Surviving Lombard League

[Tyr]

Lately I've been reading a fair bit about medieval communes, the history of Switzerland, city states, etc...
It is quite interesting stuff to see how widespread such pseudo-democratic institutions were in the high medieval period, where by the early modern period they had largely vanished, Switzerland being the only real survivor.

So. How could we get a situation where the Lombard League in northern Italy survives?

It seems that this could be one of those scenarios where the changes needed to make it happen dwarf the goal- its abandonment IOTL, from the very simplified version I've read (hurray for wikipedia) was down to the collapse of the Hohenstaufens and it no longer being required.

It could be interesting to see a scenario though where it holds and down the line confederalises somewhat. The plains of northern Italy were a far richer place than the Alps afterall.

 

[LSCatilina]

They were essentially defensives alliances (rather than one continuous confederation), whom main cohesive base was the struggle against the imperial domination.

It doesn't help that each city had its own political and military policy, with the political dominance of the greater ones seen as tentatives of hegemony by the less importants. Milano's dominance, for example, was source of much decline in the establishment of these leagues.

(Remembering that each city-state had its own welfs or ghibeline factions)

That was a really huge obstacle to any kind of, even formal, unification of northern Italian communes.

The closest thing I could seen of a formal survival of Lombard League would be a continued imperial threat, that would be really hostile to Italian cities not only at the point to refusing to deal with Milano as IOTL, but to each other cities at an insane point, propelling the latter in great cities' arms
Of course it would be impossible to maintain such behavior enough for having a lasting League after some years, but some cities (probably Milano, but the list depends a lot from the TL) may not only expand their contado (roughly, the countryside territory and affiliated towns controlled by the city) but impose their hegemon to neighbouring city-states (imposing consuls or poestates), but that wouldn't be in the context of Lombard League, but a post-league situation.

It is quite interesting stuff to see how widespread such pseudo-democratic institutions were in the high medieval period, where by the early modern period they had largely vanished, Switzerland being the only real survivor.

It's essentially due to the reinforcement of strong royal/principate power in these states. It's not as functions as podestate (roughly : a man alien to the commune/consulate/citta, having the upper hand or some form of dictatorship over its direction) weren't widespread since the XIIth century. They were seen as more "democratic", in the sense they prevented factional and nobiliar infighting and confiscation of popular freedoms.

As for their vanishing, depending of the era, they often lasted up to the XVIIIth century in Italy, Germany but as well in France.

 

[Tyr]

Cities personally expanding didn't hurt Switzerland much.
Though I guess in Italy there's the problem that expansion would most likely be at the expense of other cities rather than the nobility.

Perhaps if we can burn Milan and have multiple rather than a single successor?
It does seem Milan is a problem.

 

[LSCatilina]

Cities personally expanding didn't hurt Switzerland much.

Wholly different situation.
It was a more gradual unification, with each rural communauty (rather than cities) managed at first to keep roughly the same political weight than the others, while Lombard League gathered many different cities whom some were really more powerful than the others.

Eventually, it reached independence less by frontal conflict than constant reduction of Imperial sphere of influence. Swiss unities were less dictated by outer strategical reasons, than inner dynamics.

Though I guess in Italy there's the problem that expansion would most likely be at the expense of other cities rather than the nobility.

It wasn't even that in Switzerland : you had dominating cantons, subject cantons, allied, etc. It was really far from an happy modern democratic paradise : Swiss nobility remained largely in charge allied with non-nobles elites.

Perhaps if we can burn Milan and have multiple rather than a single successor?
It does seem Milan is a problem.

Burning the city up to the ground and destroying it entierly, apart being a caricatural evil act full of diabolical laugh, wouldn't really help : there were other important cities that would simply take the place of Milano : Verona, Brescia, etc.
Admittedly, it could be less of a Milano-wank, and end up with the Lombard cake being divided among more cities; assuming they still win.

But giving you'd just create enough chaos with destroying Milano, one of the most important assets of the league, it's probably allowing its decline and a possible Imperial victory.

A less important destruction would be pretty much similar to the historical one, decided by Barbarossa. Not too many advantages would arise for one side or the other.