Naples (and possibly Sicily too) will be in a much better shape than they were (and unfortunately still are) IOTL. OTOH the natural advantages of the Po valley (ease of communications, abundant water, hydropower to run textile mills, much better agricultural land, closeness to European markets) are such that - barring a catastrophe - the Po valley is going to be a hub for industrialization. What I would anticipate would be a development more or less similar to OTL for Piedmont-Lombardy-Liguria. Better development for Emilia-Romagna and Tuscany. Much, much better development for the south of Italy. It obviously depends on the actual way the Italian unification will be achieved (on second thoughts I'd be surprised if the earlier development of Emilia and Tuscany will not have a positive impact on the economy and development of the regions north of the Po).
An Ausonian Tale: the Kingdom of Naples in the XIX century
- Thread starter Yanez de Gomera
- Start date
Naples (and possibly Sicily too) will be in a much better shape than they were (and unfortunately still are) IOTL. OTOH the natural advantages of the Po valley (ease of communications, abundant water, hydropower to run textile mills, much better agricultural land, closeness to European markets) are such that - barring a catastrophe - the Po valley is going to be a hub for industrialization. What I would anticipate would be a development more or less similar to OTL for Piedmont-Lombardy-Liguria. Better development for Emilia-Romagna and Tuscany. Much, much better development for the south of Italy. It obviously depends on the actual way the Italian unification will be achieved (on second thoughts I'd be surprised if the earlier development of Emilia and Tuscany will not have a positive impact on the economy and development of the regions north of the Po).
Thank you! Updates might be sporadic, but will continue!
Welcome back!
Good to hear you're out of the woods with your exams.
Not quite yet: the Tesi di Laurea won't write by itself!
Your update on the creation of the Lega Doganale Italiana is quite sensible: it's obvious that such an endeavor would take time and require a lot of time-consuming negotiations. Good point with the associated status given to the Legations: the practical effect is the same, and it avoids another diplomatic row with the Papal States (and possibly Austria too). I agree that the Pope would not want to touch it even with a pole, and that Austria would also refuse to join, dragging along Parma (incidentally, Marie Louise's death was on 17 December 1847, and I don't see any special reason to grant her a lease on life. After her death, Parma should be united with Modena IIRC, and therefore would automatically become part of the customs union). It's a pity that Carlo Alberto refuses to join (I'd assume that there should be pressures from the economic sector of his kingdom to enter the union), but I suppose is part and parcel of his stronger links with Austria).
Very good news about the completion of the railway linking Florence and Bologna. It will give a great boost to the economy and would be very beneficial for Leghorn. The railway from Ferrara to Ravenna is probably a bit premature at this stage (incidentally, what's the status of railway development in the kingdom of Naples?) but I believe that a railway from Ancona to Rimini and Bologna should be in the cards. IMHO the trans-Appenninic railway should accelerate also the works on the railway link between Venice and Milan (if for no other reason, there should be military considerations to push it forward).
I'd draw also your attention to the development of the electric telegraph (have a look at http://downloads.quadratodellaradio...telecomunicazioni per l'unità d'italia(2).pdf).
The first telegraphic line IOTL was built along the Leopoldina line in 1847-48.
ITTL it would be feasible to have it operative 2 or 3 years earlier, so that when the railway between Florence and Bologna is built a telegraphic line will be installed too. Connections to Modena and Ancona should also follow pretty quickly.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the document on the first telegraph lines, I had forgotten them, but I will mention its developement in future updates.
As for the state of railways in the South, there is a map on page 10 showing railroads in ca. 1848: The gulf of Naples area is developing a nice railroad network running north till Caserta and South till Salerno, and there is a transappennine line going to Foggia and from there to Bari.
I think that at the time railroad building would have to be pretty capital intensive for italy, especially because of the lack of good grade coal to smelt rails and the very limited ability to build locomotives and steam engines. Thus transappennine projects are in my mind more viable than apparently easier coastal projects, because they don't have to compete with coastal shipping, at least for the moment.
The railroad between Venice and Milan was completed IOTL in 1857, but it reached Vicenza from Venice and Treviglio from Milan already in 1846.
Here there are more pressing strategical concerns and railroad building is having a generally faster pace, so I think that it would not be unreasonable to have the railway reach Verona from Venice and Bergamo from Milan by 1848, or even to be completed.
Parma will join at the death of Maria Luisa, yes, and according to the Convention of London Carlo Ludovico will be raised to the title of Grand Duke of Emilia.
As for the eventual situation in ATL 2015, I concur with LK's analysis: much depends on how and when unification happens, and to future events like colonization, world wars etc., but Northern Italy is almost assured to be the more prosperous part of Italy. Here however Italian developement will be much more harmonic, so the North South divide won't be so marked. Also, things like endemic clientelism and organised crime will be much much less widespread in this scenario: something like Mafia might still develop, but it would never have the same degree of power it has in otl, it will never become an antistato.
As a plus, here is the list of Neapolitan Prime Ministers:
1809-1821 Giuseppe Zurlo [as Interior Minister until 1816] (moderate)
1821-1828 Luigi Blanch (moderate)
1828-1831 Guglielmo Pepe (radical)
1831-1839 Francesco Ricciardi (moderate)
1839-18?? Carlo Troya (liberal)
modrate, liberal and radical are just placeholders to give a vague idea of the respective political positions.
Railways are certainly capital-intensive, but in the 1800s these infrastructures were built by private ventures and distances in Italy are not so bad after all. IMHO a better and growing economy would attract capitals from abroad as well as domestic investment, in particular if the new railway lines receive attractive concessions and are sponsored by the governments involved.
As far as the production of rails and locomotives, the Custom Union might have interesting butterflies: tariffs might protect the budding heavy industry and a larger potential market would certainly be more attractive. After all, the first rails were produced in Naples in OTL 1855 and ITTL it might be possible to shave a few years from that. I admit it would take some long-term vision, but the men at the helm of the governments in Naples, Modena and Tuscany are better ones than their OTL homologous (or at least they are in a much more secure position and enjoy the benefits of a better political and economical climate).
I still would like to see Cavour in Modena or Bologna in the 1840s
As far as the production of rails and locomotives, the Custom Union might have interesting butterflies: tariffs might protect the budding heavy industry and a larger potential market would certainly be more attractive. After all, the first rails were produced in Naples in OTL 1855 and ITTL it might be possible to shave a few years from that. I admit it would take some long-term vision, but the men at the helm of the governments in Naples, Modena and Tuscany are better ones than their OTL homologous (or at least they are in a much more secure position and enjoy the benefits of a better political and economical climate).
I still would like to see Cavour in Modena or Bologna in the 1840s
It lives again!
Here I come again to An Ausonian Tale. I decided that Dall'Alpe a Sicilia was not going anywhere and it pained me to leave Muratian Naples to whither while standing possibly on the brink of greatness, so I decided to continue this Timeline! Unfortunately, due to time costraints, I won't be able to update very often, nor to do in-depth research on countries outside Europe (sorry South America) but still I will try to bring the story forward and make it as interesting as i can.
Because of how much time elapsed since the last post, I did a little timeline of events so far (and slightly into the future), including most of the significant divergences from OTL.
Here I come again to An Ausonian Tale. I decided that Dall'Alpe a Sicilia was not going anywhere and it pained me to leave Muratian Naples to whither while standing possibly on the brink of greatness, so I decided to continue this Timeline! Unfortunately, due to time costraints, I won't be able to update very often, nor to do in-depth research on countries outside Europe (sorry South America) but still I will try to bring the story forward and make it as interesting as i can.
Because of how much time elapsed since the last post, I did a little timeline of events so far (and slightly into the future), including most of the significant divergences from OTL.
Welcome back.
I do agree that the Ausonian Tale has more potential than the Dall'Alpi a Sicilia: in the latter TL - fascinating as it is - it's more difficult to move forward. IMHO there should be some way to cut the knot of 1848, but frankly I cannot see it clearly enough.
The Ausonian Tale has the advantage to get to the 1848 cusp more than thirty years after the POD, and the world it depicts is significantly different from OTL
EDIT: maybe the way out for the alt-1848 TL is not getting bogged down in the day-by-day details of the war in Italy, but rather jump to the early 1850s and describe the outcome. Some handwavium would be ok, I think
I do agree that the Ausonian Tale has more potential than the Dall'Alpi a Sicilia: in the latter TL - fascinating as it is - it's more difficult to move forward. IMHO there should be some way to cut the knot of 1848, but frankly I cannot see it clearly enough.
The Ausonian Tale has the advantage to get to the 1848 cusp more than thirty years after the POD, and the world it depicts is significantly different from OTL
EDIT: maybe the way out for the alt-1848 TL is not getting bogged down in the day-by-day details of the war in Italy, but rather jump to the early 1850s and describe the outcome. Some handwavium would be ok, I think
Last edited:
Frankly the only way out IMHO it's a combination of better military performance of the italians, not much, but enough to bog down more troops and being more costly (in blood and treasure) than OTL and a more violent Hungarian uprising (possible due to the greater problem in Italy by the Austrian).
In the end Wien can simply decide to retreat to concentrate in quelling the various revolt and let the penisula for better time...basically every treaty will be in the best scenario intented as a 'temporary ceasefire' till the Hapsburg are ready to come back.
I don't disagree. However the problem is in a way even more difficult ITTL since there would be two "revolutionary" [for a very bourgeois and limited value of "revolutionary"] republics in Northern Italy. Who is going to support them? UK is mostly interested in avoiding a complete collapse of the Habsburg state, which would open a huge can of worms in Central Europe (IOTL they tried to broker a transfer of Lombardy to Piedmont in April-May 1848 for this reason, but I am not convinced they would go the same length to help the establishment of a republic); some sympathy might be found in France, but the main aim of the Provisional Government in Paris is to gain recognition and legitimacy (and avoid being isolated due to fears of a second round of revolutionary wars); Switzerland would certainly be supportive, but there is not much they can do.
Maybe the key would be a more successful insurrection in Vienna, with the imperial family being forced to leave Austria completely, not just removing themselves to Tyrol. It's a lot of a stretch, honestly. However if the Habsburg are really tottering there might be a case for a European Congress to avoid chaos. If Hungary revolts outright (say that Budapest requests are totally rejected) it would also help, but I'm not sure it would be enough.
I agree towards the insurrection and frankly, at least in this stage, some serious son of a bitch it's needed; someone that see the need to compromise so to get foreign support.
Getting the Pope or Carlo Alberto as president of the italian league (maybe giving Parma to the Savoy) can be see as a conciliatory move or even a figurehead for the Hapsburg (maybe the Tuscany Greatduke) so to allow them to save face.
Egyptian troubles, a new Pope and a new Zar
The Oriental Crisis of 1836
The aftermath of the Russo-Turkish war and the Greek Independence War had left the Ottoman Empire much weakened. So much that Sultan Mahmud II could not afford to avoid giving in to the demands of his powerful Egyptian vassal Mehmet Alì Pasha, who, in return for his support during the war, asked to be given control of Syria and the Levantine coast.
After a couple of years though the situation in the Empire had somewhat stabilized, and the Sublime Porte felt to be again strong enough to take back direct control over those areas, claiming in 1835 that the cession had only been temporary. Mehmet Alì, confident in the strength of his western-trained army and hoping that diplomatic support from France and possibly Russia would see him prevail against his nominal master, refused to comply.
Mahmud II then sent his troops in Syria, hoping to put the unruly vassal back into his place, but the expedition soon met with disaster, as the Ottoman fleet sided with the Egyptians, and Mehmet Ali’s army inflicted several defeats to the Ottoman forces that had entered Syria, before pursuing them in Cilicia.
There, in 1836 the Egyptian army inflicted a decisive defeat on the Ottomans at the Battle of Adana. Anatolia was now devoid of significant Ottoman forces, and the way to Constantinople laid open, as the great part of the Ottoman Army was tied up in the Balkans, fearing Russian intervention.
These developments, carrying the real risk of seeing the Sultan deposed and the Ottoman Empire crumbling, deeply concerned the European Powers, always wary of any shift to the balance of power.
The United Kingdom and Austria sent naval squadrons in the Eastern Mediterranean, soon followed by France, while Russia started to mobilize once more along the Turkish frontier. Tensions were starting to rise, and the risk of the crisis evolving into a wider European conflict was real.
But in the end the tipping point for a new European conflagration was never reached: Constantin understood that French support of Mehmet's ambitions would not go so far as to fight on the side of Russia against the United Kingdom and Austria, with the probable support of Prussia, while nothing short of war would convince London to leave Constantinople and the Straits in Russian hands.
France managed to present herself to Egypt as an “honest broker”, and managed to convince Mehmet to put aside his imperial ambitions and accept the proposal of the European Powers.
In the end Mehmet Alì was recognized by Mahmud II as ruler of Egypt, Sudan, Crete, Syria (but not Aleppo) and Hejaz*, a title that would be hereditary and that entailed the recognition by the international community of his de-facto independence, with only nominal submission to the Sublime Porte (and obviously the payment of a significant tribute). His army and navy were however starkly limited by the peace treaty provisions, being reduced to a self defence force that could pose no threat to Ottoman rule in Anatolia.
The question of the Straits was settled by the Convention of Paris, stating freedom of navigation for commercial vessels (and exemption for Russia from transit duties and fees) and limited rights of passage for warships during peace (with limits of numbers and tonnage). In times of war, warships and fleets of belligerent countries could not pass.
The Conclave of 1839
On the 4th of October, 1839 His Holiness Pope Leo XIII left this world, and the contest for his succession opened.
Since his election, the Holy See had de facto lost control over the most prosperous parts of the Papal States, and had been unable to prevent the formation of the Lega Doganale Italiana, or at least to take up a leading role in it.
The Conclave was divided, as it had been the last time it convened, between moderates and reactionaries, with the two factions respectively represented by Cardinal Tommaso Bernetti and Cardinal Luigi Lambruschini.
Bernetti himself was far from a liberal, but he had a pragmatical mind and was considered ready to make some minor concession to liberalism if that meant a strengthening of the Papal States and an improvement to their economical situation. For example it was not a mistery that Bernetti supported an eventual entry of the Papal States into the Lega Doganale and it is possible that he found some interest into the neo-guelph idea of a confederation of the Italian principalities under the tutelage of the Roman Pontiff. Lambruschini instead was a true reactionary, adverse to liberalism and regarding all innovations with suspicion.
Bernetti, who had good relations with many cardinals, was confident of his eventual victory, but his dreams were cut short by the veto placed by the King of France on his name, because of unresolved disputes dating back to his time as an ambassador in Paris. The opening of the conclave thus saw the moderate-liberal cardinals bereft of their leadership, while the conservatives flocked to the banner of Lambruschini.
The conclave seemed set for electing the reactionary cardinal, when Bernetti pulled an unexpected ace from his sleeve, endorsing Cardinal Ludovico Micara, former General of the Capuchin Order and very popular because of his austere lifestyle (he still lived in his seminar cell), his charitable work during the cholera outbreaks of 1836 and his good government of his diocese of Frascati. He also commanded respect among conservatives because of his rigorous theological stances.
Initially his name was met with skepticism, as the election of a Capuchin to the Holy See was something unprecedented, but in the end a majority formed around him, sensing him as the only viable alternative to Lambruschini, who, with his inflexibility, might have caused the opposite effect of inflaming liberals into a new uprising. Thus the 64-years old Ludovico Micara was elected Roman Pontiff, adopting the name of Paulus VI.
His policies as a Pope encountered the favour of the Italian liberals, as he released many political prisoners, while pardoning several exiles. He also slightly relaxed preventive censorship and in 1845 abolished most restrictions on Roman Jews. But he opposed any significant political change, resisting pressures towards emanating even a moderate Constitution; his most significant achievements were instead in improving the lot of the common people of the “eternal city”, who soon came to idolize him and in fighting the corruption and byzantine complexity of the pontifical bureaucracy. Although aged, he was remarkably active, and many cardinals rued his election (they had thought of him as an harmless theologian) when he showed his centralizing ways in the administration of the Papal State.
He wasn't particularly interested in the Italian question, and he refused to entertain any idea of becoming the head of an Italian Confederation, but his pragmatical side saw the utility of closer commercial relations with the other Italian States, leading him to ratify a free trade agreement with the Lega Doganale, while endorsing the project of building a railway between Rome and the port of Civitavecchia. Further steps towards Italian unification, such as an outright entry into the Legs Doganale, were firmly rejected by the Pope, who saw them as the antechamber for the end of Papal temporal rule.
A new Emperor of all the Russias
Constantin I died in July 1841, at 62 years of age, and was succeeded by his younger brother Nikolai Pavlovich, who had until then been Namiestnik of Poland. Emperor Nicholas I had acquired the fame of a strict disciplinarian and political reactionary, but was also considered to be a capable administrator, having managed to keep control of the unruly provinces for many years, and having brilliantly stifled the rebellious ferments of 1830-1831 before they could develop into a full-blown insurrection.
Constantin had surrounded himself with mostly liberal ministers and advisers, but the actual reforms made during his reign were few and overall marginal, as the great question of the eventual abolition of serfdom was never concretely addressed. Constantin’s main concern had always been foreign policy, and especially the cultivation of expansionist designs over the territories of the Ottoman Empire, designs that in the end had only mixed success, because, as the Oriental Crisis of 1836 showed, the other Great Powers, and especially the United Kingdom, would do their outmost to keep the Ottoman Empire relatively stable and especially to avoid the Straits falling under Russian control.
Nicholas instead was expected to have both a stricter and more conservative, if not reactionary, internal policy, while acting more moderately in foreign policy, trying to find some rapprochement with the other Great Powers.
*The Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina remained under direct Ottoman control.
EDIT: in an earlier draft I had gone with Lambruschini elected in 1839, but then I changed my mind. Unfortunately I can no longer edit the previous post, where his election was mentioned. (Spoiler: In 1846 Micara will die, leading to the election of some reactionary because of backlash against his controversial policies.)
The Oriental Crisis of 1836
The aftermath of the Russo-Turkish war and the Greek Independence War had left the Ottoman Empire much weakened. So much that Sultan Mahmud II could not afford to avoid giving in to the demands of his powerful Egyptian vassal Mehmet Alì Pasha, who, in return for his support during the war, asked to be given control of Syria and the Levantine coast.
After a couple of years though the situation in the Empire had somewhat stabilized, and the Sublime Porte felt to be again strong enough to take back direct control over those areas, claiming in 1835 that the cession had only been temporary. Mehmet Alì, confident in the strength of his western-trained army and hoping that diplomatic support from France and possibly Russia would see him prevail against his nominal master, refused to comply.
Mahmud II then sent his troops in Syria, hoping to put the unruly vassal back into his place, but the expedition soon met with disaster, as the Ottoman fleet sided with the Egyptians, and Mehmet Ali’s army inflicted several defeats to the Ottoman forces that had entered Syria, before pursuing them in Cilicia.
There, in 1836 the Egyptian army inflicted a decisive defeat on the Ottomans at the Battle of Adana. Anatolia was now devoid of significant Ottoman forces, and the way to Constantinople laid open, as the great part of the Ottoman Army was tied up in the Balkans, fearing Russian intervention.
These developments, carrying the real risk of seeing the Sultan deposed and the Ottoman Empire crumbling, deeply concerned the European Powers, always wary of any shift to the balance of power.
The United Kingdom and Austria sent naval squadrons in the Eastern Mediterranean, soon followed by France, while Russia started to mobilize once more along the Turkish frontier. Tensions were starting to rise, and the risk of the crisis evolving into a wider European conflict was real.
But in the end the tipping point for a new European conflagration was never reached: Constantin understood that French support of Mehmet's ambitions would not go so far as to fight on the side of Russia against the United Kingdom and Austria, with the probable support of Prussia, while nothing short of war would convince London to leave Constantinople and the Straits in Russian hands.
France managed to present herself to Egypt as an “honest broker”, and managed to convince Mehmet to put aside his imperial ambitions and accept the proposal of the European Powers.
In the end Mehmet Alì was recognized by Mahmud II as ruler of Egypt, Sudan, Crete, Syria (but not Aleppo) and Hejaz*, a title that would be hereditary and that entailed the recognition by the international community of his de-facto independence, with only nominal submission to the Sublime Porte (and obviously the payment of a significant tribute). His army and navy were however starkly limited by the peace treaty provisions, being reduced to a self defence force that could pose no threat to Ottoman rule in Anatolia.
The question of the Straits was settled by the Convention of Paris, stating freedom of navigation for commercial vessels (and exemption for Russia from transit duties and fees) and limited rights of passage for warships during peace (with limits of numbers and tonnage). In times of war, warships and fleets of belligerent countries could not pass.
The Conclave of 1839
On the 4th of October, 1839 His Holiness Pope Leo XIII left this world, and the contest for his succession opened.
Since his election, the Holy See had de facto lost control over the most prosperous parts of the Papal States, and had been unable to prevent the formation of the Lega Doganale Italiana, or at least to take up a leading role in it.
The Conclave was divided, as it had been the last time it convened, between moderates and reactionaries, with the two factions respectively represented by Cardinal Tommaso Bernetti and Cardinal Luigi Lambruschini.
Bernetti himself was far from a liberal, but he had a pragmatical mind and was considered ready to make some minor concession to liberalism if that meant a strengthening of the Papal States and an improvement to their economical situation. For example it was not a mistery that Bernetti supported an eventual entry of the Papal States into the Lega Doganale and it is possible that he found some interest into the neo-guelph idea of a confederation of the Italian principalities under the tutelage of the Roman Pontiff. Lambruschini instead was a true reactionary, adverse to liberalism and regarding all innovations with suspicion.
Bernetti, who had good relations with many cardinals, was confident of his eventual victory, but his dreams were cut short by the veto placed by the King of France on his name, because of unresolved disputes dating back to his time as an ambassador in Paris. The opening of the conclave thus saw the moderate-liberal cardinals bereft of their leadership, while the conservatives flocked to the banner of Lambruschini.
The conclave seemed set for electing the reactionary cardinal, when Bernetti pulled an unexpected ace from his sleeve, endorsing Cardinal Ludovico Micara, former General of the Capuchin Order and very popular because of his austere lifestyle (he still lived in his seminar cell), his charitable work during the cholera outbreaks of 1836 and his good government of his diocese of Frascati. He also commanded respect among conservatives because of his rigorous theological stances.
Initially his name was met with skepticism, as the election of a Capuchin to the Holy See was something unprecedented, but in the end a majority formed around him, sensing him as the only viable alternative to Lambruschini, who, with his inflexibility, might have caused the opposite effect of inflaming liberals into a new uprising. Thus the 64-years old Ludovico Micara was elected Roman Pontiff, adopting the name of Paulus VI.
His policies as a Pope encountered the favour of the Italian liberals, as he released many political prisoners, while pardoning several exiles. He also slightly relaxed preventive censorship and in 1845 abolished most restrictions on Roman Jews. But he opposed any significant political change, resisting pressures towards emanating even a moderate Constitution; his most significant achievements were instead in improving the lot of the common people of the “eternal city”, who soon came to idolize him and in fighting the corruption and byzantine complexity of the pontifical bureaucracy. Although aged, he was remarkably active, and many cardinals rued his election (they had thought of him as an harmless theologian) when he showed his centralizing ways in the administration of the Papal State.
He wasn't particularly interested in the Italian question, and he refused to entertain any idea of becoming the head of an Italian Confederation, but his pragmatical side saw the utility of closer commercial relations with the other Italian States, leading him to ratify a free trade agreement with the Lega Doganale, while endorsing the project of building a railway between Rome and the port of Civitavecchia. Further steps towards Italian unification, such as an outright entry into the Legs Doganale, were firmly rejected by the Pope, who saw them as the antechamber for the end of Papal temporal rule.
A new Emperor of all the Russias
Constantin I died in July 1841, at 62 years of age, and was succeeded by his younger brother Nikolai Pavlovich, who had until then been Namiestnik of Poland. Emperor Nicholas I had acquired the fame of a strict disciplinarian and political reactionary, but was also considered to be a capable administrator, having managed to keep control of the unruly provinces for many years, and having brilliantly stifled the rebellious ferments of 1830-1831 before they could develop into a full-blown insurrection.
Constantin had surrounded himself with mostly liberal ministers and advisers, but the actual reforms made during his reign were few and overall marginal, as the great question of the eventual abolition of serfdom was never concretely addressed. Constantin’s main concern had always been foreign policy, and especially the cultivation of expansionist designs over the territories of the Ottoman Empire, designs that in the end had only mixed success, because, as the Oriental Crisis of 1836 showed, the other Great Powers, and especially the United Kingdom, would do their outmost to keep the Ottoman Empire relatively stable and especially to avoid the Straits falling under Russian control.
Nicholas instead was expected to have both a stricter and more conservative, if not reactionary, internal policy, while acting more moderately in foreign policy, trying to find some rapprochement with the other Great Powers.
*The Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina remained under direct Ottoman control.
EDIT: in an earlier draft I had gone with Lambruschini elected in 1839, but then I changed my mind. Unfortunately I can no longer edit the previous post, where his election was mentioned. (Spoiler: In 1846 Micara will die, leading to the election of some reactionary because of backlash against his controversial policies.)
Last edited:
I was starting to loose all hopes to see The Ausonian Tale being revived. I'm quite happy to have been proven wrong
Re your update:
Re your update:
- Oriental Crisis: it looks like Mehmet Ali got abit too much (Syria and Hejaz) and lost a bit too much (the limitations on the fleet and army) even withou getting OTL's bloody nose. IMHO the way things went IOTL is more reasonable (throw in Acre maybe). Bit disappointed that Naplesdid not take the opportunity to show the flag even as the smallest partner of the coalition
- Paul VI: a nice and inventive coup de theatre. I can go along with everything you say about his pontificate and I do understand you have a plan for the next conclave. The Papal States (or better what remains of them) joining the Customs Union is a bit difficult to swallow: it would be an implicit acceptance of the political landscape enforced in 1832. I think that just opening a bit the borders would be thelimit of what is politically acceptablefor the Church (and for Austria too). Also the idea of a railway joining Rome toCivitavecchia is a bit excessive: quite expensive to finance and potentially dangerous since it would open a road for a Neapolitan invasion. Maybe just Rome to Ostia would bemore reasonable for a start.
- Contantine's reign: very disappointing,since it looks like all hope for an early start ofliberalization in Russia was for nothing. I'mnot saying that this outcome was unreasonable, rather the contrary: it was however a disappointment. Incidentally the ascension of Nicholas will most likely seea thaw of relations between Austria and Russia.
I was starting to loose all hopes to see The Ausonian Tale being revived. I'm quite happy to have been proven wrong
Re your update:
- Oriental Crisis: it looks like Mehmet Ali got abit too much (Syria and Hejaz) and lost a bit too much (the limitations on the fleet and army) even withou getting OTL's bloody nose. IMHO the way things went IOTL is more reasonable (throw in Acre maybe). Bit disappointed that Naplesdid not take the opportunity to show the flag even as the smallest partner of the coalition
- Paul VI: a nice and inventive coup de theatre. I can go along with everything you say about his pontificate and I do understand you have a plan for the next conclave. The Papal States (or better what remains of them) joining the Customs Union is a bit difficult to swallow: it would be an implicit acceptance of the political landscape enforced in 1832. I think that just opening a bit the borders would be thelimit of what is politically acceptablefor the Church (and for Austria too). Also the idea of a railway joining Rome toCivitavecchia is a bit excessive: quite expensive to finance and potentially dangerous since it would open a road for a Neapolitan invasion. Maybe just Rome to Ostia would bemore reasonable for a start.
- Contantine's reign: very disappointing,since it looks like all hope for an early start ofliberalization in Russia was for nothing. I'mnot saying that this outcome was unreasonable, rather the contrary: it was however a disappointment. Incidentally the ascension of Nicholas will most likely seea thaw of relations between Austria and Russia.
Sorry for the lack of updates, I know that this is not the best way to write a coherent project, but I am rather busy. I am happy that you are still following this, shortly things will get rather interesting...
I know that my solution is a bit schizophrenic, but history is not always so rational, and I think this outcome is not impossible. Will Greater Egypt become a viable state, or will it collapse under the weight of its debts?
I am quite happy with TTL's Paolo VI, he has similar policies to those of the early pontificate of Pius IX, although with a more "populist" bent, so to say. The Papal State won't enter the Lega Doganale, they just normalized trade relationships etc., sorry if that was not clear in the update.
As to the railway, Civitavecchia is not so close to Naples, and is the only viable option, as Ostia at the time was just a malaria filled marsh... Civitavecchia is the only significant port directly controlled by the Pope now, but yeah, it's a much too ambitious project, it won't get completed by 1846.
I am not really sure who the next Pope will be, just that this (very limited) taste of freedom will make things very difficult for the inevitable reactionary backlash around 1848...
Finally, Russia: I went for the conservative option, because changing things too much would require excessive research on my part, I must confess... You are right that Russia and Austria will improve their relations, which is bad for Italy, but you will also note that the Polish insurrection of 1830 was preempted, and Congress Poland must be ready to explode by now. They are doomed, but might cause some havoc in 1848.
My main objection to "Greater Egypt" is that Hejaz (where Mecca and Medina are located) and Syria (even without Aleppo) would be too much of a loss for the Ottomans. Incidentally, I'd believe that Greater Egypt would end up as a greater failure than Egypt did IOTL. Maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks for the clarification: I was under the impression that the Papal States would join the Customs League, and that would have been too much to believe.
You're right about Ostia, which was not a viable port. I think that a railway from Rome to Civitavecchia (70+ km) would be too much. Maybe the solution is to improve the road from Rome to Civitavecchia which was very poor at the time, and wouldstill bring some economic benefit to Latium, and to rescind the former prohibition to build railways in the papal states. Since PaulVI will die in 1846 and will be followed by a conservative pope, it is quite likely that no railway will be actually built ITTL before the late 1850s (which is more or less what happened IOTL) but some minor trunks (Rome-Frascati for example) would be licensed even if not actually built.
I do completely understand your position re. Russia. The likelihood of a Polish insurrection in 1848 is quite true, and may have some interesting side effects (more problems for Austria, Russia and Prussia but also the possibility that German 1848 is strongly influenced by the Polish upraising and subsequent repression: a German unification which doesn't include either Prussia or Austria would be very very interesting).
Thanks for the clarification: I was under the impression that the Papal States would join the Customs League, and that would have been too much to believe.
You're right about Ostia, which was not a viable port. I think that a railway from Rome to Civitavecchia (70+ km) would be too much. Maybe the solution is to improve the road from Rome to Civitavecchia which was very poor at the time, and wouldstill bring some economic benefit to Latium, and to rescind the former prohibition to build railways in the papal states. Since PaulVI will die in 1846 and will be followed by a conservative pope, it is quite likely that no railway will be actually built ITTL before the late 1850s (which is more or less what happened IOTL) but some minor trunks (Rome-Frascati for example) would be licensed even if not actually built.
I do completely understand your position re. Russia. The likelihood of a Polish insurrection in 1848 is quite true, and may have some interesting side effects (more problems for Austria, Russia and Prussia but also the possibility that German 1848 is strongly influenced by the Polish upraising and subsequent repression: a German unification which doesn't include either Prussia or Austria would be very very interesting).
Greater Egypt is an intriguing idea. It's certainly possible, the medieval Mamluk Sultanate being the primary example along with Ali Bey al Kabir in the 18th century. Controlling the Holy sites would defiantly give Egypt an economic boost and might lessen their dependence on foreign investment.
I edited the last update, to make it clearer that the papacy won't enter the Lega Doganale anytime soon and that the Holy Sites of Mecca and Medina are kept under Ottoman rule. Hejaz is more of an Ottoman-Egyptian condominium.
As you say Hasdrubal, the Levantine coast has been in the Egyptian sphere of influence at various times (and has been a battlefield at least since Quadesh...).
Those are also very economically promising areas, but would require large investments and a degree of modernisation in administrative practice that I am not sure the Khedivate is capable of.
Still thinking about the next Pope: IOTL the candidates in 1846 were Lambruschini and Mastai Ferretti. Lbruschini here has lost in 1839 and has not had the time as Secretary of State to solidify his power. Mastai Ferretti instead will probably have had a good career under Paolo VI, but would be probably considered too much of a liberal. Do you have suggestions?
Reconsidering, the backlash against Paolo VI will be more against his style of government (centralising, not always respecting the prerogatives of cardinals) than against his "liberalism".
As you say Hasdrubal, the Levantine coast has been in the Egyptian sphere of influence at various times (and has been a battlefield at least since Quadesh...).
Those are also very economically promising areas, but would require large investments and a degree of modernisation in administrative practice that I am not sure the Khedivate is capable of.
Still thinking about the next Pope: IOTL the candidates in 1846 were Lambruschini and Mastai Ferretti. Lbruschini here has lost in 1839 and has not had the time as Secretary of State to solidify his power. Mastai Ferretti instead will probably have had a good career under Paolo VI, but would be probably considered too much of a liberal. Do you have suggestions?
Reconsidering, the backlash against Paolo VI will be more against his style of government (centralising, not always respecting the prerogatives of cardinals) than against his "liberalism".
My skepticism about future prospects for Egypt is that Mehmet Ali is going thru. a bad old age (same as OTL: maybe it would be better for Egypt if he dies some ten years earlier), Ibrahim has potential but is going to die soon enough. Their successors were less than impressive (and the debt trap is very hard to avoid).
As far as the balance of power in the Curia, my take is that when a reactionary state opens a bit the doors the populace will ask for more. If this is true, the conservative faction of the Curia will claim that "liberal policies" have failed and urge for turning back the clock: the danger from their POV is that a new "liberal" pope might give additional concessions(including - God forbid! - a constitution). Which is what happened OTL with Pius IX.
I would expect an hardening of the conservative faction, and a lot of lobbying with France and Austria to prevent the election of a liberal.
IMHO the next pope is going to be a deep-dye conservative.
As far as the balance of power in the Curia, my take is that when a reactionary state opens a bit the doors the populace will ask for more. If this is true, the conservative faction of the Curia will claim that "liberal policies" have failed and urge for turning back the clock: the danger from their POV is that a new "liberal" pope might give additional concessions(including - God forbid! - a constitution). Which is what happened OTL with Pius IX.
I would expect an hardening of the conservative faction, and a lot of lobbying with France and Austria to prevent the election of a liberal.
IMHO the next pope is going to be a deep-dye conservative.
I agree with your analysis. This is also a pretty good recipe for civil unrest once you try winding back reforms or just not keeping pace with neighbouring states...
So it's Lambruschini or some lesser known figure from OTL's 1846 conclave, although it is all a bit arbitrary, 30 years after the POD.
Also in Egypt the problem is that you would need a streak of almost genius sovereigns to escape foreign domination, and that's not very likely, maybe Hasdrubal Barca has some suggestions?
I dunno, Sa'id (and although I don't see him happening, his son Isma'il) seemed pretty competent as a ruler. Really the only thing that let the Egyptians down was the fact that their debt pushed them deeper and deeper into European domination...well that and the reactionary and anti-reformist rule of Abbas I which did set Egypt back a bit.
Less than you think: a candidate has to be in his 50s or older, which means that he would have escaped a lot of the butterflies. He might have changed his allegiances during the 1830s,but I'd argue that it's unlikely he might have switched from conservative to liberal (the other way around is maybe more possible: the Powers' agreement enforced in 1832 might be the cause).
You're worrying too much