The year is 1500. Italy has been magically unified under a stable

It would split up again

The big blue blob takes the northern part of it.

>>863022
No war in Italy with France and Spain.

>>863022
where's da Pope?

>>863022

The Spanish and French forces who are fighting against each other, have a new enemy.

>>863022
what he said>>863023

A fucking powerhouse.

To start with, the sacks of Rome and other stupid wars in Italy would have never happened, prolonging the duration of the Renaissance for at least another couple decades.


The kingdoms and city states by themselves were already very powerful, now if they were to unite at that point in history, it would be basically be something like Roman Empire 2: Early Modern Bogaloo.


Esentially the same power of Spain and Portugal at the time combined multiplied by five.

They'd have colonies all arround and probaly fight with the Iberians over the control of Gibraltar, Morroco, Canarias, Madeira and the Azores.

Would later become a large industrial powerhouse, esentially becoming the United Kingdom of the industrial revolution.

Of course, France, Austria, Hungary and the Ottomans would be pretty pissed off with all of this...

Italy was better off when it was a bunch of competing merchant state, after unification in the mid 19th century everything went to shit.

>>863022
Ottomans are boned.

>>863022
In Medieval Total War a unified Italy was pretty broken....easiest way to win the game.

>>863061
What about Invading England and Denmark while forteficating Hamburg?

>>863040
I dont think italy has the coal to industrialise also the south is shit at producing food

The Prince would never have been written, and classical liberalism as we know it, and all of its tenets and facets (such as a head of state that derives his power from secular sources over God, social contract theory, the Leviathan, etc) would never have been made, or would have been radically different.

Machiavelli is the true man of humanities and letters.

>>863022

>Constitutional Monarchy in the year 1500

Kill yrself.

There wouldn't have been any war between Spain and France in the first place. Which means that there would have never been a dynastic merge between Castille-Aragon and the House of Habsburg-Burgundy. Which would have totally changed world history as we know it.

Burgundy would have likely ended up conquered and partitioned between the HRE and France. As for Italy... hard to say. Supposing it's a somewhat consolidated Monarchy that doesn't lead up to a fracture of the state via outright independence wars of some states or a loose meme ineffective confederation a la Unholy '''''Roman'''''' Clusterfuck, then it'd either focus on removing kebab from the Mediterranean or have some tacit accords with them and trade a la happy merchant style. After all, theres a lot of merchant republics in that Italy, from Venice to Genoa, so if they get a satisfactory deal with the Turk, I'd say they'd probably call it a dat and focus on establishing maritime and commercial hegemony over thr Mediterranean.

>>863040
>A fucking powerhouse.

Wouldn't.
Take a map, they would be cockblocked at every turn either at gibraltar or bosphorus by either atlantists or turks.
Best option was and still is france in charge of the north west med block (spain/france/italy).

>>863022
A state with as much produced wealth as France yet with as much people as Spain and much higher rates of literacy than both along with the world's largest navy.

Italy would become the banking center of the world essentially attempt to rule the Med.

Any attacks by France or Spain would fail miserably as the Italians would be able to call in far more resources than any individual state.

File: GAULED.jpg (636KB, 1032x1400px)

636KB, 1032x1400px

We'd sack their dear capital...again

>Constitutional Monarchy
Fuck that shit. Get Cesare Borgia in an Absolute Monarchy and watch shit get rekt

Florence > Tuscanny > Italy is one of my favorite campaings in EU4.

>>863133
I think if Italy united earlier though, it would set its sights on the same places it did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, namely, north africa and the balkans. A united italy may have well been able to establish naval supremacy and take (or maintain those already owned by venice) mediterranean islands such as those in aegean, rhodes, crete, cyprus and malta. Depending on the power of its navy it could exert pressure on the Ottomans, tame north african piracy, establish footholds in tunisia, libya, algeria, morroco and get favorable agreements in Egypt. Yet, considering that the Habsburgs got control of spain in the 1520s, with the vast wealth of South America at their disposal, italian power might be checked, from Habsburg Austria and Spain. This would probably lead to french-italian rapprochement. In addition, Habsburg Austria unconsolidated at that time, Italy could give them a run for their money in the Balkans. Hungary after all, collapses in the 1520s at the Battle of Mohacs against the Ottomans. The Hungarian magnates might side with the Italians if they sucessfully took up the banner of anti-Ottoman resistance, which the Austrians perennially failed to do.

>Constitutional Monarch

Before the 1800s? Mate you need to brush up on your political history.

>stable

Seeing how diverse and how antagonistic the whole peninsula was, I seriously doubt this would EVER be the case.

Also you have to add in international intervention, which as we know from Italian history, happened constantly.

>>864029
one more thing, a united italy would lead to the early death of the papal state. a situation which would have drastic consequences for catholicism politically, and perhaps spiritually as well. A consolidated Italian state would have to either leave a rump Papal state, perhaps using military pressure to control the outcome of its election. If it failed to control it politically, an italian state would be forever open to meddling from foreign powers eager to exert power over the Catholic church for prestige's or legitimacy's sake or to obtain favorable rulings from a pope. On the other hand, the pope might be forced to flee, which would lead to a collapse in prestige of the papacy in italy. Remember that the Pope STRENGTHENED his control vastly over Italy in the 16th and 17th centuries. Italy might be called a laboratory for the counter-reformation. In some sense, the increasing spiritual power of the Papacy in the early modern period constrained the sovereignty of Italy's many minor states as they excercised greater moral and disciplinary control over subjects than ever before. It also abbetted Spanish power, and what's more, the Roman inquisition all but extinguished the stirrings of Protestantism in the peninsula. With the Papacy reduced or eliminated, however, Protestantism may have gained much more currency. The protestant movement in Italy has indeed been underestimated. On the other hand, an Italian state may well use the authority of the pope to shore up its own legitimacy and maybe pose itself as protector of the religion. Then again, a secular ruler may be incline to follow the path of the German princes and impose protestantism top down as a way of asserting political and economic independence by liquidating church assets and appointing his own ecclesiastical hierarchy

>>863022
Broken up nearly instantly.

Remember that Venice was only a part of Italy after it was severely weakened and owned by Austria. Why would the Venetians agree to be a part of a kingdom when they're doing fine by themselves? It would be like Spain asking France if they can join together.

>>864067

Thats why its MAGIC

>>864122

oh in that case, ROME 2.0

>>864079
>On the other hand, an Italian state may well use the authority of the pope to shore up its own legitimacy and maybe pose itself as protector of the religion. Then again, a secular ruler may be incline to follow the path of the German princes and impose protestantism top down as a way of asserting political and economic independence by liquidating church assets and appointing his own ecclesiastical hierarchy
If he can use the already existing Catholic hierchy why should him risk and create a new one?

>>863022
>How different would things have been?
"We made Italy, now we have to make the Italians"

This has to happen regardless, lest the country splits.

Italians need to be unified linguistically too, either with Dante Alighieri's De Vulgari Eloquentia and the Tuscan Language, or go back to (Ecclesiastical) Latin.

Italy also needs some form of economic and military unity as well, to survive.

>>864079
>a united italy would lead to the early death of the papal state
This is a good point and there might be an effect on the Reformation (which starts as early as 1517!) and/or Counter-reformation.

>>863040
>prolonging the duration of the Renaissance for at least another couple decades
I can see this happening.

>Would later become a large industrial powerhouse
It needs natural resources, like coal: >>863079

But I can envision Italy partaking in some colonial adventures now that Genoa, Venice and everyone else aren't fighting one another and they have one navy.

>>864067
Now, we're talking a lot about the unification of Italy, but a constitutional monarchy a few Centuries before it was cool could affect the development of other constitutional monarchies, Absolutism (which is the following Century), the French Revolution and Human Rights.

>>864111
OP did say is happened "magically". Anyway, in reality it would have to be consolidated by military force, so Venice would in this scenario would be conquered and its colonies in the mediterranean seceding or pledging its allegiance to the new state, or being subdued by force

>>864147
It all depends on how events unfold. To take nineteenth century Italian unification as an example, the Pope was extremely hostile to the whole enterprise and used his power of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to preach against the monarchy. Pope Leo XIII (or his predecessor, my memory is fuzzy) actually declared a non expedit in the 1870s, which was an express order for catholics to not vote in Italian parliamentary elections (though they could vote in local elections). Non expedit was not officially rescinded till after WWI, even though it had become a dead letter by then.
Anyway, the Early Modern period was a different era socially and politically. The pope's confirmation of ecclesiastical appointments was an extremely powerful form of patronage. The economic benefits of an rich diocese could make one extraordinarily rich, and often was used to consolidate the power of noble families over generations. In other words, the appointment of clergy is an important means of social and political control. The German princes recognized this and when they created state churches it became their right to make church appointments. An Italian sovereign may try to wrest control from the pope for this reason, or, to secure funds against intruders or for offensive campaigns (foreign adventures secure the legitimacy of monarchs, and fending off invaders also serves the same role) he may be forced to seize church assets to augment his estate, or sell them off to nobles for quick cash as debts mount from wars.

>>864111
Nope

>>863022
Italy at the time would have been very powerful, had it managed to stay united. Expertise at sea faring from Genoa and Venice, money from the kikes in Florence, the presence of the pope, armies from Lombardy and Naples.

No borgia pope and cesare borgia wrecking havoc