Perhaps, I do prefer to look into matters of theory and generally accepted titles. As opposed to, understanding states as regions of mutually accepted legal custom and institution. If I was to view things exactly as you do though, in this regard, my opinion would ultimately lean to he view given by Giorgio Falco and others. That the Papacy was the sole ruler of Europe, that Rome never fell, only separated into varied states and were recovered by the authority of Papal interdiction, excommunication and edict; united by Papal cathedra and ruled as something like a Shogunate-like structure. This is how the Islamic world viewed Europe in the Middle Ages for instance.
We take precedence from Bayezid I, who whence he defeated the Imperial-Hungarian-French army in Bulgaria, mocked the French and Europeans:
'Bayezid was courteous, but made clear his intentions; to make his horse eat corn upon the seat of Saint-Peter. He knew that victory was imminent as the lands of Christendom were divided between two rulers! These Saracen had made great marvel at the suffering ...was to be felt by the Lords and Kings for this division of leadership of their lands.' -John the Fearless upon returning to Paris, to report the grand and apocalyptic defeat.
The Muslim states understood their enemy, was ultimately never the king of the Franks, Lords of Germany or Masters of Italy, but always the unifying figure rising from the mass of Rome, the Papacy. At least in the case of their enemy who was Latin, that is, they understood other enemies, such as the Eastern Emperor or the states in more eastern locales.
The view someone had of a contemporary reality doesn't mean it's true. Criticism of sources is important, and it's very possible that Bayezid, himself the head of the most powerful Muslim state and one of Islam's main spiritual leaders (albeit nominally), saw no other possibility in another religion than that of caesaropapism, like the Eastern Emperor before him. The Turks had a period of confusion in which they thought Rome was the political center of Christendom and they thought that if Italy were to fall, so would the rest of Christendom. Most Christians thought so too. But it was not entirely true. Also, the former tradition of Roman imperium had made the Eternal City into a symbol of Christendom as a whole. It was easy for foreigners to think that Rome was indeed the spiritual and temporal center of Europe, when in fact, much more hard power resided in Paris, London, Toledo, Venire or Naples by the 1300's.
However, I think that we're trimming over the foilage, but that we agree in our general view of how things worked back then. Let's put this to use and imagine how our modern idea of Italy could emerge from the Medieval one.
2. I stand by the claim that feudalism implies a level of centralism that is unprecedented for much of the world.
As I pointed toward, feudalism implies a central figure (whether God, the Papacy or the King-Emperor-Duke) for which duties are to be given and from whom the titles-fiefs are given unto. When a land was to be conquered by the Kingdom of France, such as say, the 'divine fief' that Louis IX spoke of, it was understood that the crusade upon Africa if land was captured, it was captured in the name of someone. Namely, it was captured on behalf of Louis IX, even if he was not there. He then, would distribute the lands to his loyal allies, into demenses based upon his discretion or custom. There however, was never a true dispute as to whom one waged war on behalf, even if there was a conflict of interest, it was always an understanding that there were hierarchies, of which there stood the liege lord at the top.
In the case of true decentralized realms, we look to the Sassanid empire at its height. It was a kingdom based upon dynastism, the notion that a set of nobility, tribal lords or otherwise powerful and ancient ruling elite ruled their lands and possessed their powers not as grants by the liege, but their powers precede said ruler. In other words, the Sassanid emperor, was the 'king among kings' that is, he was just a king who resided among other kings. They held their power prior to him and ruled their lands without his consent or privilege and it was they, that appointed or confirmed the monarch. This system implied no common law across the empire, no common taxation or any of such. The Sassanid emperor received his income through free-cities and his own demense, and was permitted to request military aid from the nobility who were rewarded by joining said wars, not by land grants or wages, but by the permission to loot and take the loot to their own noble holdings.
This system was common in Iran after the fall of the Seleucid empire, the Caucasian mountains, the Kushan empire, among the varied Scythian realms in India, Assyria within its main crownlands and the dual-monarchy (Assyria-Karduniash//Assyria-Babylon) and so forth. It derives from large patriarchal agnatic clans dominating lands prior to the existence of any state conception.
This is what I am comparing feudalism to, not that feudalism is centralized in comparison to the Late or Early Roman empire or so forth. In describing the situation of the Caucasian mountain folk and the system of governance for instance in Urartu or others, there was a description given that feudalism was a result of the decline of bureaucratic governing in the Latin world, thus it is a middle-ground, between statism (in reference to bureuacratism) and that of dyanstism, wherein the state is simply a confederacy of same sized swords and no true singular legitimacy other than the concept that an empire exists.
Alright, that makes sense.
3. Assyria did not levy taxes upon the regions of Syria, not int he way we consider it. Their conception was that:
The world was created for the sake of the Great Gods, they instructed the creation of a universal empire at Kish, whose divine mandate, was the conquest and acquisition of resources for the sake of the interior land of the Great Gods, that being the Duranki and Assyria-Karduniash-Sumer. Early on, the Assyrian empire invaded these lands to loot, pillage and capture lands and wrap them into a domain that acquired their resources and forced their submission to Assyria. Not as part of a civic empire that understood these lands as part of their domain and hence taking in taxes. It is somewhat of a complex topic and I would need to expend more time on this and go off-topic though.
There are many examples of states that ruled regions and people who were ruled with the understanding that they possessed their own liberties, freedoms and powers. I do not agree that this is a basis to revoke the notion that the Holy Roman Empire was a unified ruler over the area, they had no other ruler other than the Papacy.
4. I would agree that the situation is blurry as you say. But only so much as the ruling status of the Kushan empire, the Sassanid empire and Arsacid empires were blurry. It does not invalidate Sassanian rule over Iran due to their inability to impose anything upon the nobility.
5. Ignoring is not the same as rejection, no. They are distinct. One may ignore a particular ruler's mandates but are still within that realm in terms of titles and ignorance of such depends on how they ignore it. The idea that an Italian duke ignores an imperial call to war, yet does not reject his right to call said war or does not reject his imperial prerogatives to do this, is different. One is a legal nullification and opinion, the other is an act out of preference and convenience.
Sure, but ignorance is neutral until acted upon. I think that the resistance Italy demonstrated to the Holy Roman Emperors after Otto III (and the fact that by 1200 the concept of a "kingdom of Italy" was remembered, but politically useless) proves that the "Kingdom of Italy" was dead long before Frederick II abandonment and Boniface's retreat to Avignon. It was a legal fiction, but in reality it had no weight to it. No more than all those Lusignans intitulating themselves "Kings of Jerusalem" even though their dynasty had long since lost the Holy City.
In 1258, King James of Aragon and Louis IX of France signed the Peace of Corbeil, in which Aragon ceded most of their Occitan holdings to Louis, and in exchange Louis agreed to release the lands below the Pyrinees of feudal homage. Most people agree that Louis' concession was a token to save James of coming home empty handed, because even though, de jure, Barcelona and the other counties were part of the Gothic March created by Charlemagne, for over three centuries no count below the Pyrinees (nor many above them, for that matter) had traveled to Paris or Reims to pay homage to any Robert, Louis or Charles.
The case of Toulouse within France is also an interesting conundrum: de jure part of France, Count Raymond swore feudal allegiance to Peter of Aragon. The case of Normandy is also interesting because it posed the same debate we're having on Medieval jurists, and their conclusion was whatever their respective kings needed. Which comes to show how much Medieval law was worth (granted, this last example is a bit late for our matter).
Maybe feudalism required a more powerful idea of "centrality" than I defended before, but at the end of the day, it was still a warlords' era, and several of the 1300's civil wars show that the legal or traditional stability of the feudal regime was coming to a close in violence, not legal debate or peaceful negotiation. But then again, so did WW1, even if the states involved were modern and developed.
I did not assert that Dante understood the empire to be this way, but the fact that he is appealing to the Holy Roman emperor as the focal point for his idealism, to me, proves the legitimacy understood in terms of the kingdom of Italy. He did not opine upon some grand new Italian kingdom, but the universal Holy Roman Emperor.
What would it take for Dante to recognise the need for an Italian kingdom separate from the HRE? That's, in the end, what we're trying to get to here.
6. Regarding the definition of Italy, see my post in reply to another post above^ .
Agree to disagree. I'm not saying Italy was not defined historically as you say, I'm merely pointing out, in al althistory forum, that the althistory concept of an "Italy" with our modern borders (minus Sicily and Sardinia) could benefit from the wave of Classically-inspired ideas which would point to Roman Italy going from the Alps to the southern tip of the boot.
All those Lorenzo Vallas giving themselves Roman-sounding sobriquets and wiriting in what they understood was Cicieronian Latin, they had a very different worldview than Dante after all.
I have taken a look at some of history and found that the Pisa worked with various Hispanic Kingdoms to raid and attack Islamic Hispania (and invade the Balearic islands islands). Would the United Italian Republic be Capable of having a more successful time in aiding the Hispanic kingdoms retake Islamic Hispania? (Almoravids)
Yes, Pisa, due to its western-inclined trade network, was very much interested in keeping trade open and free of piracy. Which is what the Balearic Islands were during the last two centuries of Muslim dominance: pirate princedoms. I'm sure the Ottomans said the same of the Hospitallers in Rhodes and Malta afterwards, it's the same situation.
The interesting thing here is that the famous Reconquista was neither steady nor always a desirable end to the Christian iberian kings. To them, for most of the 1000 and 1100's, the petty Taifas were a good deal. They were not united, they bickered a lot among themselves, and despite being heavily populated, their state structure was not as war-oriented as the Christian feudal kingdoms were. Castile, Leon, Aragon and Barcelona soon came to dominate the Peninsula and got the Muslim princes to pay them special taxes (effectively a protection racket). When these payments dried up the Christian kings renewed their conquest efforts.
Would a Medieval Italy help in the Reconquista? Only in so much as it helped clear the sea of pirates and only if the Iberian kings were actively trying to conquer Andalusi land.