Visconti unites Italy - what happens next?

Let's forget about the "how" for a moment and just imagine a scenario in which either Gian Galeazzo Visconti or Filippo Maria Visconti are able to recreate the old Lombard kingdom (No Naples). Perhaps they even manage to get themselves crowned. Let's also say that the Visconti line continues, as a succession crisis so soon after a relatively tenuous unification would almost certainly result in the kingdom disintegrating.

With this being the scenario, what challenges would such a kingdom face? Would there be any room for territorial expansion, with the way west being blocked by France, the way south being blocked by the Pope and Spain/Aragon, the way east being blocked by Venice and the Habsburgs and the way north being blocked by the Swiss and the Habsburgs?

Would the difficulties of internal consolidation occupy the attention of the rulers and prevent them from considering further expansion at all?

Would this new kingdom be steamrolled by a France on its way down to Naples, or would the King of France think twice before trying to march his troops through a united Italy?

Would an united Italy be able to participate in the colonial game further down the line, or would the threat of Barbary pirates, the risk of Spain's wrath, and the extra distance through the Mediterranean sea restrict their involvement to investments and loans for the colonial ambitions of other countries?
 
Let's forget about the "how" for a moment and just imagine a scenario in which either Gian Galeazzo Visconti or Filippo Maria Visconti are able to recreate the old Lombard kingdom (No Naples). Perhaps they even manage to get themselves crowned.

That probably means conflict with the Holy Roman Emperors, who have not de jure (I believe) acknowledged the independence of Italy.

And formally claiming the crown of the Kingdom of Italy will probably mean imperial attention - which means the Visconti are going to spend some time having to fend that off while holding this together.
 
That probably means conflict with the Holy Roman Emperors, who have not de jure (I believe) acknowledged the independence of Italy.

And formally claiming the crown of the Kingdom of Italy will probably mean imperial attention - which means the Visconti are going to spend some time having to fend that off while holding this together.
Formally claiming the Crown of Italy would involve either being crowned by the Pope or being crowned by the Emperor. Just declaring yourself "king" got you nowhere in 15th century Europe. In other words, whether Imperial attention would be good or bad would perhaps depend on who granted the crown.

I am not entirely sure how the Emperors and Popes of that period would react to the idea of a unified Lombardy. The Pope might see granting the crown and creating a friendly Italy to the north as a good way to counter French and/or Aragonese power, but he is just as likely to view such an Italy as a potential future threat. The same can be said about the Emperor.
 
Formally claiming the Crown of Italy would involve either being crowned by the Pope or being crowned by the Emperor. Just declaring yourself "king" got you nowhere in 15th century Europe. In other words, whether Imperial attention would be good or bad would perhaps depend on who granted the crown.

Since very few emperors are going to say "Hey, take a title that is technically mine.", that leaves the Pope.

I am not entirely sure how the Emperors and Popes of that period would react to the idea of a unified Lombardy. The Pope might see granting the crown and creating a friendly Italy to the north as a good way to counter French and/or Aragonese power, but he is just as likely to view such an Italy as a potential future threat. The same can be said about the Emperor.

Yeah. The Emperor has no reason to view this as anything other than usurping one of his claims.

Now, he might not be able to do much about it (Wenceslaus was terrible and Sigismund was a failure), but it is an issue - and one that will last for some time.

Not sure how the Papacy would react.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
What makes this worse is the fact that the Holy Roman Emperors were already nominally considered Kings of Italy at the time, having the Visconti take over Italy is surely going to lead to a war of succession. Think an earlier Italian Wars.

While it would be a good way to prevent France from going to deep into Italy, and would counter Aragonese Naples, I don't think Italy would handle having to deal those two plus the HRE...
 
Doesn't it all depend on much strength the emperor has, and how many of the lords really care about Italy to help the Emperor take it back?
 
It's not without precedent for someone to be elevated; the kingdom of Bohemia was one example. Charles the Bold was also angling to get a crown; he didn't succeed, of course, but it was something that many people were considering.
 
OK lets go with Gian Galeazzo Visconti not dieing of Fever, since he seemed to be the best of the Visconti, militarily I mean. First off, how large is this theoretical Kingdom? Does it include the Duchy of Savoy/Piedmonte, Tuscany and the Romangna? Only some of these or none at all. How large and governable this Kingdom is is going to matter bigtime. Second, what side was the Pope/Popes on during the wars that created this Kingdom? Did they support the Visconti or the opposition? And is the Pope being threatened by anyone else, like Naples? If the Pope is semi-supportive of the Visconti and is feeling threatened by Naples, then yes he will recognize the Visconti Kingdom and probably even Crown them Kings. Hell he doesn't even have to support them that much. Remember the Pope crowned the Normans Kings of Sicily because he was threatened by an anti-pope and needed support. As for the Holy Roman Emperor, that really doesn't matter much. Most of the time Emperors are never successful in Italy and even if they are initially the success is always reversed. By that point in time all Italy was essentially independent and the Emperors title of King of Italy was nominal and Empty. Personally I think the Italians preferred to have the Emperor as King because it meant that no other Italian ruler would make himself King.
 
That's the thing though, the Minor Powers preferred a Distant "Emperor" to a local King. When the Emperor Comes Knocking, and he will, the Various Small Lords of Italy are going to join up with him, because having Italy 'Ruled' by an Emperor who is in reality stuck on the other side of the Mountains means that they are the actual powers.

Any Kingdom of Italy in such a situation is going to have to fend off threats from every direction just to survive, and even one significant loss is a permanent defeat. Even if the Emperor can't establish permanent control of Italy, he doesn't need to in order to kill this upstart Kingdom.
 
I think a surviving Gian Visconti would necessarily include Florence and Bologna, but definitely wouldn't include Savoy. They don't want to mess with the French.
 
OK lets go with Gian Galeazzo Visconti not dieing of Fever, since he seemed to be the best of the Visconti, militarily I mean. First off, how large is this theoretical Kingdom? Does it include the Duchy of Savoy/Piedmonte, Tuscany and the Romangna? Only some of these or none at all. How large and governable this Kingdom is is going to matter bigtime. Second, what side was the Pope/Popes on during the wars that created this Kingdom? Did they support the Visconti or the opposition? And is the Pope being threatened by anyone else, like Naples? If the Pope is semi-supportive of the Visconti and is feeling threatened by Naples, then yes he will recognize the Visconti Kingdom and probably even Crown them Kings. Hell he doesn't even have to support them that much. Remember the Pope crowned the Normans Kings of Sicily because he was threatened by an anti-pope and needed support. As for the Holy Roman Emperor, that really doesn't matter much. Most of the time Emperors are never successful in Italy and even if they are initially the success is always reversed. By that point in time all Italy was essentially independent and the Emperors title of King of Italy was nominal and Empty. Personally I think the Italians preferred to have the Emperor as King because it meant that no other Italian ruler would make himself King.

Let's say it contains something along the lines of Milan, Genoa, Parma, Montferrat, Modena, Mantua, Lucca and Florence. (But not Siena, so not all of Tuscany)

I haven't been able to find any information about the relations between the papacy and the Visconti during Gian Galeazzo's rule. This was in the middle of the Western Schism though, so there's plenty of opportunities.

Naples is a bit more complicated, but let's say Aragon or some other threatening power comes out on top.

That's the thing though, the Minor Powers preferred a Distant "Emperor" to a local King. When the Emperor Comes Knocking, and he will, the Various Small Lords of Italy are going to join up with him, because having Italy 'Ruled' by an Emperor who is in reality stuck on the other side of the Mountains means that they are the actual powers.

Any Kingdom of Italy in such a situation is going to have to fend off threats from every direction just to survive, and even one significant loss is a permanent defeat. Even if the Emperor can't establish permanent control of Italy, he doesn't need to in order to kill this upstart Kingdom.
Emperor Sigismund could not project power at all beyond writing angry letters and making empty threats. The Habsburgs were more concerned with their dynasty and would care more about what benefited them than anything else. Might take a while before any of the Emperors would be interested in giving Italy a try.
 
Expanding Visconti territory over the other city states in Lombardy and Tuscany is plausible, but obtaining a crown is much tougher. And no matter how good their relations with the papacy might have been in OTL, the incumbent pope would recognize the obvious threat of a unified Lombardy with its own king.

Consequently I have my doubts that any Visconti wanted such a poisoned crown at all, but if he did, I can see only one way for it to happen. The incumbent King of the Romans leads an army against Milan on the way to his coronation by the pope (bringing the Iron Crown of Lombardy along with him, as well as the imperial crown itself) and is defeated and captured. The price of his release is recognition of the Visconti ruler as king of Italy and handing over the Iron Crown. He's welcome to continue to Rome (with a Visconti escort) for the imperial title.
 
Emperor Sigismund could not project power at all beyond writing angry letters and making empty threats. The Habsburgs were more concerned with their dynasty and would care more about what benefited them than anything else. Might take a while before any of the Emperors would be interested in giving Italy a try.

This IS the same Sigismund of the Nicopolis crusade, yes (a failure, but it was hardly an empty threat or angry letter)?

And the Habsburgs would certainly respond to someone usurping one of the imperial titles.

The emperors are not just going to ignore someone claiming to be king of Italy.

They might succeed. They might fail. But they are going to respond with more than angry letters and empty threats.
 
What makes this worse is the fact that the Holy Roman Emperors were already nominally considered Kings of Italy at the time, having the Visconti take over Italy is surely going to lead to a war of succession. Think an earlier Italian Wars.

While it would be a good way to prevent France from going to deep into Italy, and would counter Aragonese Naples, I don't think Italy would handle having to deal those two plus the HRE...
True, but at the time France was about to enter the final stages of the Hundred Years' War, Aragon had not yet gained Naples and the HRE was preoccupied with a variety of other issues. They might have to deal with them later, but not all of them at once or straight away.

This Italy might also be able to gain French, Papal and Neapolitan friendship (or at least neutrality) by supporting the Angevins in Naples later on, so everyone teaming up on them is not really a given.

Helping Sigismund out against the Ottoman Empire and the Bohemian Hussites might also make the Emperor somewhat less inclined to hostile activities against them.

Doesn't it all depend on much strength the emperor has, and how many of the lords really care about Italy to help the Emperor take it back?
Everyone but the Archbishop of Cologne (he was Arch-chancellor of Italy) would probably feel reluctant to help the Emperor out with what they'd regard as a quest to strengthen the position of the Emperor.

It's not without precedent for someone to be elevated; the kingdom of Bohemia was one example. Charles the Bold was also angling to get a crown; he didn't succeed, of course, but it was something that many people were considering.
Both valid examples, but the situation is somewhat different here seeing as it's not as much giving a duke a royal title as it is giving away one of your own crowns to another ruler. The new king would still be an Imperial prince of course, and nothing would change in terms of how much authority the Emperor would have in Italy, but it would probably still be a scary prospect to most Emperors.

That's the thing though, the Minor Powers preferred a Distant "Emperor" to a local King. When the Emperor Comes Knocking, and he will, the Various Small Lords of Italy are going to join up with him, because having Italy 'Ruled' by an Emperor who is in reality stuck on the other side of the Mountains means that they are the actual powers.

Any Kingdom of Italy in such a situation is going to have to fend off threats from every direction just to survive, and even one significant loss is a permanent defeat. Even if the Emperor can't establish permanent control of Italy, he doesn't need to in order to kill this upstart Kingdom.
Sad, but true. The best bet would be to win the friendship of the Emperor somehow, which is far from impossible if they can maintain their position long enough. Luckily there were plenty of opportunities for both at the time, so the situation isn't entirely hopeless.

I think a surviving Gian Visconti would necessarily include Florence and Bologna, but definitely wouldn't include Savoy. They don't want to mess with the French.
They might attempt to expand into Piedmont eventually, but I agree.

Expanding Visconti territory over the other city states in Lombardy and Tuscany is plausible, but obtaining a crown is much tougher. And no matter how good their relations with the papacy might have been in OTL, the incumbent pope would recognize the obvious threat of a unified Lombardy with its own king.

Consequently I have my doubts that any Visconti wanted such a poisoned crown at all, but if he did, I can see only one way for it to happen. The incumbent King of the Romans leads an army against Milan on the way to his coronation by the pope (bringing the Iron Crown of Lombardy along with him, as well as the imperial crown itself) and is defeated and captured. The price of his release is recognition of the Visconti ruler as king of Italy and handing over the Iron Crown. He's welcome to continue to Rome (with a Visconti escort) for the imperial title.
Wikipedia claims that "Gian Galeazzo had dreams of uniting all of northern Italy into one kingdom, a revived Lombard empire" but I don't know how literally the kingdom part was meant.

I like the idea of forcing the crown from the Emperor, but the long-term consequences would be potentially nasty.

I wonder if stability in Italy would result in the tradition of being crowned Emperor in Rome lasting longer. Italy and the Emperor would of course have to be on friendly terms for that to happen, but it's an interesting prospect nonetheless.

This IS the same Sigismund of the Nicopolis crusade, yes (a failure, but it was hardly an empty threat or angry letter)?

And the Habsburgs would certainly respond to someone usurping one of the imperial titles.

The emperors are not just going to ignore someone claiming to be king of Italy.

They might succeed. They might fail. But they are going to respond with more than angry letters and empty threats.
I was referring to how he treated the situation in the Low Countries. He was extremely hostile to Burgundian expansion there, and wrote a number of very angry letters, threatening to ally with this or that power if Burgundy didn't hand over all their Imperial territories to either him or this or that Imperial prince. Suffice to say, he was not really taken seriously.

Italy is closer to his powerbase though, so the situation isn't exactly the same, I suppose.

Good point though. Imperial friendship would be a necessity for such a state to survive. Forgoing the crown and just remaining the duke of Milan etc. might be a sacrifice worth making to keep Imperial hostility off their backs. (The Emperor still probably wouldn't be too comfortable about a united Italy, but at least he wouldn't be actively hostile or anything. Probably.)
 
This IS the same Sigismund of the Nicopolis crusade, yes (a failure, but it was hardly an empty threat or angry letter)?

And the Habsburgs would certainly respond to someone usurping one of the imperial titles.

The emperors are not just going to ignore someone claiming to be king of Italy.

They might succeed. They might fail. But they are going to respond with more than angry letters and empty threats.
My Idea is for Mary of Hungary to marry Siemowit of Plock instead of Jadwiga marrying to Jogaila, Siemowit of Plock will most likely war with Bohemia for Silesia and West Prussia while the same Bohemia-Luxemobourg will war with Milan over Italy, this would mean an ATL Polish-Italian alliance instead...and perhaps also have Jadwiga marry a Visconti to start a Hungary ruled by the Viscontis and an alliance between Poland, Hungary and Milan/Italy and no P-L union.
 
Last edited:
That's the thing though, the Minor Powers preferred a Distant "Emperor" to a local King. When the Emperor Comes Knocking, and he will, the Various Small Lords of Italy are going to join up with him, because having Italy 'Ruled' by an Emperor who is in reality stuck on the other side of the Mountains means that they are the actual powers.

I don't understand this at all, frankly. The POD is "Suppose Gian Galeazzo lived and conquered Florence."

Who is revolting against him?

Which emperor is going to be leading a massive military over the Alps?

Emperor Sigismund could not project power at all beyond writing angry letters and making empty threats. The Habsburgs were more concerned with their dynasty and would care more about what benefited them than anything else. Might take a while before any of the Emperors would be interested in giving Italy a try.

Exactly.

I'm also not sure why a titular King of Italy who remains part of the hre is impossible.

Italy is closer to his powerbase though, so the situation isn't exactly the same, I suppose.

Although Italy also doesn't have a French neighbor to threaten it.
 
I was referring to how he treated the situation in the Low Countries. He was extremely hostile to Burgundian expansion there, and wrote a number of very angry letters, threatening to ally with this or that power if Burgundy didn't hand over all their Imperial territories to either him or this or that Imperial prince. Suffice to say, he was not really taken seriously.

Italy is closer to his powerbase though, so the situation isn't exactly the same, I suppose.

And expanding is one thing, claiming a crown like that is likely to stir some sort of response. There are limits.

Good point though. Imperial friendship would be a necessity for such a state to survive. Forgoing the crown and just remaining the duke of Milan etc. might be a sacrifice worth making to keep Imperial hostility off their backs. (The Emperor still probably wouldn't be too comfortable about a united Italy, but at least he wouldn't be actively hostile or anything. Probably.)

This might work. Maybe.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
My guess is a revived Italian kingdom would try to ally with France, since Austria and Spain would be natural enemies.

Regarding the colonial game, Italy has one big disadvantage. They lack Atlantic access.
 
A twofold process may be needed.
If the Visconti end up as the HRE's Vicar/Governor/Regent for Italy it would make it easier for said Regent to gain the crown later; providing he accepts imperial overlordship of course.
 
Wikipedia claims that "Gian Galeazzo had dreams of uniting all of northern Italy into one kingdom, a revived Lombard empire" but I don't know how literally the kingdom part was meant.

Something I didn't know.

The scenario I suggested about almost happened. The King of the Romans in question was Rupert of the Palatinate. His failure came against Gian Galeazzo Visconti, but in OTL Rupert wasn't captured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_of_Germany

P.S., the Iron Crown of Lombardy was mostly made of gold and jewels like other crowns. However it had an inner band of iron made from one of the nails used to hold Christ on the cross. Or at least, the Lombards said that's where it came from.
 
Top