Italian Centered Holy Roman Empire

[Hierophant]

It would be amusing if the germans ended up consolidating into one state while the Italians AND the French remain split up within a Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Hmm, interesting… Do you think that its possible that Germany might try to break away from the HRE after the center of it had shifted away to Italy after a few generations?

There's no such thing as Germany, and Frederick had very extensive estates in the north.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm of the opinion (and I'm probably wrong) that the reason there was such an extreme amount of 'fragmentation' in Germany and to a lesser extent France was because of all the dozens of interacting ethnicities (ie barbarian tribes) mixing with Roman and Gaulish descendents, which created all these semi-independent polities.

In Italy, there was a more ancient common history (the Romans) to bond people together as Italians a little more, as well as less new peoples settling in the peninsula as opposed to north of the Alps.

You're right, you are wrong. It was fragmented because it had never been unitary, the civilization was feudal, and nobody was able to amass the power necessary to build a lasting empire, nor did they even have anything but the vaguest conception of such a thing. The idea of an ethnically based state was totally alien and would have caused people to stare at you like you were crazy until extremely recently, and even then I think it's a bad idea.

You'll note that Italy didn't exactly jump together to form a united polity - the Hohenstaufen had regions that had a history of the unitary Byzantine past in Sicily and Southern Italy.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm confused. The Normans arrived after Frederick died, and Frederick most definitely concentrated on his Italian dominions.

Nice thought, shared by people like Petrarca and Machiavelli, in their days.
OTOH, Giucciardini explained to Machiavelli that "non si puo' far fare agli asini il corso dei cavalli", which, in a freestyle translation means that you cannot teach a donkey to be a horse.
Middle ages Italians in a way were self-defeated by being too rich and civilised. It was never possible to impose a single rule, since all the different cities were just interested in going alone, and counting their ducats.

Maybe the chance came with Frederick 2nd: if he had concentrated more on his Italian possession, and in particular on the Norman kingdom, history might have been different. The titular capital of this "other" HRE would have been Rome for sure (but in that age kings and emperors were required to move from city to city, to keep things under control). The pope would have been subservient to the emperor, at least for a time. Later on, it would be quite possible for an emperor confronted by a difficult pope (or just in need of funds) to create an Imperial Church, Anglican style.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

…That wouldn’t be so good for the Pope, but actually I think it might be easier for a Holy Roman Emperor to just replace an unfriendly Pope with someone else…

Anyway, If the Empire loses Germany, where do you think it could spread to compensate? Southern France? The Crusader States in Greece? Spain? Tunisia, maybe ?


Also, What of Germany? Do you think it could revert to the Kingdom of Germany, or would it split up along the same lines as OTL?

What do you mean by "revert to the Kingdom of Germany"? I think you people are mooshing modern ideas onto the medieval period.

 

[Hermanubis]

What do you mean by "revert to the Kingdom of Germany"? I think you people are mooshing modern ideas onto the medieval period.

I suppose the East Frankish Kingdom that formed the Holy Roman Empire, then? Wasn’t a Kingdom of Germany part of the HRE structure, anyway?

 

[Rick Robinson]

Anyway, If the Empire loses Germany, where do you think it could spread to compensate? Southern France? The Crusader States in Greece? Spain? Tunisia, maybe ?

It would hardly need to. Italy was by far the richest region of western Europe, at least in the sense of mobilize-able wealth. A government with the resources to hold Italy itself together might not be able to conquer the rest outright - not worth the effort anyway - but could maintain a hegemonic predominance, and particularly stave off the unification of France under the French monarchy. (Which itself only had "hegemonic predominance" till the late 15th century.)

In essence, you would have a Western Empire that was more or less feudal in transalpine Europe, and, administratively, somewhere between an early-modern State and a tight federation of city-states within Italy. The one real risk would be killing the commercial goose that lays the golden eggs, but the level of taxation required would not make that at all inevitable.

-- Rick

 

[Faeelin]

There's no such thing as Germany, and Frederick had very extensive estates in the north.

Meh; his uncle Phillip of Swabia gave a way much of the Staufen demesne in Swabia during his war with Otto. This had been the heart of the Staufens in Germany, so to say he had extensive estates is a bit of a stretch.

It's true Frederick II gained control of Austria in 1236, but that's late in his reign.

 

[Faeelin]

I'm confused. The Normans arrived after Frederick died, and Frederick most definitely concentrated on his Italian dominions.

You've got it backwards. Henry VI, Frederick's father, married a Norman princess, and then took over the kingdom.

IIRC, some one did a timeline on him, a while back.

 

[Faeelin]

What do you mean by "revert to the Kingdom of Germany"? I think you people are mooshing modern ideas onto the medieval period.

The Kingdom of Germany did exist in this peroid; it, and Burgundy (which wasn't where Burgundy of the Valois was) were the three kingdoms of the Empire.

 

[Faeelin]

In essence, you would have a Western Empire that was more or less feudal in transalpine Europe, and, administratively, somewhere between an early-modern State and a tight federation of city-states within Italy. The one real risk would be killing the commercial goose that lays the golden eggs, but the level of taxation required would not make that at all inevitable.

The Italian states had very efficient tax collectors, and just because they didn't tax the whole penninsula didnt' mean that each part was individually taxed heavily.

If anything, not having wars every six months against the neighboring city would make them more prosperous.

Marseilles at this point, was part of the Empire BTW. The Kingdom of Burgundy isn't going to join France, in this TL.

 

[Rick Robinson]

The Italian states had very efficient tax collectors, and just because they didn't tax the whole penninsula didnt' mean that each part was individually taxed heavily.

If anything, not having wars every six months against the neighboring city would make them more prosperous.

Marseilles at this point, was part of the Empire BTW. The Kingdom of Burgundy isn't going to join France, in this TL.

True on all points. Whatever the level of taxation in the Italian city states, it obviously didn't buckle their economies. An Italian Emperor could collect considerably less and still maintain a very formidable army.

-- Rick

 

[LordKalvan]

I'm confused. The Normans arrived after Frederick died, and Frederick most definitely concentrated on his Italian dominions.

The Normans started to arrive in Southern italy as mercenaries mid X Century.
The Kingdom of Sicily dates from 1030.
Frederik II comes almost 2 centuries later.

 

[Faeelin]

True on all points. Whatever the level of taxation in the Italian city states, it obviously didn't buckle their economies. An Italian Emperor could collect considerably less and still maintain a very formidable army.

-- Rick

Correct. And if we're going with Freddy II as our king, we should remember he was the king of Jerusalem. And the Italians would know how to run outremer a damn sight better than some Franks.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Correct. And if we're going with Freddy II as our king, we should remember he was the king of Jerusalem. And the Italians would know how to run outremer a damn sight better than some Franks.

As a piggy bank.

Seriously, with a united Empire based in Italy, you've got the Venetians, Amalfitans, Pisans, and Genoese harnessed in tandem in Eastern trade. What if the Empire takes Egypt and can hold it? Direct Italian access to the Red Sea and thus the Indian Ocean? Vasco da Gama just got put out of a job. Columbus, too.

And Byzantium could be in a world of hurt. If there's some equivalent of the Fourth Crusade, it is not going to create a fragmented mess, but a "reunited" Roman Empire. Though that could turn into a costly drain, if the emperors can't find some way to manage Greek sentiments.

-- Rick

 

[Hermanubis]

^Well, if were going with Frederick II, the Fourth Crusade has already happened (unless were going with a really early POD), sences he didn’t become HRE until 1220.

 

[Rick Robinson]

^Well, if were going with Frederick II, the Fourth Crusade has already happened (unless were going with a really early POD), sences he didn’t become HRE until 1220.

Oops. Though I'd recommend an earlier POD anyway. By the 13th century, Italian civic patriotism is deeply rooted - the effort of crushing it might be so destructive that it largely negates the potential of an Italian-centered Empire.

-- Rick

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The Kingdom of Germany did exist in this peroid; it, and Burgundy (which wasn't where Burgundy of the Valois was) were the three kingdoms of the Empire.

In Frederick's time? No, there was no Kingdom of Germany - at least as any sort of unitary state. Perhaps the confusion is that you were only emperor after the Pope crowned you, otherwise upon election you were just king.

And I know where Burgundy was. Don't make me slap you.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

You've got it backwards. Henry VI, Frederick's father, married a Norman princess, and then took over the kingdom.

IIRC, some one did a timeline on him, a while back.

True, somehow in my mind I was confusing the Normans with the Angevins.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Correct. And if we're going with Freddy II as our king, we should remember he was the king of Jerusalem. And the Italians would know how to run outremer a damn sight better than some Franks.

Meh (to coin a phrase), Frederick wouldn't have had any more luck running a Kingdom of Jerusalem than anyone else. This was a diplomatic triumph, but a fairly insubstantial one. It lasted something like three years. Ask the residents of Cyprus and Crete how much they appreciated Italian rule, BTW.