DBWI: United Italy

As we all know, Italy has always been a politically fractious region. There's a reason why the region is known as a 'Basket of Snakes'.
However, in the Chaos of 1807, and even later, during the 1865 Revolutions, there were always optimistic politicians or radical partisans who strive to unite the peninsula. Of course, they were always obliterated by the forces at large, and some Italians, specifically the Venetian and Papals, voiced doubt about such a concept, but the idea remains quite interesting.
Is there any way to make the Pan-Italianists succeed in creating a singular Italy, or even a decentralized union akin to the Holy German Empire?
 
You would have to remove the Hapsburg as a factor on the peninsula. Maybe a defeat by Prussia in their 186t6 war would have been enough if it had happened.
 
If you're talking about a completely unified peninsula then it would have to almost certainly be by the papal states. I can't imagine that any nation would be crazy enough to wholly annex the papal states since that would cause a religious war. Maybe a united crown of the north and south?
 

Dorozhand

Banned
If you're talking about a completely unified peninsula then it would have to almost certainly be by the papal states. I can't imagine that any nation would be crazy enough to wholly annex the papal states since that would cause a religious war. Maybe a united crown of the north and south?
Italy could possibly have been united without the papal states, or the papal states reduced to a rump entity ruling Rome only. With a weak and malleable enough pope an Italian state which is in a position to unify the peninsula need not risk a religious war merely strong arming the papacy into accepting some kind of deal, especially if there is revolution in the papal states a la 1847 and 1879. Boniface X was a wholly unique figure of the time in his fiery resistance to revolution and annexation. Any other pope might have caved, especially one which desired peace rather than stood at the forefront of war.
 
The 1865 Revolutions were close, but ultimately France sided with Austria after the Pope fled Rome when it fell in the hands of Carlo Pisacane and he proclaimed the Comune di Roma. The socialist experiment soon fell, arguably Rome was one of the worst places in the world at the time to stage an attempt at revolution, lacking as it did any industry. In fact most of the martyrs of the "second sack of Rome" came from proto-industrialized areas in Austrian Italy, like Biella or Bergamo. The Russians sided with the rebelling Hungarians, basically guaranteeing their independence, but ghey had no interests in Italy and, like everyone, they were scared by Pisacane's radicalism.

Maybe if there had been an independent Italian State in the Center-North Italy could have been unified. I mean, if the male line of the House of Savoia hadn't been extinguished by accidents, illnesses and murders in 1807 then Sardinia-Piedmont would have been restored, instead of partitioned between France and Austria, leading to the formation of the Regno dell'Alta Italia (Königreich Oberitaliens).

You might argue that southern Italy was independent, they had also a decent army and a good navy (especially after half the Austrian navy mutined) and could have been the force behind unification, but ultimately they were too weak and their Kings were not interested at all.
Actually in 1865 they even declared war to Austria after radicals had forced a Constitution down Franceschiello's throat, but when it appeared clear that the French were not coming to help he decided to back down and, after Boniface X menaced excommunication he didn't have to arrest the Deputies, he had to save them from the urban mob, else they would have been torn to pieces...

In the end the Noth was pacified and in 1866 you had the Compromesso Storico [OOC: historical compromise, think of a better Ausgleich], thanks to the mediation of Empress Sissi (who possibly loved Italy more than Austria or Bavaria) and her friendship with Cattaneo, who had moderated a lot since 1848 and beame the first Italian Chancellor of Alta Italia. The Austro-Italian Empire (Actually The Lands and Kingdoms Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Iron Crown of Italy) was remarkably free of nationalist strife, especially after surviving the Great War and adopting the federalist and democratic constitution proposed by Hans Kelsen [OOC: sorry for the butterfly massacre].

But what if it all had failed and the Pan-Italianists had won? Italy would have had big problems: debt from the wars that would necessarily have to happen against Austria (and possibly France), lack of coal and iron for a real industrialisation and finally the task of uniting areas as different as Sicily and Friuli would have been a titanic task, for which I doubt that Italy, used to centuries of foreign domination, would have leaders with sufficient force of will and political vision.

Maybe a united Italy would have been better for the South, offering a common market for its agricultural goods, more liberal policies and capitals to finance its industries. Not being shut off from the Austro-Italian markets during the return to protectionism of the 1880's would maybe have avoided much of the emigration, and Sicily would not have become a British protectorate after the Naples' government finally grew tired of repressing the revolts there each 5-6 years...

Rome would obviously have been changed massively if it became the capital of a united Italy, it would certainly be bgger and more modern, but possibly it would have been "rationalized" losing much of its traditional character. Boniface X might have been a reactionary scarecrow, but at least he resisted the proposals by his French patrons to apply the Haussman treatment to the Eternal City!
He had to cave in on the administrative reforms however, and with French capitals the Legazione of Romagna had an industrial boom at the turn of the century. Possibly a united Italy would have been focused on the more productive areas in the Norths and in developing the big industrial centers of the South (isolated, yes, but at the time very modern) and the Center might have become less industrialised and the ideology disparagingly known as cattocomunismo might not have developed.
The Pope whithout any temporal power is difficult to imagine: I suppose he would never get to administer the Congo, right? What minor power could get it then? Or would it be partitioned?

Tuscany I don't know, probably would not be much different than today, with fierce municipal identities and an economy based on cultural tourism, high quality foodstuffs and light industry. They would probably not have the distinction of becoming the first country were a communist (well in name only, but still...) party democratically took power (in 1973), or be the first Republic associated with the A-I Empire after the last Habsburg-Lorraine Grand Duke renounced to the throne and dedicated himself to a carreer in cinema.


What colonial enterprises, if any, would this hypotethical united Italy try? Tunisia seems an obvious choice, but possibly they would decide that they need to improve their internal conditions, instead of launching into costly colonial adventures, what do you think?
 
Last edited:

Dorozhand

Banned
Another thing to consider is France. Francis III was a quiet and unambitious man who granted the French nation with its longest period of stability since the ancien regime, slowly allowing parliamentary democracy to take hold and granting the Constitution of 1853, which spared France from most of the disruption of the 1866 Revolutions. What if someone more rash and less rational had been at the reins during those turbulent times? An example that comes to mind is his older brother Ferdinand Phillippe. He was a proud and brash youth who believed in honor and held revolutionary sympathies. His Sicilian upbringing might have brought up in him if he had reigned a desire to see at least a southern unified Italy, and his ideals of national self-determination might have prompted him to ally France with any emerging Italian power, the pope be damned. This would no doubt have pitted France against Austria, but what this means for Prussia and the north German states is up in the air. Perhaps without a Franco-Austrian coalition on two sides, Prussia might have realized the dream of a united Germany before the Great War. Denmark I think is the key to this answer. The Second Schleswig War was a freak event that by all analysis should not have happened as it did. The Danish navy ferrying troops across Jutland to fight a prototypical mobile defense-in-depth with a military genius at the helm, combined with a victory at sea against odds? It is fantastical the way the Danes smashed the Prusso-Austrian alliance and conquered victory, and would be butterflied at the drop of a hat (or perhaps a horseshoe at Esbjerg). If Prussia had defeated Denmark, the political realignment which followed in Europe would have gone more in the Germanies' favor, and a France which antagonizes Austria could have pushed the two powers together instead of driving them apart, and isolated France rather than Prussia. And if the Prussia of our timeline unified Germany fighting against France, Austria, Britain, and Poland with only the Ottoman Empire and Russia on its side, I can't imagine what could have transpired I things had been otherwise and France had thrown in its lot with a unified Italy.

Furthermore, the consequences of a French monarch taking arms against the papacy, whose office at this point was reminding the world that it still had great power over hearts and minds which should not be taken lightly, might have made things very ugly in Europe even in the short term. It could have even been a second Chaos.
 
Knowing the Italians, would they not see the attempts of a single Italian dynasty, such as the Savoias, to unite Italy as an affront on their regional ideas of sovereignty?

(Also a bump)

It depends: at the time there was a real movement for unification, although it was very fractious and never that popular with the public, apart from urban elites. If the Savoia are seen as taking up the mantle of unification, many of the radicals and republicans of our TL might see them as the lesser evil and collaborate with them. On the other hand, I foresee problems with the South: Sicily was never happy to be ruled from the continent, so much that in the end they accepted to become a British protectorate, de facto a colony, and are still part of the Commonwealth.
I have the feeling yhat the conquest of Naples would not be difficult per se, if Northern Italy is united and Naples has no foreign allies, but holding on it would be trickier, especially if the Italian authorities are in a conflict with the Church, which is certain because of the Roman question. You could easily see big peasant uprisings.

...Furthermore, the consequences of a French monarch taking arms against the papacy, whose office at this point was reminding the world that it still had great power over hearts and minds which should not be taken lightly, might have made things very ugly in Europe even in the short term. It could have even been a second Chaos.

You make a fascinating point about the effects of this on Prussia and the German unification: do you mean that in a TL were Italy unites Prussia might be less dependant on Russia and include the South German states too in her united Germany? It would be a continental power even stronger than OTL, who knows what the effects on balance-of-power would be?

About France, I think that yes, you need a less clerical ruler in France to aid Savoy against Austria and unify Italy, or at least France has to remain neutral on the Roman question while Savoy bides its time until opportunistically joining Prussia in the IMO eventually unavoidable war for supremacy in Germany.
Finally, I think you overestimate the Pope. Yes, Boniface X had still grest influence on France and his turn about and condemnation of the war against Austria was a big factor in the failure of 1865, but if you are hinting at something like a religion war or an anti-liberal crusade, I don't think it is in any way possible. We also saw that in just a couple decades the Papacy accepted some limited aspects of modernism and developed a social doctrine that has proved much influential and arguably did much to reduce the spread of radical socialist (and atheist) ideas among the workers. If they had kept being rigid reactionaries they would eventually have lost much of their flock to anarchism and communism.

But yes, if France acted openly against the Papacy there could have been instability at home. Not in Paris obviously, but in the rural areas for sure, and why would the monarchy choose to inimicate themselves to their own power basis?
 
Top