(Byron Lives) Alternate Italian Situation

Justin Pickard · May 29, 2005

Okay, I need your help in determining how the following situation will play out.

The year is 1860. The Habsburg Empire collapsed in the five years following 1848. France is still a monarchy, under the Orleanist King Ferdinand. With the aid of the British, an independent Greek nation is rapidly modernising.

In Italy, Pope Pius IX remains head of the Papal States. Throughout the 1850s, there has been a progressive movement towards a loose North Italian Confederation (with participatory states shown in Orange). Lombardy-Venetia is a progressive republic, having declared independence following the collapse of the Austrohungarian Empire. Savoy-Sardinia is ruled by Vittorio Emanuele II. Parma is ruled by a pro-French Orleanist Duke. Modena is a conservative Duchy. Tuscany is a constitutional monarchy under Leopold II, the Grand Duke.

So, by 1860, Italy is divided into three seperate political entities: the North Italian Confederation, the Kingdom of the Two Scilies (under King Francis II), and the Papal States. What happens next? Is conflict inevitable? Will San Marino or Monaco survive intact?

Nicole · May 29, 2005

I don't see why San Marino or Monaco wouldn't stay intact... The main way I can see Monaco causing anything is if the Grimaldies die out, then the Prinicpality would pass to France. If Savoy-Sardinia doesn't want that...
San Marino is nicely insulated by the Papal States, and is in very mountainous terrain, if the NIC invades the Papal States for some reason they'd probably go around it.
Francis II of Two Sicilies may be a problem. He was a bit of an absolutist, and from what I've read he wasn't too bright. There were many revolts against his rule, indeed, that's what gave Garibaldi the excuse to conquer it.

LordKalvan · May 29, 2005

Interesting scenario, something which might even have happened in OTL.
Effectively, you postulate two POD's:

a somehow more successful 1848, at least in Italy and Austria-Hungary (what happened in Germany? this is not so irrelevant. Maybe the King of Prussia accepted the Imperial Crown of Germany, and the Frankfurt Parliament refrained from making a complete mess of things)
libertarians prevailing in Milan (OTL the moderates offered the crown to Charles Albert of Savoy) and Manin being a more effective leader in Venice ( a suggestion: if there is no war between Piedmont and Austria in 1848-49, Charles Albert might still be king. He died in 1849 in exile in Portugal, but I have always had the feeling that the defeat had a lot to do in his death)

I would also expect that Pio IX managed to keep thing more or less democratic in the Papal States (OTL there was a back-swing toward absolutism which resulted in a number of insurrections in particular in Romagna).
A loose confederation with the pope as figure-head was proposed by a number of liberal-catholic thinkers (the so called neo-guelphs).
If this does not come to fruition, the situation is much more explosive. Who is "leading" the Northern Italian Confederation? Are the Papal States out of it because there was a return to absolutism? (the situation would be untenable, with the progressive republic of Lombardy and Venice sharing a long open border with the Papal States).
I have also a lot of doubts abouth the Duke of Modena surviving the up-heaval.
The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies would have no ally (except maybe Russia), and would be likely to succumb to internal revolution and/or invasion (similar to OTL - with British backing)
Nothing would happen to Monaco and San marino. OTL they survived, among other things, Napoleon and the Fascism. They would go on as usual, aping the prevailing sentiment in Italy and Provence.

Justin Pickard · May 30, 2005

The real root POD for the whole 1848 situation was that of the survival of Ferdinand-Philippe (1810-71), to become a relatively liberal and popular King of France upon the abdication of his father, Louis-Philippe of France in 1848. Liberal reforms placate protesters, leading to a slightly muted 1848 elsewhere in Europe.

In the Habsburg Empire - having heard of the liberal reforms of France - mobs demand the resignation of Metternich. With Metternich gone, Emperor Ferdinand (originally Metternich's puppet) is bought to the forefront of decision making. Unable to deal with the pressure, Ferdinand sinks into a fever, and dies shortly after, creating a power vacuum which plunged the Empire into chaos. Lombardy-Venetia, Dalmatia, and the Grand Duchy of Krakow all secede, whilst Hungary demands greater autonomy.

In Germany, less extreme revolutionary activity is really only of any notable influence in Berlin, where it is ruthlessly crushed by Friedrich Wilhelm IV (1795-61). In subsequent years, Prussia slides into an isolationist absolutism and, without Prussian support, Without Prussian support, the pro-unification movement is still-born. (Also note that this means no Bismark)

-----

Who is "leading" the Northern Italian Confederation?

The North Italian Confederation is a 'peaceful union' (dominated by two spheres of influence - that of Savoy-Sardinia, and that of Lombardy-Venetia) with common policies for defense, foreign affairs, foreign trade, and a common currency. There is a common written constitution, and a Confederation Assembly located in Turin. I envisaged it as a relatively liberal association of constitutional monarchies and republics.

Are the Papal States out of it because there was a return to absolutism?

On the contrary. In 1848, the Pope bowed to the demands of liberal protesters, granting a lay ministry and a constitution. However, Pius IX, despite being a broadly liberal Pope, has nevertheless condemned 'modernism in all its forms' and, as such, sees the North Italian Confederation as treading dangerously close to the edge of acceptability with potential future legislation on the freedom of religion and a broadly secular common constituion. On the other side, with French military support, the Papal States have resisted any incursions by the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, although rumours of the potential for future Russian support has the Pope worried.

I have also a lot of doubts abouth the Duke of Modena surviving the up-heaval.

Who could have replaced him? Could Modena have become a republic along the lines of Lombardy-Venetia?

The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies would have no ally (except maybe Russia), and would be likely to succumb to internal revolution and/or invasion

Any suggests for who by, or what happens next? A Catholic Russian satellite state? Greek occupation? Civil war between liberals and Catholics?

LordKalvan · May 30, 2005

Yes, more or less what I expected.
Not a very stable situation, though.
Piedmont-Sardinia, even if Charles Albert was sympathetic to liberal ideologies, and actually granted a Constitution, is still a bit of a backwater: Milan, Florence and (in a lesser measure) Genoa are certainly much more modern and liberal than Turin.
The king of Sardinia as "leader" of the Confederation is not in an easy spot, in particular with the Milanese fire-breathers pushing for strong reforming (and maybe planning an insurrection in the papal States or a subversion of the southern kingdom (what happened of the important guys, btw? Cavour should be in Piedmont, he would be a nice prime Minister for the confederation; he died of a fever in 1861, in TTL he might squeeze a few more years. Mazzini would be in Milan or Venice; provided he has not yet succeeded in quarrelling with everyone. Garibaldi? might really be anywhere, from London to South America. Or maybe he's planning the subversion of Naples).
Mind, in a way this scenario would not lead to the troubles of the unifed Italy in OTL: less problems in integration - the states belonging to the Northern Confederation are mostly homogeneous - and quite likely to be less imperialistic. OTOH, if there is no written pact to support a ruler threatened by insurrection, I would not bet a lot of money on the Duke of Modena (who was very much disliked by its subjects). Modena might become a republic, but I see more likely for it to be annexed by Sardinia or Tuscany (Leopold was very much liked). Or both, maybe.
Notwithstanding the continuation of a liberal policy, i do not give a lot of chances to the Pope in retaining Bologna and Romagna. In these lands, there was (and still there is, by the way) too much bad blood against the church.

Pity for the wrong POD in Germany. A reactionary prussia is not a big difference with OTL; the lack of a Bismarck will be felt, though.
Did Kossuth succeeded in freeing Hungary?

Justin Pickard · May 30, 2005

Okay, how about this?

It is 1860. Orange and yellow states are both part of the North Italian Confederation, with orange states being part of the republican bloc (Lombardy-Venetia, Moderna and Romagna), whilst yellow states are those which retain monarchs (Savoy-Sardinia, Parma and Tuscany). Although some tensions between the two 'blocs' exist - which may prove a problem in the future - co-operation is currently taken for granted. The main administrative centre of the Confederation is Milan. Romagna was the most recent state to join the Confederation, having rebelled against the counter-reforms of the Papal States, following the threat of a Russo-Scilian invasion in 1857.

Cavour is currently Prime Minister of Savoy-Sardinia, however, I can only see him dying on schedule in 1861.

The Carbonari, under the premiership of Giuseppe Mazzini, are very much the power behind the throne of the North Italian Confederation (especially influential in the republican bloc) and - having abandoned hopes for a totally unified Italy - are currently concentrating on consolidation of the Confederation, and finding suitable allies abroad. Their base of operations is in Milan, from which they aim to aid liberal/radical activities across the continent. Garibaldi is currently in London, trying to gain British allies and contacts for the Carbonari, whilst editing a radical newspaper.

Kossuth didn't totally suceed in freeing Hungary, but did ensure a dramatically greater level of autonomy for the nation. He is currently the Hungarian Prime Minister, whilst Franz Josef maintains his role as Head of State.

Nicole · May 30, 2005

Would it be correct to say that Kossuth managed to create Austria-Hungary early?

Justin Pickard · May 30, 2005

Not really. The Austrian Empire still exists under Emperor Franz Josef, encompassing Austria, Tyrol and Salzburg. Hungary is de facto independent, with Franz Josef as head of state. Hungary is to the Austrian Empire in this timeline as Australia is to the UK today.

Nicole · May 30, 2005

Justin Pickard said:
Not really. The Austrian Empire still exists under Emperor Franz Josef, encompassing Austria, Tyrol and Salzburg. Hungary is de facto independent, with Franz Josef as head of state. Hungary is to the Austrian Empire in this timeline as Australia is to the UK today.

Ah, I see... Dominion of Hungary, then.

Justin Pickard · May 30, 2005

Yes. But it's not particularly happy about it.

LordKalvan · May 30, 2005

Ok. The death of Cavour in 1861 starts a period of instability in Piedmont, which ends with Urbano Rattazzi (center-left and very anti-clerical) becoming prime minister. Rattazzi and mazzini do not like each other, but they can walk together for a time. Not unsurprisingly, revolutionary activities start very quickly in the duchy of Parma and in the Papal States.
In 1863, Piedmontese troops occupy the duchy of Parma, while Garibaldi moves from Romagna into the Papal States, quickly overcoming a feeble resistance.
The move appears to have been agreed with UK, who is supportive. the main opposition comes from orleanist France and the kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
Contrary to OTL, Rattazzi feels much more secure in his premiership (also because of the strong support from Milan), and his action is quite decisive.
A secret agreement with France gives the Pope a joint guarantee for lazio and the town of Rome. France and Piedmont agree also that the kingdom of the Two Sicilies must be steered toward constitutional reforms: however Piedmont undertakes not to give support to insurrectionists there.
In order to guarantee Lazio from Garibaldi troops, and taking advantage of insurrectional movements against Ferdinand IV (who has replaced on schedule his father Leopold as grand duke of Tuscany), Piedmontese troops occupy Tuscany, and confront garibaldi at the Lazio border.
This last is touch-and-go: there are some skirmishes, but in the end Garibaldi does not force the issue.
The map of Italy is once again changed:

Piedmont annexes Tuscany, after a plebiscite;
the Duchy of Parma is split: Parma goes to Piedmont, but reggio chooses the republicans;
Marche and Umbria join the republican side too, again after plebiscites;
Lombardy and veneto take the name of Repubblica Cisalpina (republic "this side" of the Alps);
Emilia, Romagna, Marche and Umbria take the name of repubblica Cispadana (republic "this side" of the Po river);
Victor Emmanuel of Savoy takes the title of Grand-duke of Tuscany. More significantly, he also takes the title of "King of Italy", although the royal powers in this case are quite reduced. The capital of this federal kingdom is located in Pavia (near Milano, the capital of the ancient Longobard kingdom). If someone finds a bit strange to have the capital of a kingdom located in a republic, no one makes too much of a fuss. As a not-so-minor note, it is Victor emmanuel I (and not II, like OTL: this time the crown has been offered by the people, and not taken on a battlefield).

What's going to happen from here on will depend on the European asset. However, I would expect that the two republics would be sympathetic toward the left, and would attract revolutionaries from all over Europe (a bit like Switzerland, OTL, but much more so). Like OTL, there are strong flows of Swiss and British capital to finance new industries; this time, however, the costs to integrate all the peninsula are not there, and the benefit for the new "federal kingdom" should be much more significant.
What do you think?

Faeelin · May 30, 2005

Wouldn't it make more sense to combine the Cisadapine and Cisalpine Republics? Why would they remain divided?

Nicole · May 30, 2005

Hm, possibly... Here's how I think it might play out.

In 1860, Sicily erupts in revolt against the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. Garibaldi enters the island, and while he is securing the island, Francis II immediately grants a liberal constitution. Fearing a Southern Republic, the Pope calls upon Catholic states to put down the Sicilian Rebellion. Eventually, the former Kingdom of Two Sicilies is divivded, into the Kingdom of Naples and the Republic of Sicily.
Soon after the crisis, the liberal Republics of the North Italian Confederation unite into the Republic of North Italy (better name, anyone?) with a capital at Venice.
Also around this time, Monaco is admitted to the North Italian Confederation.

DuQuense · May 30, 2005

You would also be running into problems with the whole Idea of Pope as Political Leader in Churches outside of Italy, especially in the more liberal countries

LordKalvan · May 30, 2005

Imajin said:
Hm, possibly... Here's how I think it might play out.

In 1860, Sicily erupts in revolt against the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. Garibaldi enters the island, and while he is securing the island, Francis II immediately grants a liberal constitution. Fearing a Southern Republic, the Pope calls upon Catholic states to put down the Sicilian Rebellion. Eventually, the former Kingdom of Two Sicilies is divivded, into the Kingdom of Naples and the Republic of Sicily.
Soon after the crisis, the liberal Republics of the North Italian Confederation unite into the Republic of North Italy (better name, anyone?) with a capital at Venice.
Also around this time, Monaco is admitted to the North Italian Confederation.

Matter of fact, I was trying to go on a different line from OTL, keeping the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies separate (at least for the time being; and I agree that sooner or later the kingdom will be done away by a revolution).
As far as I see it, one of the major problems with Italian unification is that the Savoys hijacked the popular movement, and effectively expanded until the covered all of Italy. In TTL, the republican movement has been much more successful, and is clearly an alternative: it should succeed in creating quite a different Italy. I do see another obstacle to an immediate subversion of the southern kingdom. In OTL, 1859-1860 events were more or less correlate, and went quite more fast that it was planned by Cavour. TTL does not see a war against Austria, and I would expect that the pace would be more sedate. Actually, the toppling of Parma and Tuscany, not to mention the liberation of Umbria and Marche, happen after the death of Cavour, and are predicated on common interests between the center-left piedmontese government of Rattazzi and the leftist government in Lombardy/Veneto.
There is also another reason: the ACW started on schedule in 1861. This time Garibaldi goes to USA, bringing with him the Italian Legion (the Mille, who OTL went to Sicily), and offers Lincoln to fight for freedom against slavery. Differently from what happened OTL, the offer is accepted, and Garibaldi fights in the ACW (I would put him in the Mississipi theatre - looks more adequate to his capacity in commanding irregular forces). Any ideas here?

Btw, no problem with Monaco entering the italian federation.

LordKalvan · May 30, 2005

Faeelin said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to combine the Cisadapine and Cisalpine Republics? Why would they remain divided?

remember that italian states were traditionally divided, and a bit skeptic of the true motives of others. Again, let's see a difference from OTL: the repubblica Cisalpina and the repubblica Cispadana are not names taken out of the hat. After the ideas of the french revolution were exported to northern Italy, these two republic were actually created (they did not last very long, and were subsumed in the Kingdom of Italy by Napoleon). TTL, Italy has been re-born as a federation, not as a centralised state (much better, from my POV). Another good reason to keep these two states separate (common army, foreign policy, currency - but separate)

LordKalvan · May 30, 2005

DuQuense said:
You would also be running into problems with the whole Idea of Pope as Political Leader in Churches outside of Italy, especially in the more liberal countries

The Pope is no more a political leader TTL in the 1860's. Just like OTL, his dominions have been sharply reduced. It is quite likely it will go backward from here, toward absolutism and a condemnation of everything which is liberal and progressive. this will not endear him to the liberal states for sure; however, i do not expect any major break with the remaining catholic countries. One of the differences with OTL should be that his influence in Italy will be sharply reduced (at least in the North). OTL, the Savoys never went on toward anti-clericalism. TTL, the republicans have no problems in being fiercely anticlerical. I would anticipate a kind of kultur-kampf in Northern Italy before the turn of the century. And if the Savoys remain too friendly to the Pope, ....

Justin Pickard · May 31, 2005

Can anyone see potential for a future European war between a Russo-Sicilian alliance and a Franco-Confederation force? Spain would probably stand up in defence of the Papal State.

Also, I am very interesting about what you people have been saying about potential butterflies for the ACW.

I want a larger role for the Carbonari backstage, possibly becoming an umbrella organisation for all sorts of radicals and revolutionaries across the continent.

Do you folks think that the relative stability of the North Italian Confederation could become a focus for the 'second wave' of the Industrial Revolution?

Here's a map of the situation by 1865:

LordKalvan · May 31, 2005

The Carbonari were an organization active until the late 1830's, then they were replaced by Mazzini's Giovane Italia (Young Italy). Mazzini had always the desire of masterminding the European revolution, but he was not a Marx or an Engels (even if he must have met both in London). OTOH, the political climate in northern Italy should have been favorable to create a haven for European revolutionaries, nihilists and in general romantic adventurers.

Frankly, I do not see a lot of chances that Italy would be aligned with France: first of all, the close contiguity means that the interests are often in contrast, second the republicans will not be so pleased with the kingdom who repressed the insurrection of 1848. I think it might be possible that the Savoys would be close to the Orleans; OTOH the republicans would rather rely on UK and on Hungary. Even if Hungary has kept an Habsburg as a figurehead king, the hungarian policy should be still dominated by Lajos Kossuth, and by ethnic Magyar considerations. Actually, Italians and magyars should also be brought together by the desire to control the ambitions of Croats and Slovens (as well as the danger of a return of Austria).

The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies is not worth a war for anyone. If Russia is looking for an ally, it might look at the rump Austria, or to Prussia. Or both. But in this case, automatically France would oppose such move, as well as UK would do (how's the colonial situation, btw? the Orleans should have stayed out of the Mexico fiasco, but this might have created opportunities for an earlier expansion in the Far east, and maximised the risk of clashes with the British). In the Adriatic, the legacy of Venice would draw the Northern italians toward Dalmatia; they would be quite friendly to Greece, the romantic movement is more than enough to ensure this.
Like the french, the lesser need of spending in wars might anticipate the colonial opportunities, in particular once the Suez canal is cut (will be cut? the interest should be there in any case, but OTL Napoleon le petit was the strongest sponsor of the canal).
In Germany, Bavaria should be pro-French: the least evil. Same for the Rhenish principates. Prussia might be very much aligned on Russia, not really an avenue conductive to triumphs.

The TTL adventures of Garibaldi in the ACW might be amusing, but I'm not enough well read in the ACW to tell them. It might be interesting however if Garibaldi (or some one from his Italian Legion) brought back to italy the experience of the first modern war: railways, guns, logistics and so on.
Even more interesting would be a modern battleship commissioned to the Atlantic seaboard shipyards, and armed with Dahlgren guns (republics have a right to be well armed

)

LordKalvan · May 31, 2005

I forgot to talk about industrial revolution: as I said in an earlier post, I would expect that the stability and the liberal atmosphere of the Italian republics would attract foreign capitals (in particular Swiss and British) even more than it did OTL. I would expect both a much more diffuse wealth by the turn of the century and a much lesser emigration, in particular from Veneto.