After the Romans, can an empire survive on both sides of the Alps?

Deleted member 114175

After the fall of the Roman Empire, is it possible for a centralized empire -- rather than a loose suzerainty -- to survive on both sides of the Alps before modern technology decreases travel time?

And from which area is it easiest to control all sides of the Alps: France, Germany, Austria, or Italy?
 
A Most Sovereign Lady

A Most Sovereign Lady

SeaCambrian said:
That's why I excluded suzerainty. The Holy Roman Emperors very rarely had reliable control over Italy. They were usually on a wild goose chase attempting to rein in Italian lords and cities, or were in conflict with the Pope.
Click to expand...

Excepting that the Holy Roman Empire at the height of its power was a unified nation-state that stretched across much of northern Europe and down to central Italy with no pause or suzerainty involved.
 
English Nationalist

English Nationalist

How about the Carolingian Empire? There is also the Napoleonic Empire if you can ensure Bonaparte stays in power.
The Hapsburg's held territory on both sides of the Alps so you could count that depending on just how much territory you want controlled as a minimum.
 

Deleted member 114175

A Most Sovereign Lady said:
Excepting that the Holy Roman Empire at the height of its power was a unified nation-state that stretched across much of northern Europe and down to central Italy with no pause or suzerainty involved.
Click to expand...
The Holy Roman Empire consisted of various proto-national identities, but that doesn't mean it was a nation-state. To the contrary, the Westphalian system, which provided the ideological basis for the nation-state, practically killed the ideological basis for the Holy Roman Empire.

Not that the Holy Roman Empire couldn't have been reformed or reshaped into a nation state in some alternate timeline, but historically it never was. It never had the strong association with one particular ethnic group, or the unified state power, at the same time. By the time the term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" had emerged, the HRE's power had already dissolved into, essentially, a loose suggestion of the Habsburg crown's authority over the rest of Germany, a far cry from a unified nation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sertorius126

Sertorius126

The Austro-Hungarian empire had a pretty solid hold on northern Italy, never mind all the unrest. It took the Kingdom of Italy the First World War to get the whole territory in its possession.
 

Adelkman

The catch is: before modern times, the Alps were nearly impenetrable (except few passes). The only way to maintain the rule on both sides (say, Italy and Germany), was to bypass the mountains along the coast or better, by sea, wich was much faster. The romans themselves before entering Gaul proper conquered the coast and nearly all Hiberia. This was not the real reason, but a crucial step wich enabled further expansion north.

So, an empire controlling only part (or all) of Germany and Italy is only a transitory situation. And in autumn/winter/early spring logistics will be a nightmare.
 

catalfalque

Adelkman said:
The catch is: before modern times, the Alps were nearly impenetrable (except few passes). The only way to maintain the rule on both sides (say, Italy and Germany), was to bypass the mountains along the coast or better, by sea, wich was much faster. The romans themselves before entering Gaul proper conquered the coast and nearly all Hiberia. This was not the real reason, but a crucial step wich enabled further expansion north.

So, an empire controlling only part (or all) of Germany and Italy is only a transitory situation. And in autumn/winter/early spring logistics will be a nightmare.
Click to expand...

Which pretty much says that France is the best place to have the centre, to answer the OP's other question. Or at least, maybe, a France whose capital (such as things were) or major centres were in the South.

Maybe you could have a Burgundian empire? (the real guys not guys named for the region, since that shifted North)
 

Byzantion

SeaCambrian said:
After the fall of the Roman Empire, is it possible for a centralized empire -- rather than a loose suzerainty -- to survive on both sides of the Alps before modern technology decreases travel time?

And from which area is it easiest to control all sides of the Alps: France, Germany, Austria, or Italy?
Click to expand...

Maybe if the Ottomans conquer all land beside the Alps. Win Vienna, occupy south of HRE, successfully invade Italy, eventually conquer France.
 
Last edited:
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Gone Fishin'
France? Holy Roman Empire? The Ottomans would be an option although I don't see them rule past the Alps, only South of the Alps and that would be Italy.
 
Iacobus

Iacobus

Charlemagne didn't do a bad job! His empire was quite centralised as an early HRE and it was more legal devolution of vassals overtime that led to the development of a suzerainty than a practical inhibition. If the Emperors really wanted too they could have tried and succeeded in uniting Germany and Italy. It would be more difficult to establish such an empire in the first place if France, the Papacy and the kingdoms of Eastern Europe objected. Charlemagne managed to get away with this because he had already consolidated most of France, Germany and Italy, had a friend in the Pope and didn't have anyone around him who at the time could effectively contest his power.

Since this is an alternate history forum I'll raise the possibility that any of the sub-Roman successors could've potentially founded a centralised empire based on the Roman Bureaucratic government rather than Feudalism including the Goths under Theodoric the Great, the Huns under Attila or the Franks under Charlemagne. And of course there's Justinian in the Eastern Roman Empire who could have been far more successful were it not for bad luck and a few mistakes.
 

stevej713

France and Austria both had a pretty good shot. France demonstrated an ability to control portions of Italy as well as Germany. And it's not unreasonable to conjure up a timeline where Austria takes more of southern Germany.
 
Sertorius126

Sertorius126

JacobFenrir said:
Charlemagne didn't do a bad job! His empire was quite centralised as an early HRE and it was more legal devolution of vassals overtime that led to the development of a suzerainty than a practical inhibition. If the Emperors really wanted too they could have tried and succeeded in uniting Germany and Italy. It would be more difficult to establish such an empire in the first place if France, the Papacy and the kingdoms of Eastern Europe objected. Charlemagne managed to get away with this because he had already consolidated most of France, Germany and Italy, had a friend in the Pope and didn't have anyone around him who at the time could effectively contest his power.

Since this is an alternate history forum I'll raise the possibility that any of the sub-Roman successors could've potentially founded a centralised empire based on the Roman Bureaucratic government rather than Feudalism including the Goths under Theodoric the Great, the Huns under Attila or the Franks under Charlemagne. And of course there's Justinian in the Eastern Roman Empire who could have been far more successful were it not for bad luck and a few mistakes.
Click to expand...

Attila could never do it, his “empire” was a massive military machine made up of countless tribes, he knew the only way he could keep it stable was by waging war after war and getting massive bribes and loot from the empire. Settling down anywhere was not an option, and even if he did pull that off, after his death everything would have collapsed. As for Theoderic, yeah, why not? That could have happened. The Ostrogoths could have replaced the Franks in founding the HRE, had they won against the Byzantines.

Justinian on the other hand did the best he could with what he had, his treasury was empty and his forces exhausted, he could never keep firm control of Italy, let alone surpass the Alps.
 

HunterX

The Habsburgs dominated both sides of the Alps for centuries. The idea that the geography prevents a more centralized arrangement doesn't really jibe with history.
 

Deleted member 109224

France and Austria could reasonably do this. Austria did do this and had they handled the Napoleonic Wars a bit better France would have done this.

Could France have ended up dominating Italy following the Italian Wars?
 
The Professor

The Professor

If you're asking for a mediaeval empire centred on the Alps that's almost impossible unless there's sufficient control of passable land around them - there's a reason they ended up as the border between the Germanies and the Italies.
Your best bet then is a post Carolingian Roman Empire ruling Italy and the Burgundian Kingdoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top