A more fractured Italy
- Thread starter Grey Wolf
- Start date
Bill Cameron
Banned
Grey,
Wasn't unification part of the rhetoric of 1848? It was in Germany, although nothing came of it.
You'd have to either butterfly away that unification ideal or stop the process in midstream somehow. Forex: Sicily breaks away from Naples as pro-unification forces take over there, but then remains independent when the unification movement falters.
Putting it rather oddly, you'll need successful revolutions that fail!
Bill
Wasn't unification part of the rhetoric of 1848? It was in Germany, although nothing came of it.
You'd have to either butterfly away that unification ideal or stop the process in midstream somehow. Forex: Sicily breaks away from Naples as pro-unification forces take over there, but then remains independent when the unification movement falters.
Putting it rather oddly, you'll need successful revolutions that fail!
Bill
It would really depend on POD... if the POD would be in the XIXth century, then it is possible that Napoleon's defeat was not as severe as in OTL, and his relatives were still allowed to keep their Italian holdings, even as Napoleon himself had to abdicate. Better yet, if Napoleon is checked, but allowed to reign in France, a Cold War of sorts might develop, with Italy being the main battleground - the major powers of the continent might encourage division as not to let the other side control or use resources of the entire Italian peninsula.
Going further back, if Ottomans were slightly more successful during their expansion phase, and managed to gain a foothold in Italy that they could keep and integrate into their Empire, it would add another level of complexity to Italian politics. Considering that by XVIth-XVIIth centuryes there were significant Western European powers interested in taking over Italy, the local princes would be more likely to seek support either with them or with the Ottomans, with the end goal being continued independence. Thus, in theory, it is possible to have Italy as a patchwork of small states into the early XXth century, divided across the geographical and religious lines.
Not sure how plausible the latter scenario is, as it presumes slower (or lack of) Ottoman decline - however the inclusion of at least parts of Italy in the Empire could have that exact effect by bleeding through some of European Renaissanse, and thus allowing the Ottomans to remain on par with the rest of Europe technologically and scientifically even by the XIXth century.
Going further back, if Ottomans were slightly more successful during their expansion phase, and managed to gain a foothold in Italy that they could keep and integrate into their Empire, it would add another level of complexity to Italian politics. Considering that by XVIth-XVIIth centuryes there were significant Western European powers interested in taking over Italy, the local princes would be more likely to seek support either with them or with the Ottomans, with the end goal being continued independence. Thus, in theory, it is possible to have Italy as a patchwork of small states into the early XXth century, divided across the geographical and religious lines.
Not sure how plausible the latter scenario is, as it presumes slower (or lack of) Ottoman decline - however the inclusion of at least parts of Italy in the Empire could have that exact effect by bleeding through some of European Renaissanse, and thus allowing the Ottomans to remain on par with the rest of Europe technologically and scientifically even by the XIXth century.
Alex, I was thinking of setting the POD after Napoleon completely. IIRC in c1820 there were revolutions across Italy, as well as Spain, though I would need to look up the details.
Regarding 1848, I was thinking along the lines that Bill suggests. The initial success of the revolutions, then somehow the failure of their longer-term aims without complete collapse occurs.
Whether you could posit a weaker Austria to achieve this, I am not sure. If Hungary breaks free, and revolution engulfs Vienna more spectacularly, then the eventual resurrection of Habsburg power could be weaker in scope. If Lombardy and Venetia have established governments that now look too strong to assault, the restoration of Habsburg and French authority within their own heartlands could be strong enough to prevent moves towards unification but too weak to crush these new states.
If Sicily succeeds in breaking free, perhaps it drains the Two Sicilies (now just Naples) so much that Mazzini's Roman Republic survives, thus weakening the conservative focus in the Papal States.
A late and weaker restoration of Habsburg power could still see Austria intervene to prop up Tuscany etc, and an alliance with France in preventing the unification of the states.
Grey Wolf
Regarding 1848, I was thinking along the lines that Bill suggests. The initial success of the revolutions, then somehow the failure of their longer-term aims without complete collapse occurs.
Whether you could posit a weaker Austria to achieve this, I am not sure. If Hungary breaks free, and revolution engulfs Vienna more spectacularly, then the eventual resurrection of Habsburg power could be weaker in scope. If Lombardy and Venetia have established governments that now look too strong to assault, the restoration of Habsburg and French authority within their own heartlands could be strong enough to prevent moves towards unification but too weak to crush these new states.
If Sicily succeeds in breaking free, perhaps it drains the Two Sicilies (now just Naples) so much that Mazzini's Roman Republic survives, thus weakening the conservative focus in the Papal States.
A late and weaker restoration of Habsburg power could still see Austria intervene to prop up Tuscany etc, and an alliance with France in preventing the unification of the states.
Grey Wolf
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Hmm. I'm having a hard time coming up with anything. I think you're on the right track, though - the South, and in particular Sicily, have different histories and cultures that make them less likely to want to be subsumed into an Italian state. Sicily would probably have to become independent as early as possible and be a successful concern.
For some reason, Sicily voted fairly strongly to retain the monarchy after WWII - I'm not sure what that means, other than that they were anti-socialist?
For some reason, Sicily voted fairly strongly to retain the monarchy after WWII - I'm not sure what that means, other than that they were anti-socialist?
Grey Wolf said:
This excellent website
http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/contents.htm
has a good article on events in Lombardy-Venetia
http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ip/lombardy.htm
Grey Wolf
http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/contents.htm
has a good article on events in Lombardy-Venetia
http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ip/lombardy.htm
Grey Wolf
He returned to fight in the campaign of the summer of 1813; Napoleon gave him the command of the Army of the South, assigned to contain the Schwarzenberg coalition. After the defeat at Leipzig (October 16-19, 1813), he returned to his kingdom. In January 1814, he signed a treaty with Austria.
At the Congress of Vienna of 1815, the generous monies he paid the diplomats, particularly Talleyrand, served no purpose. There was the possibility that the Bourbons might return to the Neapolitan throne. A desperate Murat looked for opportunities on all sides; he wrote a cordial letter to Louis XVIII and joined Napoleon in exile on Elba. The latter informed him of his plans to return. Murat declared war on Austria as soon as he learned the Emperor had landed. He soon occupied Rome, Ancona and Bologna. He launched a proclamation from Rimini, calling for the unification of Italy. Austrian troops, led by Neipperg, soon encircled him and he was defeated at Tolentino, on April 21, 1815.
Murat had to flee while Ferdinand regained the throne. He arrived in France, but Napoleon refused to see him. In Corsica, he assembled 600 men, enough for him to dream of reconquering Italy. He sailed for the Italian coast, landed at Pizzo and was taken prisoner. A decree from the king ordered the commission who tried him to allow him "half an hour to receive the last rites." Murat himself gave the order to fire, on October 13, 1815.
http://www.napoleonseries.org/articles/biographies/marshals/murat.cfm
These are the last years of the life of Joachim Murat. In January 1814, he had signed a treaty with Austria. Let's assume that he refrains from picking up again arms during the 100 days, and that at the Congress of Vienna he is confirmed on the throne of Naples.
Sicily remains under the Bourbons (at least for the time being). You have already a first major split.
The second one should be in 1849 (the 1821 insurrections never had a chance). The 1848 insurrectionary motes are slightly more successful, even if at the end they are crushed. However, Austria does not do so well in the war with Piedmont, which ends up in a substantial draw. One of the provisions of the peace is independence and neutrality for Milan (something similar to Belgium, with french, piedmontese and Austrian guarantee. Might be nice to have a republic: after the insurrection of March 1848, the moderates were successful in gaining power and asking for union with Piedmont. In TTL, the moderates loose the power fight, and the revolutionaries never ask for the union). The second provision, however, is that Piedmont too looses something: Genoa regains independence (again as a neutral, guaranteed republic).
Mazzini gets to be practical for a moment (almost ASB
), and instead of proclaiming the Roman Republic (which is doomed from the beginning) proclaims a republic in the papal lands of Emilia and Romagna. Given the slightly different political sentiment of TTL, this republic is accepted.
Mind, it is very unlikely that all of these small states might last in the nationalistic climate of the mid-19th century. It would be interesting, though.
If you are willing to stretch things even more, by 1900 both Milan and Genoa are "associated" to Switzerland (not as cantons - it would change too much the ethnic and religious status quo), under a guarantee of perpetual neutrality.
At the Congress of Vienna of 1815, the generous monies he paid the diplomats, particularly Talleyrand, served no purpose. There was the possibility that the Bourbons might return to the Neapolitan throne. A desperate Murat looked for opportunities on all sides; he wrote a cordial letter to Louis XVIII and joined Napoleon in exile on Elba. The latter informed him of his plans to return. Murat declared war on Austria as soon as he learned the Emperor had landed. He soon occupied Rome, Ancona and Bologna. He launched a proclamation from Rimini, calling for the unification of Italy. Austrian troops, led by Neipperg, soon encircled him and he was defeated at Tolentino, on April 21, 1815.
Murat had to flee while Ferdinand regained the throne. He arrived in France, but Napoleon refused to see him. In Corsica, he assembled 600 men, enough for him to dream of reconquering Italy. He sailed for the Italian coast, landed at Pizzo and was taken prisoner. A decree from the king ordered the commission who tried him to allow him "half an hour to receive the last rites." Murat himself gave the order to fire, on October 13, 1815.
http://www.napoleonseries.org/articles/biographies/marshals/murat.cfm
These are the last years of the life of Joachim Murat. In January 1814, he had signed a treaty with Austria. Let's assume that he refrains from picking up again arms during the 100 days, and that at the Congress of Vienna he is confirmed on the throne of Naples.
Sicily remains under the Bourbons (at least for the time being). You have already a first major split.
The second one should be in 1849 (the 1821 insurrections never had a chance). The 1848 insurrectionary motes are slightly more successful, even if at the end they are crushed. However, Austria does not do so well in the war with Piedmont, which ends up in a substantial draw. One of the provisions of the peace is independence and neutrality for Milan (something similar to Belgium, with french, piedmontese and Austrian guarantee. Might be nice to have a republic: after the insurrection of March 1848, the moderates were successful in gaining power and asking for union with Piedmont. In TTL, the moderates loose the power fight, and the revolutionaries never ask for the union). The second provision, however, is that Piedmont too looses something: Genoa regains independence (again as a neutral, guaranteed republic).
Mazzini gets to be practical for a moment (almost ASB
), and instead of proclaiming the Roman Republic (which is doomed from the beginning) proclaims a republic in the papal lands of Emilia and Romagna. Given the slightly different political sentiment of TTL, this republic is accepted.Mind, it is very unlikely that all of these small states might last in the nationalistic climate of the mid-19th century. It would be interesting, though.
If you are willing to stretch things even more, by 1900 both Milan and Genoa are "associated" to Switzerland (not as cantons - it would change too much the ethnic and religious status quo), under a guarantee of perpetual neutrality.