Italy unified by Sicily (with a Medieval PoD)

So, as you know, IOTL Italy was unified in the late 19th Century, at the hands of the Savoyard Sardinian-Piedmontese Dynasty. Even centuries before that, the idea of a "Kingdom of Italy" in the Middle Ages was more associated to the northern half of the peninsula, usually excluding the Papal State, as it confounded with the former Kingdom of Lombardy centered in Pavia since the Carolingian conquest.

Now, what is the best scenario to have Italy united starting from the Mezzogiorno with a PoD after the death of Charlemagne and before the 15th Century, from a rule centered in Naples, Sicily or perhaps Benevento.

1) An easy pick might be the Carolingians themselves annexing the whole of Italy (considering their rule over the southern Lombard principalities was tenous at best, despite Charlemagne and his descendants' wars to submit them). Then, the greatest threats to whatever Italian ruler that arises from the crumbling Carolingian Empire will be Byzantium and the Arabs.

2) How about the Normans? After the creation of the Kingdom of Sicily, they remained one of the most stable, wealthy and powerful states of the peninsula. Can we make the Hautevilles focus more on going north instead of adventuring against the Byzantine Empire? This obviously will cause conflict with the HRE and the Papacy.

3) Speaking of which, how about HRE Frederick II? He's a favorite one even in these forums, as I've seen some old threads discussing the possibility of him defeating the Lombard League. And then what, how could we make his successors focus on Italy and forget about Germany?

4) Other suggestions? After the Hohenstaufen we had the War of Sicilian Vespers, and then Sicily itself became divided between Anjou and Aragon.
 
What about a surviving canossa..

I've actually been thinking about this scenario (not necessarily with Matilda, perhaps we could get her brother Frederick to survive).

For this thread, I'm more interested in analyzing the conditions from a Sicilian-led unification
 
The best opportunity for a prosperous kingdom in the south of Italy is a continuing Hauteville dynasty, so that Constance does not inherit and the Houenstaufen do not acquire the kingdom (which means that there is also no possible claim from Aragon).
It does not necessarily result into an Italian unification managed by the kingdom of Sicily, though. The Hauteville were always more interested in building up their fortunes in the Mediterranean and in trying to gobble up the ERE rather than expanding towards the north (it is also harder to move from south to north rather than viceversa, and the richer and most populous parts of Italy are in the Padan plain).

Failing that it becomes very hard, because the Aragonese-Anjou wars were a disaster for the region.
There is a (very unlikely) possibility that Gian Galeazzo Visconti manages to marry Maria of Sicily, but the Aragonese opposition would be very hard to overcome and GG would have plenty of problems to manage given the distance between Sicily and the Visconti possessions in the north.

Another possibility would be Ferrante of Aragon managing to found a dynasty in Naples in the 15th century: once again he'd need to sire some heir and successfully coping with the Aragonese presence in Sicily.

Victor Amadeus II of Savoy was awarded the crown of Sicily by the treaty of Utrecht, but again Sicily is quite far away from the Savoy possessions and the Savoy navy was minuscule. When Spain tried to recover the south of Italy in 1720, the limited Savoyard forces in the island were unable to oppose a serious resistance and were saved only by the intervention of the other European powers. VA II had to accept the swap between Sicily and Sardinia. I don't see a lot of possibilities with this POD
 
(...)

3) Speaking of which, how about HRE Frederick II? He's a favorite one even in these forums, as I've seen some old threads discussing the possibility of him defeating the Lombard League. And then what, how could we make his successors focus on Italy and forget about Germany?

(...)

That's pretty much what Frederick II already did during his lifetime, he basically ignored the Empire north of the Alps and undid many of the hard work of his Swabian (Hohenstaufen) and Franconian (Salian dynasty) ancestors of building up a decent imperial powerbase, by giving way too much into demands of the Princes, in order to get the manpower for his Italian/Sicilian ambitions. His reign was one step downwards in the long decline of the Empire; the reigns of his grandfather Frederick Barbarossa (Rotbart/roter Bart) or even his father Henry VI are remembered better, north of the Alps, than Frederick II, who though fascinating, had a reign, which turned out to have rather bad long lasting effects for the Empire.
 
Last edited:
The grand strategy of Norman Sicily after the Treaty of Benevento was to side with the Pope against the very real threat of German invasion. A Hauteville attempt to rule north of the Abruzzi would have exploded that relationship, because the one unifying theme of Papal politics through the Middle Ages and beyond was that no one state should grow too powerful in Italy. Abandoning that alliance to embark on a quixotic quest to conquer the north would have been a very serious blunder that I have difficulty imagining any of the Norman kings committing. It would have also invited the intervention of the emperor, who - now fighting to protect the Lombards and the Pope rather than to subjugate them - would likely be a force to be reckoned with.
 
The grand strategy of Norman Sicily after the Treaty of Benevento was to side with the Pope against the very real threat of German invasion. A Hauteville attempt to rule north of the Abruzzi would have exploded that relationship, because the one unifying theme of Papal politics through the Middle Ages and beyond was that no one state should grow too powerful in Italy. Abandoning that alliance to embark on a quixotic quest to conquer the north would have been a very serious blunder that I have difficulty imagining any of the Norman kings committing. It would have also invited the intervention of the emperor, who - now fighting to protect the Lombards and the Pope rather than to subjugate them - would likely be a force to be reckoned with.

Hence why the best chance would IMHO be with the Hohenstaufen. Either keep Philip (or Henry for that matter) alive long enough to let both branches consolidate and then one inherits the other's lands or have a compromise peace between the Welf and Staufer with Italy (and possibly Burgundy) going to the Sicilian king.
 
I agree that the best bet would be to keep the Kingdom of Italy separate from that of East Francia. Perhaps Otto I is not quite as successful and Italy merges with Lower or all of Burgundy/Arles.
Later on a strong Kingdom of Sicily/Naples expands north.
 
The problem is getting a "strong kingdom of Sicily" in such a time period. Pre-Norman Sicily was a basketcase, divided up amongst the Byzantines, Italo-Greek city-states, Lombard petty principalities, and the Sicilian Muslims. It's difficult imagining any of those factions not only consolidating all the south but then having sufficient strength to march north. The one who came the closest to pre-Norman unification was Pandulf Ironhead, and as a conqueror he's rather overrated - some of his "gains" were in fact granted to him by the emperor who wanted strong and loyal allies in the south, the Byzantines proved able to defeat him even on this rather under-manned frontier, and his "state-building" was so negligible that the realm immediately flew to pieces upon his death. You practically need a foreign conqueror to come along, not just for the military muscle but to sweep away the structure of power, ownership, and succession in southern Italy which had ossified into a patchwork of militarily impotent statelets.

If Spoleto/Abruzzi counts as "Sicily," then maybe a POD involving the late 9th century Guideschi would work. While Lambert of Spoleto was fighting over (north) Italy against Berengar and Arnulf, his cousin Guy IV, Duke of Spoleto, conquered Benevento and was doing rather well for himself in the south until Alberic murdered him and usurped Spoleto. If Guy IV doesn't die and decides to keep on conquering in the south for a while - perhaps his cousin is more successful in the north, preventing Guy's ambitions from turning to Lombardy and the imperial crown too quickly - he (or his successors) might be in a position to come roaring back north in the coming decades, a time when Italy was perilously weak and wracked by civil wars (and Magyars). It feels a bit like cheating but I suppose it's technically "from the Mezzogiorno."
 
I agree that the best bet would be to keep the Kingdom of Italy separate from that of East Francia. Perhaps Otto I is not quite as successful and Italy merges with Lower or all of Burgundy/Arles.
Later on a strong Kingdom of Sicily/Naples expands north.
It is quite possible that the crowns of Italy and East Francia are not reunited and there are plenty of PODs which would deny the Ottonian restoration: I would even assume that if the interregnum goes on for another three or four generations the imperial title itself will loose its supra-national meaning, and will become simply the title of the Italian kings.
OTOH if there is a stabilization and a strengthening of royal prerogatives in Italy it is difficult to see how a strong unitary kingdom might be allowed to be established in the south of the peninsula
 
Last edited:
It is quite possible that the crowns of Italy and East Francia are not reunited and there are plenty of PODs which would deny the Ottonian restoration: I would even assume that if the interregnum goes on for another three or four generations the imperial title itself will loose its supra-national meaning, and will become simply the title of the Italian kings.
OTOH if there is a stabilization and a strengthening of royal prerogatives in Italy it is difficult to see how a strong unitary kingdom might be allowed to be established in the south of the peninsula
Indeed. I guess the key would be to have an Italy-Burgundy that is focussing northward until it weakens and is then is then divided but one of its semi-independent southern vassals pulls a William the Bastard?
 
Indeed. I guess the key would be to have an Italy-Burgundy that is focussing northward until it weakens and is then is then divided but one of its semi-independent southern vassals pulls a William the Bastard?
The scenario for an expansion to the northwest of the kingdom of Italy is already a complicated one: to be successful it would require a splintering of both East and West Francia, otherwise either of them would be in a much better position to contest the possession of Burgundy (logistics are against the Italians). It would be more sensible to try and get Provence up to the Rhone (to the west) and Savoy to the north, and even this might be a stretch.
The problem for the kings of Italy would be the necessity to keep watch on too many borders (west toward Provence, north at the Brenner and Sempione passes toward against East Francia, east to control the Magyars, south where there is a border with the ERE - probably with a number of semi-independent states whose allegiance shifts between the ERE and the kingdom of Italy - and there is a Muslim emirate in Sicily, raiding the Thyrrenian coast). The east and southern borders are the most critical ones, while Provence is probably the safer; the status of the northern border will depend on the relations with the southern German duchies. It is also reasonable to assume that there will be a renaissance of commerce with the east ITTL, and this would give an impulse to expand in the south,including a "reconquista" of Sicily which would have also the benefit of being labelled as a kind of crusade (ITTL the pope would have less free hands, and could not hand out crowns in the south as it happened IOTL).

It would not be impossible to concoct a scenario where the kings attention of the kings of Italy is mostly concentrated on Arles and Burgundy: after all they have dynastic claims going back to the Carolingians, and the lands of Ales and Burgundy are rich and easy to covet.
IMHO it would not be a rational strategy though: a commitment in the west would make very difficult to keep under control the eastern border and even more the south (where I do include Rome, and the need to keep the pope and the curia under control).
 
Top