Considering the Impossible: A Bourbon unified Italy

If Louis XVI attempts it and succeeds, Italy would be united with France.

He didn't have the brains or the willpower to rule France, how could he rule Italy any better? Not to mention France was near bankruptcy throughout his rule, so any adventures in Italy would be doomed.
 
If Louis XVI attempts it and succeeds, Italy would be united with France.

I assume you mean Louis XIV? In which case I doubt that France would openly annex Italy; Louis would likely just place friendly Italian nobles in charge of the various states. It would be too much work to hold Italy down. He'd probably just vassalize it.

Another scenario is am alternate Italian unification. Let's say that Italy unites despite opposition from a republican France, maybe a French Empire under one of Napoleon's successors. The Italians are unable to decide on a king for their new Kingdom of Italy. So, to spite the French, they ask a Bourbon pretender to the throne of France to be their new king. Thus, a Bourbon, unified Italy.

A variation on this would be a surviving Bourbon monarchy stays the dominant European power in the 19th century, and when Italy unites, they ask a Bourbon not in line for the throne to become the new king to suck up to France.

It's fairly unlikely, I think, but interesting nonetheless.
 
Why going around europe?
there were a few Bourbons in charge in italy.
Naples king (who alone ruled about 1/3 of italian territory) was one
 
If the young Bavarian prince who had been designated Carlos of Spain's heir had not died in 1699, we might avoid the War of the Spanish Succession and see the Partition Treaty arranged by Britain, France, and Austria come into force. I believe it granted Louis XIV's son Naples, Sicily, and Tuscany, as well as Lorraine and Bar, which the Duke of Lorraine would trade for Milan, while the Austrians gained the low countries. Assuming the Dauphin spins off his Italian dominions and hands them over to his younger sons (one receiving Naples and Sicily, the other Tuscany upon the extinction of the Medici), it would set up the stage for a potential unified Italy under the Bourbons.
 
Why going around europe?
there were a few Bourbons in charge in italy.
Naples king (who alone ruled about 1/3 of italian territory) was one

This is true. Maybe if Prince Ferdinand isn't killed in his accident, Orleanist France survives its revolution in 1848, and backs their Sicilian cousins. Louis-Philippe's wife was from the Two-Sicilies after all.
 
If the young Bavarian prince who had been designated Carlos of Spain's heir had not died in 1699, we might avoid the War of the Spanish Succession and see the Partition Treaty arranged by Britain, France, and Austria come into force. I believe it granted Louis XIV's son Naples, Sicily, and Tuscany, as well as Lorraine and Bar, which the Duke of Lorraine would trade for Milan, while the Austrians gained the low countries. Assuming the Dauphin spins off his Italian dominions and hands them over to his younger sons (one receiving Naples and Sicily, the other Tuscany upon the extinction of the Medici), it would set up the stage for a potential unified Italy under the Bourbons.

That makes sense.
 
Here's another one:

Italy is conquered by the Bourbons in its entirety and manages to break away in its entirety as a result of a pan-Italian revolt.

The Bourbons swept away (or discredited through collaboration) the local elites who kept Italy disunited, so that surely counts. :)

If there's an ATL Restoration of some kind, perhaps the Bourbons are restored in France and another Bourbon is put in charge of the united Italy for balance-of-power reasons?

Of course, you'd end up with a bigger "Family Compact" (Bourbon Spain, France, and Italy).
 
Dynastic solution

When Charles III took Naples and Sicily from Austria during the War of Polish Succession, he could have feasibly pressed his claim to be the rightful heir to the Tuscan throne, his mother was the senior heir to Gian Gastone the last Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany, through her descent from Cosimo II. He certainly would have received French and Spanish support. Had it been a condition of France and Spain's acceptance of Austria's pragmatic sanction, the War of Austrian Succession could have been avoided aswell. From there a series of fortuitious marriages could have brought most of Italy under heel. Modena passing to Maria-Beatrice d'Este could have been married to Charles' son, their son could then have married a daughter of Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia. Since Victor had no sons and the Bourbons would now be in a strong position they could possibly manage to claim the Sardinian throne through her. Corsica could have been bought, Genoa and Venice ceeded after the Nepoleonic Wars. Thus uniting Italy dynastically by 1824 on the death of Victor.
 
When Charles III took Naples and Sicily from Austria during the War of Polish Succession, he could have feasibly pressed his claim to be the rightful heir to the Tuscan throne, his mother was the senior heir to Gian Gastone the last Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany, through her descent from Cosimo II. He certainly would have received French and Spanish support. Had it been a condition of France and Spain's acceptance of Austria's pragmatic sanction, the War of Austrian Succession could have been avoided aswell. From there a series of fortuitious marriages could have brought most of Italy under heel. Modena passing to Maria-Beatrice d'Este could have been married to Charles' son, their son could then have married a daughter of Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia. Since Victor had no sons and the Bourbons would now be in a strong position they could possibly manage to claim the Sardinian throne through her. Corsica could have been bought, Genoa and Venice ceeded after the Nepoleonic Wars. Thus uniting Italy dynastically by 1824 on the death of Victor.

It does not work for Sardinia (at least from legal point of view): the throne is inherited by male descendants only. However there might be diplomatic pressures (or even a war of Sardinian succession); or Victor Emmanuel I might be convnced to issue his own Pragmatic Sanction.

However, there is another very good POD in 1830 (IIRC) when Ferdinand gets the throne of Two Sicilies: he's young, bright eyed and reasonably liberal in is attitudes. IOTL his early reign was plagued by conspiracies, in particular the one master-minded by his brother the duke of Calabria(IIRC again, cannot go and check); later on his attempts of modernization (the first Italian railway was commissionedby him) were thwarted by a combnation of bad advisors, the opposition of the great nobles, who saw their privileges threathened, and last (but by all means not least) British opposition (Sicilian economy was controlled by British since the time of Napoleonic wars and sulphur was quite a valuable commodity in those years). Slowly Ferdinand succumbed to sloth, up to the point he holed up in his palace in Capua. It might have gone in a different way, even if it is a long shot, and a different and more strong-willed Ferdinand might have become the beacon of liberals all over Italy and the unification of the country might happen by different means
 
Top