A grab-bag of Italy WIs (straddles the fora)

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
1. What if Italy joined in the Russo-Turkish war of 1876-1877 with the aim of acquiring some territorial spoils? I am inclined to think that, for logistical reasons, Italy's only realistic military target could have been Tunisia, if that. Libya seems a bit too distant and large, Asia Minor is right out, and the Dodecanese and Cyprus are probably too far at this stage. Did Italy have the money, army and navy to contemplate any aggression against the Ottomans at this time? Would any of its neighbors disapprove to the point of aiding the Ottomans or imposing an ultimatum on Italy?

2. AH challenge: The Normans unite Italy
Well, in OTL they did manage to unite the southern half of Italy and Sicily, can we plausibly enable them to unite the whole peninsula, or at least everything up to the Rubicon, Arno, or Po rivers?
The Popes and Holy Roman Empire seem to be the biggest obstacle to this. Perhaps a PoD could be Otto the Great not reigning or staying out of Italy entirely.
In the absence of Otto's invasion, his son or his brother, rulers of Swabia and Bavaria, might have taken over north Italy, but perhaps this might not have led to establishment of a Holy Roman Empire and German princely authority might have been weak enough for the Normans to later topple it (though the precise Norman individuals and courses of action would have been changed by butterflies).
Or perhaps Adelaide of Italy never escapes from captivity to appeal to the Germans, and we have Carolingians rule over northern Italy for a time, until someone else, probably Normans, topples them.

3. AH Challenge: Earlier Italian unification (other than Normans)- possible candidates, the kingdom of Naples under the Angevins or Aragonese (as the largest Italian state), Papal states that just keep getting bigger, or an enlarged and enduring Visconti domain. Bonus points if Machiavelli or Leonardo Da Vinci can be made a participant in any unification scenario.

4. AH Challenge: A whole peninsula of city states
Can we plausibly get southern Italy and perhaps the island of Sicily to be as politically fragmented for as long as northern Italy, lots of little republics or principalities based in places like Naples, Salerno, Bari, Palermo, Syracuse.

5. AH Challenge: Restoration of parliamentary rule, toppling of Mussolini, between 1924 and 1939. First of all, can we bring this off, and second of all, how does this affect the international scene (perhaps an earlier Anschluss without the prestigious Mussolini opposing it?). Could we end up with an Italian civil war, mirroring Spain's?

6. AHC Italy conquers Abyssinia before 1914?

7. A different Italo-Ottoman War -
what if Italy lost, or if it gained more, perhaps some territory in coastal Arabia?

8. WI A tougher slog in Ethiopia, 1930s:
Could the Ethiopians have done any better, and if any power in a position to do so had wanted to provide aid, how much aid could the Ethiopians have used to any positive effect for themselves?

9. Mussolini-Stalin Pact of 1940: the partition of Turkey?

10. AHC: Mussolini crushes the coup of 1943

11. WI Hitler endorses an Italian invasion of Yugoslavia (or Greece) in 1939 or summer 1940.

12. AHC: London, Paris support all Italy's territorial claims after WWI

13. VDI Cavour as a teenager, VDI Garibaldi as a teenager?

14. WI Italy gets Trentino in 19th century? What if Germany and Italy end up with a common frontier post 1860?

Discuss, let me know if you have any favorites
 
I have used 3 in my thread with 'a few ideas';
What if the Pope was at very least a figurehead for a warlord, so Rome is the force reuniting Italia (or head it up, or Papal States, etc..)?
 
Personally, I think that number 5 could be best achieved by a different handling of the Matteotti crisis...
 
1. What if Italy joined in the Russo-Turkish war of 1876-1877 with the aim of acquiring some territorial spoils? I am inclined to think that, for logistical reasons, Italy's only realistic military target could have been Tunisia, if that. Libya seems a bit too distant and large, Asia Minor is right out, and the Dodecanese and Cyprus are probably too far at this stage. Did Italy have the money, army and navy to contemplate any aggression against the Ottomans at this time? Would any of its neighbors disapprove to the point of aiding the Ottomans or imposing an ultimatum on Italy?

At the time Tunisia was only under nominal rule of the Ottoman and very throughfully economically penetrated by Italy (was basically a de facto protectorate) and the government of the time thinked that business was better than force to acquire colony. Secondly even if Italfy had the resource for that move the British will probably had not reacted very well at a land grab like that and avert London ire was a top priority.


5. AH Challenge: Restoration of parliamentary rule, toppling of Mussolini, between 1924 and 1939. First of all, can we bring this off, and second of all, how does this affect the international scene (perhaps an earlier Anschluss without the prestigious Mussolini opposing it?). Could we end up with an Italian civil war, mirroring Spain's?

The murder of Matteotti is the best (and frankly only occasion except the killing of Benny), maybe the opposition find a real leader or the king see the light of how the Fascist can't be trusted. The problem is that the spectre of a civil war it will be very real, at least i expect an authoritarian government for a while to keep things sedated, if fail things will be very bad

6. AHC Italy conquers Abyssinia before 1914?

Basically Italy win at Adua...a classic bring defeat from the jaw of victory. For consequence well politically the career of Francesco Crispi will not end and his authoritarian method can cause problem internally later, internationally with the problem of pacify Ethiopia i don't know if there were enough resource for the conquest of Libya and it's more probably that even if such move will be attempted the offer of the Porte of a de jure Ottoman rule and de facto italian administration that in OTL was refused here will be accepted.


12. AHC: London, Paris support all Italy's territorial claims after WWI

The italian army instead of concentrating his effort on a possible offensive on the south of Germany begin immediatly the occupation of the promised zone basically giving a fait accompli and use the spalato incident as an excuse to sort out slavic nationalistic.
Paris support Italy territorial claims is difficult, Yugoslavia was set up (at first with Russian later with French help) for the reason to chech italian expansion in the balkan, maybe if in exchange of Dalmatia, Istria and Fiume there were no request of colony or other ruckus and at the Versailles conferece the italian delegation don't leave so the other delegation basically sort out all without them it can be possible
 
13. VDI? what is that? Venereal disease infection? Veteranary doctorate indicated? Vermouth daquiri intoxication

I qssume its a what if we get rid of or something,, but i cant thinkwhat.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Ubergeek, I will check out your thread--

Dathi - I think VDI means "very dead individual". At least that's the context of how the term is used on soc.history.what-if. Maybe I should have changed my wording to avoid confusion on this forum.

Luke -

At the time Tunisia was only under nominal rule of the Ottoman and very throughfully economically penetrated by Italy (was basically a de facto protectorate) and the government of the time thinked that business was better than force to acquire colony.

Wow, I did not know that it was that extensive. I guess Italy only began to think in terms of needing formal colonies after the Congress of Berlin showed the British and Russians and Austrians getting concessions while Italian diplomats got nbothing and were cursed for it.

Secondly even if Italfy had the resource for that move the British will probably had not reacted very well at a land grab like that and avert London ire was a top priority.

I am surprised that Britain was the primary objector you thought of, and not France, which ended up seizing Tunis just a couple years later. BTW, did Britain object strongly to the French seizure of the territory?


The murder of Matteotti is the best (and frankly only occasion except the killing of Benny), maybe the opposition find a real leader or the king see the light of how the Fascist can't be trusted. The problem is that the spectre of a civil war it will be very real, at least i expect an authoritarian government for a while to keep things sedated, if fail things will be very bad

Good points on Matteotti. This is a well-known turning point, and I have gotten similar responses elewhere when I tried this out.

For my purposes I am interested in somehow removing Mussolini after Hitler takes power but before World War Two starts. (in part because aborting the Facist dictatorship in Italy can easily butterfly away the Hitler dictatorship).

Perhaps making post-Mussolini Italy in the 30s a parliamentary democracy is too much to ask for, but if Mussolini is for some reason removed by coup or accident is the most likely successor a single strongman, or a collective leadership?


Basically Italy win at Adua...a classic bring defeat from the jaw of victory. For consequence well politically the career of Francesco Crispi will not end and his authoritarian method can cause problem internally later, internationally with the problem of pacify Ethiopia i don't know if there were enough resource for the conquest of Libya and it's more probably that even if such move will be attempted the offer of the Porte of a de jure Ottoman rule and de facto italian administration that in OTL was refused here will be accepted.

hmmm, I wonder if this could forestall the Balkan League's attack on the Ottomans, or give the Ottomans a chance to resist the League better.


The italian army instead of concentrating his effort on a possible offensive on the south of Germany begin immediatly the occupation of the promised zone basically giving a fait accompli and use the spalato incident as an excuse to sort out slavic nationalistic.

potentially interesting long-term knock-on effects from that..

Paris support Italy territorial claims is difficult, Yugoslavia was set up (at first with Russian later with French help) for the reason to chech italian expansion in the balkan,

The Russians had the sentimental connection of Orthodoxy and Panslavism. Why did France care to restrict Italy in the Balkans so much? Isn't there more to gain being friendly with Rome than Belgrade?


maybe if in exchange of Dalmatia, Istria and Fiume there were no request of colony or other ruckus and at the Versailles conferece the italian delegation don't leave so the other delegation basically sort out all without them it can be possible
hmm, maybe so.
 
I am surprised that Britain was the primary objector you thought of, and not France, which ended up seizing Tunis just a couple years later. BTW, did Britain object strongly to the French seizure of the territory?

I think it is because the British did not want the same power to control access between the eastern and western Mediterranean, which would cut Britain off from the Suez Canal and India. Also, IIRC, at the time Italy was part of the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary, and thus more of a potential foe than France.
 
Dathi - I think VDI means "very dead individual". At least that's the context of how the term is used on soc.history.what-if. Maybe I should have changed my wording to avoid confusion on this forum.

Luke -

Cavour or Garibaldi dead as teenager? That can seriously butterly the italian unification for a couple of decade, well honestly more probably Cavour death as he was the mind behind the all affair (and is work on modernize the Piedmontese economy and was instrumental on create the proper base for the later expansion)



Wow, I did not know that it was that extensive. I guess Italy only began to think in terms of needing formal colonies after the Congress of Berlin showed the British and Russians and Austrians getting concessions while Italian diplomats got nbothing and were cursed for it.

No Tunisia as so near to the sicilian coast and with good agricolture possibilities was almost immediatly intended as a natural outlet for the italian colonial effort both in term of business and for emigration, from 1868 there were a treaty giving italian lot of privilege, at the time Italy was very diplomatic isolated and on bad terms with France so Paris decided to get two objective with one move and grabbed Tunisia.


I am surprised that Britain was the primary objector you thought of, and not France, which ended up seizing Tunis just a couple years later. BTW, did Britain object strongly to the French seizure of the territory?

London was happy so there weren't a single power who controlled both side of the sicily strait so there were no menace to Suez and Italy angered by this move and knowing that there were nothing than can be done entered in the Triple alliance.



Good points on Matteotti. This is a well-known turning point, and I have gotten similar responses elewhere when I tried this out.

It was a very close call for the fascist, unfortunaly even if a terrible manager Benny was the damned best italian politician of his generation
For my purposes I am interested in somehow removing Mussolini after Hitler takes power but before World War Two starts. (in part because aborting the Facist dictatorship in Italy can easily butterfly away the Hitler dictatorship).

Perhaps making post-Mussolini Italy in the 30s a parliamentary democracy is too much to ask for, but if Mussolini is for some reason removed by coup or accident is the most likely successor a single strongman, or a collective leadership?

Mussolini basically neutered any possible internal opposition in the fascist party, skilfully playing one against the other all possible competent successor. Coup is out of the question (except just before the declaration of war, rumors say that the king asked Ciano to remove is father in law from power and take control of the goverment with the monarchy blessing as all were aware of the state of the armed forces), an accident is more probable IRC during a test of an airplane prototype where he was invited ( and taken his daughter with him) there was a terrible chrash but the pilot succesfully avoided any other victim except himself.
A strongman is very doubtfull the only one with that possibility is Balbo (for this reason was 'exiled' in Libya), a collective dictatorship with the king oversight is so probable to become the only option in case of death of the Duce.

hmmm, I wonder if this could forestall the Balkan League's attack on the Ottomans, or give the Ottomans a chance to resist the League better.




potentially interesting long-term knock-on effects from that..


The Russians had the sentimental connection of Orthodoxy and Panslavism. Why did France care to restrict Italy in the Balkans so much? Isn't there more to gain being friendly with Rome than Belgrade?

Basically they don't want a neighbour too much powerfull or influential, simple politics and honestly our relationship with France till after the end of WWII was never really good (if A-H was our number 1 enemy France easily get the number 2 slot)


hmm, maybe so.

But remember that the 'Vittoria mutilata' myth played a good parts on the fascist rise of power, yes there were ton of other reason, the death, the economic crisis other problem that the war exacerbated. But a early end of the negotation with no retire of the italian delegation (and later humilianting return) and no 'Impresa di Fiume' by D'Annunzio can greatly diminishing the sensation that the democratic instituion are discredited and useless, Benny can still get the power but it will be harder
 
2. AH challenge: The Normans unite Italy
Well, in OTL they did manage to unite the southern half of Italy and Sicily, can we plausibly enable them to unite the whole peninsula, or at least everything up to the Rubicon, Arno, or Po rivers? The Popes and Holy Roman Empire seem to be the biggest obstacle to this. [/QUOTE]

This might not be an overwhelming problem. Roger II, King of Sicily (1095-1154, reigned 1130-1154). Faced an organized campaign by the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor against him. He won. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_II_of_Sicily

"Upon the death of Pope Honorius in February 1130 there were two claimants to the papal throne. Roger supported Antipope Anacletus II against Innocent II. The reward was a crown, and, on 27 September 1130, Anacletus' papal bull made Roger king of Sicily. He was crowned in Palermo on the Christmas Day 1130. ...This plunged Roger into a ten-year war. The famous Bernard of Clairvaux, Innocent's champion, organized a coalition against Anacletus and his "half-heathen king." He was joined by Louis VI of France, Henry I of England, and Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor. Meanwhile southern Italy revolted."

"In 1136, the long-awaited imperial army, led by Lothair and the duke of Bavaria, Henry the Proud, descended the peninsula to support the three rebels. Henry, Robert, and Ranulf took a large contingent of troops to besiege the peninsular capital of the kingdom, Salerno. Roger remained in Sicily, leaving its mainland garrisons helpless under the chancellor Robert of Selby, while even the Byzantine emperor John II Comnenus sent subsidies to Lothair. Salerno surrendered, and the large army of Germans and Normans marched to the very south of Apulia."

"There, in June 1137, Lothair besieged and took Bari. At San Severino, after the victorious campaign, he and the pope jointly invested Ranulf as duke of Apulia (August 1137), and the emperor then retired to Germany. Roger, freed from the utmost danger, immediately disembarked in Calabria, at Tropea, with 400 knights and other troops, probably mostly Muslims. After having been welcomed by the Salernitans, he recovered ground in Campania, sacking Pozzuoli, Alife, Capua, and Avellino. Sergius, terrified, was forced to acknowledge him as overlord of Naples and sway his allegiance to Anacletus: that moment marked the fall of an independent Neapolitan duchy, and thereafter the ancient city was fully integrated into the Norman realm."

"Thence Roger moved to Benevento and northern Apulia, where Duke Ranulf, although steadily losing his bases of power, had some German troops plus some 1,500 knight from the cities of Melfi, Trani, Troia, and Bari, who were "ready to die instead to lead a miserable life." On 30 October 1137, at the Battle of Rignano (next to Monte Gargano), the younger Roger and his father, with Sergius of Naples, met the defensive army of Duke Ranulf. It was the greatest defeat of Roger II's career. His son fought with courage, and Sergius died honourably in battle, but Roger himself fled the field to Salerno."

"It capped the meteoric career of Ranulf: twice victor over Roger. Anacletus II died in January 1138, but Innocent II refused to reconcile with the King.
In Spring 1138, the royal army invaded the Principality of Capua, with the precise intent of avoiding a pitched battle and of dispersing Ranulf's army with a series of marches along sharp terrain. While the count of Alife lacked decision, Roger, now supported by Benevento, destroyed all the rebels' castles in the region, capturing an immense booty. Ranulf himself, who had taken refuge in Troia, his capital, was killed by a malaric fever on 30 April 1139."

"After the death of Anacletus in January 1138, Roger had sought the confirmation of his title from Innocent. However, the pope wanted an independent Principality of Capua as a buffer state between the Kingdom of Sicily and the Papal States, something Roger would not accept. In the summer of 1139, Innocent II invaded the kingdom with a large army, but was ambushed at Galluccio on (22 July 1139), southeast of present-day Cassino, by Roger's son and was captured. Three days later, by the Treaty of Mignano, the pope proclaimed Roger II as rex Siciliae ducatus Apuliae et principatus Capuae. The boundaries of his regno were only later fixed by a truce with the pope in October 1144. These lands were for the next seven centuries to constitute the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily."


The main reason for Roger's victory was that the Kingdom of Sicily turned out to be far more stable than either of its two main opponents, as well as having better financial policies. A turning point could be Roger II's attitude during the 1143 Roman revolt of Giordano Pierleoni. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Pierleoni

"In late autumn 1143, the democratic element in Rome set up a Senate in opposition to the higher nobility and the papacy. Drawing on the glorious ancient Roman Republic, the citizens declared a senate, based on four elected representatives from each of the newly created fourteen districts of medieval Rome, the first real senators since the seventh century. The fifty six senators then elected as patrician Pierleoni, because the title of consul had taken on noble connotations.

Pierleoni led the defence of the city against Pope Lucius II's assault in 1145, where Lucius himself was killed. However, Pierleoni could not maintain order in the city and, despite his overtures of negotiations with Lucius—demanding the pope renounce secular authority and live as a common priest before being allowed reentry into the city, —he was deposed by the people, who invited Pope Eugene III, Lucius' successor, back.

The power vacuum left by Pierleoni's deposition caused even more anarchy and eventually the pope left and a less illustrious man than Giordano, Giacomo da Vico, was elected patrician—though a man his equal, Arnold of Brescia, had arrived in the commune in 1145. Arnold would renew the commune, giving it the intellectual leadership it lacked after Pierleoni's downfall."

If Roger II used the municipal revolt to march to Rome to either "protect" the Papacy or play "patron" to the new Roman Senate, Roger could have turned the Papal States into a protectorate.
 
1. What if Italy joined in the Russo-Turkish war of 1876-1877 with the aim of acquiring some territorial spoils? I am inclined to think that, for logistical reasons, Italy's only realistic military target could have been Tunisia, if that. Libya seems a bit too distant and large, Asia Minor is right out, and the Dodecanese and Cyprus are probably too far at this stage. Did Italy have the money, army and navy to contemplate any aggression against the Ottomans at this time? Would any of its neighbors disapprove to the point of aiding the Ottomans or imposing an ultimatum on Italy?
In March 1876 the Italian left formed their first government; one month later a leftist government was also formed in France. On the strength of the strong economic influence of France in Italy, as well as for ideological reasons, the two nations got reasonably closer, although this rapprochement was never formalised by a treaty. The French government was overturned in May 1877, and replaced by a clerico-monarchist government, which picked up again the issue of the status of the pope. Italy was essentially isolated, and looked for some defensive alliance: there were three possible candidates, Germany, Great Britain and Russia. The last option was also the most unlikely one: Russia did not show interest, there was no precedent of friendly relations and the public sentiment was strongly anti-Russian. The government sent Francesco Crispi on a tour of the main European capitals, and he visited
Paris, Berlin, London and Vienna. The preference would have been to resuscitate the alliance with Germany as in 1866, but Bismarck was just willing to enter in an alliance against France: he had no interest to antagonise Austria, nor to put any pressure for Italy to obtain Trentino as compensation for any Austrian gain in the Balkans. He suggested that Tunisia or Albania might be a suitable compensation for Italy. Prince Andrassy - the Austrian prime minister - refused to discuss about Trentino or Trieste, and suggested that Italy could find compensation in Tunisia. Lord Derby in London was also reluctant to discuss Trentino or Trieste, and proposed to Italy to look for a compensation in Albania. The problem is that Italian public opinion was not interested - at the time - in Albania or Tunisia: what they wanted was Trentino.
Relations with France improved after the elections in November, which returned a republican government: however Italy was still isolated, and had no clear agenda for the management of the Eastern crisis.
In December 1877 lord Salisbury was in Rome, and proposed a Mediterranean League (formed by GB, Austria and Italy) which would send a joint fleet to Costantinople to put pressure on the Russians. This was considered acceptable, but time passed (and Austria was not willing), and by the time a formal British proposal reached Rome the Depretis government had fallen (March 1878). So nothing came out of this option either, and Italy ended up without friends at the Congress of Berlin (and got nothing out of the settlement). IMHO the British and the German option were both viable (either/or obviously): signing an anti-French alliance with Germany would have given the option to put up pressure on the bey of Tunis, and possibly land troops; siding with Great Britain would have solved the issue of isolation, and would have probably resulted in some gain at the Berlin congress (Tunis, Albania, Crete were possibilities). Most importantly siding with the British would have probably resulted also in a joint intervention in Egypt during the 1880s (which was again proposed by GB IOTL, and declined by Italy): Italy had strong commercial interests in Egypt too, and the canal of Suez was vital for its interests in Eastern Africa.

2. AH challenge: The Normans unite Italy
Well, in OTL they did manage to unite the southern half of Italy and Sicily, can we plausibly enable them to unite the whole peninsula, or at least everything up to the Rubicon, Arno, or Po rivers?
The Popes and Holy Roman Empire seem to be the biggest obstacle to this. Perhaps a PoD could be Otto the Great not reigning or staying out of Italy entirely.
In the absence of Otto's invasion, his son or his brother, rulers of Swabia and Bavaria, might have taken over north Italy, but perhaps this might not have led to establishment of a Holy Roman Empire and German princely authority might have been weak enough for the Normans to later topple it (though the precise Norman individuals and courses of action would have been changed by butterflies).
Or perhaps Adelaide of Italy never escapes from captivity to appeal to the Germans, and we have Carolingians rule over northern Italy for a time, until someone else, probably Normans, topples them.

IMHO you are mixing up two different events: Otto I came to Italy in 951, on the invitation of Adelaide, dowager queen of Italy, who was besieged in the castle of Canossa by Berengar of Ivrea. IOTL the lord of Canossa (who's a direct ancestor of Mathilda, btw) supported Adelaide and was instrumental in arranging her marriage with Otto (and was handsomely rewarded for this, obviously). It would have been interesting to consider what would have happened if Atto of Canossa had sided with Berengar (who was also looking for a marriage with Adelaide, since this would have provided legitimacy to gis pursue of the Italian crown): maybe Otto would never descend into Italy (or he would be defeated) and history would be very different.

The Normans started to arrive in southern Italy around the end of the 10th century (therefore Adelaide is no more involved). Assuming that everything goes more or less as IOTL, they might theoretically try and unify Italy. However this is not very likely, since the Normans were mostly looking at Greece, North Africa and Outremer for aggrandizement. Their main interest in Italy was the consolidation of their mainland possessions, as well as keeping an eye on the pope, who was their nominal overlord and who was not at all happy of having a strong centralised state so close to his borders. IMHO the Normans would need two things at least: the first is to avoid the marriage between Constance of Hauteville and Henry Houenstaufen (which ended up in the effective incorporation of the Norman kingdom in the empire); the second is to achieve a substantial dominance either in Greece (very very difficult) or in Outremer/Egypt which would provide wealth to finance the expansion in Italy (also difficult, but IMHO a Norman conquest of Egypt might be possible).

3. AH Challenge: Earlier Italian unification (other than Normans)- possible candidates, the kingdom of Naples under the Angevins or Aragonese (as the largest Italian state), Papal states that just keep getting bigger, or an enlarged and enduring Visconti domain. Bonus points if Machiavelli or Leonardo Da Vinci can be made a participant in any unification scenario.
Gian Galeazzo Visconti is your best bet for early unification. Avoid his untimely death in 1402 (he was young enough to look forward to another 20 years of reign) and he might consolidate his domains and successfully make a bid for the crown of Italy (or maybe have his son do that).
Other possibilities include Bonifacio of Canossa surviving in 1052 (killed by an arrow while hunting near Mantua, allegedly upon instruction of the emperor): Bonifacio can live another 10 or 20 years, and pass his huge estate to his son, Federico (who also died under suspicious circumstances not long after his father). Or the marriage between his dauther Mathilda and Godwyn the Hunchback is more successful than IOTL (ok, and Mathilda does not fall in love with the pope, but that's another story). In either case a successful Canossa dinasty is established and will become soon or later strong enough for the Italian crown.
Another possibility (much harder) might be the informal balance of power among the major Italian states in the 15th century to become formalised as a confederation, possibly with the pope at its head.
Or a more successful (and far-seeing) Venice supporting the repubblica Ambrosiana after the Visconti line dies out: Milan plus Venice would probably be able to pull also Florence in their orbit and would have the population and financial resources to keep any interloper out.
4. AH Challenge: A whole peninsula of city states
Can we plausibly get southern Italy and perhaps the island of Sicily to be as politically fragmented for as long as northern Italy, lots of little republics or principalities based in places like Naples, Salerno, Bari, Palermo, Syracuse.
Very unlikely. It would require that the Normans still manage to take Sicily from the Saracens, but fail in the unification of their OTL mainland possessions. And in any case Sicily would be centralised.

6. AHC Italy conquers Abyssinia before 1914?
Yes, Adua was a defeat precipitated by poor planning and worse generalship, but such things happen in colonial war. The problem was the political situation in Italy.

7. A different Italo-Ottoman War -
what if Italy lost, or if it gained more, perhaps some territory in coastal Arabia?
Loosing is almost Asbish. The Ottomans could not (nor tried) to contest Italian dominance at sea. The occupation of the Dodecannese and the naval actions against the Dardanelles are good proof of this.
Getting more than Italy did is not possible either.

8. WI A tougher slog in Ethiopia, 1930s:
Could the Ethiopians have done any better, and if any power in a position to do so had wanted to provide aid, how much aid could the Ethiopians have used to any positive effect for themselves?
There is just one way to derail the Italian invasion: close the Suez canal to Italian ships. No one was willing to break a sweat for Ethiopia, much less take the risk of a war. The war took eight months from the declaration of war to the occupation of Addis Ababa, and is more or less par for the course (most of the problems are logistics, Ethiopian resistance could not really change the outcome)

9. Mussolini-Stalin Pact of 1940: the partition of Turkey?
Pure ASB


12. AHC: London, Paris support all Italy's territorial claims after WWI
The French wanted to create a counterweight to Italian expansion in the Balkans. They came out with the idea of Yugoslavia (which together with Poland, Czechoslovakia and possibly Rumania would have formed the "little Entente"), to stop Italian influence and to keep a watch on revanchist aspirations of the defeated CPs. Obviously they managed to piss up Italy, and the little Entente was not a success.

13. VDI Cavour as a teenager, VDI Garibaldi as a teenager?
Hard to guess. My take is that butterflying away Cavour is a real disaster. Possibly no Garibaldi would be much easier to manage.

14. WI Italy gets Trentino in 19th century? What if Germany and Italy end up with a common frontier post 1860?

Discuss, let me know if you have any favorites

Either during the 1866 war (Garibaldi's irregulars had already occupied all of Trentino and South Tyrol before the armistice) or as a compensation for the Austrian annexation of Bosnia. An alternate history alternative would call for Italy to participate in the 1870 war too, with Austria looking for a rematch.
 
I like the idea of the Hohenstaufens uniting Italy. I think that the right POD can be found, given the early disputes between Guelphs and Ghibellines having had a sort of north/south dynamic within the HRE.

Imagine, for example, a sixteenth century "Holy Roman Empire of the Italian Nation" under all but official Sicilian temporal leadership.
 
Top