Development of the Bourbon Kingdom of Sicily if the Murat Kingdom of Naples survives

Supposing the Kingdom of Naples ruled by the House of Murat remained in place after the Congress of Vienna like it almost did in otl, how would the Bourbon Kingdom of Sicily develop?

What would be the likely geo-political and economic developments of Sicily in this tl? How would this Kingdom compete with the rest of the other Italian states? How would industrialization occur?
 
Im no expert in this area, but weren't most of the Bourbons pretty fond of absolutist rule? While that doesn't necessarily preclude industrialization and other forms of development, historically that did tend to put a damper on things
I imagine it would be somewhat similar to maybe Spain or Portugal, though perhaps a bit more stable due to its smaller size.
It might be able to become a Republic during an Alt 1848. The Sicilian Parliament did have a long history after all
Assuming unification still goes forward, it probably gets subsumed with out much fanfare. Alternatively it could fall into the orbit of one or another great power, becoming a protectorate of France or Britain or someone
I'm somewhat interested in the possibility of the various Western Mediterranean Islands being bound together to form a polity. Sicily and Corsica seem like they could be British protectorates easy enough, then you just need Sardinia to fall into the British orbit. This would be followed by a custom union and then eventually confederation. Then there could be a British aligned client state in the Mediterranean. But I don't think that's a very likely outcome, just somewhat interesting
 
Hm, this is actually an interesting question. My thoughts is that Sicily becomes the closest thing you have to a British protectorate without being an actual protectorate: the Brits have a lot of interest in the island and IIRC it was the British fleet that protected the Bourbons in the Island. Now the question is, how will Ferdinand II govern when his time comes around? IOTL he largely disregarded Sicily despite being born and having passed a good chunk of childhood and early adolescence there. Probably he will wish to regain Naples but with no real chance at that, he might put his energy into something good. The first years of his IOTL reign were pretty good, if he manages to get on that track, with British investors Sicily might develop well. Although the question of how does Italy develop with a true post-Napoleonic state is really fascinating, I would say it alerts completely the Risorgimento as we know it. On a different outcome, If the Bourbons do not prove their worth, in an alt-1820 or even 1830 Sicily might well join the Murat kingdom.
 
If the Bourbons do not prove their worth, in an alt-1820 or even 1830 Sicily might well join the Murat kingdom.
I could absolutely see a Murat-led Naples stand a better chance of avoiding being unified with Italy, and possibly uniting with Sicily if the Bourbons are deposed, which isn’t terribly unlikely. If he’s smart he can play a buffer to French influence in the Mediterranean for the Brits and a guaranteer of Papal independence against a northern kingdom of Italy for the French, securing his own independence all the while.
 
I could absolutely see a Murat-led Naples stand a better chance of avoiding being unified with Italy, and possibly uniting with Sicily if the Bourbons are deposed, which isn’t terribly unlikely. If he’s smart he can play a buffer to French influence in the Mediterranean for the Brits and a guaranteer of Papal independence against a northern kingdom of Italy for the French, securing his own independence all the while.
I would say that a Murat Naples stands a real chance to be the leader of an Al-Italian unification. Of course, Murat will be smart enough to avoid something like OTL proclamation of Tolentino, but the Italian liberals will certainly look upon him with high expectations, rather than to the Savoys, at least for the first years. The problem with a Southern - led unification is of course that the Pope stands immediately in the way, but it could be done.
 
I would say that a Murat Naples stands a real chance to be the leader of an Al-Italian unification.
I have some doubts. I think many north Italians would be not so thrilled by the proposition of being politically dominated by an underdeveloped south, while southerners might not be thrilled about becoming economically dominated by the north. Northern Italy could probably unify just fine without the south in a scenario with a more stable Naples. Such a deal would be preferable to the great powers too, Britain can keep some influence in the Mediterranean while France gets a more manageable Austrian buffer that can’t threaten the papal state as easily.
 
The problem with a Muratid Italian unification after Napoleon has been dispatched is that it's reliant on a region likely to remain poor and agrarian relative to points further north.
 
I have some doubts. I think many north Italians would be not so thrilled by the proposition of being politically dominated by an underdeveloped south, while southerners might not be thrilled about becoming economically dominated by the north. Northern Italy could probably unify just fine without the south in a scenario with a more stable Naples. Such a deal would be preferable to the great powers too, Britain can keep some influence in the Mediterranean while France gets a more manageable Austrian buffer that can’t threaten the papal state as easily.
Not really, Murat was really liked in Italy and at least by 1815 he was already pretty well involved with the Carbonari who after the situation on the North started to go badly for Napoleonic Italy moved down south, one of the reasons Murat even attempted to attack north was because he was very interested in a unified Italy, so he has the political and even cultural will to start the unification process, since he will probably keep helping the Carbonari in their attempts for unification.

Also there really isn't a reason for Murat's Naples to be as poor as Naples was OTL, he was a reasonably good administrator who very much tried to give back money for development of the country, and it's very probable that many supporters of Napoleon migrate down south as he would probably be pretty friendly to them and between being in states that were hostile to them and being in a state that liked them but which was led by someone who was classified as a Traitor I imagine most would go down south.
 
I have some doubts. I think many north Italians would be not so thrilled by the proposition of being politically dominated by an underdeveloped south, while southerners might not be thrilled about becoming economically dominated by the north. Northern Italy could probably unify just fine without the south in a scenario with a more stable Naples. Such a deal would be preferable to the great powers too, Britain can keep some influence in the Mediterranean while France gets a more manageable Austrian buffer that can’t threaten the papal state as easily.
So with a POD BEFORE the development of the industrial revolution in most of Europe, the South Italy is by default destined to be a poor and underdeveloped region, when Naples was a centre of culture and a very important city and when in OTL under the Bourbon was neither unstable or really so behind the other Italian states? The Sout( started to remain behind the other Italian regions AFTER the unification NOT before it (and the most underdeveloped region of Italy at the unification was Sardinia, who was NOT ruled by the Bourbons of Naples).
Said that is very likely who Murat would do much earlier what Ferdinand II had done in OTL (or at least something of much similar) and without the troubles given by Sicily (who was against being ruled from Naples by default) meaning who the South would likely start earlier industrial production in the key sectors (likely without sacrificing the luxury productions and natural beauties for which the Kingdom was well know).
And also remember who in OTL the greatest part of the Industrial revolution OUTSIDE England happened AFTER the italian unification and not before that, meaning who the gap between North and South happened without doubt after the unification
 
Last edited:
So with a POD BEFORE the development of the industrial revolution in most of Europe, the South Italy is by default destined to be a poor and underdeveloped region, when Naples was a centre of culture and a very important city and when in OTL under the Bourbon was neither unstable or really so behind the other Italian states?
🤷‍♂️ I’ve been told the north-south economic divide can be traced back to Roman times, but hey I might be wrong here. South Italy is still very important to Italian culture, that’s not purely a matter of economics.
 
So, I think I will elaborate a bit on my previous post. I have debated at length the North/South divide thing on this board. Long story short: the North has enormous advantages compared to the south: the Po valley whith fertile flat land, a river system that helps a lot in terms of both communication and generating power, access to the Central European Market (the latter bein gone of the key factors of Venice's greatness back in her glorious days). But, the idea that the South was just an agrarian backwater is about as a myth as the so-called Bourbonia Felix (don't want to enter this particular discussion again). However, we are in 1815, with the Murat Kingdom being the only "liberal" (in a Napoleonic-style way) place in Italy. The Savoys are back in Turin in an absolutistic incarnation, with Vittorio Emanuele I first and Carlo Felice then. Lombardy-Venetia is under the Hapsburg Empire (these years will prove of dramatic decline for Venice, a husk of a city by the time Byron went visiting). The Pope is back in Rome with Cardinals adept to cancel each and every part of the Napoleonic years and administration. You have the absolutistic Hapsburg-Este in Modena (with a greed eye on the Savoy succession) and Marie-Louise of Hapsburg in Parma Piacenza and Guastalla, while the Bourbons are in Lucca (waiting to get back to Parma once ML dies). Tuscany is probably the most pleasant place to leave: the Hapsburg-Lorraine did not sack officers and administrators of the French times, and kept part of the Napoleonic reforms (sans divorce) and the former Leopoldine adminitration was already pretty advanced anyhow. So, I think that the Italian liberals will look at Murat if they need to dream of a leader capable of helping them subverting the order created by Vienna. If Murat keeps a decent army, Napoleonic administration and invests in development and economy (as I believe he would) there you have it. Probably most political exiles from the other Italian states will go to Naples rather than Paris or London. Now, the problem is that the situation is very tricky for Murat, as I do not think he can take Austria alone. Something akin to OTL 1820 is likely to happen, in a stronger fashion than OTL I believe. Maybe in this alt-1820 Charles Albert does not backstab Santarosa and the others (with assurances of support and recognition by Murat) so Sardinia becomes a constitutional Monarchy in the early 1820 and the Bourbons are ousted from Palermo. The Crown of a Constitutional Kingdom of Sicily may well go to Murat (don't know what solutions the English may support better, to be fair). Probably it is too early to have more than this, as neither Vienna nor France will let anything happen to the Papal States.
 
My POD is now Hundred Days and a little bit of luck for Murat ; so first Congress of Vienna only.

Well, the Bourbons will be pissed off, not just Ferdinand and the court in Palermo. In Paris, Louis XVIII is going to be livid since this move would singlehandedly reduce significantly the Bourbon influence in Italy (in fact, until Maria Louise's death, they would be without any territory in mainland Italy, since the duchy of Parma would be hers for life before reverting to the Bourbons iirc). It could therefore be construed as Austria's effort to become the sole hegemon over the entire peninsula (since Murat would owe quite a lot to them, since it was Metternich who pushed rather actively to bring Murat into the fold. Therefore, this could result perhaps in less cordial Austro-French relations and perhaps Louis XVIII would be at least a bit more willing to work with the Russians (although Saxony would still loom large if Russia still supported Prussia's designs).

It might also make France a bit/somewhat more intransigent on the matter of the colonial possessions, since Louis XVIII would want to get and have to show something in return for a backing down on the matter of Naples. This could be another reason to lead France somewhat closer to Russia, especially if Alexander has more success in building ties with the lesser naval powers and supporting them in the negotiations with the British (and if Alexander managed to get the marriage of his sister with the House of Orange instead of that of Princess Charlotte, Alexander might decide to stick more to this policy and thus pursue it more when it came to France).

The Spanish would also be rather unhappy, since Ferdinand was from their Bourbon branch and because Murat would perhaps try to push for the territorial gains promised to him by Neipperg (and most likely materialised in the Papal states, whose territorial integrity the Spanish government was perhaps the more ardent supporters of).

Sidenote: Now, if Murat really managed to get territories in the Papal States, Metternich could perhaps push for Romagna (considered until somewhat late iirc to be open for redistribution by right of conquer St by the Coalition) to be given to Eugene de Beauharnais - which would please the Wittelsbach somewhat, since the possibility of Eugene getting compensation in Germany which would then be counted as part of the overall Wittelsbach gains promised in Ried would be removed and the Wittelsbach would remain a more prominent dynasty with connections outside Germany. However, the value of it is perhaps doubtful, since after late 1813, Bavaria was rather closely attached to Austria and the main problem was in Württemberg - but perhaps this extra goodwill might make it somewhat easier for Metternich to convince the Bavarians to accept territories west of the Rhine as part of the compensation.

(hope my comments aren't wrong or implausible)
 
Something I've wondered: what was so significant about Erfurt that Eugene could not have ended up with his promised state being there?
Erfurt was a bit of an anomaly, being the one area in the middle of the Rhenish Confederation that remained directly under Napoleon rather than being assigned by him to some other monarch. I assume it was for strategic reasons...

Wasn't Eugene named by Napoleon to succeed to the "Duchy of Frankfurt", once Prince-Archbishop von Dalberg passed on?
 
Erfurt was a bit of an anomaly, being the one area in the middle of the Rhenish Confederation that remained directly under Napoleon rather than being assigned by him to some other monarch. I assume it was for strategic reasons...

Wasn't Eugene named by Napoleon to succeed to the "Duchy of Frankfurt", once Prince-Archbishop von Dalberg passed on?
I think so, but some small patch of Thuringia seems like a believable compensation compared to Frankfurt. Then again, if the first congress finishes, maybe Erfurt goes to the Eaglet.
 
I think so, but some small patch of Thuringia seems like a believable compensation compared to Frankfurt. Then again, if the first congress finishes, maybe Erfurt goes to the Eaglet.
I think that Eugene being compensated inside Germany would be opposed by many: the Prussians wouldn't want him anywhere north of the Main, because he could create trouble in what Hardenberg tried to turn into a Prussian sphere of influence; the Wittelsbach would oppose it because of Eugene's association with them, which could give the Prussians (and even the Austrians) the chance to count Eugene's lands as part of the territory to be given to Bavaria in exchange for the retrocession of lands to Austria and thus give less actual territory to Munich. And perhaps the Austrians would drop support of this idea in order to avoid further alienation from Prussia or a fallout with Bavaria when Württemberg and even Baden were flirting with the idea of Russian protection in Germany.
 
I would say it alerts completely the Risorgimento as we know it. On a different outcome, If the Bourbons do not prove their worth, in an alt-1820 or even 1830 Sicily might well join the Murat kingdom.
Would it though? Sicily revolted quite a number of times when it was part of the Kingdom of Two-Sicilies.

would say that a Murat Naples stands a real chance to be the leader of an Al-Italian unification.
I mean it would probably be a haven for Bonapartists fleeing France. Many officers were sacked during the Hundred Days, and during Charles X's "White Terror" a good deal of Bonapartists might flee to Naples.

Though a good way to avoid the fall of Naples is to avoid the Hundred Days entirely. This avoids Murat switching back to Napoleon and Metternich would be more likely to turn a blind eye to the Murats ruling Naples considering how he was banging Napoleon's sister and Murat's wife: Caroline Bonaparte.

he was a reasonably good administrator who very much tried to give back money for development of the country, and it's very probable that many supporters of Napoleon migrate down south as he would probably be pretty friendly to them and between being in states that were hostile to them and being in a state that liked them but which was led by someone who was classified as a Traitor I imagine most would go down south.
Well I wouldn't expect things to be smooth within the Kingdom initially. There was a good deal of Legitimists within the Kingdom who might turn to banditry upon being given a "letter of marque" from the Bourbons in Sicily.

The pope would also be quite hostile to them as well. Which might pit the Neopolitan Clergy against the Kingdom's government. One of the policies of the Nepolitan government was to seize Church property as part of its land reform plans. This would no doubt cause friction within Naples as well.

Now, if Murat really managed to get territories in the Papal States, Metternich could perhaps push for Romagna (considered until somewhat late iirc to be open for redistribution by right of conquer St by the Coalition) to be given to Eugene de Beauharnais - which would please the Wittelsbach somewhat, since the possibility of Eugene getting compensation in Germany which would then be counted as part of the overall Wittelsbach gains promised in Ried would be removed and the Wittelsbach would remain a more prominent dynasty with connections outside Germany. However, the value of it is perhaps doubtful, since after late 1813, Bavaria was rather closely attached to Austria and the main problem was in Württemberg - but perhaps this extra goodwill might make it somewhat easier for Metternich to convince the Bavarians to accept territories west of the Rhine as part of the compensation.
Murat's not getting anything aside from his Kingdom being left alone. He's too unreliable in the eyes of the other Great Powers for something like that. Plus France would still also want the papal states restored. Metternich was also about restoring the Status Quo, and while he would want to expand Austrian hegemony in Italy, he'd still have an interest in restoring the pope to St. Peter's throne because the Pope would now be more open to ally with the Habsburgs with the Bonapartists Murat on his doorstep.

Then again, if the first congress finishes, maybe Erfurt goes to the Eaglet.
Napoleon II is the son of Emperor Napoleon and the grandson of Emperor Franz, so I don't think a meager title like that would be suitable. Though Napoleon II might instead of Louis-Napoleon would instead take over France if something akin to the 1848 Revolution occurrs.
 
Murat's not getting anything aside from his Kingdom being left alone. He's too unreliable in the eyes of the other Great Powers for something like that. Plus France would still also want the papal states restored. Metternich was also about restoring the Status Quo, and while he would want to expand Austrian hegemony in Italy, he'd still have an interest in restoring the pope to St. Peter's throne because the Pope would now be more open to ally with the Habsburgs with the Bonapartists Murat on his doorstep.
True, I just mentioned it as a possibility
 
Top