The Bernardians: from Milan to the World TL
- Thread starter Mario
- Start date
Gothia refers loosely to the land of the (visi)goths above the pyrenees meaning at minimum OTL septimania, and sometimes land immediately beyond The Pyrenees as well (so the Spanish march). The Spanish claim to be inherited to the visigothic kingdom, and restored of such against Moorish "invaders" (the reality of course, is more complicated, as many visigoths converted and were an integral part of early Andalusians rule) and by implication to the western Roman Empire (hence, in part, imperator Totus hispaniae). The name functions as a better alternative to occitania, which is an anachronism of French origin, and Catalonia, which to my knowledge was not a general use for the title at the time and us probably also of foreign, either Spanish or Muslim, origin (being variously the county of Barcelona, the crown of Aragon, the kingdom of Valencia, the county of Toulouse, etc). In that regard an early medieval ruler straddling the Pyrenees would probably revive the title to emphasise their independence from "the franks" and probably also "the italians" and "the spanish" while also claiming a more distinguished lineage and precedent; I would expect that the actual kings would refer to themselves more like "king of the visigoths the catalans, the Gascons, etc" much as the early/high medieval royalty was "king of the franks/French" or "king of the angles/english" rather than "king of France" or "king of england."
Yes
(+ Septimania)The problem here is that in the North it made sense titles like 'King of the English', 'King of the Danes', 'King of the Franks and Saxons' etc.
In the South this kind of titles are problematic, as the post-Carolingian territories (both IOTL as ITTL) presented a mixed population. So it makes more sense 'Duke of Burgundy ' or 'Duke of Gothia' rather than Duke of the Burgundians or Duke of the Goths, as the Burgundians and the Goths were not extant as proper nations by the 9th century. In Gothia there were a mixture of Visigothic-Frankish nobles with Roman populace, but they can't be properly called 'Goths'.
I post this map of Gothia by 870. If you check chapter 2, you would find out that ITTL Gothia ¡s a larger entity comprising Septimania, Catalonia, Northern Aragon and now also the Balearic Islands. The first see was in Narbonne, but it was later relocated to Barcelona.
In the upcoming chapters I am going to explain the future development of this entity. It is obvious that the growth of the Duchy of Gothia is going to affect its relations with the Duchy of Aquitaine (both form the Kingdom of West Francia), which is more focused on fighting the Vikings in the Atlantic coast and great rivers valleys than on expanding into the Iberian peninsula and the Western Mediterranean.
In the upcoming chapters I am going to explain the future development of this entity. It is obvious that the growth of the Duchy of Gothia is going to affect its relations with the Duchy of Aquitaine (both form the Kingdom of West Francia), which is more focused on fighting the Vikings in the Atlantic coast and great rivers valleys than on expanding into the Iberian peninsula and the Western Mediterranean.
ANNEX. THE RETURN OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPERORS?
When the Roman Curia was humiliated at the signature of the Compromise of Isola Tiberina in 871, many royal counselors, as well as Lambert I, the Guideschi Duke of the Middle Lombardy, suggested Pepin II to force the new Pope Paulinus to invest him Holy Roman Emperor, a title vacant since 817.
The title of Holy Roman Emperor has been in the freezer since the death of Louis the Pious due to two main factors: the disagreement between their heirs about who should be the overlord of who and the Papal rejection of the ‘aggressive’ policies of the Bernardians in Italy, favoring the religious primacy of the Archbishops of Milan in most of the peninsula, displacing Rome.
The Old Saint Peter's basilica, in the Vatican.
While the Lombardic-Burgundian Kingdom remained as a ‘family business’ of the Bernardians, there were little internal concern about the enforcement of the royal authority over the different dukes and counts. However, the union of the Guideschi to the ‘business’ required a further enforcement of authority. For Lambert and his family it would be more comfortable to sustain a vassalage to a Holy Roman Emperor than a simple regional King.
Pepin II was aware that the growth of his project in Italy and its vicinity would require, sooner or later, the claim of a superior authority. After some internal debate, the idea of forcing Paulinus to invest a King openly hated by the Curia as new Emperor was tipped as short-sighted, as it would probably not endure. In a short period of time, the Bernardians had dismantled the Papal States in Italy, so they could never expect a friendly attitude from the Vatican.
After reducing the power of the Popes, Pepin II considered that it would take a couple of generations to restore a good and trustful relation with the Curia, and then the chances of recovering the authority of Holy Roman Emperor would be better. Unfortunately, the King miscalculated how resentful could the Papacy be.
When the Roman Curia was humiliated at the signature of the Compromise of Isola Tiberina in 871, many royal counselors, as well as Lambert I, the Guideschi Duke of the Middle Lombardy, suggested Pepin II to force the new Pope Paulinus to invest him Holy Roman Emperor, a title vacant since 817.
The title of Holy Roman Emperor has been in the freezer since the death of Louis the Pious due to two main factors: the disagreement between their heirs about who should be the overlord of who and the Papal rejection of the ‘aggressive’ policies of the Bernardians in Italy, favoring the religious primacy of the Archbishops of Milan in most of the peninsula, displacing Rome.
The Old Saint Peter's basilica, in the Vatican.
While the Lombardic-Burgundian Kingdom remained as a ‘family business’ of the Bernardians, there were little internal concern about the enforcement of the royal authority over the different dukes and counts. However, the union of the Guideschi to the ‘business’ required a further enforcement of authority. For Lambert and his family it would be more comfortable to sustain a vassalage to a Holy Roman Emperor than a simple regional King.
Pepin II was aware that the growth of his project in Italy and its vicinity would require, sooner or later, the claim of a superior authority. After some internal debate, the idea of forcing Paulinus to invest a King openly hated by the Curia as new Emperor was tipped as short-sighted, as it would probably not endure. In a short period of time, the Bernardians had dismantled the Papal States in Italy, so they could never expect a friendly attitude from the Vatican.
After reducing the power of the Popes, Pepin II considered that it would take a couple of generations to restore a good and trustful relation with the Curia, and then the chances of recovering the authority of Holy Roman Emperor would be better. Unfortunately, the King miscalculated how resentful could the Papacy be.
Interesting. I'm assuming you're using HRE as a deliberate anachronism since the term dates from the 12/1300s.
By deliberate I mean it's also an in-universe term too. Which does imply a Holy Roman Empire of some sort which claims continuity from the "Carolingian Roman Empire".
By deliberate I mean it's also an in-universe term too. Which does imply a Holy Roman Empire of some sort which claims continuity from the "Carolingian Roman Empire".
Well, I said 'HRE' in order to make clear that I was referring to the Carolingian-revived title of the early 9th century, and not the title of Imperator Romanorum still used in Byzantium, which is obviously out of scope for the Bernardians.
Oh I understand it's just that before Barbarossa sanctus wasn't used. Most were designated Romanorum Imperator Augustus or Imperator Augustus Imperii Romani etc.
True, but then there was no way to remark the difference with the Byzantine title, which was just the same.
I know 'Holy' (sancti) was not used in the Carolingian times.
Yes, because de jure there wasn't a difference between eastern and western usage prior to Charlemagne.
Charlemagne himself didn't use RIA going for the vaguer "Augustus, Emperor, governing the Roman Empire" because the August Roman Emperors in the east didn't recognise him as RIA/ARE.
My point was I assumed you had an in universe reason for using the anachronistic and noncontemporary title and I thought that was worth commenting on.
ANNEX. THE DANISH KINGDOM OF BRITAIN AND GAUL
Since 845 the Western Danes had started a large-scale occupation of the southern and eastern portions of Britain, pushing to an end the rule of the previous Anglo-Saxon entities. Shortly after, these ‘British Danes’ launched secondary campaigns against the poorly protected coasts and lower valleys of the Atlantic side of both North and West Francia.
By the decade of 870s, the British Danes controlled much of the Netherlands, Neustria and north and west Aquitaine. Inept King of North Francia Louis III, who succeeded his father Louis II in 869, failed to protect Paris from the Danish advance and the city, after successive raids, was finally conquered in 872. Other relevant Neustrian cities like Reims followed shortly after.
The initial chaos caused by the impulsive and opportunistic expansion of the Western Danes was put into an order by the British Danish chief Harthacnut the Brave. Being one of the first Danish chiefs already born in Britain (and baptized at a young age), he managed to impose his authority to other rival chiefs in most of England by the end of the 870s, and set his court in the city of Hamwig (Southampton).
The election of such strategic southern port was not casual. Harthacnut started a campaign for subduing the minor Danish chiefdoms established in the Gaul first, and the Netherlands later. After the conquest of the major chiefdom of Soissons in 885, he ensured the control of 90% of the Danish Gaul, so after then he acquired the title of Danish King of Britain and Gaul. He continued the expansion of his vast realm until his death in 896.
Map of the Kingdom of Harthacnut after his death in 896.
The conversion of the Western Danes to Christianism during the reign of Harthacnut was pretty fast. But due to the weakness of the Papacy in Rome, the rising 'national' Church was based on the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a similar fashion to the Archbishops of Hamburg (in North Francia) or Milan (in South Francia).
Since 845 the Western Danes had started a large-scale occupation of the southern and eastern portions of Britain, pushing to an end the rule of the previous Anglo-Saxon entities. Shortly after, these ‘British Danes’ launched secondary campaigns against the poorly protected coasts and lower valleys of the Atlantic side of both North and West Francia.
By the decade of 870s, the British Danes controlled much of the Netherlands, Neustria and north and west Aquitaine. Inept King of North Francia Louis III, who succeeded his father Louis II in 869, failed to protect Paris from the Danish advance and the city, after successive raids, was finally conquered in 872. Other relevant Neustrian cities like Reims followed shortly after.
The initial chaos caused by the impulsive and opportunistic expansion of the Western Danes was put into an order by the British Danish chief Harthacnut the Brave. Being one of the first Danish chiefs already born in Britain (and baptized at a young age), he managed to impose his authority to other rival chiefs in most of England by the end of the 870s, and set his court in the city of Hamwig (Southampton).
The election of such strategic southern port was not casual. Harthacnut started a campaign for subduing the minor Danish chiefdoms established in the Gaul first, and the Netherlands later. After the conquest of the major chiefdom of Soissons in 885, he ensured the control of 90% of the Danish Gaul, so after then he acquired the title of Danish King of Britain and Gaul. He continued the expansion of his vast realm until his death in 896.
Map of the Kingdom of Harthacnut after his death in 896.
The conversion of the Western Danes to Christianism during the reign of Harthacnut was pretty fast. But due to the weakness of the Papacy in Rome, the rising 'national' Church was based on the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a similar fashion to the Archbishops of Hamburg (in North Francia) or Milan (in South Francia).
CHAPTER 5.1. THE CONTROVERSY OF CHARLES THE ILLEGITIMATE
King Pepin II passed away at the beginning of 881, when he was about to turn 64 years old. His heir, the illegitimate Charles of Rhetia posed a threat to the stability of the realm, as he was tipped as an insane and unstable person, being this the main cause why his father had always hide him from public life.
In 881 Charles was 29 years old and he was yet unmarried. Since he was a child he had developed the strange obsession that he was indeed a legitimate son of his father and his second wife, the unfortunate Orlena, and all the Milanese court conspired to hide the real truth because the nobility preferred his gifted cousin Dagobert of Burgundy as a future King.
Dagobert was the eldest son of Arnulf, Duke of Burgundy, and his wife Gisela, sister of Pepin II. He was 40 years old in 881, married to the graceful Marianne of Provence and together they had five children. Dagobert had inherited the Duchy of Burgundy after the death of his father in 878; he had built a magnificent new palace in Arelat (Arlès) and enjoyed the trust and confidence of both his own court and the Milanese one.
The Grand Place of Arelat, where the magnificent Palace of Duke Dagobert was built.
Charles had stated many times in public that the first thing he would do as the new King is to strip the title of Duke of Burgundy and expel Dagobert and his family out of the Kingdom. Part of the nobility feared of such arbitrary decisions and convinced Livius, the Archbishop of Milan, about the need to revoke the coronation of Charles and accuse him of insanity.
However, Pepin II always defended the rights of his son to the Crown, despite his clear mental unfitness for the government. This caused the division between the loyalists and the partisans of Livius, which escalated to a brief Civil War (881-883); the loyalists were eventually defeated, but sought refuge in the court of Friuli. The Duke Charles of Friuli was the main supporter of his nephew Charles until his death in 885; Charles then inherited the duchy, which declared its own sovereignty with Charles proclaiming himself first King of Friuli (886).
Meanwhile, in Milan, the partisans of Livius placed Dagobert in the throne, while his eldest son Louis the Handsome was proclaimed royal heir and Duke of Greater Lombardy and his second son Arnulf II succeeded his father as Duke of Burgundy.
CHAPTER 5.2. CHAOS, ANARCHY AND THE CONQUEST OF VENICE
King Dagobert had the misfortune of reigning only for four years. In 890 he died of fevers and thus his young heir Louis the Handsome was crowned, just after marrying Elisabeth of Bavaria. Unfortunately, Louis was as handsome as inept for the governance and the main load of his daily affairs was transferred to an obscure group of counselors which just governed for their own profit, enraging the nobility and throwing the Kingdom into the chaos.
The former King Charles, now in Friuli, tried to take advantage of this situation. He managed to consolidate his rule there and expanded it through former Byzantine possessions in the Adriatic, then basically abandoned to their fate. However, Charles ambitioned to conquer Venice and making it the magnificent capital of his realm. He already made two attempts in 891 and 894, before the final assault planned by the general Liutprand of Aquileia in the spring of 897.
Venice, conquered by the Friulians in 897.
The Friulian conquest of Venice was not easy, and most of the Venetian elite, including the Dogo, Frolo II, managed to escape to Lombardy. However, the awkwardness of the Milanese court under Louis’ reign made them to opt for settling in the Middle Lombardy of the Guideschi. The Duke Guy III supported the Venetian cause against the aggression of Friuli, and considering that King Louis was absolutely indifferent to the problem, the Guideschi acted by their own in order to reinstate the legitimate Dogo in Venice.
Guy III had no big problems in the campaign against the Friulians. When Charles panicked out of his own insanity, some of the Friulian generals followed him up to some Byzantine territory where they tried to avoid the prosecution of the Lombardic-Venetian alliance. The Dogo recovered the power in 899 and the Guideschi consented that he claimed all the former Kingdom of Friuli for their own rule, as the newly formed Duchy of Friuli-Venezia, in close alliance to the Middle Lombardy.
The Lombardic nobility strongly protested against the usurpation of the Venetians and accused the Guideschi of traitors to Milan. Louis did not react, and fearing that the protests might pose a danger for him, moved to the court of his brother, the Duke of Burgundy, in Arelat. For five years, the whole Kingdom was stormed by anarchy, wars between noble factions and the Guideschi attempts of controlling the central power in Milan and overthrowing the Bernardians.
At the end, the Lombardic nobility managed to organize a military campaign that defeated Guy III in his home soil, putting an end to his ambitions. However, the Archbishop of Milan called for a compromise: Louis would be overthrown, but another Bernardian would replace him. The noblemen chose Robert of Tuscany, cousin of Louis who enjoyed a good reputation as a governor as well as a trained military officer.
Robert was finally crowned in 905, when he was 25 years old. After some negotiations, his overlordship was recognized by both the Guideschi (907) and the Venetians (910), in exchange of respecting the status quo in their recently acquired territories. Robert died in 912, but his brief reign helped to recover the order and prosperity in the Kingdom.
Last edited:
I am somehow skeptic about the capacity of the Friulans to conquer Venice after a brief siege : blockading Venice on the landward side is not a big deal, but there is no way Friuli can put together a fleet to match the Venetian one and anyway the geography of the lagoon makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to invade from seaward. Even the Genoese during the war of Chioggia found that the Venetian nut was too hard to crack.
The only possibility I might see is Friuli managing some internal subversion in Venice, and using a fifth column to achieve a quick victory: still a bit of a stretch, but not completely impossible. IOTL Pietro Tribuno was doge, and had a long and successful rule: there have been too many butterflies to expect that the same guy gets the Dogal crown, but Venice has always been very successful in keeping a lid over factions, and in the 9th century it is still a very open democracy with main decision taken in the assembly of all the citizens.
The ambitions of the Guidonids don't come as a surprise, but wouldn't they become too powerful if they are allowed to keep the land they conquered in Friuli?
No news of the Hungars, who by the end of 9th century should have already started raiding in depth into Germany and Northern Italy. Has something happened in the steppes which has butterflied away their march west?
The only possibility I might see is Friuli managing some internal subversion in Venice, and using a fifth column to achieve a quick victory: still a bit of a stretch, but not completely impossible. IOTL Pietro Tribuno was doge, and had a long and successful rule: there have been too many butterflies to expect that the same guy gets the Dogal crown, but Venice has always been very successful in keeping a lid over factions, and in the 9th century it is still a very open democracy with main decision taken in the assembly of all the citizens.
The ambitions of the Guidonids don't come as a surprise, but wouldn't they become too powerful if they are allowed to keep the land they conquered in Friuli?
No news of the Hungars, who by the end of 9th century should have already started raiding in depth into Germany and Northern Italy. Has something happened in the steppes which has butterflied away their march west?
I did not say it was brief
Anyway, mind that here is the weak Venice of the decade of 890s, which basically featured the settlements of Torcello and Malamocco and little more. It is not the Venice which later competed with Genoa and it lacked at this time of such navy force. A military leader trained in neighbouring Aquilea would know enough about that Venice to subdue it in some time.
They are not allowed, the Friuli is mostly administered by the Dogo of Venice in exchange of accepting the Bernardian overlordship. The Guidonids just won position and influence.
They are on the road
I will explain the fate of the North in next chapters. By 912 the Hungarians ITTL have not arrived yet in the Bernardian realms.
Venice may not yet be the Queen of the Adriatic, but is already a regional power. Her merchants were already trading with the eastern Mediterranean, mainly Alexandria and Constantinople, and her galleys had already a long experience of fights with Saracens as well with the pirates of Dalmatia.I did not say it was brief
Anyway, mind that here is the weak Venice of the decade of 890s, which basically featured the settlements of Torcello and Malamocco and little more. It is not the Venice which later competed with Genoa and it lacked at this time of such navy force. A military leader trained in neighbouring Aquilea would know enough about that Venice to subdue it in some time.
The difficulties of besieging and taking Venice had already been experienced to the hilt by Pepin of Italy, who tried to conquer the city in 810 and blockaded her landward for quite a long time, but in the end was forced to abandon the siege.
In 898 the Hungars (who had defeated the king of Italy, Berengar I in the same year and ravaged Lombardy) turned against Venice but were defeated by the Venetians at Albiola. Following this event, doge Pietro Tribuno ordered the building of a defensive wall at Malamocco (traditionally this is also the date when Venice became a civitas, a walled city).
My skepticism is still quite alive and well
Venice may not yet be the Queen of the Adriatic, but is already a regional power. Her merchants were already trading with the eastern Mediterranean, mainly Alexandria and Constantinople, and her galleys had already a long experience of fights with Saracens as well with the pirates of Dalmatia.
The difficulties of besieging and taking Venice had already been experienced to the hilt by Pepin of Italy, who tried to conquer the city in 810 and blockaded her landward for quite a long time, but in the end was forced to abandon the siege.
In 898 the Hungars (who had defeated the king of Italy, Berengar I in the same year and ravaged Lombardy) turned against Venice but were defeated by the Venetians at Albiola. Following this event, doge Pietro Tribuno ordered the building of a defensive wall at Malamocco (traditionally this is also the date when Venice became a civitas, a walled city).
My skepticism is still quite alive and well
He, he good
However, think about something: the Hungars of 898 were a tribe absolutely unused to deal with sea, marshes, islands etc. This was obviously a great advantage for the Venetians (same happened with Pepin, the Slavs and so...).
An eventual attack from the people of Friuli, from the people of the neighbouring Aquileia, would have been more dangerous than any attack of foreign nations, because that people were used to the environment of the lagoon, knew Venice and their islands and islets, they were also used to the marsh fevers...
In my opinion, the biggest threat to Venetians would be a proxy of the Venetians themselves
Aquileia was completely depopulated after the Huns invasion, and the patriarch himself moved to Grado (and then Venice). In time (and particularly during the schism of the Three Chapters) the title of the patriarch of Aquileia was revived, but the patriarch himself was residing in Cividale, the capital of the Longobard duchy of Friuli, and did not return to the site of Aquileia until after the new millennium.He, he good
However, think about something: the Hungars of 898 were a tribe absolutely unused to deal with sea, marshes, islands etc. This was obviously a great advantage for the Venetians (same happened with Pepin, the Slavs and so...).
An eventual attack from the people of Friuli, from the people of the neighbouring Aquileia, would have been more dangerous than any attack of foreign nations, because that people were used to the environment of the lagoon, knew Venice and their islands and islets, they were also used to the marsh fevers...
In my opinion, the biggest threat to Venetians would be a proxy of the Venetians themselves
The coastal lands of Friuli was also mostly depopulated (malaria marshlands) and the population of Friuli was mostly located to the north, toward the Prealps and Alps.
The maritime traditions of Aquileia date back to the Roman empire (the city was not on the see, but was connected to the Grado lagoon by the Natisone river.
This means that the army was not used to living for months in the marshes, and the fishermen of the Friuli could not compete with the galleys of Venice better than the Hungars did.
I stand again with my early suggestion: the fall of Venice can only happen in case of a factional wars, with one of the factions inviting an external force and guiding it through the Grado marshes.
Anyway I am not looking to force you to change your mind: if you feel that a Pyrrhic success in the siege of Venice can be better for your story, I'll retract my objections.
Incidentally, after the failed siege of 810 the Byzantine and Carolingian empires made a treaty where the Carolingians recognized the Byzantine suzerainty in Venice (although by that time it was just a legal fiction, and Venice was effectively self-governing). This treaty was subsequently reaffirmed by any new emperor and it stands to reason that Bernard would follow suit, given the benefits of commercial trades in merchandise coming from the east. The doge of Venice would have been entitled to ask the support of the court of Milan against the attack of Friuli, and failing to receive support from Milan the only other potential supporter was certainly the duke of Spoleto and the Pentapolis.
Yes, but this is what happened IOTL.
The area of Aquileia remained depopulated after the Huns because it became an unsafe area to settle, due to its exposition to continued raids by different tribes, not because the land was poor or something (Romans had converted most of the marshes in good farmland, unlike the more remote area of Venice). In the region of Aquileia there are many ruins of rural villas.
Remember that in previous chapters we talked about ITTL migrations coming from the North and West, escaping from Danish occupation. Obviously, an area to repopulate is the Friuli, considering that ITTL has become a safer area earlier, due to the stability of the Kingdom of Milan and the Duchy of Friuli. The area of Aquileia is perfect for settling inmigrants, as the land was pretty good for farming.
Another factor different ITTL compared to IOTL is that Friuli became an important Duchy first, and later a Kingdom. They had an important centre of power and should be interested in repopulation. IOTL Friuli remained peripheral during centuries as the centres of power were far away in Verona/Carinthia.
Conquering Venice in early ninth century is not easy but not necessarily impossible, with a proper siege strategy mired to lock down the lagoon.
Question: TTL the Venetians had claimed to have the body of St. Mark and started building the first Basilica? I wonder if a Basilica construction financed by the Berengarians would be a nice way to win the Venetians.
Ah, and of course I subscribe this TL!
Question: TTL the Venetians had claimed to have the body of St. Mark and started building the first Basilica? I wonder if a Basilica construction financed by the Berengarians would be a nice way to win the Venetians.
Ah, and of course I subscribe this TL!