WI: Frederick Barbarossa won a total victory over the Lombard League, creating a puppet viceroyalty?

Deleted member 97083

What if the HRE Frederick I Barbarossa won a decisive and devastating victory over the Lombard League, allowing him to dissolve many of the privileges of the Northern Italian states, creating an intermediary authority, a sort of "Exarchate of Ravenna"-like realm whose leader is directly appointed by the Holy Roman Emperor?

Could a puppet state in northern Italy, with relative autonomy but a single leader appointed by the King of Germany, allow the HRE to retain Lombardy?
 
Well, the Archbishop of Cologne was ex officio the Archchancellor of Italy. Under Barbarossa that office was held by the rather over-enthusiastic Rainald of Dassel until his untimely death in 1167, who was very actively involved in Italian affairs. My guess would be that if you did have an "intermediary authority" in Italy it would be a continuation of that office, particularly since a total imperial victory strongly suggests that the Pope has been to some extent subdued as well, so it's fairly safe to use an archbishop for this sort of position.

I don't think this would make much of a difference in terms of the emperor's ability to retain Lombardy, however. Rainald of Dassel was... not well liked by the Italians. The emperor insisting on his expansive regalia in Italy and imposing rulers upon the cities is what provoked resistance, and if that policy is pursued it scarcely matters whether the enforcer on the ground is some imperial lieutenant or the emperor himself.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

Well, the Archbishop of Cologne was ex officio the Archchancellor of Italy; under Barbarossa that office was held by the rather over-enthusiastic Rainald of Dassel until his untimely death in 1167, who was very actively involved in Italian affairs. My guess would be that if you did have an "intermediary authority" in Italy it would be a continuation of that office, particularly since a total imperial victory strongly suggests that the Pope has been to some extent subdued as well, so it's fairly safe to use an archbishop for this sort of position.

I don't think this would make much of a difference in terms of the emperor's ability to retain Lombardy, however. Rainald of Dassel was... not well liked by the Italians. The emperor insisting on his expansive regalia in Italy and imposing rulers upon the cities is what provoked resistance, and if that policy is pursued it scarcely matters whether the enforcer on the ground is some imperial lieutenant or the emperor himself.
Well, could it at least buy some time for the Holy Roman Emperor to focus on building his powerbase in Germany, or making conquests in Baltic pagan lands? Perhaps that could allow future HREs to extend their influence back into Lombardy when German kings have more resources at hand.

What if the hypothetical Viceroyalty in Italy becomes a dumping ground of sorts for uppity German lords, who end up being too busy fighting the particularist cities of Northern Italy (their own vassals) to actually challenge the emperor?
 
Well, could it at least buy some time for the Holy Roman Emperor to focus on building his powerbase in Germany, or making conquests in Baltic pagan lands? Perhaps that could allow future HREs to extend their influence back into Lombardy when German kings have more resources at hand.

Rainald's presence certainly didn't make anything easier for Frederick or buy him any more time. As mentioned, it's the policies of the empire that created the resistance, not the identity of the man who was promulgating them.

A lot of this depends on the manner of the Lombard League's "defeat." A defeat in the field, like a reverse-Legnano, is a setback for the League but doesn't destroy it. After all, in a previous campaign Frederick had actually conquered and destroyed Milan, and yet the city had been rebuilt and resistance in Lombardy only grew stronger. The problem for Frederick is that he simply doesn't have the men or the native support in Lombardy to keep the whole region under his thumb. A year's campaign is scarcely enough to besiege and reduce a single city, and he has to go back to Germany regularly. Passing the responsibility to some sort of lieutenant doesn't change the fact that imperial power in Lombardy rests upon the exertions of German knights, who have little reason to be in Italy if the emperor isn't leading them there. Initially, when Frederick was merely campaigning to humble Milan, he had the support of anti-Milanese cities and their armies (e.g. Pavia, Cremona, Lodi), but once the mask slipped and it became plain his ambitions were grander than just beating up Milan even these communes abandoned him, forcing him to rely almost entirely on German forces (with some modest support from the "native" territorial nobility, particularly in the northwest).

What if the hypothetical Viceroyalty in Italy becomes a dumping ground of sorts for uppity German lords, who end up being too busy fighting the particularist cities of Northern Italy (their own vassals) to actually challenge the emperor?

Where are they "dumped," exactly? If the emperor himself can't subject the cities to his will, what makes you think some exiled German nobles could do it?

I mean, in a sense this happened - Frederick gave Tuscany and Spoleto to Welf VI, a Bavarian, who had previously rebelled against the crown. It didn't help very much.
 
Top