WI: Cesare Borgia Lives, Can He Stage a Comeback?

The idea was outlined in my "Anyone but Leo X": Instead of going south to Naples and winding up in Spain and then getting killed in Navarre, Cesare heads to France. There he reunites with Charlotte d'Albret, meets his daughter, Luisa (who IIRC never met her dad OTL), and because Charlotte hasn't contracted syphilis from him, a son (not sure which of the common Borgia names he'd get: Alessandro, Rodrigo or Giovanni) is born a few months later. Although to be fair, it'll be his parents last child (couple of stillbirths or miscarriages thereafter, but Luisa and her brother will be the only kids of Il Valentino).

Now, history progresses more or less as OTL, Julius II goes to war against Venice, and invites the whole of Europe to dogpile in TTL's version of the War of the League of Cambrai. However, similar to OTL, Julius realizes this was a bad idea to invite the French in, because in their train is none other than Cesare Borgia (whom Julius screwed over royally).

Can Cesare stage a comeback as duke of Urbino/Romandiola? Will him surviving (I figure that with two parents who both made their seventies, as long as he avoids dying unnaturally he should be fine until the late-1510s, when the death of Lucrezia will hit him hard and he'll probably follow not long after) change much? Will he get involved in the papal conclave when Julius II dies? Or even at the Council of Pisa? Who might he marry his son to (the Borgia pissed off most of the native Italian families, but if Cesare wants his dynasty to last Italy, his foreign-born son to two non-Italian parents can't marry a foreigner)? I figure his daughter likely stays engaged to the duke of Mantua unless a better option comes along (who?). What might the effects of a lasting Borgia state in the Romagna be? - with the war of Cambrai, by my understanding, Venice supported the rulers of Imola, Cesena etc, while the pope essentially wanted them directly under his control (much like Cesare had had). So, here, would Venice back Cesare? Or the petty rulers?

And since this isn't going to be a Borgia-wank, the lands Cesare is after are only the duchy of Urbino and the lands of the Romagna where he ruled, so no Tuscany, and Piombino goes back to the Appiani.
 

mad orc

Banned
If pope Pius III had lived a bit more .Then its good ,Alexander had already made everything possible easy to have Ceasre become a duke .But due to Pius's sudden death, one of Ceasre's worst enemies became pope .
Julius III
255px-Pope_Julius_II.jpg
 
If pope Pius III had lived a bit more .Then its good ,Alexander had already made everything possible easy to have Ceasre become a duke .But due to Pius's sudden death, one of Ceasre's worst enemies became pope .
Julius III
255px-Pope_Julius_II.jpg

Well, its not like Julius is immortal. And when Cambrai goes sour - which I have no doubt it will (no Italian inviting of the French into Italy EVER goes well), Cesare has a French army at his back. Louis XII stirred up a couple of cardinals to depose Julius OTL, so to Cesare it would seem to augur well. And Julius dying of malaria (the same thing that killed Alexander VI if you don't believe the poison theory) would've seemed like divine justice to Cesare.
 
Rodrigo d'Aragona was Cesare's nephew and only child of Lucrezia and her murdered second husband (although I've seen a suggestion there was at least ONE other pregnancy during the marriage). OTL he died young, under the care of Lucrezia's friend, the duchess of Bari. The duchess was also mother of Bona Sforza, queen of Poland.

If young Rodrigo lives (when his uncle returns to Italy the boy goes into his care) could this have any noticeable effects? Or is Rodrigo doomed to a life in the shadows? (Was thinking about how the French supposedly wanted a Medici (ICR if it was Lorenzo or Giuliano) to be regent of a French kingdom of Naples. Might Rodrigo be a better candidate? Or will his Aragonese blood rule him out?
 

mad orc

Banned
Warning
Is there any principal reason why Italy has always been a bunch of losers and disunited seperatist people ever since the fall of Rome
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
Is there any principal reason why Italy has always been a bunch of losers and disunited seperatist people ever since the fall of Rome

Urbanised population with a lot of wealth.

Also losers is a bit harsh, they kicked Barbarossa's arse.
 
Is there any principal reason why Italy has always been a bunch of losers and disunited seperatist people ever since the fall of Rome

Probably because there are armies who view it as a free for all who come marching over the Alps every few years.

Urbanised population with a lot of wealth.

Also losers is a bit harsh, they kicked Barbarossa's arse.

Agreed about the loser part. The treaty of Lodi in the 15th century made it an absolute nightmare
 

mad orc

Banned
So i guess Italy is one of those countries who's periods of glory come when the appropriate amount of technological progress has been achieved by either them or their immediate neighbours .
 
Is there any principal reason why Italy has always been a bunch of losers and disunited seperatist people ever since the fall of Rome

I found an answer for your question:
Until industrial strength became the criterion for economic success, which was just starting to happen in the 18th century, Italy was extremely wealthy due to its leadership in trade and commerce. From Renaissance times it was a target for stronger nations such as France and Spain to try for a little empire-building, largely because of it's fragmented states which were not always strong enough to deflect national armies, but at any rate were usually good for a bit of 'smash-and-grab' forays. By the 18th century, the major nations took the more civilised route of marrying heiresses, and extending influence rather than sending the army in, but Italy was still potentially very lucrative. We tend to think of Italy in terms of a less industrialised nation compared to those of northern Europe, but it wasn't necessarily considered so at this period. Austria until Maria Theresa's time had been extending its empire into Bohemia and Hungary and was concerned to ensure the Turks did not encroach, but were now starting to look southward - and they were closer than France and Spain. Parma certainly didn't offer military advantages in itself, as you say Ivanushka, but it certainly wasn't poor in 18th century terms, even if it wasn't as rich as some of the Italian states. And once established as a sort of patron state, a stronger nation would be in a really good position to do a bit of territorial aquisition elsewhere in Italy, using Parma as a base, if the opportunity was there. So it was well worth the while of France, Spain and Austria to jostle each other a little, in a very civilised way, to keep Ferdinand under their thumb - though in the end, none of them managed it, at least not through Maria Amalia.
 
The idea was outlined in my "Anyone but Leo X": Instead of going south to Naples and winding up in Spain and then getting killed in Navarre, Cesare heads to France. There he reunites with Charlotte d'Albret, meets his daughter, Luisa (who IIRC never met her dad OTL), and because Charlotte hasn't contracted syphilis from him, a son (not sure which of the common Borgia names he'd get: Alessandro, Rodrigo or Giovanni) is born a few months later. Although to be fair, it'll be his parents last child (couple of stillbirths or miscarriages thereafter, but Luisa and her brother will be the only kids of Il Valentino).

Now, history progresses more or less as OTL, Julius II goes to war against Venice, and invites the whole of Europe to dogpile in TTL's version of the War of the League of Cambrai. However, similar to OTL, Julius realizes this was a bad idea to invite the French in, because in their train is none other than Cesare Borgia (whom Julius screwed over royally).


And since this isn't going to be a Borgia-wank, the lands Cesare is after are only the duchy of Urbino and the lands of the Romagna where he ruled, so no Tuscany, and Piombino goes back to the Appiani.

Under his father Cesare was acting a a supreme commander of the Church forces and, formally, was dealing with the vassals of the Church who were trying to be independent (well, more or less). IIRC, most of the time army that he created was financed by the Church.

For a meaningful comeback he would need if not a legitimacy than an army or at least a strong ally ready to reinstall him as Italian ruler. Obviously, none of the popes would be eager to give him the same legitimacy as his father did (they tended not to be suicidal). Clearly, he did not have enough money to raise and maintain an army big enough to conquer and hold any significant piece of a territory in Papal Romagna. Which leaves a strong ally: France or Spain. IIRC, Louis XII was still in the OK position in Italy (or at least in Milan) and War of the League of Cambrai just started in 1508: France, HRE, Papacy, Spain and Ferrara against Venice, reshuffling of the alliances started in 1510 when Papacy sided with Venice thus creating an opening for your schema. Cesare joins Louis and makes himself useful enough for Louis to consider creation of a state ruling by Cesare as a valuable tool against Julius: by mid-1511 most of the Romagna was in French hands.
 
Under his father Cesare was acting a a supreme commander of the Church forces and, formally, was dealing with the vassals of the Church who were trying to be independent (well, more or less). IIRC, most of the time army that he created was financed by the Church.

For a meaningful comeback he would need if not a legitimacy than an army or at least a strong ally ready to reinstall him as Italian ruler. Obviously, none of the popes would be eager to give him the same legitimacy as his father did (they tended not to be suicidal). Clearly, he did not have enough money to raise and maintain an army big enough to conquer and hold any significant piece of a territory in Papal Romagna. Which leaves a strong ally: France or Spain. IIRC, Louis XII was still in the OK position in Italy (or at least in Milan) and War of the League of Cambrai just started in 1508: France, HRE, Papacy, Spain and Ferrara against Venice, reshuffling of the alliances started in 1510 when Papacy sided with Venice thus creating an opening for your schema. Cesare joins Louis and makes himself useful enough for Louis to consider creation of a state ruling by Cesare as a valuable tool against Julius: by mid-1511 most of the Romagna was in French hands.

It could be fun if Louis is willing to withdraw from Italy, if he's recognized as rightful duke of Milan and Cesare as overlord of the Romagna, and Julius isn't willing to play ball, so the League reverses AGAIN to fight the papacy...
 
Perhaps we can have Cesare be the Constable instead of Bourbon..

Wasn't Constable a quasi hereditary title (or at least one that could only be held by Capets?) Either way, Louise could make an interesting remarriage option for the Connetable (she married a Bourbon OTL, and her first husband was governor of Burgundy, so it's probably not too far-fetched. Especially if she comes dowered with the dukedom of Valentinois (I can't figure that title out. She seems to have succeeded her dad as duchess and countess of Diois, but then Diane de Poitiers is created duchesse de Valentinois inside Louise's lifetime) to cover her Borgia parvenu status).

Either way, I was wondering about the sceanrio of 1511, where the Romagna is almost all in French hands. If Louis agrees to leave Italy if he gets the Milanese crown (potential flashpoint for the future) and Cesare gets installed as duke of Urbino. The Italian states figure this is a small price to pay, Jules doesn't, and he ends up being the only holdout. England has probably left the arena (or at least, they don't have troops anywhere near Italy AFAIK). Aragon probably doesn't have any qualms, since there's no real threat to anything they own in Italy IIRC. Which means Jules' only support comes from Maximilian (who may or may not be busy elsewhere, can't remember what he was doing in 1511).
Could being "deserted" by his Italian allies force Julius to play ball? Or would a Sack of Rome come early?

(I was reading that future Paul III's son, Pier' Luigi was involved in the sack, and I could just imagine Cesare leading the charge over Rome's walls - although I could imagine he'd use treachery to get in, rather than risking catching a bullet similar to the Constable.)

@alexmilman @Torbald
 
This may be an old thread, but since it has come back up,

if you want a Post-Exile return, I would suggest that Cesare somehow convinces France that it is worth setting up an Anti-Pope in Avignon - the idea being that if France helps set him up in Central Italy, he'd effectively act as Frances biggest ally in Italy, and effectively leave the Papacy in Avignon, rather than have it return to Rome.

I can see this in character as Cesare was... ambitious. If he can gather French backing once again, then besides Spain, France effectively is the leading power in Italy, with Cesare the effective King of Italia. Considering he has previously held huge swathes of Central (and Southern) Italy, then he at least has some justification. He still has to basically build a new Italian state from scratch, but since he doesn't act on the Popes behalf, but rules directly, then he doesn't have to rely on another for funding once he gets it set up.

Plus, we get to see an Italian King of Rome. (Note : not the Romans, the HRE is not to be messed with).
 
This may be an old thread, but since it has come back up,

if you want a Post-Exile return, I would suggest that Cesare somehow convinces France that it is worth setting up an Anti-Pope in Avignon - the idea being that if France helps set him up in Central Italy, he'd effectively act as Frances biggest ally in Italy, and effectively leave the Papacy in Avignon, rather than have it return to Rome.

I can see this in character as Cesare was... ambitious. If he can gather French backing once again, then besides Spain, France effectively is the leading power in Italy, with Cesare the effective King of Italia. Considering he has previously held huge swathes of Central (and Southern) Italy, then he at least has some justification. He still has to basically build a new Italian state from scratch, but since he doesn't act on the Popes behalf, but rules directly, then he doesn't have to rely on another for funding once he gets it set up.

Plus, we get to see an Italian King of Rome. (Note : not the Romans, the HRE is not to be messed with).

Ambitious, yes. Stupid, no. Cesare (as a former member of the College of Cardinals and cleric) would know the issues with removing the church HQ back to Avignon. Sure, he can make all sorts of pie crust promises to get Louis' backing. If he (Louis/Cesare) wants to unite all Europe/Italy against him, move the papacy from Rome. And I don't think France in 1507-1512 is in a position as with Louis XIV/Napoléon where that (Europe dogpiling) would merely be a spot of bother.

Not only that, but the cardinals who would go to Avignon are going to be the anti-Julius sort. Those same ones got together (at Louis' urging) and elected Cardinal Carvajal as pope. No one (not even Louis IIRC) took it seriously. Besides, Cesare isn't really in a position to play kingmaker (or pope-maker) in the 1510s (as he was when his dad died), if he's simply a bauble dangling from the French king's belt.
 
Top