Austro-Italian or Franco-Italian Union, what's best?

Sorry if this question appears to be a bit random, but I was curious to read your learned opinion about which of these two unions is more feasible and has more potential.

Today Italy is an independent nation, but for large tracts of its history it has been the field of battles and intrigues between the Habsburgs (of Spain and later of Austria) and France. My question is, could there exist a Timeline where (most of) Italy is solidly controlled by France or Austria, possibly even to the present day (I know, nationalism makes this extremely difficult, but...)? The institutional asset could take many forms from a unitary state to a federation to a personal union to weirder arrangements.

Possible PODs are things like France doing much better in Italy during the War of Spanish Succession (my favourite would be Eugene of Savoy fighting alongside France) or Austria managing to retain Naples and Sicily during the XVIII century, in any case I would not focus too much on the POD, but more on the socio political viability of each union and on the possible economic and military effects.

I would say that a Franco-Italian union is more likely to function in the long term because culturally French and Italians are much coser than Italians and Germans, Hungarians, Bohemians etc. and the economies are similar (maybe too similar?). On the other hand the Habsburg have imo a better claim on Italy as part of the HRE (atleast the north) and the economies are rather complementary.
Militarily Italy has a great strategic position for controlling the Mediterranean, this would probably be a boon to France more than Austria, but likely not enough to turn the tides against the Royal Navy, because there wasn't any "blue navy" tradition in any Italian state in the XVIII century, apart a bit in Venice, but I don't think Venice could be annexed by France before the revolutionary wars equivalent, if it happens.
Resource wise Italy doesn't add much other than manpower (particularly useful for France if she undergoes the same demographic decline as IOTL) and maybe sicilian sulphur.

EDIT: in both cases I envision the fusion to be rather gradual, with statelets like Parma or Modena being gradually included by inheritance and/or war, while the Papal States would likely remain untouched for the foreseeable future unless something like the French Revolution happens. Obviously if a single power controls the rest of the peninsula it will have the strenght to heavily influence the Papal States, but annexation is out of the cards barring revolution I suppose.
 
Last edited:
IMO, the French would benefit of controlling Italy better than the Habsburgs.

For most of the period you mention the French had a pretty safe domestic situation (stuff like the Fronde are walks in the park next to the Thirty Years War) so they can focus more in consolidating their rule, more importantly, the French would have a clean focus there, whereas the Habsburgs have to manage influence in Germany, Italy, Hungary and the Balkans, plus the cultural ties between the "Latin peoples" can be a bonus.
 
I'd argue that Austrian overlordship of Italy benefits Italians more than French domination would, IMO. Mostly because once/if the HRE becomes irrelevant, Italy becomes the political and economic center of the country, assuming it controls most of OTL Italy, while France will likely always be centered on Paris due to several centuries of traction.
 
IMO, the French would benefit of controlling Italy better than the Habsburgs.

For most of the period you mention the French had a pretty safe domestic situation (stuff like the Fronde are walks in the park next to the Thirty Years War) so they can focus more in consolidating their rule, more importantly, the French would have a clean focus there, whereas the Habsburgs have to manage influence in Germany, Italy, Hungary and the Balkans, plus the cultural ties between the "Latin peoples" can be a bonus.

The Fronde sure was not as deadly and destructive than the thirty years war.

However, it was very deadly and disruptive. Estimates are that almost 10% of the french population, that is 2 million people, may have died because of the chaos caused by the Fronde. Which was far more damaging than the english civil war and explains a part of the backwardness of France compared to England in the end of the 17th century.

This being said, I agree with you with a limit. In the 18th century It is far too late for France to swallow and assimilate more than a minority part of Italy. Identities were becoming too strong.
 
I'd argue that Austrian overlordship of Italy benefits Italians more than French domination would, IMO. Mostly because once/if the HRE becomes irrelevant, Italy becomes the political and economic center of the country, assuming it controls most of OTL Italy, while France will likely always be centered on Paris due to several centuries of traction.
Also, while there is a clear natural border, the cultural and linguistic lines are more blurred and I think that parts of Italy could be completely assimilated into France, namely Piedmont. The problem is that the rest of Italy would likely be treated as a colony, I don't see a common Franco-Italian identity forming before nationalism starts making things more difficult. The Habsburgs, being a multi national empire, are probably slightly less problematical in this sense, although always at risk of imploding.
 
If you're talking just those alone then France-Italy seems more doable in the short term before nationalism trumps a centralised state.
However some sort of Mega Switzerland covering the old Kingdom of Italy (ie North Italy) and other lands around the Alps might be possible by playing with the fallout of HRE and growth of France.
It would have to be highly federal to offset any nationalism arising.
 
If you're talking just those alone then France-Italy seems more doable in the short term before nationalism trumps a centralised state.
However some sort of Mega Switzerland covering the old Kingdom of Italy (ie North Italy) and other lands around the Alps might be possible by playing with the fallout of HRE and growth of France.
It would have to be highly federal to offset any nationalism arising.
Erm, not sure what you mean by Mega Switzerland and how could it happen.

As for an Austrian Italy, I would think that Maria Theresa being born male could be an interesting POD as it would likely mean that Naples and Sicily would remain Austrian. It would however still be necesdary to destroy the Savoyards, maybe a partition with France could be possible in a future war. Ideally Austria would then lose the Spanish Netherlands and maybe gain Bavaria, making for a much more compact empire, at least geographically. Venice would be absorbed sooner on later and if Genoa too is added then in the xix century the Habsburg Empire could have an unexpected but significant naval (colonial even?) projection in the Mediterranean.
Another problem would be Hungary and the Balkanic/Eastern focus that it entails. It wouod very likely end up a much more unwieldy empire when compared with France+Italy.
 
There was a plan as late as the Second Empire to a 3-way split of Italy: The Prince Imperial would receive an analogue of the Napoleonic kingdom of Italy, Prince Murat would be named as king of Naples, and the Austrians would keep Tuscany, Modena ans the Papal States (or something along those lines). Could make for fun times.

Although Naples as an Austrian secundogeniture would be interesting, esp. if Austria annexed Modena and/or Parma as OTL. Bourbons would probably control Tuscany in this scenario, but hey, a perfect world is ASB
 
There was a plan as late as the Second Empire to a 3-way split of Italy: The Prince Imperial would receive an analogue of the Napoleonic kingdom of Italy, Prince Murat would be named as king of Naples, and the Austrians would keep Tuscany, Modena ans the Papal States (or something along those lines). Could make for fun times.

Although Naples as an Austrian secundogeniture would be interesting, esp. if Austria annexed Modena and/or Parma as OTL. Bourbons would probably control Tuscany in this scenario, but hey, a perfect world is ASB
The second empire seems a bit late to me and also, what would be of the Kingdom of Sardinia in that scenario? The alternative is a different outcome to the revolutionary wars, but that opens another very big can of worms.

Edit: while having to control a large italian speaking might change a bit the french linguistic policies, I am quite sure that submisdion to the Habsburg empire is way better for the future of the italian language, as there are no risks of hybridization with the other languages of the empire.
 
Last edited:
Also, while there is a clear natural border, the cultural and linguistic lines are more blurred and I think that parts of Italy could be completely assimilated into France, namely Piedmont. The problem is that the rest of Italy would likely be treated as a colony, I don't see a common Franco-Italian identity forming before nationalism starts making things more difficult. The Habsburgs, being a multi national empire, are probably slightly less problematical in this sense, although always at risk of imploding.

If the Franco-Italian unification happens early enough, i.e., during the period when realms were more the personal property of the monarch than nationalist or proto-nationalist entities, Italy would probably be treated equally to France -- both would be equally the property of the King, after all.

Maybe the King of France and Italy (or whatever title he has) could take a leaf out of the Angevins' book, and give his French nobles lands in Italy, and vice versa. That would make sense as a way to stop one kingdom rebelling (since a dissolution of the union would immediately result in its nobles losing half their income), and might eventually result in the two becoming one nation (as the nobles would spend a lot of time in each realm, promoting a common Franco-Italian culture among them).
 
There was a plan as late as the Second Empire to a 3-way split of Italy: The Prince Imperial would receive an analogue of the Napoleonic kingdom of Italy, Prince Murat would be named as king of Naples, and the Austrians would keep Tuscany, Modena ans the Papal States (or something along those lines). Could make for fun times.

Although Naples as an Austrian secundogeniture would be interesting, esp. if Austria annexed Modena and/or Parma as OTL. Bourbons would probably control Tuscany in this scenario, but hey, a perfect world is ASB

Not even Louis Napoleon would be so stupid to sign on this plan, although the one which was really prepared was not so smart either: it called for a kingdom of North Italy under the Savoy, a kingdom of Etruria in Central Italy (Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany and bits of the Papal States) under Prince Napoleon (aka Plon-Plon), and the kingdom of Two Sicilies in the south (unchanged). Austria would be completely out of Italy, and the three kingdom would form a confederation under the nominal presidency of the pope. Once the war started in 1859, the Habsburg princelings and the Bourbon one in Parma were immediately sent packing by local insurrections, and the same happened in Romagna. All the provisional governments formed after the insurrections asked for annexation to the kingdom of Sardinia. Nappy's plan was already dead.
 
Last edited:
Not even Louis Napoleon would be so stupid to sign on this plan, although the one which was really prepared was not so smart either: it called for a kingdom of North Italy under the Savoy, a kingdom of Etruria in Central Italy (Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany and bits of the Papal States) under Prince Murat (aka Plon-Plon), and the kingdom of Two Sicilies in the south (unchanged). Austria would be completely out of Italy, and the three kingdom would form a confederation under the nominal presidency of the pope. Once the war started in 1859, the Habsburg princelings and the Bourbon one in Parma were immediately sent packing by local insurrections, and the same happened in Romagna. All the provisional governments formed after the insurrections asked for annexation to the kingdom of Sardinia. Nappy's plan was already dead.

Wasn't the argument for Prince Murat to take Naples? Since the family had ties to Naples. I don't see why Plon-Plon would get that, unless you're confusing Prince Lucien Murat with Prince Napoléon "Plon-Plon".
 
Wasn't the argument for Prince Murat to take Naples? Since the family had ties to Naples. I don't see why Plon-Plon would get that, unless you're confusing Prince Lucien Murat with Prince Napoléon "Plon-Plon".
I wrote "prince Murat" but was obviously a typo (and I've edited my previous post accordingly): the kingdom of Etruria should have gone to Prince Napoleon (Plon-Plon). There was noplan to remove the Bourbons from Naples.
 
I wrote "prince Murat" but was obviously a typo (and I've edited my previous post accordingly): the kingdom of Etruria should have gone to Prince Napoleon (Plon-Plon). There was noplan to remove the Bourbons from Naples.
Well, but if they collapsed after an analogue to Garibaldi's expedition, something would have to be done and if the French already have a significant foothold in central Italy...
In any case this is a scheme that won't function, it also leaves independent the parts of Italy that would make more sense to be annexed by France.

After 1815 it is way to late for France, maybe Austria has some chances in Northern Italy if they are not as obtuse and miopic as in otl, but it would be a very very long shot.
 

Oceano

Banned
If France takes over italy, might as well call themselves the Roman Empire and head to Spain for the final battle.
 
If France takes over italy, might as well call themselves the Roman Empire and head to Spain for the final battle.

When ?

In the 16th century, It was already far too late. The spanish identities, although plural (castilan, catalan, aragonese, ... etc) were already far too strong, solid and self conscious for Spain being assimilated by any conquering power. Carlos I, that is emperor Charles V, when young, even faced some kind of national uprising known as the revolt of comuneros because the people perceived him, his behaviour and his following as foreigners.

And besides, 16th century was the time when Spain and France became some kind of hereditary enemies.

So this won't happen unless you choose a POD that is at latest the very first years of the 15th century.
 
When ?

In the 16th century, It was already far too late. The spanish identities, although plural (castilan, catalan, aragonese, ... etc) were already far too strong, solid and self conscious for Spain being assimilated by any conquering power. Carlos I, that is emperor Charles V, when young, even faced some kind of national uprising known as the revolt of comuneros because the people perceived him, his behaviour and his following as foreigners.

And besides, 16th century was the time when Spain and France became some kind of hereditary enemies.

So this won't happen unless you choose a POD that is at latest the very first years of the 15th century.
France could inherit Aragon with a better marriage policy in the 1470s-1480s. And Catalan would certainly be considered more as being a Occitan language than anything else. A france with North Italy, and Aragon is IMO capable of integrating both under one condition : less language centralism. If instead of the 1 language and none else of OTL, you can get France to accept 3 (French, standardised Occitan and standardised North Italian) languages, there is a much higher likelyhood of stability. However Italy is IMO too big to accept being entirely submitted to French rule. The Kingdom of Naples is too big, too far from Paris.
 
France could inherit Aragon with a better marriage policy in the 1470s-1480s. And Catalan would certainly be considered more as being a Occitan language than anything else. A france with North Italy, and Aragon is IMO capable of integrating both under one condition : less language centralism. If instead of the 1 language and none else of OTL, you can get France to accept 3 (French, standardised Occitan and standardised North Italian) languages, there is a much higher likelyhood of stability. However Italy is IMO too big to accept being entirely submitted to French rule. The Kingdom of Naples is too big, too far from Paris.
In the long term, save from real cultural integration (and I think that would obligatory come with having a single language) Spain and Italy would detach themselves from France at some point. But anyway, I doubt the FRench would be able to fully integrate Spain and Italy anyway. But a France including Catalunia and Norther Italy seems quite possible, although possibly with a capital moved in Southern France.
 
Interesting comments from all participants, thanks!

Back to the Austrian side of the dispute, a possible union could maybe come from the marriage between the Prince of Piedmont Vittorio Amedeo (1699-1715) and Maria Amalia of Austria (1701-1756) had Piedmont avoided or survived his bout with smallpox. The next problem would obviously be how to dethrone Maria Theresia: could Piedmont have more success in this ATL Austrian Succession War than Bavaria did in otl?
 
Top