You take Venice. - No, you take Venice!

Imagine the areas of responsibility between the Western and Eastern Roman Emperor would have been drawn slightly differently. Imagine that the border North of the Mediterranean would run a bit further East, through Illyricum / modern Bosnia.

I guess the exact border does not matter. Only one thing is important: Venice is not part of Byzantium.

Most probably it will become of the Langobardian, later Italian kingdom.
How will the city develop? I suppose it will never get its special political structure ...
What are the effects outside? Will that hinder Italy's progress in arts and sciences?
Will it mean a more or less powerful Italy (if facing the Holy Roman Emperor)?
And will there be more agreement between the Northern Italian cities?
 

Philip

Donor
Wasn't (what became) Venice part of the praetorian prefecture of Italy? IIRC, it wasn't directly under Constantinople until Justinian's conquests -- well after the fall of the Western Empire.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
First of all Venice wasn't really established until the 6th or 7th century. Previous to that the major Roman city in the area was Aquileia which is today a church (cathedral?) and some assorted columns and spolia on the side of the road to Grado. The series of Lagoon settlements began as people fled the mainland to the islands in the lagoon during the 7th century. Previously these places were the domain of itinerant fisherman. Thus settlements sprang up at Grado, Torcello and Rialto. Eventually the one at Rialto grew to form the city of Venice and the rest is as they say history.

The point is none of this happened because Venice or the Veneto were in one particular part of the Empire administratively. It happened because the mainland was unsafe, subject to constant raids and pillaging and the island lagoons were safe. This location in tern focused the new settlements towards the sea while also providing and effective defense against whoever controlled the mainland allowing the Venetians autonomy. And since its founders were Romans, never subject to Lombards, Goths, Franks, Germans etc etc they retained more Roman (ie Byzantine) political structures relative to mainland cities even ones as close as Padova.

By virtue of geography Venice will always to a great extent be Venice. How big it gets is of course another matter. Its possible some other non-lagoon city (I say this because Grado, Choggia, Torcello etc would likely have been Venice under another name a few miles east or west) could have dominated the Adriatic, lets say Trieste or Ravenna. Genova in turn could have dominated trade in the Levant. Then Venice might have remained a small curious little Republic/Free City. But it would still fundamentally be Venice its not worth the time and effort to conquer if its not important and if it is a powerful state it will be all the more difficult to do so. You'd have to seriously upset the demographics and military conquests of the Veneto in the 5th-7th centuries to change that.
 
...none of this happened because Venice or the Veneto were in one particular part of the Empire administratively. It happened because the mainland was unsafe, subject to constant raids and pillaging and the island lagoons were safe. This location in tern focused the new settlements towards the sea while also providing and effective defense against whoever controlled the mainland allowing the Venetians autonomy. And since its founders were Romans, never subject to Lombards, Goths, Franks, Germans etc etc they retained more Roman (ie Byzantine) political structures relative to mainland cities even ones as close as Padova.
Exactly. In my TL Venice actually got passed to the Lombard "kings" but they never exercised real authority. Now in the 11th Century, Ravenna and a Federal Republic of Zara are contending for the Adriatic routes, while Pisa and Florence dominate the Levantine trade by being under Alt-Spain control (due to the special relations with the Muslims). Currently the Duke of Ravenna is eying its capture in a bid to strengthen his hand against the Zarans to fund his wars with Milan for dominance in N. Italy. Venice is just a sleepy middling town, but it's still there and it's still Venice (well, Rialto actually).

TBH, Florence did a lot more to promote the arts and sciences in the Renaissance than Venice did. Venice only came into play in that way after the Ottomans took Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
Top