Bunch of 19th century Italy what-ifs?

AH challenge - WI France & Britain were even-handed towards the Austro-Italian conflict.

Plombieres-Turin, 1858-1860 -

what if Piedmont were unwilling cede Nice and Savoy for French support? Does Italian unification stall, or happen through a mixture of different revolutions leading to 2 or more regional regimes on the peninsula at the end of the century?

What if Piedmont had been willing to cede Savoy, but insisted on retaining Nice (Nizza). According to some ethno-linguistic maps of the situation in the 19th century or 1914, it appears that Savoy was francophone but Nizza was Italophone at this time. Could this be enough to ensure French friendship? Would the Third Empire have been willing to commit aggression to obtain Savoy and/or Nice from Piedmont?

1866-

AHC - Italy obtains modern day Trentino (less South Tyrol) or the historic territory of the Archbishopric of Trent, the northern border of which fairly closely corresponds with the ethno-linguistic boundary between German and Italian.

Are better Italian performance and more Prussian (or other) diplomatic support for Italian claims BOTH necessary for this to occur? Or just one of the two.

If Italy had Trent from 1866 would it make it more likely to stick by the Triple Alliance or more likely to avoid it altogether?


1870-1871 What if Italy joined in the Franco-Prussian war with the aim of obtaining Savoy, Nice and maybe Corsica? Could they pull off such an intervention successfully? If they did so, would French passion for revanche and reclamation of these territories from Italy have matched its passion for anti-German revanche. OTOH Nice and Savoy were only briefly French compared to Alsace-Lorraine or Corsica. OTOH all of them had been French at one time or another during the 18th century as well as the 19th.

ISTM Italy would be satiated vis-a-vis France if it won territory. If France were forgiving, I would think that Italy would be favorable to a pro-French alignment for the rest of the century and into the next, and would never join the Triple alliance. OTOH, if the Italians see France treating Nice and Savoy as sacred lost provinces, and/or there are other strong anti-Italian moves by France, such as blanket opposition to Italian colonialism, than Italy may be more stuck with an German alliance.

AHC - An Italian colony in Asia-Pacific or Indian Ocean - what would have been the most plausible candidate territories?
 

It takes a bit more time, but it still happens. Napoléon III isn't going to stop being Italy's great power patron because they get hung up in the particular technicalities while working out a treaty.


The Italians did take Trentino in the war, it was occupied by Garibaldi's forces. They just gave it up in the peace process, not due to international pressure, but because of the internal politics of Italian unification - accepting the capture of Trentino would have meant lending credence to Garibaldi's republicans.


Not gonna happen. Seriously, that is ASB level of out there.
 
About 1866: to my knowledge, Trento was considered historically German then. Prussia would and could not ever support Italy getting the place. My understanding is that, IOTL the King stopped Garibaldi to take the city not because he feared his republicanism (he did, but by that point it was somewhat under sort of control) but because he knew that Prussia would be absolutely against it.
 
related to this, why not Emperors of Italy?

Related to these general ideas, would it have been plausible for the House of Savoy to have gotten themselves crowned as "Emperor" of Italy rather than just king? (sometime before the OTLcrowning in the 1930s after the conquest of Ethiopia)

I tend to associate Emperor-ship with conquest.So particular circumstances could be getting crowned Emperor in Trent as a move to both profit from Garibaldi's moves there and show monarchical superiority? Or, imperial coronation after taking Rome, or crowning in any territories conquered from France?

In the 20th century maybe Imperial coronation after taking Tripoli.

Why didn't the Italian Kings go for the Imperial title until the Fascist regime?

Was the Imperial title just too evocative of bad memories of Italy's manipulation at the hands of the HRE, Napoleon or Austria? OTOH it could be seen as establishing and asserting Italian equality with all historic oppressors and the Roman past. Were the Savoys just modest?
 
I think it's because the Italian lands were, in essence, annexed to the Kingdom of Savoy, plus no earlier 'Empire of Italy.'

For Germany, the Kings of Bavaria, Saxony etc. still had their lands within the Empire, which in combination with the tradition of having a German/germanophone Empire both required and gave historic reason for the higher title.

If you did have a Prussian style unification- perhaps through something like Savoy directly annexing Lombardy-Venetia, Romagna and the Papal Marches (and also possibly Latium as well with the Vatican created earlier as a sop to the others), but with the other states (possibly break up the two sicilies?) still having their own rulers, then you'd have better grounds for an Italian Emperor.

It does come to mind that this is probably easier to do with a Naples led unification. If they annex Romagna, the Marches and Lombardy (+Venetia or not if they need to give the other states a sop in things), then we could see the other states joining in a confederation/Italian Empire a la Germany.
 
I think there are more significant potential butterflies if you can keep French troops out of Rome during Napoleon III's reign.
 
Corder, intriguing....

please elaborate on what you mean. The big monster butterfly seems to be Rome in Piedmontese hands much sooner, but what else is there?
 
I think there are more significant potential butterflies if you can keep French troops out of Rome during Napoleon III's reign.

please elaborate on what you mean. The big monster butterfly seems to be Rome in Piedmontese hands much sooner, but what else is there?

Quite obviously a France which avoids getting entangled in the Roman Question will be able to consolidate the good will of the 1859 war, and will hold a precious token to call in a favor when in dire needs. As it went, Nappy shed enough French blood in Lombardy to guarantee the friendship of the newly unified Italy for at least a couple of generations, and then went on to piss Italians off (the wooing of Austria, French troops in Rome, heavy-handed meddling in the 1866 war - pre, during and post) without being able to secure Austrian friendship.
It is true that turning his back on the pope's pleas might have resulted in internal troubles in France, where most of the rural population was conservative and very catholic, but the alternative proved even worse. When there was a need, France was completely isolated.
 
Related to these general ideas, would it have been plausible for the House of Savoy to have gotten themselves crowned as "Emperor" of Italy rather than just king? (sometime before the OTLcrowning in the 1930s after the conquest of Ethiopia)

I tend to associate Emperor-ship with conquest.So particular circumstances could be getting crowned Emperor in Trent as a move to both profit from Garibaldi's moves there and show monarchical superiority? Or, imperial coronation after taking Rome, or crowning in any territories conquered from France?

In the 20th century maybe Imperial coronation after taking Tripoli.

Why didn't the Italian Kings go for the Imperial title until the Fascist regime?

Was the Imperial title just too evocative of bad memories of Italy's manipulation at the hands of the HRE, Napoleon or Austria? OTOH it could be seen as establishing and asserting Italian equality with all historic oppressors and the Roman past. Were the Savoys just modest?

The path of Italian unification was very different from the German one, and most of the dinasties were outright Habsburgs (Modena and Tuscany) or Bourbons (Naples and Parma). Not to mention the elephant in the room represented by the Papal States.
Italy might have become a confederation of some sort if the 1848-49 insurrections and wars had achieved what they were aiming for (and I'm anyhow pretty sceptical: by June 1848 both the pope and the king of Naples had reneged on their early support for the wars against Austria, which means that a semi-bloodless process of confederation is already out of the window. In case of Austrian expulsion from Italy - which was quite a possible outcome - there might be three/four states remaining: the Savoys (OTL borders plus Lombardy), the Bourbon in Naples (who will be wiped out sooner or later by an insurrection, aided and abetted by the remaining one or two states (most likely otcome is a republican independent Veneto and an Italian republic made up of the ex-duchies (Parma, Modena and Tuscany) and the former papal states (capitol in Rome, it goes without saying). In such a case I would believe that also the Savoys would be dumped soon or sooner (say by 1870 tops) in the dustbin of history, and Italy would become a federal (or confederal) state. Which would not be a bad thing, given how poorly OTL went. No empire, though. It's simply not in the cards.
 
About 1866: to my knowledge, Trento was considered historically German then. Prussia would and could not ever support Italy getting the place. My understanding is that, IOTL the King stopped Garibaldi to take the city not because he feared his republicanism (he did, but by that point it was somewhat under sort of control) but because he knew that Prussia would be absolutely against it.

Trento had traditionally been a bishopric in the HRE, governed by a count-bishop. However, Trento had always been culturally and linguistically Italian.
It was not Prussian opposition or fear of promoting a Garibaldine achievement which forced Italy to relinquish it. It was rather the outcome of Nappy setting himself as "honest broker" to sprt out a peace agreement between Austria and Italy, and the (unjustified) Italian fear of being let out in the cold.
 
AHC - An Italian colony in Asia-Pacific or Indian Ocean - what would have been the most plausible candidate territories?

There was a Tuscan guy (can find the name, Cesio Something Something, but am too lazy) who traveled extensively in the Far East, got friendly with the sultan of Aceh, married one of his daughters and became his prime minister. In 1865 he visited Florence - then capital of Italy - to propose an Italian protectorate over Aceh (which was threathened by Dutch). I'd say it is the best bet.
IOTL nothing came out of it, and it was a lost opportunity IMHO. The guy went over to California where he made up a significant fortune
 
There was a Tuscan guy (can find the name, Cesio Something Something, but am too lazy) who traveled extensively in the Far East, got friendly with the sultan of Aceh, married one of his daughters and became his prime minister. In 1865 he visited Florence - then capital of Italy - to propose an Italian protectorate over Aceh (which was threathened by Dutch). I'd say it is the best bet.
IOTL nothing came out of it, and it was a lost opportunity IMHO. The guy went over to California where he made up a significant fortune

Well Italy tried even New Guinea but the British veto in 1883 put a stop at the fairly advanced plan. Maybe an Italy with greater tie with London get the change to beat the German.
Plus there is Sabah, when A-H decided to refuse to bought it, Von Obleck try Italy (who also refused).
In general an Italy who is less isolated diplomatically can be more adventuros in the colonial business.
 
Top