A “Mad lad” in Sicily

Wasn't Garibaldi one of the big proponents of expanding Italy into the Sicilies, where other italian-nationalists were skeptical of doing so?
 
Would the Kot2S be able to unite Italy?
If their Bourbon Kings had been interested in it is pretty likely they would be able to unify Italy, but they were pretty much against it as they had more than enough lands, a well established kingdom and a profound respect for their neighbor the Pope and would not feel right expanding themselves at his expenses
 
If their Bourbon Kings had been interested in it is pretty likely they would be able to unify Italy, but they were pretty much against it as they had more than enough lands, a well established kingdom and a profound respect for their neighbor the Pope and would not feel right expanding themselves at his expenses
But they would be under Garibaldi.
 
I highly doubt he would form his own Republic, but in this unlikely event, anything can happen. This Republic would not last long, IMHO. Sicily will break off as soon as possible to become an enormous version of Malta (by which I do not mean that it will be formally an English territory/Dominion whatever, but that Britain will soon enter the fray, guaranteeing Sicilian freedom and sovereignty in exchange for control over some key ports and the island's economy). Then... it depends on the direction this Republic takes. Too liberal? Mass riots from the catholic peasants, an ALT-brigantaggio which would be really hard to suppress. The French will be there to protect the Pope and may well intervene directly. The Savoia eager to get the whole peninsula watching carefully the situation. I would say this Republic lasts a few, bloody years at most. Then... even a Bourbon Restauration is possible (or could be attempted by some) should the situation become unstable enough.
 
I highly doubt he would form his own Republic, but in this unlikely event, anything can happen. This Republic would not last long, IMHO. Sicily will break off as soon as possible to become an enormous version of Malta (by which I do not mean that it will be formally an English territory/Dominion whatever, but that Britain will soon enter the fray, guaranteeing Sicilian freedom and sovereignty in exchange for control over some key ports and the island's economy). Then... it depends on the direction this Republic takes. Too liberal? Mass riots from the catholic peasants, an ALT-brigantaggio which would be really hard to suppress. The French will be there to protect the Pope and may well intervene directly. The Savoia eager to get the whole peninsula watching carefully the situation. I would say this Republic lasts a few, bloody years at most. Then... even a Bourbon Restauration is possible (or could be attempted by some) should the situation become unstable enough.
Thank you for answering the question. It doesn’t necessarily haft to be a Republic.
 
Another small and fun one today :)

What if, after Giuseppe Garibaldi defeated the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies , for whatever reason he decides to form his own republic instead of handing over the land to Savoy?
Not a chance, for a lot of good reasons.
Garibaldi had not a political bone in his body, and his "achievements" in the south of Italy are there to prove it without any possible doubt (he left quite a political mess afterwards, but then he never claimed to be a man who could build a country), his goal was a united Italy (and creating a competing republic in the south would have defeated his dream, notwithstanding the hopes of Mazzini), he was faithful to VEII (and the sentiment was returned) and finally Cavour would never have allowed it.
Cavour was always skeptic about the idea of the expedition to Sicily, but in the end was forced to countenance it by the public opinion and the king. Therefore Garibaldi was allowed to recruit his volunteers and to put them on two steamers; he provided also rifles and shot (but not the modern Enfield purchased by public subscription: Garibaldi received the older rifles used by the Piedmontese army in 1859), and finally his expedition was carefully steered by Cavour (no landfall in Sardinia, for example: the expedition stopped briefly in Tuscany, as directed by Cavour).
In particular, Cavour always kept a personal distance (and a plausible deniability) from Garibaldi's expedition. He had already a lot on his plate (in particular the relations with Louis Napoleon were a bit frayed, and the status of the duchies in Emilia and the Papal Legations in Bologna and Romagna was disputed). However he played the poor hand he had been dealt very well, and once the rotten Bourbon monarchy in southern Italy collapsed, he made the best possible gains: Marche and Umbria were annexed, as well as the south, and Louis Napoleon was kept friendly (and there was even time for setting up a wonderful piece of skilled political theater when the king and Garibaldi met at Teano). Garibaldi never forgave him from stopping the advance on Rome, but then this goes back to what I was saying earlier about the general's poor political skills.
 
Not a chance, for a lot of good reasons.
Garibaldi had not a political bone in his body, and his "achievements" in the south of Italy are there to prove it without any possible doubt (he left quite a political mess afterwards, but then he never claimed to be a man who could build a country), his goal was a united Italy (and creating a competing republic in the south would have defeated his dream, notwithstanding the hopes of Mazzini), he was faithful to VEII (and the sentiment was returned) and finally Cavour would never have allowed it.
Cavour was always skeptic about the idea of the expedition to Sicily, but in the end was forced to countenance it by the public opinion and the king. Therefore Garibaldi was allowed to recruit his volunteers and to put them on two steamers; he provided also rifles and shot (but not the modern Enfield purchased by public subscription: Garibaldi received the older rifles used by the Piedmontese army in 1859), and finally his expedition was carefully steered by Cavour (no landfall in Sardinia, for example: the expedition stopped briefly in Tuscany, as directed by Cavour).
In particular, Cavour always kept a personal distance (and a plausible deniability) from Garibaldi's expedition. He had already a lot on his plate (in particular the relations with Louis Napoleon were a bit frayed, and the status of the duchies in Emilia and the Papal Legations in Bologna and Romagna was disputed). However he played the poor hand he had been dealt very well, and once the rotten Bourbon monarchy in southern Italy collapsed, he made the best possible gains: Marche and Umbria were annexed, as well as the south, and Louis Napoleon was kept friendly (and there was even time for setting up a wonderful piece of skilled political theater when the king and Garibaldi met at Teano). Garibaldi never forgave him from stopping the advance on Rome, but then this goes back to what I was saying earlier about the general's poor political skills.
Then what if the king of Savoy refused the offer to annex the Sicilian lands? I don’t think Garibaldi would just go sorry and hand it back.
 
Then what if the king of Savoy refused the offer to annex the Sicilian lands? I don’t think Garibaldi would just go sorry and hand it back.
Have you ever seen a Savoy refusing extra lands? For that matter, on 21st October 1860 there were two referendums for annexation to Italy, both returning over 99% yes.
As a matter of fact, and here you see once again Garibaldi, the question was not annexation vs. independence, but simply yes or no to annexation. From a legalistic POV, if the "no" had prevailed, it was not clear what would have happened. Possibly the dictatorship which had been granted to Garibaldi would have been prolonged by default, but the guy would have not been happy with it.
 
Have you ever seen a Savoy refusing extra lands? For that matter, on 21st October 1860 there were two referendums for annexation to Italy, both returning over 99% yes.
As a matter of fact, and here you see once again Garibaldi, the question was not annexation vs. independence, but simply yes or no to annexation. From a legalistic POV, if the "no" had prevailed, it was not clear what would have happened. Possibly the dictatorship which had been granted to Garibaldi would have been prolonged by default, but the guy would have not been happy with it.
Maybe Savoy refuses the acquisition on account of it being a large portion of land that might cause sour relations?
 
Maybe Savoy refuses the acquisition on account of it being a large portion of land that might cause sour relations?
No way. Victor Emmanuel was determined to "eat the Italian artichoke one leaf at a time". Your best bet is to have Cavour's view prevail, but once Garibaldi got hold on Sicily, that window of opportunity was gone. By that time, even Cavour, who really did not want the southern lands (he had been the one to put up the Plombières Agreement with Napoleon) at one point wrote to Costantino Nigra "The maccheroni aren't ready yet, but the oranges are on the table, we cannot refuse them". Meaning that, the only guy with the power and will to not annex the South was conscious that there was no turning back.
 
Maybe Savoy refuses the acquisition on account of it being a large portion of land that might cause sour relations?
As a matter of fact. the best way of souring diplomatic relations with France and UK (the relations with Austria are bad and will stay so) is to be instrumental in the setting up a rogue republic in the south of Italy.
 
As a matter of fact. the best way of souring diplomatic relations with France and UK (the relations with Austria are bad and will stay so) is to be instrumental in the setting up a rogue republic in the south of Italy.
Was the invasion of Sicily by Garibaldi an undeclared or illegal war, and if it was then the annexation would be unpopular?
 
Was the invasion of Sicily by Garibaldi an undeclared or illegal war, and if it was then the annexation would be unpopular?
It was insurgency, and not war.
1000 man on two steamers toppled a kingdom with 9 million subjects in barely 5 months. Which of the sides was "unpopular", in your opinion? There's a famous quote by Gladstone, which you probably know. During a visit to Naples and Sicily in 1850, he wrote this description of the benevolent regime of Ferdinand II, aka King Bomb:
"it is the negation of God erected to a system of government"
 
It was insurgency, and not war.
1000 man on two steamers toppled a kingdom with 9 million subjects in barely 5 months. Which of the sides was "unpopular", in your opinion? There's a famous quote by Gladstone, which you probably know. During a visit to Naples and Sicily in 1850, he wrote this description of the benevolent regime of Ferdinand II, aka King Bomb:
What if we kept Charles Albert in power, as in he doesn’t abdicate in favour of his son?
 
It was insurgency, and not war.
1000 man on two steamers toppled a kingdom with 9 million subjects in barely 5 months. Which of the sides was "unpopular", in your opinion? There's a famous quote by Gladstone, which you probably know. During a visit to Naples and Sicily in 1850, he wrote this description of the benevolent regime of Ferdinand II, aka King Bomb:
It should be pointed out that, while Lord Gladstone's letters were instrumental in the generally bad view most of Europe had of Ferdinand's regime, the facts he described were largely a forgery. He himself admitted in 1852 to have been "partially deceived", and probably never set foot into a Borbonic jail.
 
It was insurgency, and not war.
1000 man on two steamers toppled a kingdom with 9 million subjects in barely 5 months. Which of the sides was "unpopular", in your opinion? There's a famous quote by Gladstone, which you probably know. During a visit to Naples and Sicily in 1850, he wrote this description of the benevolent regime of Ferdinand II, aka King Bomb:
Because, you know, politicians NEVER lies about their enemies, right?
And Ferdinand II of Naples was, without any doubt, an enemy (and one of the worst kind) to many politicians in London as he was a danger for British influence.
 
Have you ever seen a Savoy refusing extra lands? For that matter, on 21st October 1860 there were two referendums for annexation to Italy, both returning over 99% yes.
As a matter of fact, and here you see once again Garibaldi, the question was not annexation vs. independence, but simply yes or no to annexation. From a legalistic POV, if the "no" had prevailed, it was not clear what would have happened. Possibly the dictatorship which had been granted to Garibaldi would have been prolonged by default, but the guy would have not been happy with it.
Do you really believe who in that referendums the people were really free to vote? Please...
And yes, no way who a Savoy will refute new lands, specially an almost bankrupt one...

As a matter of fact. the best way of souring diplomatic relations with France and UK (the relations with Austria are bad and will stay so) is to be instrumental in the setting up a rogue republic in the south of Italy.
Well, not be so sure... England would be quick to swallow any republic founded by Garibaldi inside their area of influence (and let them free to attack the Pope) and once put the lands of South Italy firmly under their economic and political influence will have no problem with it.
The French would NOT like that at all as they wanted restore the Murats on Naples but they will accept the English takeover sooner or later...
 
Top