Venice And Ragusan Republics

[Onasander]

What were the origin of the republic of Venice and Ragusa? I only know of the Ragusans during Ottoman domination and the piazza, and really don't know much about Venice other than Attila caused them to flee to the atoll.

 

Did they have continious Roman/romano-successor state governments from ancient times to the near recent era?

[Northern Neil]

I think that Venice arose in the 5th century, and was founded by refugees from Aquilea after the Huns sacked that city. According to the recent BBC book on Venice, as late as 850 the Venetians regarded themselves as Byzantine subjects. However, in 880, when they pillaged the rival port of Commachio (Also, I think, a Byzantine dependency) they were clearly acting independently.

 

In one of those strange quirks of mediaeval history, I think the Doge of Venice was still 'officially' a Byzantine governor right up until the fall of Constantinople. I believe they sent ships to aid the city in 1453. But revenue from Venice to the Empire stopped coming through round about 920. (Sorry - forgotten which book I read that bit in!!)

[Tobias]

The Venetians took their name from an ancient tribe that inhabited the area around where Venice is located; the Veneti. After the sacking of Aquileia and other cities around the area (such as Ravenna), refugees from everywhere inhabited the islands in the swamps.

I believe that by the time Emperor Basil II had recovered Croatia, Venice was completely independent from the Byzantines. And it was thanks to the treachery of the Venetians that Constantinople fell to the 4th Crusade.

I don't know if any Venetian ships came to Constantinople's aid against Mehmet; Apart from the ill-feeling generated by Venice taking Constantinople's trade and contributing significantly to it's downfall, one of The Byzantine's closest allies was Genoa; also the mortal enemy of Venice.

[LEG X EQ]

All i know about the Venetians, is that is was Veneti terretory, before Roman arrival, but the islands in the lagoon were not inhabitant , they were inhabitant around 500ad, by refugees coming from the north east,

 

the name comes from the salute that the refugees created "veni etiam" meaning " i also came here" or from the ancient tribe the veneti.

 

the venetians in their early stage, were nothing but pirates, they plundered citie in the east adriatic coast (croatia-montenegro) and also plundered Alexandia, taking the grave and remains of St. Mark with them back to venice, were St. Marks Cathedral was build and the grave of saint mark put to rest.

From there on the venetians used the holy lion of st. mark as their symbol and flag.

 

Byzantine couldnt really control venice, because it was to busy dealing with tribes threatening to enter the byzentine ground.

 

Venice first used a DUX (latin for leader) as their head, the term Doge comes from DUX and is the venetian dialect version of DUX.

[Guest roessler]

According to the official Venetian historiography, Venice was founded on March 25, 421. And it was Attila himself that forced the first Venetians to flee on the marshy islands. Some families stated that they were of Roman origin: the Corner (Cornaro) family as descendents from the gens Cornelia, and the Giustinian from Justinian I. Nice legends that were especially en vogue in the 17th and 18th century.

In fact, during the Lombard invasion, people from Treviso escaped to Rialto (the later Venice), and those from Altino to Torcello. Pentapolis, Venice and Istria were unter Byzantinian rule; the local tribuni were elected by the population, creating an aristocracy over the years.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Just wondering, does Milan have any relation to the Venetics.

[LEG X EQ]

No, MILAN has no relation to The Veneti tribes what so ever. Milan and Todays Lombardy Region was practicaly empty , because it was still a very swampy and unfertile piece of land. The Insubrians (celtic-gauls) inhabited the land as the first, and milan was their main Village and Settlement, Back then it was called "Mid-Land" which was celtic gaul language for "in the middle of the plains" once the Romans conquered that terretory they called it Mediolanum (latin for and the same meaning "middle of the plains")

Than Milan and todays Lombardy region was conquered by the Langobards (west-germanic tribe) in 572 ad.

 

The Langobards called it Mailand (may land)(its still called like that in german today) The Langobards had the huge influence on the Milanese and Northern italians (because the Langobards basically melted together wirth the Native romans, they made Pavia ( a town 40 km southwest of milan) the Capital of their kingdom.

 

The Influence of the langobards (who mixed and therefor stayed forever, but only ruled for 250 years) is still visible in the Milanese dialect, which is basically a mix of Latin and German (just like french) and is therefor closer to french then to italian,

 

for example their city saint is Saint Ambrose, in italian thats Sant'Ambrogio in milanese its Sankt Ambr

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Thank you very much. Your post adds furthur to my knowlegdge of Europe. Hmm, French+Milan= kinda awkward to me.

[Tobias]

Yes, those northern city states of Italy are very interesting study. Many cities in mediaeval times in northern italy and later on the renaissance were powerhouses; Venice and Genoa were the two masters of trade, Milan, Florence, Capua, Verona etc. were basically completely independent and they were the centres of the Renaissance when the exodus of the Byzantine elite from Constantinople after 1453 did much to begin it; Constantinople having preserved the light of learning throughout the middle ages.

The Christian fleet at Lepanto was composed of ships of Genoa, Venice, Spain and other cities such as Naples, and it was a remarkable feat that they remained together long enough to defeat the Turks.

But i'm wondering from the topic. It's just the period of the Italian city states to the renaissance is very interesting.

[Pertinax]

Ragusa was latin or rather colony of the latinised (becoming Dubrovnik when Slavicised) does anyone have a good source for its early history? Ive visited the city in the past and found it very beautiful.

[Honorius]

i dont think the Venetians sent supplies but i have read that they allowed the Byzantine emperor to recruit Cretan soldiers

[M. Porcius Cato]

While we're on the topic, does any know of any good sources on the constitution of the Venetian Republic during the renaissance?

[Viggen]

Ragusa was latin or rather colony of the latinised (becoming Dubrovnik when Slavicised) does anyone have a good source for its early history? Ive visited the city in the past and found it very beautiful.

 

I found some german sites dealing with the history of Dubrovnik (Ragusa), apparently near todays Dubrovnik there was a roman colony called Epidaurum and on todays (peninsula) Dubrovnik (Ragusa) there was a settlement called Rausium.

 

In the 7th century AD slawic and awars destroyed Epidaurum and the remaining inhabitants fled to Rausium. They called it then Epidaurum, id est Ragusium (first mentioned in 614 AD by an unknown geographer in Ravenna. This settlement was surrounded by many oaktrees hence the slavic origin of Dubrovnik as in slawic Dub stands for Oak. (another source claims that the towns name comes from the slawic dubrava which means grove.

 

From 614 to 1205 Epidaurum, id est Ragusium was under the authority of Byzanz. More and more slawic influence chaged the name of the town from Epidaurum id est Ragusium to Dubrovnik (first mention in 1189)

 

cheers

viggen

 

p.s. here is a site about dubrovniks history (although nothing on very early history) http://www.hr/darko/etf/et111.html

[Manuel I Comnenus]

In order to talk about Venice in relations to the Byzantine Empire, the city of Venice was indeed once a part of the Eastern Roman Empire. In the beginning, the introduction of the Republic of Venice into the Byzantine Empire was the genius of Emperor Basil the Bulgar-Slayer. Finding the growing threat of Tsar Samuel who was taking major cities in Dalmatia and cities on the coast of the Adriatic, Basil did not like the idea of having to take his eyes off the East, and thus came up with a policy to keep his lands in the west, while not having to defend them himself. Basil used the Republic of Venice and at the time Doge Pietro Orseolo II, by granting them suzerainty of the Byzantine Dalmatian Coast. The trade off was that Venice gained the valuable Dalmatian coast (where pirates were harboring to attack merchant ships that were sailing for the harbors of Venice) but in return had to defend the land from invasion and keep it in Byzantine hands.

 

The Republic of Venice and Constantinople had friendly relations until Emperors began to cut off the ties. Uptil then, the Republic of Venice was valiant in their support of Constantinople, even risking harsh finger pointings from the Holy See (the Vatican). In one case, the Republic of Venice joined Constantinople (Emperor Alexius Comnenus) in the destruction of a Norman fleet who was capturing cities along the coast of Greece on route to Constantinople itself (from Southern Italy).

 

But in the end, the Republic of Venice was more a plague to the Byzantine Empire then it was ever helpful by a long shot. We owe the destruction of Constantinople and quite possibly the destruction of the Empire to Venice, and it's greed for gold. The 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople of all it's art work and beauty in order to pay off Venice for it's transportation east.

 

We all know that these barbaric Crusaders in the end, established the brief Latin Empire in Constantinople, depriving the true line of Caesars for over 5 decades.

 

At the fall of Constantinople, the Republic of Venice did send aid to the city, but much to the city's embarressment, a good portion of the men sent sailed away before the seige actually began. It was not Venice but the men from Genoa (the arch rival of Venice at the time) that fought with the Romans till the very end.

[Divi Filius]

The 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople of all it's art work and beauty in order to pay off Venice for it's transportation east.

 

The sheer unorganized setup of the crusading movement added to the already fustrated latin feel against the Byzantines were really the main reasons. If we look at the Crusade history before the sacking youll find that the western crusaders were getting more and more angered in the "two-faced" character of the Byzantine Emperors. Some crusaders that passed through constantinople were so fustrated than that right there and then thought to siege it. Even those who were on semi friendly terms were annoyed at the Byzantine attitude.

 

As for the onorganization of the crusades deeply annoyed the Venetians who spent for an enormously large fleet to siege Alexandria. The failure of the Crusade put them in a bad bind. It was really a straw that broke the camels back.