How powerful would united Italy be in the Middle Ages or Renaissance?

What about the possibility of the HRE becoming an HREIN instead of an HREGN. That is, that the HRE sheds German territory and power, focussing on Italy, instead of the other way around.
 
What about the possibility of the HRE becoming an HREIN instead of an HREGN. That is, that the HRE sheds German territory and power, focussing on Italy, instead of the other way around.
The only reasonable way would be a the formation of a unitary kingdom of Italy before Otto traipses down from the Alps to claim the crown of Rex Romanorum and Emperor: a successful Berengar (or in alternative one of the Guidonids of Spoleto). Otto stays in Germany, with the royal crown, but does not recognise the imperial crown claimed by Berengar. Over time, the imperial crown survives but just as a title of the King of Italy (or possibly Italy and Arles) and Germany goes on as a kingdom.

After the Ottonian restoration it is much more tricky: the only way it might work is to abolish the crown of Rex Romanorum. Let's say a big Italian feudatory manages to unify the north and Center of Italy and keep out the German armies (the hypothetical son of Matilda I mentioned earlier on, for example). When the current German emperor dies, his heir cannot go to Rome. He convenes the major German feudatories and churchmen and is crowned as Roman emperor of the German Nation. The same happens in Italy, where of course it is quite easy to call the title of Rex Romanorum, and being crowned emperor by the pope. Now you have both the HREGN and the HREIN. The same would obviously happen if a crowned emperor is kicked out from Germany by a successful rebel, but manages to keep Italy under his control.

What I do not believe possible if for an emperor to split the empire (say Conrad giving Germany to Conrad the younger and all of Italy to Manfred).
 
Berengar is not a well known historical figure, also because not a lot of primary sources survived. Calling him the "cockroach King" however may be right on the money. He had to face daunting odds (the Magyars, the Saracens, foreign and domestic claimants to his crown, unruly and treacherous feudatories) and was defeated more than once. And every time he survived, and came back stronger.

Truly the best Berengar moment is when he's defeated and captured by Lambert at Marengo, only for Lambert to somehow die mysteriously - and shortly thereafter Berengar is back in Pavia as king again. It's too bad we don't have more/better sources because I've always wanted to know what the hell happened there.

He was a hell of a survivalist.


I have trouble with the notion that Brenta was winnable for Berengar. In the first place, this is Berengar we're talking about - if he ought to be famous for anything, it's for remaining in power for decades despite losing several critical battles. His record is not one of military accomplishment.

More importantly, however, Lechfeld was the culmination of decades of learning, preparation, and construction on the part of the German kings and Bavarian dukes. Over the course of the first half of the 10th century, the Germans built up a formidable system of defense-in-depth which allowed them to harry the Magyars as they returned from plundering, and trained a cavalry force with the proper tactics to defeat the Magyars. These were hard-won lessons, learned in spilled blood and lost treasure. The true accomplishment of Lechfeld was not the actual battle, which was somewhat inconclusive (the Magyars were forced to withdraw, but the Germans suffered heavy losses), but the several days after the battle in which Bavarian militia/local forces destroyed the Magyars in detail at river crossings and fords across the duchy.

I think it was quite possible for the Italians to beat the Magyars, and maybe even for Berengar to manage it - but not the first time they met. I don't think anyone beat the Magyars on their first encounter. Berengar might have been a lucky man, but to miraculously defeat an enemy he was totally unfamiliar with and whom the Germans took half a century to adapt to is too lucky even for him. His best bet was probably to not fight Brenta at all, but then again, letting the Magyars run unchecked through Lombardy was not going to help his support and legitimacy. To be honest I'm not really sure what Berengar could have done to salvage that situation. (And it's worth noting, by the way, that even Brenta didn't cripple him - he still ruled Italy for another 25 years afterwards.)

Berengar's lack of a son is indeed a big problem. I agree that the Anscarids are probably the best option; their large territory in the north was always a thorn in the side of Berengar and later Hugh, and making the Margrave of Ivrea also King of Italy is probably the best way to make Lombardy politically stable. If Berengar manages to hang on and stay alive for another 5 years or so, he probably outlives his son-in-law, and by 930 he can pass his kingdom directly to his ~30 year old grandson Berengar II.

I also agree re: expansion - the (post-Lombard, pre-Ottonian) Italian kings were much more interested in Burgundy than southern Italy. Firstly, many of them were themselves Burgundinians; but Burgundy was also part of "Middle Francia" which, under Lothair, had been attached to the Italian and imperial crowns. You don't really need a direct marital connection to justify such a conquest (though it always helps). I think Arles/Provence/Burgundy is much more likely an acquisition (or attempted acquisition) than southern Italy at that time, though if the Kingdom of (nothern) Italy thrives, I'm sure they would eventually get involved in the south.
 
Last edited:
I have trouble with the notion that Brenta was winnable for Berengar. In the first place, this is Berengar we're talking about - if he ought to be famous for anything, it's for remaining in power for decades despite losing several critical battles. His record is not one of military accomplishment.

More importantly, however, Lechfeld was the culmination of decades of learning, preparation, and construction on the part of the German kings and Bavarian dukes. Over the course of the first half of the 10th century, the Germans built up a formidable system of defense-in-depth which allowed them to harry the Magyars as they returned from plundering, and trained a cavalry force with the proper tactics to defeat the Magyars. These were hard-won lessons, learned in spilled blood and lost treasure. The true accomplishment of Lechfeld was not the actual battle, which was somewhat inconclusive (the Magyars were forced to withdraw, but the Germans suffered heavy losses), but the several days after the battle in which Bavarian militia/local forces destroyed the Magyars in detail at river crossings and fords across the duchy.

I think it was quite possible for the Italians to beat the Magyars, and maybe even for Berengar to manage it - but not the first time they met. I don't think anyone beat the Magyars on their first encounter. Berengar might have been a lucky man, but to miraculously defeat an enemy he was totally unfamiliar with and whom the Germans took half a century to adapt to is too lucky even for him. His best bet was probably to not fight Brenta at all, but then again, letting the Magyars run unchecked through Lombardy was not going to help his support and legitimacy. To be honest I'm not really sure what Berengar could have done to salvage that situation. (And it's worth noting, by the way, that even Brenta didn't cripple him - he still ruled Italy for another 25 years afterwards.)

Berengar's lack of a son is indeed a big problem. I agree that the Anscarids are probably the best option; their large territory in the north was always a thorn in the side of Berengar and later Hugh, and making the Margrave of Ivrea also King of Italy is probably the best way to make Lombardy politically stable. If Berengar manages to hang on and stay alive for another 5 years or so, he probably outlives his son-in-law, and by 930 he can pass his kingdom directly to his ~30 year old grandson Berengar II.

I also agree re: expansion - the (post-Lombard, pre-Ottonian) Italian kings were much more interested in Burgundy than southern Italy. Firstly, many of them were themselves Burgundinians; but Burgundy was also part of "Middle Francia" which, under Lothair, had been attached to the Italian and imperial crowns. You don't really need a direct marital connection to justify such a conquest (though it always helps). I think Arles/Provence/Burgundy is much more likely an acquisition (or attempted acquisition) than southern Italy at that time, though if the Kingdom of (nothern) Italy thrives, I'm sure they would eventually get involved in the south.

You make a lot of good points re. the battle of the Brenta. I had not considered that it was the first serious Hungar raid, and that the Italian army would find it quite hard to adjust to their tactics. By the same token, if Berengar manages a close win, probably with high losses, it would not be suitable for a founding myth since at this stage the Hungars are not recognised as the major bugbear they will become over the next 50 years. This however makes the defeat even worse from a propaganda standpoint: Berengar proudly show weakness by being unable to maintain the security of the kingdom even when confronted by just a bunch of smelly nomads. Maybe the best solution is for him to let the Magyar go, maybe even paying them off something. After all, the cockroach King was flexible and astute enough to sign a treaty of friendship with the same Magyars just a few years later.

I have to disagree a bit on the importance of Lechfeld: by the mid X century the Magyar invasions were already decreasing, because the German lords had learnt better tactics to cope with them certainly but also because more and more Magyars had abandoned a nomad lifestyle. For political reasons the victory was touted around as the end of the Magyar danger, same as the victory of Charles Martel at Poitiers had been depicted as the "saving of Christian Europe". There were good spin doctors in the Middle Age too, or maybe I'm too much of a cynical soul.

There are obvious ties between Lombardy and Burgundy, and not just dinasty care ones. In an age when the seas were made dangerous by the Vikings in the north and by the Saracens in the Mediterranean a lot of commerce was transiting from Flanders to Lombardy and vice versa through the Gotthard pass. However I'm not necessarily proposing a dinasty union between Arles/Burgundy and Italy. I would be perfectly satisfied by a recognised commonality of interests, chief among them the need to keep West Frankia from becoming too powerful and East Frankia from intervening either in Burgundy or Italy. In my opinion just keeping southern France independent from the Royal power in Paris and friendly to both Burgundy and Italy would be a very successful outcome.
 
Berengar paying off the Magyars is probably the best outcome for him, particularly if they can be bought off so as to attack his regional rivals (particularly in Provence/Burgundy). Yet I'm not sure he's very likely to buy them off when he doesn't really know their power - Brenta was the first major confrontation between the Magyars and any post-Carolingian state. Unless he's been paying very close attention to developments in Simeon's Bulgaria and the Pannonian plain, which seems unlikely, he has no way of knowing the true danger of the enemy he is facing.

I have to disagree a bit on the importance of Lechfeld: by the mid X century the Magyar invasions were already decreasing, because the German lords had learnt better tactics to cope with them certainly but also because more and more Magyars had abandoned a nomad lifestyle. For political reasons the victory was touted around as the end of the Magyar danger, same as the victory of Charles Martel at Poitiers had been depicted as the "saving of Christian Europe". There were good spin doctors in the Middle Age too, or maybe I'm too much of a cynical soul.

I completely concur that there was some spin at work there; Lechfeld was the "last gasp" of a declining Magyar raider-state rather than a climactic defeat of the Magyars at the height of their power. Yet while I agree they had been in serious decline, I don't think it's because the Magyars were no longer nomadic. There's evidence that the Magyars still maintained that lifestyle through the 11th century; writers much later than Liutprand describe the Magyars as still living largely in tents, and I mentioned an edict of King Stephen in my own TL thread in which Stephen/Vajk prohibited towns from moving too far away from their church (which is probably not something that would have occurred to most Christian European kings to legislate about). The Magyar army at Lechfeld was unusual in that it contained a large infantry component, but I think it's more likely that this reflected a change in tactics - the Magyars were attempting to force a battle by besieging Augsburg, and a credible siege required infantry - than any changes in lifestyle on the part of the Magyars. (The "Magyar" infantry at Augsburg may have very well been subject peoples, like Slavs.)

I tend to think of Lechfeld being somewhere in the middle in terms of importance, between the extremes of "just an overblown skirmish" and "massively decisive victory" - it was an important event which caused severe damage to the Magyars and killed some of their prominent leaders, but it also occurred in a context in which the Magyars were already something of a shadow of their former selves. A few years earlier, Duke Henry of Bavaria had raided Pannonia and forced the Magyars to pay him tribute; obviously this was not the same terrifying raider-state of the early 900s. At the risk of betraying my ignorance of modern warfare, I feel like you can make a not-completely-terrible comparison to the Battle of the Bulge of WW2 - a last-ditch offensive to try and salvage a clearly deteriorating strategic situation which battered the enemy but ultimately failed (and disastrously so). I certainly don't think Otto "saved Christian Europe" by winning Lechfeld - he didn't even "save" Germany - but I do think it was an important battle which is worthy of note, a clear final punctuation on the story of the rise and fall of the Magyar raider-state.

There are obvious ties between Lombardy and Burgundy, and not just dinasty care ones. In an age when the seas were made dangerous by the Vikings in the north and by the Saracens in the Mediterranean a lot of commerce was transiting from Flanders to Lombardy and vice versa through the Gotthard pass. However I'm not necessarily proposing a dinasty union between Arles/Burgundy and Italy. I would be perfectly satisfied by a recognized commonality of interests, chief among them the need to keep West Frankia from becoming too powerful and East Frankia from intervening either in Burgundy or Italy. In my opinion just keeping southern France independent from the Royal power in Paris and friendly to both Burgundy and Italy would be a very successful outcome.

This seems to have been what Otto had in mind; he "intervened" early in the reign of Conrad of Burgundy to shield him from Hugh's ambitions, and while his suzerainty over Conrad was largely nominal it was nevertheless understood that Burgundy was in the German sphere and not to be messed with by outside powers. A similar relationship with an Italian king/emperor playing the role of Otto in Provence and/or Burgundy is certainly plausible.
 
Last edited:
Top