More Early Italy

LittleSpeer · Feb 9, 2009

Could one of the Italian city states take over the rest or through a union. Next, if all of Italy is unified, would this tip the balance of power in Europe or at least keep some country's in check. Would there be a country that try's to take over Italy then?

Falastur · Feb 9, 2009

Depends largely on when. What period are you thinking of?

I'd say it's difficult though, since it'd involve having to conquer the Papal States and that would bring a huge amount of trouble to the conqueror from the rest of Catholic Europe. The Papal States themselves are highly unlikely to be the state to unify Europe. It could be done, I guess, but it'd be unlikely.

LittleSpeer · Feb 9, 2009

so very sorry
1494

Vitruvius · Feb 9, 2009

It would be very difficult for any one state to take control of Italy at the end of the quattrocento. By that time the Italian states had stabilized and established a detente, albeit an unstable one. If any one of them got too powerful the others would ally against it or call in outside forces for help. The latter is exactly what happened when Ludovico Sforza invited Charles VIII of France in starting the Italian wars. So one key would be finding a way to keep the foreign powers occupied elsewhere. Though there's still the Papacy to contend with which would make uniting ALL of Italy very difficult.

As to what effects this would have its hard to say. It would likely up-end the Habsburg-Valois conflict and possibly change the balance of power in the Med vis a vis the Ottomans. This all depends on who's running the show and what their agenda is.

Hermanubis · Feb 9, 2009

I've wondered on occasion what might have happened if the Roman aristocracy had been able to establish a lasting secular government in Latium during the time of the Avignon papacy. Also a certain man of common stock, one Cola di Rienzo attempted to restore the Roman Republic during this period.
If you can have ether a new Republic or monarchy established in Rome while the Pope is away in France, it just might stick. And if you can keep the Pope out of Italy in this way a big obstacle to Italian unification has been removed.

LittleSpeer · Feb 9, 2009

Hermanubis said:
I've wondered on occasion what might have happened if the Roman aristocracy had been able to establish a lasting secular government in Latium during the time of the Avignon papacy. Also a certain man of common stock, one Cola di Rienzo attempted to restore the Roman Republic during this period.
If you can have ether a new Republic or monarchy established in Rome while the Pope is away in France, it just might stick. And if you can keep the Pope out of Italy in this way a big obstacle to Italian unification has been removed.

say the pope was out of town
could there be any possibility of say Venice, Milan, and Florence teaming up to make a play.

Hermanubis · Feb 9, 2009

LittleSpeer said:
say the pope was out of town
could there be any possibility of say Venice, Milan, and Florence teaming up to make a play.

Why not a New Roman Republic? It did it once, after all...

LittleSpeer · Feb 10, 2009

yes that is all fine and good but what i want to know is could some of these city states put aside there differences and work together to form one. IS IT POSSIBLE??

False Dmitri · Feb 10, 2009

Didn't Otto the Great rule all of Italy back in the 11th century? I'm guessing you mean later, though, post-Renaissance.

How about... one of the princes builds himself an army of Da Vincian tanks and helicopters?

LittleSpeer · Feb 10, 2009

not bad but it would take to much time to perfect them and then the time to strike would have passed. Besides Leo sabotaged his blueprints so it would take a long time to make them work let alone at all.

Roberto · Feb 10, 2009

LittleSpeer said:
yes that is all fine and good but what i want to know is could some of these city states put aside there differences and work together to form one. IS IT POSSIBLE??

Basically, no. The merchant republics all squabbled for centuries over trade, and the other city-states all had their own difference. There's very little chance that they would all just say "Hey, let's all get together!". If you want a much earlier united Italy, you need one of the states to try and forcefully united the nation.

LittleSpeer said:
not bad but it would take to much time to perfect them and then the time to strike would have passed. Besides Leo sabotaged his blueprints so it would take a long time to make them work let alone at all.

He was kidding, you know.

Gonzaga · Feb 10, 2009

What about a more successful Gian Galleazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan?

"Galeazzo's role as a statesman also took other forms. Soon after seizing Milan he took Verona, Vicenza, and Padua, establishing himself as Signore of each, and soon controlled almost the entire valley of the Po. He lost Padua in 1390, when it reverted to Francesco Novello da Carrara. He received the title of Duke of Milan from Wenceslaus, King of the Romans in 1395 for 100,000 florins. Gian Galeazzo had dreams of uniting all of northern Italy into one kingdom,a revived Lombard empire. The obstacles to his success included Bologna and especially Florence. In 1402 Gian Galeazzo launched assaults upon these cities. The warfare was extremely costly on both sides, but it was universally believed the Milanese would emerge victorious. The Florentine leaders, especially the chancellor Coluccio Salutati worked successfully to rally the people of Florence, but the Florentines were being taxed hard by famine, disease, and poverty. Galeazzo won another victory over the Bolognese at the Battle of Casalecchio on 26 June 1402.
Galeazzo's dreams were to come to naught, however, as he succumbed to a fever at the castello of Melegnano in 10 August1402. He died on 3 September. His empire fragmented as infighting among his successors wracked Milan, partly through his division of his lands among both legitimate and illegitimate heirs."

Matthais Corvinus · Feb 10, 2009

So Visconti takes Florence. He now has control over most of Northern Italy. The problem that now faces Visconti is that he doesn't have a legal device to keep all of his conquests inside of a single state. To do that he needs either a long-living and competent adult heir who can continue to keep all titles united in his person, or a crown to create a new state that all of conquests belong to. I don't think he can get the Kingdom- it would require the Holy Roman Empire giving up the Iron Crown of Lombardy.

The other option for the crown would be to make his land a Papal fief, like the Kingdom of Naples, in order to get a crown from the Pope.

Pope Boniface IX was fighting a French-backed pretender in Naples. Visconti, following the fall of Florence, could probably pledge to fight this war for the Pope, in return for the Pope recognizing Visconti and his heirs as the Kings of Lombardy. In fact, Visconti could more broadly ally himself to the Roman Papacy, helping to sort out central Italy as well as Naples. Certainly that kind of help would get Visconti a crown. Alternatively, Visconti could fight for the Avignon Pope, and help to depose the Roman Pope and support the French pretender in Naples.

With the Kingdom of Lombardy and the Kingdom of Naples both as Papal fiefs, I think that legally the Pope is now the liege lord of a united Italy.

So this longer lived Visconti is able to secure a crown from the Pope(s) and probably have an adult son succeed him. With the Lombard crown now independent and separate of the Holy Roman Empire I think the whole layout of Italy had been changed. The Italian state-system now consists of Venice, Lombardy, the Papacy, and Naples. I'm going to guess that with the fall of Florence many of that city's inhabitants will make their way to Venice (including the Medici) setting that city up to be the center of the *Renaissance.

Gonzaga · Feb 11, 2009

That would be interesting, the Pope as the supreme lord of an almost united Italy. I wonder how would this affect the Reformation.

Venice as the center of Renaissance might be interesting. ITTL Venetian could become a more literary language. And the possibility of a "Doge Medici" is also nice.

Matthais Corvinus · Feb 11, 2009

Gonzaga said:
That would be interesting, the Pope as the supreme lord of an almost united Italy. I wonder how would this affect the Reformation.

It appears that Visconti was opposed by the Roman Papacy during his campaigns. This would be consistent with the amount of power that Visconti had amassed- making him a threat to the temporal power of the Roman Pope in the Papal States.

With Florence's fall to Visconti in 1403-04, Visconti is going to become more than simply another militarily competent Italian prince. He will suddenly become an extremely powerful player, elevating himself into a continental, not just regional, player. With the fall of Florence, he now needs Papal support in order to consolidate his position in Italy.

In OTL Visconti's threatening posture was soon taken up by King Ladislas of Naples, who intervened repeatedly in Papal States politics and conquered extensive lands in central and northern Italy. The see-saw between Visconti and Ladislas would be interesting.

Visconti needs a crown. Milan is the capital of the Kingdom of Lombardy, which during this period still legally exists, as one of the constiuent crowns in the Holy Roman Empire (the other two being Germany and Burgundy). The Archbishop of Milan crowned the Holy Roman Emperor-elect as the King of Lombardy in Pavia before the HRE-elect proceded to Rome to be crowned HRE.

There is no Holy Roman Emperor from 1378 to 1433. This long interregnum could allow Visconti to simply have himself crowned the King of Lombardy at Pavia. With control of the major cities of the Po Valley, as well as Bologna and Florence, he has an excellent practical claim on the title. With disorder in Germany (demonstrated by the musical chairs nature of position of the King of the Romans) and having vanquished most of his Italian opponents, there isn't anyone who can really challenge his rule.

Venice as the center of Renaissance might be interesting. ITTL Venetian could become a more literary language. And the possibility of a "Doge Medici" is also nice.

The influx of a large number of foreign, skilled, wealthy refugees who were used to living in a more (legally) egalitarian urban republic is going to do interesting things to the politics of Venice as well.

Vitruvius · Feb 12, 2009

The reign of Gian Galeazzo is, I think, the most plausible POD for a united Italy in the Renaissance. However there are a few caveats. While Visconti would probably be best served to seek a crown from the Pope he would have to tread carefully. The second he becomes too powerful the Pope will just call in the Emperor or a King (France, Aragon, Hungary take your pick) or a powerful Duke (too many to count) to depose him and become the next King of Lombardy. After all thats what happened with Sicily and then Naples. Failing that the Pope could just create some league of Italian states, Venice, Savoy Naples whoever else is left and battle it out for control of the peninsula. He and his successors may be able to defend themselves but it will slow the unification of Italy. A key to Italian unification will have to be keeping other powers out of Italy. Which will be difficult because: A. Its wealthy and everyone wants it. B. The Pope or at least a Pope lives there and is both a temporal ruler and the head of the whole Catholic Church and C. At the outset its fragmented and week.

However a Papal crowned Visconti King in the north would legaly unite all of Italy under the Papacy such that even if it is a legal fiction (after all how much practical authority did the Pope ever have over Sicily) it at least eliminates the old Feudal networks of the HRE from the north. Furthermore a POD at the end of the Trecento as opposed to the Quattrocento pre-empts a few things, namely the Venetian Terra Firma, that would otherwise be threats to a united Italy. And if the Visconti can make a lot of progress in the early quattrocento then by the time the French and Spanish/Aragonese have a free hand to invade the new Visconti Kings may be too entrenched to be removed.

So as was said earlier you'd have four powers; a strong Lombardy, a staunchly independent Venice, a Papacy that could be strong or week and Naples that would probably be indebted to either the Pope the Visconti or a foreign power. Give it a few generations of competent Visconti Kings and you could have a single King of united Italy.

A few things would likely never happen. There probably wouldn't be a Medici Doge. Sorry but the Medici have only just stepped into the world of banking at this time and are not yet dominant in Florence. Not to mention the fact that the Venetian Patriciate is a closed body. In fact most Florentines would probably head to Rome before Venice. Venice is a VERY different city from Florence. Assuming that Rome stays independent for a while I'd imagine that it would become the center for the Renaissance. If there's a Pope there banking will be big (it was the most profitable Medici branch) it has a great network of patronage (private, ecclesiastical, foreigners) and it has all of those great Roman ruins lying around for people to study.

Matthais Corvinus · Feb 12, 2009

Vitruvius said:
The reign of Gian Galeazzo is, I think, the most plausible POD for a united Italy in the Renaissance. However there are a few caveats. While Visconti would probably be best served to seek a crown from the Pope he would have to tread carefully. The second he becomes too powerful the Pope will just call in the Emperor or a King (France, Aragon, Hungary take your pick) or a powerful Duke (too many to count) to depose him and become the next King of Lombardy. After all thats what happened with Sicily and then Naples.

The reason I think Gian presents such a good chance is because Germany is in absolute chaos during this period. No ruler in Germany could consolidate power enough to come over the Alps and get crowned by the Archbishop of Milan and the Pope. The Visconti have time to build legitimacy while Germany is in chaos and the Papacy is divided. With a strengthened position in Italy, the Visconti could even end up taking an active role in ending the Western Schism.

Failing that the Pope could just create some league of Italian states, Venice, Savoy Naples whoever else is left and battle it out for control of the peninsula. He and his successors may be able to defend themselves but it will slow the unification of Italy.

Gian Visconti, with the taking of Florence, has broken the balance of power in northern Italy. By reducing Florence and Bologna he has established Milan as the head of a new northern Italian state, and the Papacy and Venetians are the only major powers who can threaten him. Basically, at the time of his death, he had beaten everyone, everywhere.

However a Papal crowned Visconti King in the north would legaly unite all of Italy under the Papacy such that even if it is a legal fiction (after all how much practical authority did the Pope ever have over Sicily) it at least eliminates the old Feudal networks of the HRE from the north. Furthermore a POD at the end of the Trecento as opposed to the Quattrocento pre-empts a few things, namely the Venetian Terra Firma, that would otherwise be threats to a united Italy. And if the Visconti can make a lot of progress in the early quattrocento then by the time the French and Spanish/Aragonese have a free hand to invade the new Visconti Kings may be too entrenched to be removed.

I'm not sure the Pope could break the HRE. I'm not really sure how it would work, removing one of the crowns from the HRE. I'm calling for Susano in this one (sorry about not using HREGN).

Venice already had started taking land, and would probably continue to do so. Conflict would definitely come between them, and in his the Visconti can look to the German Dukes in Tyrol and the Austrias, and to the Hungarians, for support against the Venetians. I think Venice will become stronger rather than weaker however, with the rise of the Medici Bank in Venice keeping Venice at the forefront of European economics.

A few things would likely never happen. There probably wouldn't be a Medici Doge. Sorry but the Medici have only just stepped into the world of banking at this time and are not yet dominant in Florence. Not to mention the fact that the Venetian Patriciate is a closed body. In fact most Florentines would probably head to Rome before Venice. Venice is a VERY different city from Florence. Assuming that Rome stays independent for a while I'd imagine that it would become the center for the Renaissance. If there's a Pope there banking will be big (it was the most profitable Medici branch) it has a great network of patronage (private, ecclesiastical, foreigners) and it has all of those great Roman ruins lying around for people to study.

Giovanni de Medici became the Papacy's favorite banker because in 1410 he bet the Papacy would return to Rome. The Papacy rewarded him. That is after the POD however, and because of the cosmopolitan nature of the Medici bank I expect that cosmopolitan Venice would be a better venue than feuding and bloody Rome.

I don't agree with you here. Florentines were merchants, and there was no better place for merchants than Venice. I am looking for the book now, but Venice abandoned Florence in OTL, hoping the city would fall because they expected Florence's weavers to come to Venice. Rome was dominated by feuding noble families who fought with the Papacy and each other. Venice is still in its Golden Age at this point, and I think it will be the most attractive place for Florentine refugees. The influx of refugees has the potential to shake up Venetian politics- the emergence of new wealthy outsiders is going to necessitate their inclusion in the ruling of Venice, and the influence of Renaissance thinkers during the same period could produce a different set of politics. Especially if the citizens' councils hadn't lost all their power yet, this injection could be what they need.