The Immortal Republic: Perceptions of Venice, and the Alternate History Implications

While taking a break from studying, I came upon an article I thought might be of interest to people here:

The Immortal Republic: The Myth of Venice during the Italian Wars, from The Sixteenth Century Journal.

Venetians, in the 15th century, had a sense of manifest destiny that upset their neighbors, and probably would have really annoyed them if it had not had such a justification in reality. The Venetian government was admired (and feared) throughout Europe becaues, while the Florentines were busy going through coup after coup and Milan ended up under the control of a mercenary, the Venetian Republic prospered under a stable and (mostly) just government.

A good example of this sort of feeling comes from a banquet in 1504, when an aide to the Pope criticized the idea of inviting the French into Italy to ward off Italian aggression. "Sure, we'll be dominated for a time by barbarians," was the reply, "but tkings flal. Once you fall to Venice, though, your freedom is gone for good."

Another example of similar concerns comes from a Florentine diplomat, who saw Venice as a far greater threat. "The Emperor and the French are like birds who fly about Italy without being able to find a footing; but Venice knows the arts of governance."

Was this concern justified? Florentines and Milanese propagandists thought so, warning that La Serenissima, after its acquisition of Crema in the mid 15th century, aspired to imperio d'Italia. And its noteworthy that as late as the 1490s, the Venetian Senate seemed convinced that ultimately it owuld end up as the hegemon of Italy.

In essence, people thought the Venetian state was slick and skilled because of its deliberative decision-making; and interestingly, quite a few of the Germans and French who came during the Italian Wars thought it was a bastard of a state.

Anyway, there are two thoughts here. The first is that this all suggests that the people of the time certainly saw Venetian hegemony as a possibility.

The second is more speculative. A republic is not necessarily a freer form of government than a monarchy, een the absolute ones of 16th and 17th century Europe. But with a more powerful, successful Venetian state, would the idea of a Republic be more widespread? I'm thinking in particular of places and situations like Bordeaux during the Fronde. In OTL, pamphleteers in Bordeaux began some cursory discussion of the idea of a republic, but the insurrectino ended before it could go places. But in an ATL....

Hrmm. Thoughts, anyone?
 
I like it as an exercise, but I don't know where to go with it. None of the European powers wanted anyone to control all or even a majority of Italy, so you would have to find some way for the Venetians to sneak up on the rest of Europe and gain control of enough of Italy (and in a way that would not result in unrest) to keep its Republic stable and able to fend off threats from the nearby powers.

That said, I think the Venetian concept of the republic would have to evolve in order to gain a foothold elsewhere in Italy, much less the rest of Europe. A city-state having a republic where important merchant families share power is a far different and, IMHO, less inviting concept for foreign states to base a government upon than those of the American and French Revolutions.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Venice certainly was the model for republics in Italy in the quatrocento. I can remember reading that the Republic of Florence once sent a delegation to Venice to take measurements of the various council chambers in order to precisely replicate them in Florence and there for allow the Florentines to replicate the stability of the Venetian Republic. An interesting if somewhat superficial notion that unsurprisingly never went anywhere. Clearly though Venice had a reputation as a stable and successful state.

Having said that I'm not sure that a more successful Venice would really inspire more Republics. The whole problem with the Republican state in Italy is that it was often unstable for one reason or another and often led to Condottieri seizing power (as happened in Milan and Ferrara among others). So while more cities and states may wish to emulate Venice if the Serenissima was to prove more economically, politically or militarily successful it doesn't necessarily follow that they will be successful in doing so. Venice had a unique combination of geography, economics, history and demographics that provided for its success in statecraft. I'm skeptical that the Venetian model could be applied successfully throughout Europe, especially outside of Italy.
 
Imho, the Most Serene Republic suffered from two major weaknesses:
- the slow but steady loss of influence of the assembly of citizens, the Concio, which progressively was deprived of any power in the approval of laws and the election of the doge, until in 1296 the Serrata of Gran Consiglio (the closure of the Grand Council) was approved, effectively limiting participation in the Grand Council to a restricted number of families. I'm quite convinced that this growth of oligarchic power certainly contributed to the stability of the republic. At the same time it made it almost impossible to co-opt non oligarchs (in particular everyone from outside Venice) into the government of the republic and certainly became a very strong obstacle to any kind of upward social mobility
- the hubris of the republic, in particular in the 15th century, when they believed that Venice would always be triumphant in the end. They embarked in a very aggressive expansion in the Italian mainland at the same time when their Egean possessions were being attacked by the Ottomans; worse than that, they certainly underetimated the Ottoman danger, as proven by the ill-fated annexion of Thessalonica in 1430. The old story of the two-fronts war.

I think that the cusps is really between 1430 (Thessalonica) and 1450. When the Visconti dinasty died out and the Ambrosian Republic was formed. Venice dreamt to annex by guile or by war all the Visconti's possessions, and never really realised the advantages of forming an alliance with the Milanese, with the target to bring them into the Republic by peaceful means. Venice woke up too late, in 1449-50, when the game was almost over and Sforza had managed to buld up an almost unassailable position. A lost opportunity to become the true egemonic state in Italy.

I've been often musing on the many apparent parallelisms between Republican Rome and Venice: maybe Venice needed a Principatus, or at least a major constitional crisis to force the oligarchy to accept a reform of the principles of governance and possibly even to accept non-Venetian nobles in the Grand Council.
 
I like it as an exercise, but I don't know where to go with it. None of the European powers wanted anyone to control all or even a majority of Italy, so you would have to find some way for the Venetians to sneak up on the rest of Europe and gain control of enough of Italy (and in a way that would not result in unrest) to keep its Republic stable and able to fend off threats from the nearby powers.

In the 1th century, how much would the other powers have a say before the 1480s?


Having said that I'm not sure that a more successful Venice would really inspire more Republics. The whole problem with the Republican state in Italy is that it was often unstable for one reason or another and often led to Condottieri seizing power (as happened in Milan and Ferrara among others). So while more cities and states may wish to emulate Venice if the Serenissima was to prove more economically, politically or militarily successful it doesn't necessarily follow that they will be successful in doing so. Venice had a unique combination of geography, economics, history and demographics that provided for its success in statecraft. I'm skeptical that the Venetian model could be applied successfully throughout Europe, especially outside of Italy.

I'm not so sure about this. Are the Republics really lesss stable than the feudal states? And if so, how come?

between 1430 (Thessalonica) and 1450. When the Visconti dinasty died out and the Ambrosian Republic was formed. Venice dreamt to annex by guile or by war all the Visconti's possessions, and never really realised the advantages of forming an alliance with the Milanese, with the target to bring them into the Republic by peaceful means. Venice woke up too late, in 1449-50, when the game was almost over and Sforza had managed to buld up an almost unassailable position. A lost opportunity to become the true egemonic state in Italy

I was wondering what you would have to say about this. Hrm.
 
Top