While normally the population of Germany would make this not likely, what If at some point the Holy Roman Empire takes control of the entirety of Italy. After this at some point the Renaissance or something similer occurs boosts the economic power of Italy. From charts I have seen from this period while north Italy is not likely to dominate the HRE, the Italian peninsula as a whole had a population comparable, if not larger then the German population of the HRE and a larger economy as well. So my question is what does a Italian dominated Holy roman empire look like, what is it likely to do diplomatically and expansion wise and finally if a Protestant reformation still occurs how does that look with Italy added to the mix as a more dedicated participant does Italy save Catholicism or will the rebellion expand and take on a more anti Italian role, will the southern German states stay with Italy and if the HRE eventually fractures, with less Germans in the HRE which would expand Italian control more, is there any potential for the HRE to serve as a basis for reviving a legitimate roman state by unifying a Italian dominated HRE down the roud?
Italian dominated Holy Roman Empire, whats it look like and can it revive a legitimate Roman state.
- Thread starter Pauh the federalist
- Start date
The problem regarding dominance isn't on demographics (population of Italy was quite strong in medieval times) but politic : from one hand we have a roughly unified Germany during Ottonian and Salian dynasties that slowly became more desunited; from the other we have a politically shattered taly since the end of Carolingian times, and that only went more and more desintegrated politically with time.
You'd really need to address this if you really want to have Italy eventually taking imperial lead (and assuming the more close presence of the pope isn't more of an hinderance than anything) from Germans.
You'd really need to address this if you really want to have Italy eventually taking imperial lead (and assuming the more close presence of the pope isn't more of an hinderance than anything) from Germans.
There was a very powerful Duchess, who was extremely powerful and owned much lands in Italy, she also got some favors from the German Emperor. Since she was there during the XIth century, Tuscany getting the title of Electorate would be a first step. You would also need either her daughter to inherit or her to have a son, since her lands joined the Imperial Crown after her death. Oh, and since the marriage was a complete fail, is Matilda gets to managa her daughter's education and everything goes well, you get an Italian young princess-elector with the most legitimate claim on lower Lotharingia (Basically two thirds of Belgium at this time) with Imperial support.
I don't know if it helps you in any way, probably is it, as Catalina said, too late, but still this gives some good base for some tasty empowerment of Italian nobility inside of the Empire.
I don't know if it helps you in any way, probably is it, as Catalina said, too late, but still this gives some good base for some tasty empowerment of Italian nobility inside of the Empire.
How about the victorious Hohenstaufen dynasty (providing it holds imperial title for few generations)? If the cities of the Northern Italy (Lombardy and Tuscany), which are formally a part of the HRE, are forced to acknowledge the imperial supremacy AND the ruling imperial family possesses, besides princedom in Germany, Southern Italy then there is at least a theoretical chance of a closer integration of these areas. Probably the 2nd map gives a better idea of the breakdown but the 1st one shows a "global perspective".
But this brings an obvious question of how such a victory could be achieved because it seems that whatever military power the HRE emperors could master during the Middle Ages, it was hardly adequate for a decisive defeat of the Italian opponents and even less so for the long-term enforcement of the gains (as Barbarossa had a chance to find out
). I see 2 main scenarios (none of which of a high probability):1st, somewhere in the XII - XIII century an emperor, who happens to be a military genius (and a visionary) manages to create a powerful standing army of its own and has money to pay for it (fat chance
). The army should not be knight-based but rather a combination of the (not not yet existing) units of the pikemen and armored cavalry with the reasonably competent military engineers as "icing on the cake" allowing to conduct successful and (relatively short) sieges of the Guelps' fortified towns in the Northern/Central Italy. Heavy reliance upon the infantry would make such an army less expensive then the typical armies of that period and, if the infantry is of a reasonably high quality (and numerous thanks to the lower cost per capita), it could kick <whatever> out of the contemporary opponents. Financing of such an army initially could come from the imperial territories and then from the implementation of "Wallenstein's model": the defeated opponents would pay for its maintenance. Of course, fortifications of the subdued places would have to be erased, city militias disbanded, etc.2nd, there is a handy ally capable of conducting a thorough genocide in the Northern Italy after which the survivors are too scared to resist an imperial occupation which is considered as a salvation from the future invasions. Again, the emperor should have considerable military force of his own (and to be a shrewd politician capable of both allying with the invader and posing as a savior from that invader afterwards). The only remotely realistic scenario to accomplish this would be extended Mongolian raid during their Western Campaign combined with a different arrangement within the Mongolian Empire which would (a) keep it united for much longer than in the OTL and (b) expand the directly held area all the way to Hungarian Plain and the steppe on Bulgaria/Romania Black Sea coast. No need in making these areas more than the "forward base" territories with 30 - 40K Mongols/Tatars living in each of them (not necessarily at the exclusion of the local population, such a combined model worked for quite a while in Budjak and Dobruja).
As I said, none of these scenarios look as a high probability but they are not completely ASB's either.
I'd think more you start from before Otto's restoration of the HRE from a German base; as I understand it the Imperial title had mostly floated around in Italy before Otto united Germany/East-Francia and came traipsing over the Alps. If Otto fails but an Italian ruler unites the Lombards and marries well enough, he might be able to push into Germany too.
ut this brings an obvious question of how such a victory could be achieved because it seems that whatever military power the HRE emperors could master during the Middle Ages, it was hardly adequate for a decisive defeat of the Italian opponents and even less so for the long-term enforcement of the gains (as Barbarossa had a chance to find out
Well, Gian Galeazzo Visconti managed to unify much of northern Italy before his death, and he was starting from a smaller base than the Emperors had. The main problem was that they kept getting distracted by affairs in Germany, meaning that they could never bring their full military might to bear. Accordingly, my proposed scenarios are:
(1) The Empire centralises enough that the Emperor can conduct lengthy foreign campaigns without having to run back and stomp dissent among the princes back home. As a result, the Emperor manages to conquer northern Italy and place it firmly under his control. He or a successor decides he likes the climate and rules from there.
(2) The Emperor gets in a big personal union with an outside state (Hungary? France?), and uses its power to help subdue the Italians. On his death, his titles are distributed among his sons. Whoever gets the Italian domains also gets the Imperial title.
(3) Some local Italian lord, like Gian Galeazzo, manages to unify the north, and marries into the Imperial family. As a result, this Italian realm ends up getting inherited by the Emperor. Quite possibly there would be a few rebellions over this, but if enough of Italy remains loyal, the resources of the HRE + Emperor's new lands in Italy should be enough to defeat any resistance. The Emperor decides he quite likes Italy, and ends up ruling from there.
How likely is it that the papal states would be an elector as well if they are a part of this entity? In addition what of southern Italy if it stays relatively whole like say Naples or the later Two Sicilys, would a strong southern Italian state be an elector? In north Italy in addition to other possible strong Italian states like genou and Milan, how likely is a Venice that is actually in the HRE to be an elector?
The Pope would have been independent, like the popes in Avignon, but his elections would certainly be influenced by the HRE, bringing an early end to the emperor vs papacy contest in favor of the empire.
For a Southern Italian Dukedom, I can see Benevento, Bari and Sicily as three different dukedoms, no point in keeping astringent enough political entity down there.
Genoa and Venice would have likely been incorporated in larger dukedoms, their power mostly resided in their fleets, they had no significant land armies or territory and their economical importance didn’t match with a political one, especially since we’re talking about a pre-fourth crusade ATL.
In temrs of a German HRE, well the best solution eould be a surviving Hohenstaufn pulling a Charles, with a sicilian/Italian branch (which inherits "Spain" for maximum Habsburg) under Fredrick conveying the dregs of Latin Rhomania and asserting Imperial authority over the Papal Patrimonium (and/or Provence and/or North Africa and/or Jerusalem), while the swabian branch under Philip (or a surviving alt son of Henry) utilize the Northern Crusades as the Capteians used the albigensian crusade, creating a new German lowercase in Pomerania/Prussia (said dynasty probably would all assert control over Provence and the dauphine).
In retrospect the untimely decides of notone bit two Hohenstaufeb emperors, and the subsequent reign of Ftederick II, was fatal to the family and to royal power in both Germany and Italy.
A probable result of this (at least one I considered in my .using on a potential timeline for this) would be a consolidation of the Lombard League into a sort of Swiss confederacy. Pope or no pope, I do not believe that the Emperors could maintain permanent subjection of the north Italian city states.
In retrospect the untimely decides of notone bit two Hohenstaufeb emperors, and the subsequent reign of Ftederick II, was fatal to the family and to royal power in both Germany and Italy.
A probable result of this (at least one I considered in my .using on a potential timeline for this) would be a consolidation of the Lombard League into a sort of Swiss confederacy. Pope or no pope, I do not believe that the Emperors could maintain permanent subjection of the north Italian city states.
Frederick II (Hohenstaufen) has two surviving sons. One of them inherits the Hohenstaufen lands in Swabia, the other the Kingdom of Sicily. Then the King of Sicily marries the daughter and only child of a north Italian dynasty in either Tuscany or Lombardy and with the support of his father in law becomes King of Italy. He aids his brother to become German king but extracts from him a promise that he'll renounce any claims to the title of Roman Emperor. He then manages to have a supporter of him elected as new pope in a conclave and said pope crowns him Roman Emperor. With the Italian Hohenstaufen dynasty lasting for several more generations and continuing to hold both the titles of King of Italy and Roman Emperor those two titles become connected and from the early Renaissance age on inseperable.
The iconography as well as the very name of this Augustalis coin of Frederick II clearly demonstrates that he regarded himself more as a successor of the ancient Roman Emperors than of the medieval Holy Roman Emperors
The iconography as well as the very name of this Augustalis coin of Frederick II clearly demonstrates that he regarded himself more as a successor of the ancient Roman Emperors than of the medieval Holy Roman Emperors
How likely is it that with stronger Italian influence in the HRE, If the HRE partially melts down during an equivalent to of the protestant reformation that results in the Protestant countries leaving the HRE or forming their own union independently possibly with a outside protector (I have heard people say in other threads a Swedish king around this period wanted to head a protestant HRE) that afterwards with significantly fewer Germans in the remainder of the HRE now that it only includes catholic provinces that the Italians may be able to dominate as they would be intact economically far away from the conflict of the Reformation and still stronger economically with more people in what is now a much less german HRE.
This was the problem. They could invade with various degree of success but even if successful they did not have military resources allowing to maintain a long-term occupation. This is why I was talking about Frederic II who was in a possession of the Southern Italy and at least did not have to march to Italy all the way from Germany. But the military force he possessed clearly was not adequate for the task.
My thought was more a "Sicilian" kingdom which incorporates Greece, the Romagna+Umbria (all of the OTL Papal States essentially, save Ferrara perhaps) then some combination of Provence, Aragon, Tunisia, and Jerusalem depending on how much of a wank you want to make it. IMHO the Northern States are likely to resist Hohenstaufen power, much the same way that the Swiss resisted the Habsburgs, so I posited an independent "Lombard Confederation" in the Po Valley gradually emerging out of sheer necessity.
As an aside a state which incorporates Northern Italy can hold power in Germany as well- a successful Arnulf of Carinthia could unite Italy and Bavaria into an alternate "Holy Roman Empire", likewise a Swabian dynasty could subjugate Burdundy, Loraine and Lombardy and dominate Germany in place of the Habsburgs. A state which holds Southern Italy, however, is not IMHO going to have much interest in expanding beyond the Alps, especially if they are based (like Frederick II) in Palermo- such a state would be far more interested in expanding through the Mediterreanean, and pushing north, at most, to crush the Pope (this only in the context of the Hohenstaufen regime- the Hautevilles, Angevins, Habsburgs and Bourbons all would instead ally with the Pope and leave the north be).
If we are talking about the XI - XIII centuries, the problem was in the army which in OTL simply could not be kept in the field for a long time. Part of your schema should be centralization of the HRE up to such a degree that an emperor has a standing army paid by the empire, preferably more "modern" than a typical army of that period, aka, having a strong infantry (for example, an early creation of the landsknechts as a pike infantry).
We are talking about the Middle Ages. Being a king of a big state does not automatically mean that you have a big army capable of fighting a prolonged war outside its native territory: you most probably have the private bands of the local feudals who may or may not be enthusiastic about your plans. Neither are they under an obligation to supply you with the funds for raising a mercenary army. Frederic II ruled one of the biggest Italian states, was an emperor and had allies in the Northern Italy. Still he failed.
Well, I like that but this scenario also implies that a lucky heir has enough political and military clout to keep this inheritance and the same goes for his successors.
Nirgal
Banned
Northern Italy as a whole was probably the wealthiest, most fertile area in all of western Europe. There is just no way that northern Italian unity or domination by just one outside state would be countenanced by any of the surrounding powers (Aragon/Spain, France, HRE, Bohemia, Hungary). Much less by the Italians themselves, who are so powerful united that there's no way somebody could take them all on.
Which is why it happens when "Spain" and France either don't exist or are busy with other problems, like the Hundred Years War.
It's not like Otto's conquest of Italy provoked French hostility.
There are examples of feudal armies conquering large parts of land (e.g., Philip Augustus taking most of John's continental possessions). It took quite a while to reduce all those castles, but it was possible.
I don't think pikes would be necessary, though; siege warfare was the main reason why conquering things was so hard, so you'd be better off having a professional siege train.
Not automatically, but it does help. As for getting the nobles on-side, the traditional way was to give them estates in the areas you conquered, and since Italy was pretty wealthy, that could provide a way of getting people to join you.
Yes, it'll require at least two or three generations of good luck for the Empire, though it's probably the most realistic scenario.
Nirgal
Banned
But that's all covered by my last sentence. I talk about France and Spain, etc., then I say that the Italians themselves would even less countenance it. Which is true, Otto's conquest of northern Italy became more or less nominal as soon as he went north of the Alps again.
