futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 6, 2016 7:29:43 GMT
What if, for whatever reason, French King Charles VIII refused to invade Italy in 1494 (or later, for that matter)?
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 7, 2016 19:48:54 GMT
Anyone?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,044
Likes: 49,445
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 8, 2016 2:45:55 GMT
Sorry do not have much knowledge about this subject to comment. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 19, 2016 1:40:06 GMT
Sorry do not have much knowledge about this subject to comment. What about Steve, though?  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,044
Likes: 49,445
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 19, 2016 8:43:46 GMT
Sorry do not have much knowledge about this subject to comment. What about Steve, though? Well he knows a lot but there are so many threads he has to respond to. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 19, 2016 15:02:28 GMT
I know a little but not a massive amount. Only facts I'm really aware of are:
a) The speed of his initial conquest amazed a lot of people and seemed to be largely because he had advanced 'lightweight' siege artillery which could be moved with the army, rather than having to be built on the spot as at the siege of Constantinople for instance. Remember reading that one fortress which had recently successfully resisted a siege of 5-6 years was smashed into submission within a few days.
b) That his occupation of S Italy quickly fell apart because of local opposition although not sure exactly why. Think Charles was less than skilled at hearts and minds to put it mildly but would have to read up to know more.
In terms of if no French invasion it would depend on why as to the possible effects and to be honest I don't have the time and willpower.
Counter question futurist please. What prompted you to ask this question when probably most people, even with some education in European history, probably has never even heard of the invasion?
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 20, 2016 7:53:03 GMT
I know a little but not a massive amount. Only facts I'm really aware of are: a) The speed of his initial conquest amazed a lot of people and seemed to be largely because he had advanced 'lightweight' siege artillery which could be moved with the army, rather than having to be built on the spot as at the siege of Constantinople for instance. Remember reading that one fortress which had recently successfully resisted a siege of 5-6 years was smashed into submission within a few days. b) That his occupation of S Italy quickly fell apart because of local opposition although not sure exactly why. Think Charles was less than skilled at hearts and minds to put it mildly but would have to read up to know more. In terms of if no French invasion it would depend on why as to the possible effects and to be honest I don't have the time and willpower. Counter question futurist please. What prompted you to ask this question when probably most people, even with some education in European history, probably has never even heard of the invasion? A. Thanks for this information, Steve! Also, out of curiosity--do you remember the exact same of this fortress? B. OK. Also, perhaps I should research this topic more, no? Finally, in regards to your question here, I asked this question because I was curious about the Renaissance and thus did some reading on the Renaissance (which originated in Italy) and found out that Italy's decline appears to have begun in 1494 as a result of Charles's invasion of Italy. Thus, I was wonder what exactly would have occurred had Charles *not* invaded Italy in 1494 (or afterwards, for that matter). |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 20, 2016 13:01:39 GMT
I know a little but not a massive amount. Only facts I'm really aware of are: a) The speed of his initial conquest amazed a lot of people and seemed to be largely because he had advanced 'lightweight' siege artillery which could be moved with the army, rather than having to be built on the spot as at the siege of Constantinople for instance. Remember reading that one fortress which had recently successfully resisted a siege of 5-6 years was smashed into submission within a few days. b) That his occupation of S Italy quickly fell apart because of local opposition although not sure exactly why. Think Charles was less than skilled at hearts and minds to put it mildly but would have to read up to know more. In terms of if no French invasion it would depend on why as to the possible effects and to be honest I don't have the time and willpower. Counter question futurist please. What prompted you to ask this question when probably most people, even with some education in European history, probably has never even heard of the invasion? A. Thanks for this information, Steve! Also, out of curiosity--do you remember the exact same of this fortress? B. OK. Also, perhaps I should research this topic more, no? Finally, in regards to your question here, I asked this question because I was curious about the Renaissance and thus did some reading on the Renaissance (which originated in Italy) and found out that Italy's decline appears to have begun in 1494 as a result of Charles's invasion of Italy. Thus, I was wonder what exactly would have occurred had Charles *not* invaded Italy in 1494 (or afterwards, for that matter). Not sure on this last point. It obviously showed weaknesses in Italy and did some damage. Although with the development of the trace italienne, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort, removed some of this vulnerability. However such systems were very, very expensive and the small Italian city state-lets were increasingly outclassed by the much larger monarchies developing in France, Spain and Austria, with their vastly greater resources. Also with the discovery of the Americas and the route around Africa trade routes were diverted away from the Med and a number of the Italian states, Venice and Genoa most noticeably, were highly dependent on dominating trade with the east via the Med and Black Sea. This was further complicated in that the Ottoman rise to dominance with the conquest of Constantinople and then the Mamaluks of Egypt a single, frequently hostile, Muslim state controlled the earlier stage of the spice route totally. Before that there had been the opportunity of playing off different states against each other. Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_War_of_1494%E2%80%9398 . It doesn't give a lot more detail but some background. Probably more than can be gathered with some digging. |
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 22, 2016 21:23:05 GMT
Charles VIII had some "dreams of the East" and wanted to be a major actor in the Mediterranean. If he wanted to follow his father's example, his objective would have been to secure even more of the former Burgundian territories.
In a reasonable scenario, I think if Charles VIII put on the Habsburgs the same pression he did in Italy, he could have secured the Franche-Comté and the Artois, in addition to the Roussillon and the Cerdagne he already had (and gave back to Fernando prior to the Italian War).
Anyway, Charles VIII had no son and his heir was his cousin Louis d'Orléans, who was also the heir of the Visconti and had his eyes on the Duchy of Milan. So, a (later) Italian War is still likely
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 23, 2016 13:05:18 GMT
Anyway, Charles VIII had no son and his heir was his cousin Louis d'Orléans, who was also the heir of the Visconti and had his eyes on the Duchy of Milan. So, a (later) Italian War is still likely Charles VIII can avoid hitting his head on the lintel of a door and thus avoid dying young in this scenario, though. |
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 23, 2016 19:51:11 GMT
Sure, but I think his enthusiasm for tennis had nothing to do with Italy  |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 23, 2016 21:59:08 GMT
Sure, but I think his enthusiasm for tennis had nothing to do with Italy Simply having him more be careful should do the trick here, though. |
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 25, 2016 8:25:51 GMT
The most important turning point of this era, I think, would be the wedding of Charles (VIII) and Mary of Burgundy. Sure, she was 13 years older than him, but she had so much lands. With Anne de Beaujeu in power to lead the kingdom, the Netherlands would have be integrated to the French crown lands, presumably after local conflicts. Even if there is no child of the marriage, the Burgundian inheritance will stay French. Later French Kings would be the real thing in Europe, even enough to seek the Imperial crown or have the final word on Reformation.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 25, 2016 8:50:55 GMT
The most important turning point of this era, I think, would be the wedding of Charles (VIII) and Mary of Burgundy. Sure, she was 13 years older than him, but she had so much lands. With Anne de Beaujeu in power to lead the kingdom, the Netherlands would have be integrated to the French crown lands, presumably after local conflicts. Even if there is no child of the marriage, the Burgundian inheritance will stay French. Later French Kings would be the real thing in Europe, even enough to seek the Imperial crown or have the final word on Reformation. Ugh! To be clear that's not an anti-French comment Cornelis. I just mistrust any such concentration of power by any state. Hopefully in such a case the other powers would prove powerful enough to defeat the French and restore some balance to Europe so that it could continue to develop. Especially since by this time Spain is coming into its prime and a French absorption of Burgundy would threaten all its neighbours. |
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 25, 2016 13:22:05 GMT
Hey, all of this is only fantasy, after all. I only expect people discussing it not to have double standards.
In this situation, I do not see why it is worse for Europe's future to have the French in control of the Netherlands instead of the Spanish. In fact, the Habsburg concentration is one of the most impressive in history, so any alternative must be good, isn't it ?
To resume the point, at this time, which countries really exists as neighbours ? The unification of Spain is just beginning (and Ferdinand II was not that happy about it), the HRE, including Italy, is a mess with no leader, England's War of the Two Roses has not settled yet. If the French Crown takes control of the Netherlands, I do not see anyone to challenge it from the outside. From the inside, however, a weak king can bring the nobles to rise and challenge his power. That is not a bad thing : in 1484 the States Generals did bring up the idea of the Common Will and the control of the State's finances.
|
|
