify my point : I don't deny that according germanic institutions, sons from a friedlehele could inherit fully. Charles Martel was such (but had nevertheless to fight during 4 years to support his claim).

But as Pippinids based their overthrowing of Merovingian on the collective blessing of Pepin and his descendants by the pope, I think the successor should have been a legitimate one according to Christian and Roman standards.

a: if Pippin, as in our TL, died in 775 who becomes frank king ?

I don't see why he should dies on the same date. His death was arguably due to how his uncle, Charlemagne, treated him : being cloistered doesn't help to good wealth.

Now, if he dies early : probably Pepin the Hunchback, born circa 770. Desiderata of Lombardy being repudiated, Pepin would have been in a vague situation where he would have been the most legitimate descendant of Pepin III. Admittedly, it wouldn't go without troubles in Francia.

b: to some historians, Rodthaid is a woman (CHROTHAIS in other transcription or one of unnamed daughter... Paulus Diaconus wrote a poem in memory of "Rothaidis filiæ Pippini regis", but it could also be a mistake of the copyist, because in some annals is quoted as man )

If he was a man, he would certainly have inherited part of Francia.
Furthermore, Rodthaid is a name used by other women : Rodthaid of Bobbio, spouse of a Pepin of a minor branch of Carolingians, using the same Chrothais variance.
I don't think that such name can pass from masculine to feminine even in 100 years.

When these annals were made? If they are quite close of the late VIII/early XI, it could be interesting. If not, I would be tempted they are the result of a copyist mistake

 

[Bee]

Have the Normans take North Italy in the 11th century the same way they did the South. They were initially recruited as mercenaries and were granted some lands, later turned against the native rulers and played the outside empires skillfully until they were strong enough to defy them.