Well, your challenge is to have Naples Sicily instead of Sardinia-Piedmont unify the Italian peninsula. The POD must be sometime after 1500 and before 1800.
Discuss!
Discuss!
AH Challenge! Naples-Sicily Unifies Italy
- Thread starter Silent Cal
- Start date
I've tried that.... Its HARD! I'm not sure how it would happen as the south wasn't in as good a position as the north. Also, one must remember that the Spanish ruled the south for a while. Maybe if the Spanish helped militarily? But then its not really Italy is it?... More of a Spanish puppet Italy.
I've tried that.... Its HARD! I'm not sure how it would happen as the south wasn't in as good a position as the north. Also, one must remember that the Spanish ruled the south for a while. Maybe if the Spanish helped militarily? But then its not really Italy is it?... More of a Spanish puppet Italy.
Maybe a spanish monarch wills the mezzogiorno, sicily, sardinia, to a younger son or brother, thus creating a cadet branch supported by the Spanish branch (similar to how the spanish installed a cadet branch after the war of polish succession). Maybe butterflies strengthen france's hand in northern italy, weakening the other states, and making it easier for this two-sicilies to conquer the rump of the italian penninsula.
Perhaps France and Phillip V are wildly successful in the War of Spanish succession, taking the Duchy of Milan and Naples which are merged as one crown. Then France and Spain supported their fellow Bourbon kinsmen in gaining control over the rest of the Italian states.
Can't do. Not in the period indicated.
It might be done prior to 1500 or alternatively post-1800
It might be done prior to 1500 or alternatively post-1800
Grey Wolf
Donor
I was rexckoning that Murat in an ATL might be a way of doing it, but as you say its outside the stated period
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Murat is certainly an option I had in mind in the 1815s +; in the 1830s Ferdinand of Two Sicilies would be another possible candidate: the guy was quite intelligent, but his indolence (and a hefty touch of paranoia) ruined him.
In the 15th century, the Aragonese (together with the Sforza) might have had a (slim) chance.
The Normans (and even better the Houenstaufen) are really too easy.
That would be interesting, although I don't know how plausible it is once Napoleon has been defeated. Maybe Murat has better timing and/or luck in 1815, butterflies leading to (or ensuing from) Napoleon ecking out some manner of victory against the coalition. At the very least, this saves Murat's throne, and perhaps places Naples as the preeminent (native) italian power.
But I digress.
What you mean is that would have taken a better Murat and a few lucky breaks to succeed. Still 1815 was a chaotic year, and Murat was seen by Italian patriots as the only chance to unification. He took an army north, occupying Marche and reaching Romagna: he might have succeeded, taking advantage of the divisions among the powers. But then Napoleon went on his escapade, Murat vacillated and and Austrian army defeated him.
Eurofed has used this POD in his Australasian TL
Maybe if Murat gets more substantial support by Italian patriots, he can have some success in the north.
Basically, my thinking is this: Murat can win, at least temporarily, depending on certain factors (a less redy austria, more support from the northern italians, etc...). However, he cannot do so under the conditions of 1814 (in fact, he probably can't hold his throne for long). If Napoleon returns, however, and Murat times things right, he can gain some success and then be forgotten. So if Murat marches north, he may be able to temporarily expel the Austrians, perhaps even diverting troops from Schwarzenberg's army massing against Bonaparte. However, the Austrian's aren't going to commit their major armies against Murat unless Napoleon is defeated, so as long as the Empire survives, Murat has a respite. if Napoleon can hold onto his throne, a ceasefire may leave Murat in control of his recent conquests, (and maybe Sicily to boot)...
My take is that Murat during the first phase of the Congress of Vienna should have tried to align with the Russo-Prussians, rather than seeking an accomodation with Austria and GB as he did without success IOTL. I think that the czar Alexander might have been willing to listen, given his desire to play a bigger role in Europe. In late 1814 and beginning of 1815 the divisions between Russia and Prussia on one side and Austrai, GB and France on the other one were becoming hard to manage and it was not unlikely that the two coalitions would have come to blow on the Saxon issue (and more likely on the whole settlement in the Germanies). Then at the end of February Napoleon lands in Provence, and Murat makes his move: the Neapolitan army is assembled and moves north, reaching Romagna on the 18 of March, and taking most of Central Italy in a single sweep. The problem IMHO is that Murat has not planned his moves: he's going forward on the spur of the moment, and is unable to decide if he will support Napoleon or make an accomodation with the coalition powers (and with which powers: an appeasement with Austria is quite unlikely, since Austria is considering Italy as its own sphere of influence and is still working to reinstate the Bourbons on the Neapolitan throne). On 30 March he gives the Proclamation of Rimini, calling Italians to arms in the name of unified Italy and freedom: this destroys any possibility to reach an understanding with Austria, but again he has no clear alternatives; there is not too much of an answer from Italian patriots either. April is a lost months for Murat, and he's forced to retreat to avoid being taken in a pincer by two converging Austrian armies. He takes a leaf from Napoleon's book, and tries to fight the two armies separately. The battle is engaged at Tolentino in the Marche on 2 May: the Neapolitans have a slight numerical superiority, but the Austrians enjoy a better position. More importantly the Neapolitans are lacking supplies, and Murat makes a couple of tactical blunders in the battle (the infantry advances in squares, rather than in columns, up the hill slope: the slow approach allows the Austrian artillery to concentrate their fire; there was also a surprising lack of coordination with the cavalry) and looses decisively.
Murat could have planned better the campaign, and certainly should have been more decisive in April, while the Austrian attention was concentrated on Napoleon; more importantly he should have tried to improve earlier his diplomatic position (even if there is a difficulty in conciliating his liberal proclamation for the unity of Italy with the position of the czar). Possibly Murat needed some good advisor to steer his ships in the stormy seas of European diplomacy.
The Rimini proclamation can be found here:
http://www.regione.piemonte.it/cultura/risorgimento/immagine/00402.htm
It was not a bad one, and with a victory or two under his belt he might have found the popular support he needed, and might have ended up like another Bernadotte. I don't think he could have achieved the unification of Italy in a single blow, but he might consolidate his position in Naples and gain the bulk of the papal states. Then maybe his son manages to unify Italy in the 1830s.