Anyone But Savoy

Given the spate of 19th century TLs at the moment, particularly those with a focus on Austria, Germany and Italy, I was wondering something:

By 1848, the House of Savoy was the only "Italian" royal house left - the Sforza had died out in the 16th century, the della Rovere went extinct in the 17th, while the 18th saw the extinction of the Gonzaga (both in Mantua and Guastalla), the Farnese and the Medici, leaving the d'Estes of Modena as the last man standing until they died out in the 19th century.

These native houses were replaced in their turn by what Dudley Pope refers to as "degenerate, half-witted Habsburg or Bourbon second sons with a following of Austrians or Spanish grandees who had been given estates in Italy to get them out of way". (To my mind, Pope seems to be implying Italy was a dumping ground or a trash heap).

If any of these native houses survived, would/could they serve as a rallying point to the unification movement as the Savoys did?
 
Given the spate of 19th century TLs at the moment, particularly those with a focus on Austria, Germany and Italy, I was wondering something:

By 1848, the House of Savoy was the only "Italian" royal house left - the Sforza had died out in the 16th century, the della Rovere went extinct in the 17th, while the 18th saw the extinction of the Gonzaga (both in Mantua and Guastalla), the Farnese and the Medici, leaving the d'Estes of Modena as the last man standing until they died out in the 19th century.

These native houses were replaced in their turn by what Dudley Pope refers to as "degenerate, half-witted Habsburg or Bourbon second sons with a following of Austrians or Spanish grandees who had been given estates in Italy to get them out of way". (To my mind, Pope seems to be implying Italy was a dumping ground or a trash heap).

If any of these native houses survived, would/could they serve as a rallying point to the unification movement as the Savoys did?

The Savoys were french from the getgo.
 
The Savoys were french from the getgo.

You're confusing political culture and identity with languages and linguistics of the territories they ruled, IMO.
If you meant the origins of the dynasty, they were Provencals; if you mean the political origins, they were Burgundians; if you meant their historical diplomacy : Alpine.

But for what matters identity and politics, they considered themselves and were considered as an Italian House.

The main "problem" with the OP is that the native houses were themselves more or less sattelized by other courts even before the "dynastical replacement" (and, honestly, I'm really suspicious about the whole "they were all degenerate, the dustbin of europe". Many had relatively skilled rulers, but stuck with small states under huge foreign pressure) : France, Austria, Spain influence were quite important.

Eventually, it's going hard to not see either a dynastical mix or a replacement as long Italy is divided into small states and different , changing, spheres of influences.
 
The Savoys were french from the getgo.
Eh? They were French/Italian. The reason Sardinia unified the country was because the other Italian states were either weak or dominated by foreign powers. Sardinia was the only one independent and had a small, but solid army.
 
I would argue that at least the Bourbons of the Two Sicilies should be considered an Italian dinasty, although of foreign origins, because by the xix century they had long ruled a more or less independent state. Obviously they were very far from embracing the nationalist idea of a united Italy.

Then you have the Habsburg-Lorraine in Tuscany, who were rather good monarchs overall, and especially Leopold II proved to be pretty independent from Vienna (eg participating in the I war of independence).
Finally Francis IV of Habsburg-Este could be interesting because, apart from his dubious role in the 1831's insurrections, he had a claim on the Sardinian throne (through his wife) and could have maybe ended on the subalpine throne instead of Charles Albert. (He was however a pretty nasty piece of business, so this is probably not a course worthy of following).

To get a truly indigenous dinasty on the Italian throne you need imho a much earlier POD, the most probable bets would be Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan or Ladislaus of Naples (slightly less "Italian" though) achieving hegemony over the Peninsula in the xvth century and it somehow managing to stabilise.

As last point I would point to the possibility of a Republican regime arising from either a stronger Venice or a wildly successful 1848. Both need a rather generous degree of suspension of disbelief unfortunately ...
Edit: I second all that LSCatilina wrote
 
Last edited:
You're confusing political culture and identity with languages and linguistics of the territories they ruled, IMO.
If you meant the origins of the dynasty, they were Provencals; if you mean the political origins, they were Burgundians; if you meant their historical diplomacy : Alpine.

But for what matters identity and politics, they considered themselves and were considered as an Italian House.

The main "problem" with the OP is that the native houses were themselves more or less sattelized by other courts even before the "dynastical replacement" (and, honestly, I'm really suspicious about the whole "they were all degenerate, the dustbin of europe". Many had relatively skilled rulers, but stuck with small states under huge foreign pressure) : France, Austria, Spain influence were quite important.

Eventually, it's going hard to not see either a dynastical mix or a replacement as long Italy is divided into small states and different , changing, spheres of influences.

They are Burgundians to be exact.
 
They are Burgundians to be exact.

Which is essentially a political, and a really blur one, denomination (with actually very few ties with either ancient Burgundians or medieval Bourgogne). One shouldn't give "national" identities to medieval dynasties at least until the Late Middle Ages, IMO.
 
I would argue that at least the Bourbons of the Two Sicilies should be considered an Italian dinasty, although of foreign origins, because by the xix century they had long ruled a more or less independent state. Obviously they were very far from embracing the nationalist idea of a united Italy.

Then you have the Habsburg-Lorraine in Tuscany, who were rather good monarchs overall, and especially Leopold II proved to be pretty independent from Vienna (eg participating in the I war of independence).
Finally Francis IV of Habsburg-Este could be interesting because, apart from his dubious role in the 1831's insurrections, he had a claim on the Sardinian throne (through his wife) and could have maybe ended on the subalpine throne instead of Charles Albert. (He was however a pretty nasty piece of business, so this is probably not a course worthy of following).

To get a truly indigenous dinasty on the Italian throne you need imho a much earlier POD, the most probable bets would be Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan or Ladislaus of Naples (slightly less "Italian" though) achieving hegemony over the Peninsula in the xvth century and it somehow managing to stabilise.

As last point I would point to the possibility of a Republican regime arising from either a stronger Venice or a wildly successful 1848. Both need a rather generous degree of suspension of disbelief unfortunately ...
Edit: I second all that LSCatilina wrote

There is another family to consider, the Younger Welf line aka the D'Este family and Gonzaga.
 
There is another family to consider, the Younger Welf line aka the D'Este family and Gonzaga.

The Medici too, on this site there is a TL about them unifying Italy much earlier, iirc.
"Brothers of Italy" by RyuDrago.

Ideas on how the Estensi or Gonzaga could survive until the xix century in a position of power? (In Modena the rulers were Habsburg-Este and I mentioned that Francis IV could have a claim on the Sardinian throne).
 
Maybe an Italy more obviously divided into sphere of influence, but not as shifting as IOTL?

As in no War of Spanish Succession, with a Bavarian inheritence, meaning France get to replace Spain in Naples and Florence, with Austrians playing sort of "cold war" with Bourbons in Italy, with Northern Italian states being sort of "Small Game"?

It could allow Ausria-Este Gonzaga to play on both (basically what they tried to do IOTL, with more or less success) to eventually survive.
 
I agree with Yanez that you basically need a 14th or 15th century POD in order to get a truly Italian house into position for a 19th century unification a la OTL.

My TL just featured a long but about Ladislaus of Naples and his much more successful exploits in central Italy, for example. But even Ladislaus was Angevin. The Milanese Visconti are a solid bet, the d'Este as well.

A Venetian-led republican Italy just doesn't seem possible, however a more powerful and expansive Venice does.

If someone wanted to do something cool with Matilda di Canossa, that would be awesome.
 
What about the Pope?

If Pius IX had not lost his nerve could Italy be a constitutional Theocracy now?

At the time the idea was more of a rather loose confederation, that the Pope would have presided over yes, but most probably with only a representative role, so I wouldn't call it a theocracy. I don't think it as something very plausible honestly. (Nor desirable, neither for Italy nor the Church)
 
Here's an idea: have Tuscany be inherited by the Princes of Ottajano, the closest male relatives of the main Medici line and the family that, arguably, should have inherited after Gian Gastone's death. I'm sure there were other distant lines for some of the other families as well that were ignored in favor of the Great powers.
 
At the time the idea was more of a rather loose confederation, that the Pope would have presided over yes, but most probably with only a representative role, so I wouldn't call it a theocracy. I don't think it as something very plausible honestly. (Nor desirable, neither for Italy nor the Church)

Why? Through the Church, Italy can now influence one of the biggest groups of the world! That's perfectly desirable.

(Imagine WWII: Oh, we are at war with the Americans: so let's excommunicate all Irish and Italian catholics who want to fight against us! Big problem for American war effort.)
 
I agree with Yanez that you basically need a 14th or 15th century POD in order to get a truly Italian house into position for a 19th century unification a la OTL.

My TL just featured a long but about Ladislaus of Naples and his much more successful exploits in central Italy, for example. But even Ladislaus was Angevin. The Milanese Visconti are a solid bet, the d'Este as well.

A Venetian-led republican Italy just doesn't seem possible, however a more powerful and expansive Venice does.

If someone wanted to do something cool with Matilda di Canossa, that would be awesome.

I do agree that the best time frame to lay down a serious basis for the unification of Italy coincides with the late 14th century and the early 15th: a weak HRE, two popes, a France which is going for round 3 of the 100 years war, even Aragon constrained by a difficult succession. It obviously requires a Gian Galeazzo surviving the illness that OTL killed him (he'll need another 10-15 years to stabilize his far flung domains, but it should be feasible, and also to coach his two sons and manage to turn them into better princes). An interesting alternative (which AFAIK has never been explored) would be if his uncle Barnabo' turns the table and comes out as the victor of the Visconti power struggle (and GG gets killed). It would result in a Visconti state likely to be smaller than what GG managed to put together before his death but probably more stable, and in a Lombardy more closely aligned to the HRE (or better to Bavaria). If the state is not parceled out among his sons at the death of Barnabo', it would be a serious player in Italy.

If you are interested in a Matilde di Canossa TL there was "Tuscan Sons" a few years ago, written by ShadowKnight with some inputs from me.
My preference for a Canossa POD would however be the survival of Boniface of Canossa (killed in a suspicious hunting accidents in 1054) which should be enough to ensure that his son Frederick inherits the Canossa lands (both the feudal and the allodial ones) and confirm house Canossa as the greatest feudal lords in Italy.

The other possibility is a more successful Berengar I (late 9th century-early 10th) who manages to curb his unruly feudataries and keeps Otto out of Italy.

There is a remote possibility for a republican Italy: it requires that Venice supports the Golden Ambrosian Republic which was formed in Milan upon the death of the last Visconti. Filippo Maria, in 1447. The Ambrosian republic lasted but three years (and toward the end Venice proposed an alliance, but it was too late and too much bad blood had been created by Venetian attempts togobble up all of the former duchy of Milan). However if Venice sees the light from the start, the two republics could form an alliance and keep out Sforza.
 
Umm...

Was Corsica considered Italian in the 18th and 19th centuries?

If so, a legitimate Italian Royal Family would have ruled most of Europe in the early 19th Century for the first time since Rome...
 
The Bonapartes, with the point of departure being that Napoleon stays on Elba and is eventually succeeded by his son. Elba doesn't have to conquer the rest of the country, it just has to be ruled by the right man to be favored by the nationalists.

The ramifications of no Hundred Days are tantalizing -- could Napoleon III have the career he had with Napoleon II and his descendants still around? And Murat can remain king of Naples.
 
Things got a bit confusing before naironalism came along, and apparently the nobility of France and Spain thought themselves descended from the Germanic conquerers and not the Celts who supposedly became the underclass. Anyways, outside of France (Don't quote me on it) I would say that there was plenty of mixing of dynasties and groups, though with the leadership mostly going after ever higher crowns and ditching what they had in exchange for a better title. Heck, the House of Habsburg-Lorraine came from the ex-Polish King being given Lorraine, trading it for Tuscany, then his kin in turn moved up to taking over Austria. And really, back then wasn't a lot of the European upper-classes practically drowned in Italian culture, Latin lessons, Roman myths and the like? And what about the Doges? They wore ermine and crowns, and the Holy Roman Empeor and King of Poland were no less regal due to being elected. Think one of them became a Duke by unifying two republics into Tuscany too.

On a side note, at what time was as much of Italy and the islands nearby under the rule of Habsburg? by they the Spanish King, the Emperor, or one of the cadet branches in Modena, Ferra, and other places like that. Under Charles VI, perhaps? Given enough inbreeding or a seperate separation of the empire, perhaps you can get up with a person holding most of the Habsburg holdings there. Though I am unsure if the Austrian or Spanish rulers would want to give up the titles of King that come from Sardinia, Naples, and Sicily. Then again, might not be as much of an issue since they are both Emperors.
 
Top