When is the earliest that Italy can unify - and remain unified for the remainder of its history? If it unifies earlier, depending on when, could it become a power on-par with those around it, or would it always be a "second-rate" great power? For the purposes of the thread, I will say that this 'unified' Italy does not necessarily need to include Sicily/Naples, although that would be preferable.
AHC: Earliest Italian Unification?
- Thread starter Emperor-of-New-Zealand
- Start date
You should have qualified this as post-Roman, because a surviving Roman Republic/Empire qualifies, and that pushes your possible date way, way back.
A more succesful Lombard state, maybe? Italy was one of the richer parts of Europe during the Middle Ages, so a unified Italy could have been quite powerful, especially if it took as great an interest in trading as the Italian city states did IOTL. I'd expect it to be one of Europe's top Mediaeval powers before gradually declining once the Age of Exploration begins, but still remaining an advanced and wealthy country.
The Kingdom of the Lombards held most of Italy by the mid 8th century, with the remainder (Sicily, Sardinia, the southern tips of mainland Italy, and the areas around Rome and Venice) held by the ERE.
The Lombards had gained quite a bit of influence over the Papacy and Rome over the course of the 750s-770s, as the ERE had its hands full fighting the Caliphate and the Bulgars, and the Papacy was falling out with the ERE over theology and church-governance issues. If the Lombards had succeeded in closing the deal and vassalizing Rome, they would have had a chance to roll on and take the rest of Italy from the ERE.
IOTL, this didn't happen because Charlemagne (who had previously be allied with the Lombards against his brother Carloman) invaded in support of the Papacy, leaving the North in Frankish hands, the center as the independant Papal States, and most of the South as a rump Lombard state.
A POD of Carloman surviving (rather than dying of a sudden illness in 771) would butterfly away the Frankish conquest of northern Lombardy neatly: the Franks would have been divided between two rival states, neither of which would be strong enough to challenge Lombardy, both of which more concerned with each other than with Italy, and one or the other of them allied with Lombardy (IOTL, Charlemange divorced his Lombard wife shortly before Carloman's death, and Carloman was probably in the process of concluding an alliance of his own with the Lombards when he died).
The Lombards had gained quite a bit of influence over the Papacy and Rome over the course of the 750s-770s, as the ERE had its hands full fighting the Caliphate and the Bulgars, and the Papacy was falling out with the ERE over theology and church-governance issues. If the Lombards had succeeded in closing the deal and vassalizing Rome, they would have had a chance to roll on and take the rest of Italy from the ERE.
IOTL, this didn't happen because Charlemagne (who had previously be allied with the Lombards against his brother Carloman) invaded in support of the Papacy, leaving the North in Frankish hands, the center as the independant Papal States, and most of the South as a rump Lombard state.
A POD of Carloman surviving (rather than dying of a sudden illness in 771) would butterfly away the Frankish conquest of northern Lombardy neatly: the Franks would have been divided between two rival states, neither of which would be strong enough to challenge Lombardy, both of which more concerned with each other than with Italy, and one or the other of them allied with Lombardy (IOTL, Charlemange divorced his Lombard wife shortly before Carloman's death, and Carloman was probably in the process of concluding an alliance of his own with the Lombards when he died).
Okay, so the Lombard Kingdom would be along the lines of what I'm looking for. Could this state have survived into the modern day? Would its identity be strictly 'Italian'? Or would it be more 'Lombard'? What kind of role could this nation play in the future, and what kind of butterflies would there be for the rest of Europe? I know precious little about this time period; it's all very interesting. 
As a secondary question, could Italian unification have occurred during the Renaissance period?
Edit: On the Lombards, do you think the process of electing each king would have lasted, or would it eventually have become a hereditary dynasty?
As a secondary question, could Italian unification have occurred during the Renaissance period?
Edit: On the Lombards, do you think the process of electing each king would have lasted, or would it eventually have become a hereditary dynasty?
A surviving Ostrogothic Kingdom is probably a better choice.Although,whether Italy is a first rate great power or a second rate great power depends on it's institutions.
Surviving Ostrogothic or Odovacer Kingdom. Ostrogothic probably the most probable of the 2.
Napoleonrules
Banned
A tertiary question- say a Lombard or Ostrogothic, or renaissance Italian unification exists and survives. In the late 1480s as Portugal begins rounding Africa and Italian dominance of the Mediterranean and long distance Asian trade becomes less a money maker what is the response of Italy? Does Christopher Columbus go down in history as Christoforo Colombo and having sailed for Italy? Latin America would live up to its name Or- maybe a unified Italy responds to Spain and Portugal's discoveries by doing this in the 1500s- take Tunisia, take Tripoli, take Egypt, establish colonies at Aden and on the southern coast of India. The Portuguese trip around Africa sure isn't more economical at that point than the Italians. The Spanish have the benefit of gold and silver in the new world. The Chinese only want gold or silver as European goods are inferior, so the Italians have nothing to trade them directly, at least the British, Russians, and French learn later on to trade beaver and such that the Chinese at least will accept. Do the Italians learn the secret power of opium earlier than the British OTL? Is there a way to make the Italians the global power this TL to take India?
Or- maybe a unified Italy responds to Spain and Portugal's discoveries by doing this in the 1500s- take Tunisia, take Tripoli, take Egypt, establish colonies at Aden and on the southern coast of India. The Portuguese trip around Africa sure isn't more economical at that point than the Italians. The Spanish have the benefit of gold and silver in the new world. The Chinese only want gold or silver as European goods are inferior, so the Italians have nothing to trade them directly, at least the British, Russians, and French learn later on to trade beaver and such that the Chinese at least will accept. Do the Italians learn the secret power of opium earlier than the British OTL? Is there a way to make the Italians the global power this TL to take India?
Napoleonrules
Banned
Well, as far as geopolitically the straits were wide open, Gibraltar wasn't seized by the British until 1713; in 1492 Gibraltar was a backwater of Spain who couldn't have closed off trade even if it wasn't against prevailing international norms at the time.
Pretty sure the Italians had ocean-going knowledge and could have the ships, the captains that sailed for Portugal, Spain, and England in OTL were Italian (Columbus for Spain and Cabot for England being the earliest) and Italians were sailing in the Indian Ocean for various regional powers for centuries.
Delvestius
Banned
This reminded me of my derelict "Norman Italy" TL.
WHatever. Fuck timelines, I like maps. A well constructed map can show me more than a wonderful timeline could in a fraction of a time.
I wish I cared about things more...
WHatever. Fuck timelines, I like maps. A well constructed map can show me more than a wonderful timeline could in a fraction of a time.
I wish I cared about things more...
Okay, so the Lombard Kingdom would be along the lines of what I'm looking for. Could this state have survived into the modern day? Would its identity be strictly 'Italian'? Or would it be more 'Lombard'? What kind of role could this nation play in the future, and what kind of butterflies would there be for the rest of Europe? I know precious little about this time period; it's all very interesting.
As a secondary question, could Italian unification have occurred during the Renaissance period?
Edit: On the Lombards, do you think the process of electing each king would have lasted, or would it eventually have become a hereditary dynasty?
Well, many of Europe's modern states have their origins around this time, so I don't see why a Lombard Italian state couldn't last till the present. Over time I'd expect the Lombards to be assimilated into Italian culture: the Italians were more numerous, and as the heirs of Rome their culture would have had more prestige. Given that the general pattern in Mediaeval Europe was for elective monarchies to turn into hereditary ones, no doubt the Lombard kingdom would do the same.
Italy (or at least northern Italy) could probably have unified during the Renaissance, although it would be harder after the Italian Wars, since there was now greater foreign influence and involvement in the peninsula. Though I suppose if a minor Hapsburg ended up inheriting Milan, Hapsburg Spain and Austria might be inclined to at least permit, and possibly even help, their relative's expansionist efforts in northern Italy.
What about having half of italy fall under muslim occupation, the northern italian dialects are too similar to Spanish we might end up in an 'Iberian' like Italy.
An Ostrogoth kingdom which avoids the Gothic wars and the associated destruction and wholesale depopulation (maybe because Justinian is toppled by an internal plot or the Persians are feistier on the eastern borders) would certainly be the best option.
It's pretty sure that a viable OK would manage the Longobards either by absorbing them or keeping them in the Noricum as a subject kingdom.
It would also be possible for them to take Africa and with time become the power controlling Italy, Noricum, Provence and Africa.
What happens afterwards it is quite impossible to predict with any certainty, but giving the Goths a stable monarchy, a thriving economy andan almost sure conversion from Arianism to Catholicism by the end of the 6th century it will be very difficult for anyone to cut them down to size.
Incidentally, the popes would be under a very firm thumb and no one would dream of temporal power.
It's pretty sure that a viable OK would manage the Longobards either by absorbing them or keeping them in the Noricum as a subject kingdom.
It would also be possible for them to take Africa and with time become the power controlling Italy, Noricum, Provence and Africa.
What happens afterwards it is quite impossible to predict with any certainty, but giving the Goths a stable monarchy, a thriving economy andan almost sure conversion from Arianism to Catholicism by the end of the 6th century it will be very difficult for anyone to cut them down to size.
Incidentally, the popes would be under a very firm thumb and no one would dream of temporal power.
*pats back in commiseration* yeah...
---
anyway. what about Matilda of Tuscany leaving a son as heir?
Mathilda had full right of inheritance on the allodial possessions of the main Canossa branch, but not on the feudal ones. Even if the investiture struggle allowed her to keep the feudal possessions too under her de-facto control, it might have been difficult to transfer them to a son since feudal possessions required imperial investiture. The classic plot would be that Mathilda's marriage to Godfrey the Hunchback had been more successful and blessed with children (IOTL the marriage was over almost immediately, and Matilda gave birth to a girl who did not survive. As per historical records, this girl was Matilda's only issue).
It would have been easier if Bonifacio the Black, Matilda's father, had survived a few more years, at least up to the majority of his only son Federico (IOTL Bonifacio died in 1052 when his son was 14 or 15, IIRC). Bonifacio was 67 when he died of an arrow wound sustained during a hunt near Mantua, but he was in good health and still very strong. according to Wiki Federico was anyway invested as Margrave of Tuscany in 1052 and was put under the regency of his mother, but died of illness in 1055. I do however remember a biography of Matilda which stated that Federico and Matilda were taken by the emperor as wards after the death of Bonifacio (the empress was their mother's sister) and Federico died at the imperial court.
Even barring the death=causing illness, it would have not been easy for the young Federico to successfully rule such a large swath of land and stay afloat during the struggle for investitures.