Venice, while not a major power, was incredibly rich in its prime and had good control of the sea. Could it use these factors to unite the italian peninsula (or even just the northern part, the traditional "kingdom of Italy") under the banner of saint mark? What would be the effects? The earlier and more centralized the better
Could The Venetian Republic Unite Italy?
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- italy venetian republic venice
I could see a scenario where: 1. the papacy's influence is killed off early via an Investiture Controversy going differently, 2. the Hohenstaufen still go crashing down, 3. the vacuum is met by Venice and Genoa acting in concert against their foes, 4. Venice and Genoa use their riches to effectively unify Italy.
Whether Venice can do it is answerable -- i believe they can use their trade connections and expert diplomacy to play their enemies against one another while they're busy expanding the Stato di Terraferma. If they can conquer Milan, then they already got a significant boost to their odds.
The only problem is, i'm afraid, if Venice wants to do it. Founding an empire takes precious time and money, something the Venetian merchant class might not be willing to stomach. There's also the issue of Venice's politics -- conquering vast swathes of Italy would require the Venetian senate to integrate their new citizens (including the hated Genoese) in some way that's satisfactory to both parties, which is easier said than done. Not to mention nearby powers such as France, Austria, Spain, the Ottomans, maybe even the Swiss, who will likely object to an unified Italy.
Not that it would be impossible, though. Venice was occasionally willing to engage in campaigns of conquest across northern Italy to eliminate potential threats, until they were exhausted by the defeats of the Italian Wars. One could tamper around with PoD's around that date (such as reversing the defeat at Agnadello) to get the desired result. Keeping the eastern Mediterranean divided between Turkey and Mamluk Egypt could also help in keeping Venice's maritime flank safe for the most part.
The only problem is, i'm afraid, if Venice wants to do it. Founding an empire takes precious time and money, something the Venetian merchant class might not be willing to stomach. There's also the issue of Venice's politics -- conquering vast swathes of Italy would require the Venetian senate to integrate their new citizens (including the hated Genoese) in some way that's satisfactory to both parties, which is easier said than done. Not to mention nearby powers such as France, Austria, Spain, the Ottomans, maybe even the Swiss, who will likely object to an unified Italy.
Not that it would be impossible, though. Venice was occasionally willing to engage in campaigns of conquest across northern Italy to eliminate potential threats, until they were exhausted by the defeats of the Italian Wars. One could tamper around with PoD's around that date (such as reversing the defeat at Agnadello) to get the desired result. Keeping the eastern Mediterranean divided between Turkey and Mamluk Egypt could also help in keeping Venice's maritime flank safe for the most part.
Last edited:
If they convince Genoa to ally with them it would be a combination of enormous power.
As well as manpower; hiring condottiere can only get you so far if you want to conquer all of Italy. There's a (possibly apocryphal) story about condottieri avoiding winning battles for Venice, because if she got too powerful, they'd be out of work again. Moreover, as a naval power, conquering land didn't really do much good to Venice; any money they spent getting more cities or farmland would be more profitably spent shoring up their Mediterranean trade routes.
Doge Tommaso Mocenigo said as much on his deathbed in 1423. His approach to dealing with Milanese Visconti expansion was to leave them be; if they conquered Florence, that would just mean more rich Florentine merchants fleeing to Venice. He warned that electing war-minded Francesco Foscari meant "whoever has 10,000 ducats will find himself with 1,000, who has ten houses will have only one, and who has ten suits will have difficulty finding one." It's an awfully Venetian way of thinking about things: the horror of having fewer than 10 houses! But the point is that it's not that Venice didn't have enough money, it's that conquering would lose them money. Foscari led Venice to its greatest mainland conquests, but as far as I can tell, his contemporaries largely agreed that it hadn't been worth it.
Genoa was even more naval-focused than Venice, with barely any settlement in Italy outside the city proper. Again, Venice's problem was not a lack of money, but a lack of manpower, and no necessity for more land. Putting aside that there's no reason for age-old rivals Genoa and Venice to consider an alliance, it would only be a combination of enormous wealth.
The reason Italy wasn't unified in OTL until the rise of nationalism is that the city-states had a well-developed early concept of "balance of power," and there was a strong interest from both the states within Italy and the major powers outside to maintain that balance of power. Every war in Italy during Venice's golden age was full of constantly shifting alliances, to consciously prevent any one ruler from gaining too much control. When Venice was slightly too powerful for the Pope's liking, it suffered simultaneous declarations from the Pope, the King of France, the King of Spain, and the Holy Roman Emperor (the League of Cambrai). It's just hard to imagine any state uniting Italy during the Middle Ages or Renaissance.
Could Venetian Italy use its trade relation with the ottomans to position itself as an ally against Austria in the Balkans?
You need to find a way that conquering Italy would be worth setting aside their commercial pursuits for however many years. They made more money from trade than owning the entirety of Italy would have netted them. Constant rebellions, invasion from north, south, east, and west, and lack of manpower would have tended this conquest towards collapse.
Plus even if the new taxes on the locals aren't profitable immediately, I have to imagine a venice with Genoa, Florence, maybe even corisca, would be a mighty beast indeed
Venice wasn't small. It didn't have a lot of land on the Italian Peninsula, but controlled considerable territory in Dalmatia, Albania, and Greece. As for Venice's decline, Jakub Grygiel makes a decent case that it was caused by Venice's conquests of Italian territory in the 15th century, which drained their resources, didn't provide many benefits, gave them a border that was much more difficult to defend, made them powerful enemies, and pulled attention away from the more important goal of maintaining their control of the Mediterranean. The other cause of Venice's decline affected all of Italy: the reduced importance of the Mediterranean when new trade routes to Asia were established, and then when American colonies became important. Getting more Italian land wouldn't have prevented this; it's not like Italy is a particularly fertile or resource-rich territory, its wealth came from being the center of Mediterranean trade routes. Venice did quite a bit better than the rest of Italy in OTL, which declined from the heights of the Renaissance to being the underdeveloped backwater of Europe in the 18th century.
The issue is, unless the Empire is totally neglecting Italy and the Papacy is somewhere else, Venice cannot does this. Venice could rule all of Egypt, Syria and Greece and still it would be unable to make gains in Italy without both of those modifiers.
In OTL, Venice rose to significance in Terra Firma after both:
Imperial decline and weakening; which intensified with the Western Schism and the Hussite wars. Papal flight to Avignon and upon its return to Italy, the notorious weakness of the Papacy during the Renaissance before Trent.
Venice was able in the void of Papal power and Imperial authority, to wage wars across the kingdom of Italy. They conquered Padova, Verona, Aquila, Ravenna, Brescia, Como and other lands before being stalled. Their stall was due to generally the varied Italian states forming coalitions and the return of Papal local power in Alexander VI. Venice was brought to task in the region and was unable to make further gains and most gains it made, were lost by 1500.
Venice has difficulties due to its nature as outside of the Italian kingdom and its inability to deal with Papal interdiction while remaining legitimate in Italy.
It would be, but a fragile one. How might they combat its enemies? They are not the legal owner of sauf lands and hence will be faced against every power in the region.
How will Venice face a Papal interdiction in addition to an Imperial and French invasion? They will find no friends in Castile and Aragon either, and they would be unable to face a league of such power, the Empire, Papacy and France would be an indomitable foe.
Are there any allies it could get? Were I king of England i'd consider an alliance against France, and i don't think the ottomans had serious desires in Italy so they could maintain that
'annoy austria and then punch each other' dynamic
The Ottomans are the last possible country to ally. They have every reason to dance in Venice’s grave by destroying all Venetian presence it can in the Mediterranean.
Burji Mamluks if they are still strong, will seek to reduce Venetian holds over Cyprus.
England is possibly an ally, though they will need to perform very well to harm France enough to remove the French from the coalition. Assuming England gains a massive earth shattering victory over France, as in the 1350s, France is unable to continue, Venice might have a small chance. Though the Papacy and Empire in my view, are too difficult to defeat in the long run. Eventually Venice will need to concede.
Admittedly, Venice was able to rebuff the League of Cambrai, led by the Papacy. Though, the main reason they weathered said storm was by conceding to larger powers. Such concessions dictate that Venice cannot conquer the kingdom of Italy.
Addendum: For Venice to defeat the Papacy, they require concessions with either the Empire or France. Preferably the Empire. However, typically, if they gather this concession, they are forced by terms of concession to not conquer the kingdom of Italy.
Last edited:
Kaze
Banned
The only other, other way would have a cousin of the doge made pope... but doing that might be as impossible as a naval power conquering a land-power - - You might have the best navy in Italy, but Florence et al had better armies with more men.
Let us say ASB - the cousin of the Doge is made pope. Now, you have other problems - keeping him pope, "would someone deal with this troublesome priest" senerio, and conquering Italy which will take men and money.
Let us say ASB - the cousin of the Doge is made pope. Now, you have other problems - keeping him pope, "would someone deal with this troublesome priest" senerio, and conquering Italy which will take men and money.
Lucius Verus
Banned
It really depends on when. From the crusades onward, what was most important to Venice was the immediate hinterland for water and food, in addition trade access to Germanies via the alpine routes. during Venice's silver age of 15th-17th; when the Venetian economy was shifting from international trade towards regional trade with a large emphasis on manufacturing then it was very profitable. By the 18 it was too late.
IOTL, the Patricians stratified in wealth post 15th century and the salaries paid to them was suddenly important. Rich patricians paid to be free of posts while the poor patricians took on offices and tried to create new offices (through conquest). Regardless of economics, it was economically advantageous for the numerous poor Patricians to support conquest and they had the political power if nothing else.
Another matter of timing; the Venetian Patricians tends to open up their ranks during crisis. Of course they need something systematic; so the disenfranchisement acts of the 13th century (ie Great Serrata which limited new Patrician blood needs to be reversed. Doable, they just need to be convinced of the need. That or do it before the 13th century.
IOTL in 1402 the Venetians refused to ferry Timur's host of 100,000+ from Asia minor to finish off the Ottomans; they could simply accept and deal with the chaos as Timur's empire disintegrates after his death as it was held together by his personality. It would be easier to deal with the chaos than the Ottomans next door. Also compared to the Ottomans the Mamluks had severe internal problems with Mamluk infighting, resistance to change, Mamluks extortion, abuse, and terrorizing of the subjects.
The 14th-15th century was the best time, the Hapsburgs were divided between three lines, France occupied in the 100 years war, the Byzantines in terminal decline, the Ottomans are about to be crushed by Timur in 1402, and the Papacy occupied by the Schisms.
It depends, Venice has killed its own share of mercenary captains like Carmagnola suspected of treason. The main difference between Venice and the other city-states was that it wasn't a cash-strapped and unstable signora/oligarchy trying to wage war balanced on stilts. Political transitions tend to be smoother in Venice, it had deep pockets and even bigger lines of credit.
Not quite, Genoese Patricians were a mix of shipping magnates and wealthy feudal landowners. The government operated like a publically traded company where you can buy political power, the problem was that it was extremely dynamic, vigorous, and unstable. IOTL when it seemed that the Venetians were about to be destroyed during the War of Chioggia the Venetians united and dug in their heels; when the Genoese were defeated in turn the feudal landowners saw their rivals in Genoa weakened and launched a coup, this would be followed by 7 other coups within a decade. Genoa was fragile and powerful.
Agreed, better and more profitable for one to crush the other decisively.
Its not set in stone, IOTL around the end of the 15th century when "The Great Snake" Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan was conquering the Po Valley all the literature from the mainland showed an atmosphere of resigned fatalism as it was generally believed that they would lose to Milan eventually. Had Gian not died accidentally in his 50s, he would've had a decent chance at it. All it takes is a generation of relatively okay occupation for the next generation to see Venetian rule as "how it always was".
By the same logic the Venetian Republic should've never had won against Da Carraras, Visconti, Ferrara, and all the mainland city-states it absorbed. By the 15th century Venice was more populated than Florence.
Last edited:
So let's say the venetian aristocracy decide to start this project in the late 14th century/early 15th. How does it go? can they hold it together?
Lucius Verus
Banned
Well I'm sure someone has done a TL on something like this with great detail on the economic and social aspects. (more details later, really a summary of my last post.)
One thing people forgot, the Hungarians were a major adversary and rival for control of the Dalmatian coast until the Ottomans crushed them.
Last edited: