Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Radio War Nerd EP #208 — Republic of Venice , Pt. 2: Meet The Ottomans (Patreon)

Published:
2019-11-30 21:51:46
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

Guest: Annibale, Italian war nerd

Recorded: November 30, 2019

Here is part 2 of our series on the Venetian empire. In this episode, Annibale familiarizes us with life and politics in the Republic of Venice, a remarkably powerful, innovative & enduring city-state for much of the second millennium. Once we grasp the Venetian system of power and rule, then . . . enter the Ottomans, who, after conquering Constantinople in 1453, put a bead on Venice's maritime outposts in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

*Map of Venetian Empire in 15th/16th c. "in dark red the territories conquered at the start of the 15th century, in red the territories at the start of the 16th century, in pink the territories conquered temporarily, in yellow the sea dominated by Venetian fleet during the 15th century, in orange the main routes, purple squares are the main emporiums and commercial colonies" [source: Wikipedia] 

Listen to part 1 of our RWN series on Republic of Venice here.

Total time: 2:01:13

Direct link to this episode's mp3 here 

Files

Comments

jg

Annibale is such an international treasure.

Cassie

Tell Annibale we love his episodes!

dyscostic

There is some sort of fiasco mentioned in here between the Pope and Venetians about the clergy? Is this what is called the "Investiture Controversy?" If not, can someone link the proper wikipedia entry for what was being referenced there? I am confused

Ellen Harold

Annibale will cover this in the next episode probably. In the meantime you could try the Wikipedia entry on Paolo Sarpi. The Venetians considered that their Church was independent from Vatican rule because founded directly by Saint Mark, the apostle and thus co-equal with Rome, founded by St. Peter. The city and its territory were placed under an Interdict, which I understand to mean that masses said there were considered invalid. The dispute was mediated by Henry IV of France, I believe. The quarrel originated over whether two priests accused of murder & other crimes could be tried by Venetian civil authorities. The Vatican maintained it had sole authority to deal with misconduct by its priests.

Annibale

The one between Venice and the Pope had (also) to do with the election of local clergy but it was just one of the elements, the other being the control of border cities, the role of Inquisition etc. THE "Investiture Controversy" was a much bitter and larger political / religious and at some point even indirectly military confrontation between the Pope and the Roman Holy Emperor about the right to elect (or confirm) secular clergy (like clerics) to senior clergy roles (like bishop or abbots) who had / may have feudal rights. According to canon law the election of a cleric (who, remember, wasn't a priest) to the role of bishop or abbot (the chief of an abbey) was something reserved to the regular clergy (so the clergy following a rule and belonging to a religious institute) and/or the community of the faithful. By the age of Charlemagne most of the clergy outside of monastic rule was beginning to be very secular - priest were often openly married, owned private properties, had political appointmets etc. This mean a massive influence by non-religious institutions (like the Empire) and so an extreme level of control of the Church by the Empire, favoured also by the deep crisis of the Papal institution toward the end of the first millennium. After the year 1000 a massive movement of reformation swept the church, pushing toward a separation between Church and secular authorities, a reaffirmation of the Papal supremacy and an enforcement of religious rules over clergy (including the prohibition of marriage, that was however very slow to take on, and was ignored more often than not). The confrontation between Pope and Empire became open between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV culminating in the dramatic 1077 "Humiliation of Canossa" of Henry IV, a turning point in the relationship between the two institutions, as the Emperor had to kneel for three days and three night barefoot in a snow blizzard in front of the Canossa castle (where the Pope was guest of the famous countess Matilde di Canossa) waiting for the Pope to receive him. The Investiture Controversy officially ended with the Concordat of Worms in 1122 with the two institutions agreeing of separating religious roles from civil authorities, but in reality the underlying struggle between Pope and Emperor went on and gave birth to the Guelphs and Ghibellines factions, two parties who monopolized the political struggle in Italian city-state in the following centuries (and still linger on in part of Italian culture)

Annibale

The story of the Pope vs Venice struggle is much more brutally political. Venice was always very proud of his independence from Papal control, though also very "conservative" concerning the rituals of the Catholic faith. This meant for instance that Venice and the Pope often quarreled on things like the way Inquisition could act in Venetian territories or Jewish rights. In 1606 went pear-shaped when in Venice it was elected as a Doge Leonardo Donato, a member of the so called Venetian "young men", who bitterly opposed any papal interference. By then two priests were arrested by the Council of the Ten for some serious secular crime, and the Pope asked Venice to have them judged by a religious court. The Council refused (of course) and things escalated quickly, with the Pope (Paul V) finally ordering Venice to be "interdicted" (a collective excommunication of the city and his inhabitants). The Venetian authorities reacted in typical Venice fashion, expelling some religious order and beginning a military escalation. A famous Venetian intellectual, Paolo Sarpi, wrote a rebuttal of Papal pretensions over Venetian independence, and the Pope responded having killers dispatched to Venice to murder him. The attempt failed, and another team of would-be killers was intercepted by the Council of the Ten and executed. For a brief moment, it appeared that an actual war would begin (Spain was pressuring the Pope to use military force and England and France began siding with Venice) but in the end, France diplomacy helped to create a political solution, with the two priests who had originated the controversy give to France, who would, in turn, give them to Rome, and any residual Papal request rescinded. One of the consequences of this was that the Roman Inquisition basically disappeared from Venice and Venice itself stood largely away from the 30 Years War.

KingCult

Great Ep. Loved the Jack Vance digression! He has such a talent for creating intricate and weird societies... much like Venice!

Tyler Hanel

Really great stuff. It strikes me that the architects of the Venetian system of government would probably feel quite at home in the modern-day IT and Network security fields. The way they dealt with privacy, information security, encryption, etc sounds incredibly modern.

Chuck Petras

A few years ago I ran across Gavin Menzies "1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance" https://amzn.to/2PhQ3Pp . Is there any truth to this story? Basically the thesis is that a Chinese fleet visited Venice in 1434 and imparted civilization to the unwashed Italians.

Annibale

No, it's bullshit. There's no way anything as huge as the Dragon Fleet could arrive in Venice without leaving a lot of documents. That people did record absolutely everything of note happening in and around Venice.

Annibale

I know that book and it's a fascinating "what if", but unfortunately not based on anything substantial

Jim Vail

This comment is for John's latest email newsletter entitled, 'That Mali-copter Crash: News From Nowhere' - Some interesting points here. But they miss the key points: (1) it's not ethnic or sectarian in essence, but a class question. The interests of the local ruling classes, allied with imperialism in colonized countries, using religion or even "national liberation" as a way to win power and their share of the loot; and (2) real national liberation (socialism) didn't fail; it was defeated by imperialism and is still the answer.

Martin Knutsen

My favourite nerding subject. Very good value for money. Now do one on Ragusa, the anomaly of history!

vera

how do you spell the name of the book mentioned by annibale on this episode? phonetically sounds like bokacho?

jg

Really enjoying these, can I ask a question of any who have insight? It seems difficult to me for the Venetian council of ten to run an intelligence service and retain institutional knowledge if they were limited to one year terms. How did the council retain the “real power” without it devolving to a different institution, like the military or intelligence community? How did they reconcile this tension so successfully?

Annibale

Hi John, thanks for the question. I'll tr ity to answer, but it's not a question easy to answer. The Council of the Ten was established as a "safety measure" against any attempt of a dictatorial coup becausethalassocracylassocratic" oligarchy AND a large part of the population were afraid Venice could slide back to a "lordship" like those established in Milan or (de facto) in Florence. The Council was toreaction at the shock provoked by the Tiepolo plot of 1310. It was not the only reaction, as the Tiepolo coup emanyished a lot of the security rules that became commonplace in Venice in the centuries afterwards (weapons control, the inner city being constantly patrolled by a standing militia etc.). But the Council of the Ten moved from being a "special tribunal" into a permanent control organ of the Serenissima, with a wide range of powers. As you'vmany " sub-institutions " werestitutions" controlled by the Ten (who became more than ten at a certain point). And these institutions began to have an increasing inluence into the Venetian politics. , So in 1468 the legislative branch of the Serenissima forced a limitation of the Council's power, reducing its onluence into the Venetian "normal" affairs and re-establishing the concept it was a security organization for "severe" problems, not ordinary justice. This "downsizing" of the Council was pushed back in 1505 and particularly 1510 because of the War of the League of Cambrai and the "existential threat" upon the Republic's existence, and the Council re-aquired a large autonomy. However, between 1520 and 1580 the Venetian intelligence suffered some serious setbacks against their Ottoman and Spanish counterparts (which were never as organized and centralized as the Serenissima intelligence, btw). Even more seriously, it was discovered that for a couple of years the Council had sold "favours" to some patrician family in exchange for large amounts of money. Keep in mind that this money had not ended up in the pockets of any individual, and had been used to reinforce the Venetian fleet. Still, it was a major scandal, because it was contrary to the back foundation of the Venetian oligarchy (ie no family could be favoured at the expense of another). It was also a big stain to the public image of the Council, that had been always considered by the Venetian commoners as a neutral "protection" against the aristocracy power. So in 1580 there was another reform. The Council role was permanently established at a "supervision" scope, and the most important security affairs moved to the Three State Inquisitors: one Red Inquisitor (an emanation of the Venetian Senate and the Doge's office) and two Black Inquisitors, who were nominated by the Council and by the Judicial branch of the Serenissima. The Three Inquisitors had a wide range of powers and flexibility and could order "special operations" (including assassination) with an unanimous vote, but were much easier to control than the Council, and where under a severe scrutiny for most of the time they were in charge (again, one year). The "Three" worked much better than the Ten to counter the Ottoman threat, and they ad access to some extremely sophisticate technology (for the late XVI century). They worked under a heavy cloak of secrecy, much more than the Ten, but all their proceedings were recorded and tracked. However, and this is probably the most surprising effect of the reform, the real victims of the 1580 reform were not the Ten, but the "Zonta" (Junta), a sort of "extra Senate" that had been established in the XV century and comprised a variable number of patricians who were "joined" (here's the name) to the Senate for a limited time. You can compare it to a modern day "Commission of the Senate". The "Zonta" was a sort of safety measure for the richest part of the Venetian nobility (the "oligarchs") to see their interest well represented in the complicated structure of the Venetian state. They were universally hated both by the population AND by the minor nobility, because it was seen as a sort of "super Senate" with strongly pro-oligarchic tendencies. The Zonta had a lot of power until the beginning of the XVI century, when Venice experienced (partly because of the League of Cambrai war, partly because of the problems with the Sultanate) a strong "request for order" and a strong anti-oligarchic reaction. So the Zonta was reduced both in side and in power, and then in 1583 was dissolved. Going back to your question, the simple but frustrating answer is "it depends". From the end of the Republic to the 1960s, the consensus in the Venetian historiography circles was that the Ten (and the Zonta) were simple emanations of the "oligarchs", the 40 most powerful Venetian families, and these families were running the show behind the Venetian security, acting as a state within the state. We know now that this scenario is too simple, and it was also influenced by Machiavelli's and Enlightenment views. The Ten were never so much removed from the rest of the Venetian state, and part of the black legend surrounding them is simply exaggerated or false. Also, the definition of "Venetian oligarchy" has become less clear-cut because we now know that the land-based aristocrats and the sea-faring magnates were not the same and had different interests and ideologies. The tendency now is to assume that – particularly after Cambrai and Agnadello – in the Venetian state, social stability and internal security prevailed above "expansion", and "expansion" was the ideology of the Venetian oligarchs. So another answer may be that the Ten never had power concentrated "in their hands", but were the expression of a state ideology that saw into a well-run bureaucracy an element of power "per se".