WI: Commune of Rome victorious at the battle of Monte Porzio.

[Superninja76]

Howdy howdy hey!
Been a while since I've posted here. I was doing some reading today, and I discovered a very interesting historical anecdote that I personally was entirely unconscious of until now; The Commune of Rome!

Commune of Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Monte Porzio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

During the period of conflict between the Emperor and Pope known as the Guelphs and Ghibellines, the City of Rome, which apparently was fairly inclined towards the Emperor's faction, revolted against the Pope and seized control of a good bit of latium, declaring a new SPQR & trying to force the pope to give up his temporal power. The situation appears to have turned into a bit of a clusterfuck, with the Commune ending up going out on it's own after the pope allied with the emperor against them. Now, historically the commune started a gradual slide towards impotence and abolition after their army was defeated by this alliance at Monte Porzio, an engagement that initially one would assume favoured them; They outnumbered the Imperial army almost ten to one, having a host of 10,000 men under arms, but the emperor's army had several hundred battle hardened knights & other imperial soldiers that tore through the commune's army like a hot knife through butter and eventually ended up taking Rome, though they had to retreat due to an outbreak of malaria, giving the Commune a couple extra decades of life.

The whole situation is just utterly fascinating but I really can't seem to wrap my head around it. This post is just as much me trying to learn more as it is present a What If.. Now, I should probably actually do that, so this post doesn't get nixed haha
What if the Commune's army won at Monte Porzio through successful application of their substantial numerical advantage? They probably take Tusculum, but what are the broader implications? Is the papacy finished as a secular power? Does the Commune have a chance of lasting survival and establishing a new rome? Very interested to hear everybody's thoughts.

 

[Enigmajones]

I’ve envisioned a tv show about peasant revolts called Peasant Kings that would depict a semi fictional story about various revolts. The Roman Commune would be the 4th season.

For anyone interested the first season would be about Ivaylo of Bulgaria, followed by the rebellion of Li Zaicheng ( the founder of the short lived Shun Dynasty) and the 3rd season would be centered on the English peasant revolt and in particular Wat Tyler.

 

[Superninja76]

I’ve envisioned a tv show about peasant revolts called Peasant Kings that would depict a semi fictional story about various revolts. The Roman Commune would be the 4th season.

For anyone interested the first season would be about Ivaylo of Bulgaria, followed by the rebellion of Li Zaicheng ( the founder of the short lived Shun Dynasty) and the 3rd season would be centered on the English peasant revolt and in particular Wat Tyler.

Would that we were all producers, haha! There's so many obscure annals of history that could be explored in really cool ways in television.

 

[Andristan]

The Peasant Republic of Dithmarschen and its war with the Danes and Holstein in the 1500s would make an excellent 5th/6th season. You could cover the Jacqueries of the hundred years war in the 5th, also.

 

[Andristan]

What if the Commune's army won at Monte Porzio through successful application of their substantial numerical advantage?

So, this could go a couple of ways, I think. 1, the Emperor and Pope just come back a little later and crush them, the commune was fairly inefficient and probably couldnt muster up another army, especially as winning by numbers generally means they lost a lot of people but still won, I figure this option is most likely.
2, the Commune hangs out in Rome and creates a city state that minds its own business and everybody around more or less ignores them and they live life as another Italian medieval city state, like Pisa or Florence, maybe joins the Lombard league, especially as the Emperor is now its enemy, although maybe everybody else in Italy hates Rome due to the whole Guelph/Ghibelline thing, as the Commune managed to get both against them.

 

[Superninja76]

So, this could go a couple of ways, I think. 1, the Emperor and Pope just come back a little later and crush them, the commune was fairly inefficient and probably couldnt muster up another army, especially as winning by numbers generally means they lost a lot of people but still won, I figure this option is most likely.
2, the Commune hangs out in Rome and creates a city state that minds its own business and everybody around more or less ignores them and they live life as another Italian medieval city state, like Pisa or Florence, maybe joins the Lombard league, especially as the Emperor is now its enemy, although maybe everybody else in Italy hates Rome due to the whole Guelph/Ghibelline thing, as the Commune managed to get both against them.

Womp womp. I guess that's probably the realistic result haha, the emperor can definitely come back with more than a thousand men.

 

[nimrod]

Womp womp. I guess that's probably the realistic result haha, the emperor can definitely come back with more than a thousand men.

A medieval “Roman Republic” is such an interesting concept.
Perhaps if it survives, even just barely, conflicts between the Pope and Emperor could eventually lead to Imperial support? The Emperors often chafed under the Pope’s temporal claims and I doubt their enmity towards the commune would last forever. Politicking is a fickle thing!

 

[Carp]

The Commune of Rome was, from the outset, probably a doomed endeavor. The basic impetus for the commune movement was not very different from the civic communal movements elsewhere in northern and central Italy; a desire by the urban elite to establish control over the governance of their city and its environs. The specific circumstances of Rome were such that the city had an unprecedented control over its own countryside during the Carolingian era, with few competing centers of power (or even known villages) within the Agro Romano, but by the 12th century other power centers had arisen in the region which were free from the dominion of the Roman elite. It was a controversy over Tivoli, and the Pope's refusal to let the Romans subjugate the city and raze its walls, that originally launched the communal rebellion.

Most Italian cities which aspired to autonomy needed to deal with their bishops, who had become the most powerful urban figures in the post-Byzantine era. Some usurped the civic authority of the bishops through force, others were able to reach an accommodation with their bishops to share power with a civic government. Rome's bishop, however, was not merely the Bishop of Rome - he was the Pope, and thus had resources and international influence beyond any mere urban bishop. The Commune initially managed to win the local struggle and eject the Pope from the city, but the Pope could always call upon the Emperor (to whom he could offer much more than the Commune ever could - namely, the imperial crown). Once the Emperor and the Papacy turned on each other, one might assume that an imperial-communal alliance would make sense, but Frederick was not exactly a champion of communal autonomy and there was very little the Commune of Rome could actually offer him. Moreover, some of those rival centers of power in Rome's backyard were possessed by pro-imperial aristocrats like the Tusculani, which was why you end up with the Commune, which had been anti-Papal and notionally pro-imperial in the 1140s, fighting an imperial army at Monte Porzio in the 1160s. Unlike the Pope, the Commune's agenda was purely local, not international.

It is difficult for me to imagine a situation in which the Roman elite is truly able to create an autonomous commune in the manner of, say, Milan. Any victory they win over the Pope will inevitably be a temporary one, as outside powers will tend to side with the Pope rather than an upstart civic government that exerts no power or influence beyond its own walls. By this time It's really too late for an aristocratic capture of the Papacy, as had been attempted (and occasionally achieved) at various points in the 10th and 11th centuries.

 

[Superninja76]

The Commune of Rome was, from the outset, probably a doomed endeavor. The basic impetus for the commune movement was not very different from the civic communal movements elsewhere in northern and central Italy; a desire by the urban elite to establish control over the governance of their city and its environs. The specific circumstances of Rome were such that the city had an unprecedented control over its own countryside during the Carolingian era, with few competing centers of power (or even known villages) within the Agro Romano, but by the 12th century other power centers had arisen in the region which were free from the dominion of the Roman elite. It was a controversy over Tivoli, and the Pope's refusal to let the Romans subjugate the city and raze its walls, that originally launched the communal rebellion.

Most Italian cities which aspired to autonomy needed to deal with their bishops, who had become the most powerful urban figures in the post-Byzantine era. Some usurped the civic authority of the bishops through force, others were able to reach an accommodation with their bishops to share power with a civic government. Rome's bishop, however, was not merely the Bishop of Rome - he was the Pope, and thus had resources and international influence beyond any mere urban bishop. The Commune initially managed to win the local struggle and eject the Pope from the city, but the Pope could always call upon the Emperor (to whom he could offer much more than the Commune ever could - namely, the imperial crown). Once the Emperor and the Papacy turned on each other, one might assume that an imperial-communal alliance would make sense, but Frederick was not exactly a champion of communal autonomy and there was very little the Commune of Rome could actually offer him. Moreover, some of those rival centers of power in Rome's backyard were possessed by pro-imperial aristocrats like the Tusculani, which was why you end up with the Commune, which had been anti-Papal and notionally pro-imperial in the 1140s, fighting an imperial army at Monte Porzio in the 1160s. Unlike the Pope, the Commune's agenda was purely local, not international.

It is difficult for me to imagine a situation in which the Roman elite is truly able to create an autonomous commune in the manner of, say, Milan. Any victory they win over the Pope will inevitably be a temporary one, as outside powers will tend to side with the Pope rather than an upstart civic government that exerts no power or influence beyond its own walls. By this time It's really too late for an aristocratic capture of the Papacy, as had been attempted (and occasionally achieved) at various points in the 10th and 11th centuries.

This is a pretty comprehensive response so I don't have much to say about it, but I'd just like to mention how much I like your corsica TL!