Can more successful 1848/1849 insurrections bring to an early Italian Republic

Hi to all and please forgive me if I made some mistake in posting here as this is my first thread.
I have always been fascinated by the figure of Giuseppe Mazzini, the political father of the italian "Risorgimento" and reunification. He was a fervent republican, as Garibaldi too, however the italian reunification of 1861 brought about a Kingdom of Italy under the House of Savoia of the Kingdom of Sardinia.
This Kingdom was in many ways rather backward and its unification of Italy could be described as little better than a mlitary conquest, especially because the new authorities didn't at all respect the local customs and peculiarities, but tried their best to eradicate them and impose uniformity to the new State.
All in all it was a far cry from Mazzini ideals, and he soon was reduced to the fringe of the italian political spectrum, dominated by more pragmatical figures like the piedmontese minister Camillo Benso Count of Cavour.

But...

Could history have swung to the other side? According to your learned opinions could the insurrections of 1848 and 1849 have had a different outcome?
In particular, could the Roman Republic of 1849, headed by Mazzini, Saffi and Armellini and with Garibaldi at the head of its voluntary forces, have lasted more than a few months and consolidated in a republican and democratic nucleus for an earlier italian reunification?

The Roman Republic lasted about five months before against Neapolitan and Austrian forces before falling to the French expeditionary force. Could the French support them in an anti-Austrian function?
I think that the survival of the Roman Republic is not probable, but could there be a POD (not before the Council of Vienna please) that would enable it to resist the crisis and consolidate, one day unifying Italy?
 
No.

The vast majority of Italian states were monarchical, and the '48 would have needed their support to form a national state.

In particular, you need the armies of e.g. Piedmont/Savoy/Sardinia to beat the Austrians in the field to get Lombardy into the new state.

Moreover, IIRC, the Roman Republic wasn't really formed until the unification project was essentially dead.


Could you have a unified Italian state in '48/'49? Yes. Could it have been CALLED a republic? Maybe. Especially if the Pope were the figurehead leader of a national council. But it would have been a very odd beast - composed of duchies, counties and kingdoms - plus the republic of Venice, likely.

Much more likely would be an overtly monarchical federal state. IMO.
 
Yes.
It is a long and hard way which needs to finesse a number of obstacles but there is a possibility.
The keys to the ultimate success do not lie in Rome, however. They are in Milan and Venice and the key men are Carlo Cattaneo and Daniele Manin.

After the successful insurrection of Milan the moderates under the leadership of Casati prevailed over the radicals and invited Carlo Alberto to enter Lombardy.
What if there is no such invitation and a provisional republican government is established in Milan? There is a strong possibility that Carlo Alberto (the Italian Hamlet) will not cross the Ticino to enter Lombardy but will still keep his troops mobilized on the eastern border of Piedmont.

The role of Manin in Venice is even more significant: a dedicated patriot, an intelligent and well educated man but also a man who believed it would be possible to carry out a revolution without breaking laws and utterly impractical in all things concerned with the military side of the struggle. It can also be argued that Manin was a true citizen of Venice in the old meaning: he was dedicated to the city itself and never understood that the freedom of Venice could only be achieved by organizing and guiding the insurrections in Veneto and Friuli.
Manin lost two major opportunities: the first when he dithered too long on the proposal to instigate a mutiny in the Austrian fleet based at Pola in Istria (the majority of the sailors were either Venetians or Dalmatians of Venetian origin; a successful mutiny was possible and would at least have gained a number of warships to protect Venice from a naval blockade - it would certainly have been a great propaganda coup in any way you may want to see it); the second and most ominous mistake was to refuse to create a National Guard and call for a levee en masse: he just could not understand the need for it. The result was that every city and town in Veneto was left more or less on their own and Nugent with his 20,000 men could march through Friuli, put Palmanova under siege, isolate Treviso and ultimately join Radetzki in the Quadrilateral (after the insurrections in Milan and Venice Radetzki had holed up in the fortresses of the Quadrilateral but his strength had been decreased from 61 to 41 battalions due to desertions).

I think Radetzki would be in a quandary: it is obvious that the insurrectionists (even reinforced by volunteers for the Papal States, Tuscany and Two Sicilies) could not pry him out of the fortresses. OTOH he cannot embark on a pacification campaign with the army-in-being of Carlo Alberto on the Ticino, in particular if the Nugent army boggles down in Friuli.

Radetzki's victories in 1848 were also a big prop for the Austrian imperial government which had left Vienna after the insurrection and was holed up in Linz: if the situation in Italy does not improve they may find themselves in a worse quandary (and Hungary could also move earlier and recall the Hungarian regiments - another big blow). There is even a possibility that the bulk of Radetzki's forces might be recalled to Austria to prop up the imperial government.

On the diplomatic side, there is a better chance that republican France might send troops to support two "sister republics" in northern Italy, rather than what happened IOTL when Carlo Alberto gave the impression that he was out for land grabs rather than working honestly for Italian freedom. This is even more likely if the pope is still in Rome given the strong catholicism of rural France.

In Italy it is a given that the duchies of Parma and Modena will go to the insurgents, and the same will happen in the Papal Legations. Most likely outcome would be a third republic allied with Milan and Venice. Tuscany's possible contagion is less certain, but at least the Grand Duke will have to walk a very narrow line. Other possibilities are a new insurrection in Sicily and a (unlikely but not impossible) insurrection in Piedmont if Carlo Alberto continues to dither and does not choose to support the revolutionary governments in Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia (in such a case it is very possible that the insurrection would start in Genoa and it is almost a given that France would help).

Mind: even in the best possible scenario the key would be to keep the moderates on board and avoid frightening them too much.
 
I see your points. Cattaneo was brilliant indeed, however as a positivist he was in a minority I think among Italian intellectuals of the time.
A couple of years ago I read his book on the insurrection of Milan, but unfortunately I don't have it with me atm. I don't know if it is possible for his republican line to prevail, but I agree that it is necessary to avoid a Sardinian intervention.
To sum it up we need:
1- To keep Pius IX in Rome without scaring him off to much and to avoid him throwing his lot with Austria and the "Bomb King" of Naples. This is however difficult because Mazzini and Garibaldi saw Rome as a powerful symbol and after the Pope recalls his army to avoid fighting the Austrians it is very difficult to avoid problems in Rome.

2- A more symphatethic French Republic.

3- Cattaneo manages to declare a Republic in Milan and avoid Piedmontese meddling.

4-Venice doesn't vote annexation to Sardinia as it did OTL.

In order to have 3 and 4 it is maybe necessary to discredit Carlo Alberto in the eyes of the Italian liberals. 1 and 2 are probably linked, but how can the Pope keep supporting the italian liberals against the Hapsburgs?
 
I see your points. Cattaneo was brilliant indeed, however as a positivist he was in a minority I think among Italian intellectuals of the time.
A couple of years ago I read his book on the insurrection of Milan, but unfortunately I don't have it with me atm. I don't know if it is possible for his republican line to prevail, but I agree that it is necessary to avoid a Sardinian intervention.
To sum it up we need:
1- To keep Pius IX in Rome without scaring him off to much and to avoid him throwing his lot with Austria and the "Bomb King" of Naples. This is however difficult because Mazzini and Garibaldi saw Rome as a powerful symbol and after the Pope recalls his army to avoid fighting the Austrians it is very difficult to avoid problems in Rome.

Barring the Finger of God directly touching him, Pius IX will never side with the insurrectionists. Cattaneo's neo-guelph federation is an illusion (and Cattaneo himself will realize it. ITTL very soon). Leave the Curia to its internecine fights between the few liberals and the many conservatives (if not outright reactionaries), and let the pope himself show beyond any reasonable doubt that his romance with liberal ideals has lasted just a few months. If there are troubles in Rome (and the unavoidable bloody repression) so much the better. In the end Pius IX will run again to Gaeta, but will not return ever to Rome :cool:

2- A more symphatethic French Republic.
Not just sympathetic, but willing to provide supplies, volunteers and officers (maybe a Cavaignac in northern Italy?)

3- Cattaneo manages to declare a Republic in Milan and avoid Piedmontese meddling.
Given the strength of the moderate party the declaration of the republic must wait a bit. It will take a more decisive and proactive Cattaneo but IMHO he can manage to stop the appeal to Carlo Alberto and push through a Provisional Government. Once again let the leaders of the moderates discredit themselves (Casati sending messages to Carlo Alberto and promising support for an annexation maybe). Then there is a chance to proclaim an Ambrosian Republic and since the Swiss gave just completed the works on their own liberal constitution it might be a good pattern to work on (besides France, the border with Switzerland is another good thing for Milan: a secure way to get supplies).

4-Venice doesn't vote annexation to Sardinia as it did OTL.
That's the last thing which happened IOTL (and certainly the Sabaudian party was not very strong in Venice). As I said in my previous post, Manin must be more decisive too, and less nice, and must understand the need to organize the Veneto insurgents. Plus the mutiny of the Austrian fleet in Pola.

In order to have 3 and 4 it is maybe necessary to discredit Carlo Alberto in the eyes of the Italian liberals. 1 and 2 are probably linked, but how can the Pope keep supporting the italian liberals against the Hapsburgs?
No need to discredit Carlo Alberto: the Italian Hamlet can be relied upon to do everything on his own. Without a Milanese invitation he will not cross the Ticino. The early successes of the revolutionaries will scare the Piedmontese conservatives. When (not if, when) the pope turn coats Carlo Alberto is sure to do something stupid (maybe even suspend the Statute).
 
Top