Further to the very good recapitulation of administrative sub-divisions in the kingdom of Sardinia made by @Tarabas , it's not surprising that also the Grand Duchy of Tuscany was following a very similar path: after all, Tuscany had been annexed to the French empire under Napoleon, and the administrative reforms stuck. In 1848, Tuscany was subdivided into 7 "compartimenti" (Firenze, Arezzo, Grosseto, Lucca, Pistoia, Pisa and Siena) and 2 "governi" (Livorno and the Elba island): the compartimenti were roughly equivalent to the French Arrondissements, while the governi (governorates) were a byproduct of the older status of Livorno and Elba. Compartimenti and Governi were furtherly subdivided into 36 districts and 246 municipalities. There is the matter of the Lunigiana and Garfagnana valleys, which in 1847 had been ceded to the duchy of Modena, giving it territorial contiguity with the exclave of Massa on the coast. After the insurrection of March 1848, Lunigiana and Garfagnana had petitioned to return under Tuscany: I believe that the best solution would be for Tuscany to annex also the exclave of Massa, compensating Cispadania (some cash, but also the committment to finance the Pontremoli rail connection between Parma and Livorno). In such a case, an eighth compartimento would be created (Massa e Carrara).
Primavera d'Italia: War, Love and Revolution
- Thread starter Tarabas
- Start date
- Status
After the Congress of Vienna and his return to Rome, Pio VII reorganized the administrative subdivisions of the Papal States, creating 5 Delegations of 1st class and 12 Delegations of 2nd and 3rd class, each one with a prelate at its head. The Delegations of 1st class were governed by a Cardinal and named Legations (in reality, only 4 Cardinals were appointed: Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna and Forli'; the 5th, Pesaro-Urbino, was not governed by a Cardinal, and therefore was known as delegation 1st class).
Subsequently, each new Pope tinkered with the administrative subdivisions (if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admin...ly 1816: "Quando per ammirabile disposizione".), but the top down principle of government was never changed. Even the town majors were appointed directly by the Secretary of State in Rome, and the town councilors were selected by the Legate or Delegate.
In 1850, Pio IX reorganized the Papal States over 5 Legations (Romagna, Marche, Umbria, Marittima e Campagna (southern Latium) and Latium) with 20 provinces.
I think that the same arrangement would be reasonably sensible for both the Romagna and the Roman Republic, with some changes.
The Romagne would be organized over 5 Provinces (Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna, Forli' and Pesaro-Urbino), each one with an elected Governor and Provincial Council. The Capital of the state would be in Bologna, and I am toying with the idea of granting the title of Duke of Urbino to the Grand Ducal heir.
The Roman Republic would be organized over a reduced number of provinces (probably 3 in Marche, 2 or 3 in Umbria and 5 or 6 in Latium), again with an elected Governor and Provincial Council. The capital would obviously be in Rome. I am not looking forward to have regional entities, and I think that the delegates to the Roman Constitutional Convention will follow closely the French example, with a prefect nominated by the Ministry of Interior in each province.
Subsequently, each new Pope tinkered with the administrative subdivisions (if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admin...ly 1816: "Quando per ammirabile disposizione".), but the top down principle of government was never changed. Even the town majors were appointed directly by the Secretary of State in Rome, and the town councilors were selected by the Legate or Delegate.
In 1850, Pio IX reorganized the Papal States over 5 Legations (Romagna, Marche, Umbria, Marittima e Campagna (southern Latium) and Latium) with 20 provinces.
I think that the same arrangement would be reasonably sensible for both the Romagna and the Roman Republic, with some changes.
The Romagne would be organized over 5 Provinces (Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna, Forli' and Pesaro-Urbino), each one with an elected Governor and Provincial Council. The Capital of the state would be in Bologna, and I am toying with the idea of granting the title of Duke of Urbino to the Grand Ducal heir.
The Roman Republic would be organized over a reduced number of provinces (probably 3 in Marche, 2 or 3 in Umbria and 5 or 6 in Latium), again with an elected Governor and Provincial Council. The capital would obviously be in Rome. I am not looking forward to have regional entities, and I think that the delegates to the Roman Constitutional Convention will follow closely the French example, with a prefect nominated by the Ministry of Interior in each province.
Pesaro-Urbino is a no brainer.
I have a feeling that the papal subdivision of the Legations in Romagna was based on the borders of the bishoprics (which then were changed, in particular in modern times).
Frankly, I have not a better opinion at this stage. Would there be any reason to change them? Otherwise, there are so many things to build up or repair that the administrative subdivisions are very low on the scale of priorities. If it's not broken, don't fix it up.
Maybe in a generation or two, when the growth of population and economy will make it clear that another solution might work better
Last edited:
I'd like the map to stay a little messy 🙃, but I don't know how viable it would be for Massa to be isolated(I've read about the port of Marina di Carrara, which is used to ship marble). Don't think Cispadania would like to lose it that much, could be a source of tension between the two states.
A port on the Tyrrhenian sea was more important when the duchy of Modena was a separate state (and the duchy of Massa and Carrara had been inherited from Maria Beatrice d'Este, mother of Francesco IV di Asburgo-Este, in 1829. As things stand, the most obvious port for Cispadania will always be Livorno, while the construction of a railway linking Livorno to Parma would be a big leg up for the Cispadanian economy. In addition, I am sure that Grand Duke Leopold will be willing to sweeten the pill with some cash and/or investment in Cispadania.
A rationalization of the borders, with the elimination of the exclaves, would make a lot of sense, considering that one of the tenets of the Confederation is free trade among the members.
@Arrix85
I have been doing some digging into the matter of the portions of the old Principality of Pavia, which were mostly lost during the first half of 18th century.
Without going into minor details, the Lomellina was annexed by the Savoy in 1707, and the OltrePo Pavese went the same way in 1744, together with the county of Vigevano. (see the attached map, from Wikipedia)
During the Napoleonic period, there was a referendum in the OltrePo, and the population voted in favor of returning with Pavia, but the result of the referendum was never implemented. No modification were enacted by the Congress of Vienna.
Following the reorganization of the administrative subdivisions in the kingdom of Sardinia, the Lomellina and the county of Vigevano became part of the Divisione (Department) of Novara, while the OltrePo was split into two Provincie, Voghera and Bobbio.
At the same time, the district of Pavia (in Lombardy-Venetia) was slightly enlarged to the north.
IOTL the big changes came in 1859, following the annexation of Lombardy: Lomellina, Voghera and Bobbio were reunited to Pavia.
ITTL, Piedmont and Lombardy are formally separated, even if both crowns are held by the king of Sardinia in personal union.
As I see the matter, Lomellina and OltrePo make more economical sense under Pavia, and the people who live there appear to share this opinion.
Since Milan is fated to be the big economical winner in Northern Italy, the pressure to rejoin Pavia will increase.
The same is true for Piacenza, which makes more sense under the crown of Lombardy, since the bridge over the Po (at this stage still a barge bridge) is the necessary connection on the road from Milano to Bologna, and will become even more important once the railways from Milano to Bologna and from Bologna to Ancona will be built (without forgetting the Livorno-Parma which is a priority for Tuscany and Lombardy).
IOTL, the 1850s saw the start of a number of railway lines, but always with the heavy interference of Austria, which always subordinated the economical viability of the railways to political constraints. A couple of examples can better clarify the situation: Austria vetoed the construction of a railway line from Civitavecchia to Ancona (to protect the revenues of the Trieste port), and insisted for a connection to Siena; the railway from Milano to Bologna was never considered, since Austria wanted a railway from Mantova to Reggio, then Modena and finally Lucca. To increase the chaos, neither Austria nor the Papal States were financially sound, and the railways never truly started before the Rothschild entered the game.
The priorities changed after 1859: the Milano-Bologna and the Bologna-Ancona became a true priority.
A trestle bridge over the Po was operative by the end of 1861, and at the same time two additional bridges were built near the trestle bridge: a steel bridge and a trestle service bridge parallel to it to bring in materials for the construction of the steel bridge. The first train crossed the Po in 1862 (on the trestle bridge), and the steel bridge was inaugurated in 1865. The Bologna-Ancona was completed in the last quarter of 1861 (after solving some problems for the crossing of the Reno river in Bologna).
ITTL, the priorities will be very similar to those of 1859, but the railway construction will come probably 8 to 10 years earlier (and it is likely there will be more British participation in the design and construction; IOTL, most of the engineering came from France. If Cavour can manage it, the Rothschild will still be involved in the financing, but will not enjoy the dominant position they had IOTL (British and Swiss financing will ensure better competitive terms).
This longish detour into railways (which are a bit of a fixation of mine
) has been necessary to point out that also the interests of Piacenza would more and more linked to Lombardy. I would predict that sometime in the 1850s there will be a new referendum in Lomellina, OltrePo and Piacentino to join Lombardy.
I have been doing some digging into the matter of the portions of the old Principality of Pavia, which were mostly lost during the first half of 18th century.
Without going into minor details, the Lomellina was annexed by the Savoy in 1707, and the OltrePo Pavese went the same way in 1744, together with the county of Vigevano. (see the attached map, from Wikipedia)
During the Napoleonic period, there was a referendum in the OltrePo, and the population voted in favor of returning with Pavia, but the result of the referendum was never implemented. No modification were enacted by the Congress of Vienna.
Following the reorganization of the administrative subdivisions in the kingdom of Sardinia, the Lomellina and the county of Vigevano became part of the Divisione (Department) of Novara, while the OltrePo was split into two Provincie, Voghera and Bobbio.
At the same time, the district of Pavia (in Lombardy-Venetia) was slightly enlarged to the north.
IOTL the big changes came in 1859, following the annexation of Lombardy: Lomellina, Voghera and Bobbio were reunited to Pavia.
ITTL, Piedmont and Lombardy are formally separated, even if both crowns are held by the king of Sardinia in personal union.
As I see the matter, Lomellina and OltrePo make more economical sense under Pavia, and the people who live there appear to share this opinion.
Since Milan is fated to be the big economical winner in Northern Italy, the pressure to rejoin Pavia will increase.
The same is true for Piacenza, which makes more sense under the crown of Lombardy, since the bridge over the Po (at this stage still a barge bridge) is the necessary connection on the road from Milano to Bologna, and will become even more important once the railways from Milano to Bologna and from Bologna to Ancona will be built (without forgetting the Livorno-Parma which is a priority for Tuscany and Lombardy).
IOTL, the 1850s saw the start of a number of railway lines, but always with the heavy interference of Austria, which always subordinated the economical viability of the railways to political constraints. A couple of examples can better clarify the situation: Austria vetoed the construction of a railway line from Civitavecchia to Ancona (to protect the revenues of the Trieste port), and insisted for a connection to Siena; the railway from Milano to Bologna was never considered, since Austria wanted a railway from Mantova to Reggio, then Modena and finally Lucca. To increase the chaos, neither Austria nor the Papal States were financially sound, and the railways never truly started before the Rothschild entered the game.
The priorities changed after 1859: the Milano-Bologna and the Bologna-Ancona became a true priority.
A trestle bridge over the Po was operative by the end of 1861, and at the same time two additional bridges were built near the trestle bridge: a steel bridge and a trestle service bridge parallel to it to bring in materials for the construction of the steel bridge. The first train crossed the Po in 1862 (on the trestle bridge), and the steel bridge was inaugurated in 1865. The Bologna-Ancona was completed in the last quarter of 1861 (after solving some problems for the crossing of the Reno river in Bologna).
ITTL, the priorities will be very similar to those of 1859, but the railway construction will come probably 8 to 10 years earlier (and it is likely there will be more British participation in the design and construction; IOTL, most of the engineering came from France. If Cavour can manage it, the Rothschild will still be involved in the financing, but will not enjoy the dominant position they had IOTL (British and Swiss financing will ensure better competitive terms).
This longish detour into railways (which are a bit of a fixation of mine
) has been necessary to point out that also the interests of Piacenza would more and more linked to Lombardy. I would predict that sometime in the 1850s there will be a new referendum in Lomellina, OltrePo and Piacentino to join Lombardy.Attachments
@Arrix85
I have been doing some digging into the matter of the portions of the old Principality of Pavia, which were mostly lost during the first half of 18th century.
Without going into minor details, the Lomellina was annexed by the Savoy in 1707, and the OltrePo Pavese went the same way in 1744, together with the county of Vigevano. (see the attached map, from Wikipedia)
During the Napoleonic period, there was a referendum in the OltrePo, and the population voted in favor of returning with Pavia, but the result of the referendum was never implemented. No modification were enacted by the Congress of Vienna.
Following the reorganization of the administrative subdivisions in the kingdom of Sardinia, the Lomellina and the county of Vigevano became part of the Divisione (Department) of Novara, while the OltrePo was split into two Provincie, Voghera and Bobbio.
At the same time, the district of Pavia (in Lombardy-Venetia) was slightly enlarged to the north.
IOTL the big changes came in 1859, following the annexation of Lombardy: Lomellina, Voghera and Bobbio were reunited to Pavia.
ITTL, Piedmont and Lombardy are formally separated, even if both crowns are held by the king of Sardinia in personal union.
As I see the matter, Lomellina and OltrePo make more economical sense under Pavia, and the people who live there appear to share this opinion.
Since Milan is fated to be the big economical winner in Northern Italy, the pressure to rejoin Pavia will increase.
The same is true for Piacenza, which makes more sense under the crown of Lombardy, since the bridge over the Po (at this stage still a barge bridge) is the necessary connection on the road from Milano to Bologna, and will become even more important once the railways from Milano to Bologna and from Bologna to Ancona will be built (without forgetting the Livorno-Parma which is a priority for Tuscany and Lombardy).
IOTL, the 1850s saw the start of a number of railway lines, but always with the heavy interference of Austria, which always subordinated the economical viability of the railways to political constraints. A couple of examples can better clarify the situation: Austria vetoed the construction of a railway line from Civitavecchia to Ancona (to protect the revenues of the Trieste port), and insisted for a connection to Siena; the railway from Milano to Bologna was never considered, since Austria wanted a railway from Mantova to Reggio, then Modena and finally Lucca. To increase the chaos, neither Austria nor the Papal States were financially sound, and the railways never truly started before the Rothschild entered the game.
The priorities changed after 1859: the Milano-Bologna and the Bologna-Ancona became a true priority.
A trestle bridge over the Po was operative by the end of 1861, and at the same time two additional bridges were built near the trestle bridge: a steel bridge and a trestle service bridge parallel to it to bring in materials for the construction of the steel bridge. The first train crossed the Po in 1862 (on the trestle bridge), and the steel bridge was inaugurated in 1865. The Bologna-Ancona was completed in the last quarter of 1861 (after solving some problems for the crossing of the Reno river in Bologna).
ITTL, the priorities will be very similar to those of 1859, but the railway construction will come probably 8 to 10 years earlier (and it is likely there will be more British participation in the design and construction; IOTL, most of the engineering came from France. If Cavour can manage it, the Rothschild will still be involved in the financing, but will not enjoy the dominant position they had IOTL (British and Swiss financing will ensure better competitive terms).
This longish detour into railways (which are a bit of a fixation of mine
What about a referendum in Novara and the surrounding region, basically the Piedmontese lands east of the Sesia river? Even today, Novara's economy is linked more to Milan than to Turin.
True, today.
In the second half of the 19th century, Novara is already linked to Alessandria by rail, and it makes more sense to leave them in Piedmont (also because the Piedmontese might not be amused seeing so many land stripped away from their kingdom
).I can understand (and sympathize with) your ambitions for a "Greater Lombardy", but TTL Lombardy will be larger than OTL with the return of Lomellina and OltrePo and the annexation of Piacenza. If anything, it might make sense to annex the lands on the right bank of the Po (the Duchy of Guastalla): not so much because they were traditionally Mantuan possessions under the Gonzaga, but rather because there has to be another double bridge to be built there.
You understand that the annexations of Piacenza and Guastalla would mean that Lombardy has to finance the bridges, don't you?
Anyway, the triangle Genova-Torino-Milano will unavoidably become the center and motor of the industrialization TTL too. However, the earlier development of railways (including the Pontremolese) will bring both Cispadania and Romagne in play much earlier, and it will have a beneficial effect on Tuscany too.
There will also be more money available (the war of 1848 has been much less destructive and much shorter ITTL , there will be no war in 1859 or 1866, but besides this Italy has gained a dozen years for its industrialization, and coming earlier at the game is a big, big bonus).
A few words about the administrative sub-divisions of the Most Serene Federal Republic of Venice.
It is configured as a Federal Republic, with the federal capital in Padua, and include four states with equal rights and obligations towards the Federal Republic:
The Wiki article is for the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, and gives population numbers for Lombardy and Veneto (including Friuli) as well as maps of the various provinces (districts under Austrian rule).
The district of Venezia was larger than the original Dogado, since it included also the Po delta (which belonged to the Papal States before the Napoleonic invasion, and was transferred to Veneto at the Congress of Vienna). I have added the province of Rovigo in order to balance a bit better the population of the four states.
Province of Venezia ((from Wiki, attributed to Di. Arbalete - Public Domain)
Province of Rovigo ((from Wiki, attributed to Di. Arbalete - Public Domain)
It is configured as a Federal Republic, with the federal capital in Padua, and include four states with equal rights and obligations towards the Federal Republic:
- Dogado ( 2 provinces, Venezia and Rovigo, and an estimated population of 480,000; state capital is Venezia)
- Veneto (Padova, Vicenza, Belluno and Treviso, and an estimated population of 950,000; state capital is Vicenza)
- Friuli (2 Provinces, Udine and Pordenone, and an estimated population of 500,000; state capital is Udine)
- Stato de Mar (4 provinces, Pola, Zara, Spalato e Ragusa, and an estimated population of 380,000; state capital is Zara)
The Wiki article is for the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, and gives population numbers for Lombardy and Veneto (including Friuli) as well as maps of the various provinces (districts under Austrian rule).
The district of Venezia was larger than the original Dogado, since it included also the Po delta (which belonged to the Papal States before the Napoleonic invasion, and was transferred to Veneto at the Congress of Vienna). I have added the province of Rovigo in order to balance a bit better the population of the four states.
Province of Venezia ((from Wiki, attributed to Di. Arbalete - Public Domain)
Province of Rovigo ((from Wiki, attributed to Di. Arbalete - Public Domain)
Last edited:
In my opinion it would make more sense to leave the capital in Venice, since that is the city that historically kept together different lands like Dalmatia Friuli and Veneto proper. Padova on the other cannot boast that heritage and probably meant nothing to people living in Spalato or Pola. Maybe you could have a situation where the officiali capital is located in Venice while some government building are located outside of the city itself.
You are not wrong, but there are...reasons.
The most important is that, in its former incarnation, the Most Serene Republic was too much centered in Venice, to the detriment of other parts of the Republic, which were kept at arm length from the decision making process.
It should also be considered that the economic center of the Republic has shifted from Venice to the Veneto mainland, in particular Vicenza and Padua (and this shift will be accelerate by the railways and by the investments of the Venetian patriciate in the new industries.). Not to mention that the economic development of the County of Verona will also provide a further boost to Vicentine economy.
Finally, Veneto population is equal in numbers to the population of all the three other states together.
OTOH, I have to agree that there are also reasons to have the capital in Venice: these are mostly "soft" reasons, based on history and prestige, as well as on the undeniable fact that the insurrection started in Venice (and ITTL the follow up was both bold and generous), but they should not be dismissed without consideration.
Therefore, I am inclined towards a kind of Solomonic solution. A sharing of the capital role between Venice and Padua: the Executive Branch of the Federal Republic would stay in the former, while the Legislative and Judicial Branches would be housed in the latter. Considering that Venice and Padua are linked by an already existing railway, and the distance is barely over 20 kilometers, it should be certainly viable.
Last edited:
I agree, the executive (Doge? Council of 10?) staying in Venetia and the Legislative (Senate? Major Council?) and Judiciary (Supreme Tribunal?)staying in Padua is a good compromise.
That is an acceptable compromise: while I understand the need to get rid of venetian-centrism in the new republic, Venice and its history are literally the glue of all these disparate provinces, without them I doubt they would stick together for long.
Also, who is taking this decision, the Venetians themselves or the confederation?
What about Aquileia, rather than Padua? A small town, sure, but also a town that had been very influential in Roman and medieval times, and whose inhabitants had a hand in founding Venice itself. Also, being on the northern shore of the Adriatic, it's basically halfway between Italy and Dalmatia.
I have to disagree with your conclusion: all the cities in the Republic of St. Mark have their own proud history, although it is undisputable that Venice takes first place among them, and was the first to carry out a successful insurrection. However, one has just to look at the events of OTL 1848 to see that Venice not only failed to forge at least mainland Veneto into a true united republic, but also failed to show much interest in doing so. Call it myopia, call it Venetian particularism: in either case, the attention of the Venetians was mainly concentrated on the lagoon.
ITTL, things work in a very different way. First of all, some of the early mistakes of OTL are avoided, even if this changes are not really happening because Manin and the other leaders of the insurrection read better the unfolding of events, but rather because other players manage to change the rules of the game: the successful mutiny at Pola and the subsequent dispatching of a flotilla to Dalmatia were not masterminded nor sanctioned by Manin, but rather happened because someone else jumped the gun; the decisive victory at Goito and the investment to Verona allowed Prince Ferdinando to send troops towards Friuli, and equally importantly to decide to travel to Vicenza and Venice (and at the same time, created a situation where Cattaneo might decide to travel to Venice too, rather than remaining in Milan). These events are serendipitous, and certainly not steps in a master plan, but I believe that these three factors (the almost simultaneous arrival in Venice of Ferdinando, Cattaneo and the fleet from Pola) have increased at least by an order of magnitude the energy of the system, making it possible for the Most Serene Republic to be born again, just on different basis. Of course it helps that Ferdinando is not looking forwards to an annexation of Veneto, but rather sees it as a feasible solution for the future, and also that the delegates of Venice and other cities of Veneto have the leisure ITTL to meet in Isola della Scala with delegates from other parts of Italy and to become part of a viable future.
The choice to split the functions of the capital between Venice and Padua is made by the delegates of the Republic at their own constitutional convention which is held in the same Padua. It is obviously a compromise, but I think it is also a strong political statement for the future.
A romantic notion, but unfortunately it cannot work. Besides the unfortunate fact that Aquileia is not only a very small village, and not even a shadow of its past glory, it is also very unhealthy, located as it is in the marshes of coastal Friuli. More importantly, it lacks the contiguity of the combo Padua-Venice, and is completely outside of the main axis of future economical development: the railway Venice-Padua-Vicenza-Verona-Milan
I probably expressed myself wrong: I was not trying to belittle the history of Padua (after all I am originary from that city) or any other city. My reasoning was that the history of those places doesn't provide a proper link to all the territories they are now in charge of (or at least now that I am thinking of it, I can't find anything linking Padua to Spalato, except the fact they both were under Venice for a long while). Which, in the long run, might push Dalmatia and Friuli to become their own independent members inside the confederation. I understand that the role played by the city of Venice itself in 1848 is minimal, which is why get the need for the new republic to compromise: to preserve certain traditions while bringing more closely on board the people previously excluded from power.
I understood your reasoning in the correct way, but, as I see it, the world has been turned upside down by mid 19th century.
The member states of the Republic will be tied together mostly by economic ties and common security, besides the traditions of the old Republic.
Anyway, the important thing is that a manageable compromise has been reached.
- Status