Industrialized Southern Italy?

How industrialized could the Mezzogiorno/Southern Italy get (particularly if the kingdom of Naples/Two Sicilies were to remain independent)? Is there any truth to that Italian unification (Piemontesizzazione) played a big role in "suffocating" the incentive to industrialize?

@isabella @Tarabas @Yanez de Gomera @any other posters familiar with the region's history
 
How industrialized could the Mezzogiorno/Southern Italy get (particularly if the kingdom of Naples/Two Sicilies were to remain independent)? Is there any truth to that Italian unification (Piemontesizzazione) played a big role in "suffocating" the incentive to industrialize?

@isabella @Tarabas @Yanez de Gomera @any other posters familiar with the region's history
Absolutely true who the unification destroyed any chance for an industrialized South, specially considering who that zone was already on a pretty good road for industrializing with a lot of excellences in key sectors
 
Absolutely true who the unification destroyed any chance for an industrialized South, specially considering who that zone was already on a pretty good road for industrializing with a lot of excellences in key sectors
Could we see a "bipolar" peninsula - Milan as a sort of economic powerhouse up north, with Naples (or some other city) playing that same role in the south?
 
Could we see a "bipolar" peninsula - Milan as a sort of economic powerhouse up north, with Naples (or some other city) playing that same role in the south?
If Italy is NOT united, that will be pretty likely in some years (and Naples will be without doubt the southern city)
 
What sort of level of industrialization/wealth would we be looking at (by 2020)? An extension of the "Blue Banana"? Or simply that the south is competitive with the north of Italy?
 
To be fair, one should discuss figures to give an answer. Ferdinand's economical stance had been all along resumable in two concepts: low taxes and a balanced budget. No sign of agrarian reforms nor policies to encourage industrialization. Sicily was treated nearly as a Neapolitan colony. While the first Italian railway was the famous Napoli-Portici, by 1860 the KoTS had a mere 100 km of railways in contrast to 1800 of the rest of the peninsula. Which tracks were favored then? Napoli-Caserta, and generally speaking, the network did not expand far from Naples: no link with the other major cities in the Kingdom, and not a single railway in Sicily. There were some industries, some excellent, this is true, but I am not sure that cotton in Salerno, wool in the Liri valley, and colour, paper and leather could become an industrial powerhouse. Pietrarsa was a big mechanical centre, but it was state-owned AFAIK and served for prestige and military. Generally speaking, Ferdinand of Bourbon was no economist and he thought he administered his state in the best possible way, seeing no point in improving. The technology he liked (the telegraph network was considerable by 1860) was for prestige and if served his scopes, science for science's sake wasn't exactly his creed. So, say that somehow his son Francis II manages not to lose his kingdom (not to be rude, but he was the kind of guy who did not lose his head just because it's on top of his neck), things would just keep going this way in the Two Sicilies, or maybe worse since Ferdinand had done some decent things in the early days of his reign, I doubt Francis could do anything well.
WARNING: this is not to say that the Piemontesizzazione was not bad. Italian unification was really badly managed and it had some dire consequences for the South. However, IMHO this does not change the fact that one would need a radically different reign of Ferdinand of Bourbon to have the South with a bourgeoning economics to rival the North, which has some clear advantages: Po valley, plenty of rivers (both for communication and to generate power), closer to European markets.
 
What sort of level of industrialization/wealth would we be looking at (by 2020)? An extension of the "Blue Banana"? Or simply that the south is competitive with the north of Italy?
That is pretty difficult to say, but the South would be at least competitive with the North. Keep in mind who the Kingdom of Two Sicilies is unlikely to have a forced industrialization (so they would be slower than other countries in expanding it, but would likely NOT pay the social costs of industrialization or pay reduced ones). While the Two Sicilies were at the top in many sectors (including construction of ships and trains) most of their industry/production was either on the textile or the luxury sector)
 
To be fair, one should discuss figures to give an answer. Ferdinand's economical stance had been all along resumable in two concepts: low taxes and a balanced budget. No sign of agrarian reforms nor policies to encourage industrialization. Sicily was treated nearly as a Neapolitan colony. While the first Italian railway was the famous Napoli-Portici, by 1860 the KoTS had a mere 100 km of railways in contrast to 1800 of the rest of the peninsula. Which tracks were favored then? Napoli-Caserta, and generally speaking, the network did not expand far from Naples: no link with the other major cities in the Kingdom, and not a single railway in Sicily. There were some industries, some excellent, this is true, but I am not sure that cotton in Salerno, wool in the Liri valley, and colour, paper and leather could become an industrial powerhouse. Pietrarsa was a big mechanical centre, but it was state-owned AFAIK and served for prestige and military. Generally speaking, Ferdinand of Bourbon was no economist and he thought he administered his state in the best possible way, seeing no point in improving. The technology he liked (the telegraph network was considerable by 1860) was for prestige and if served his scopes, science for science's sake wasn't exactly his creed. So, say that somehow his son Francis II manages not to lose his kingdom (not to be rude, but he was the kind of guy who did not lose his head just because it's on top of his neck), things would just keep going this way in the Two Sicilies, or maybe worse since Ferdinand had done some decent things in the early days of his reign, I doubt Francis could do anything well.
WARNING: this is not to say that the Piemontesizzazione was not bad. Italian unification was really badly managed and it had some dire consequences for the South. However, IMHO this does not change the fact that one would need a radically different reign of Ferdinand of Bourbon to have the South with a bourgeoning economics to rival the North, which has some clear advantages: Po valley, plenty of rivers (both for communication and to generate power), closer to European markets.
Pietrarsa and Castellamare (naval industry) were absolute excellences, and Ferdinand promoted a limited industrialization as he feared the social costs of a too strong one (who he rightly reputed not necessary for the economy of the Kingdom). The little railroads are easily explainable with the presence of too many mountains and a lot of sea access who made sea transportation easier and more convenient than the earth one. The Two Sicilies had also a lot of exportations and commerce with the rest of the world.
Your judgement on Francis is too harsh: he inherited the crown when he was not yet ready, still too young and inexperienced and in the end was also betrayed by everyone but his wife). He practically lost his throne without the chance to rule. Give him a little time for finding a balance and he will likely be a not bad ruler
 
To be fair, one should discuss figures to give an answer. Ferdinand's economical stance had been all along resumable in two concepts: low taxes and a balanced budget. No sign of agrarian reforms nor policies to encourage industrialization. Sicily was treated nearly as a Neapolitan colony. While the first Italian railway was the famous Napoli-Portici, by 1860 the KoTS had a mere 100 km of railways in contrast to 1800 of the rest of the peninsula. Which tracks were favored then? Napoli-Caserta, and generally speaking, the network did not expand far from Naples: no link with the other major cities in the Kingdom, and not a single railway in Sicily. There were some industries, some excellent, this is true, but I am not sure that cotton in Salerno, wool in the Liri valley, and colour, paper and leather could become an industrial powerhouse. Pietrarsa was a big mechanical centre, but it was state-owned AFAIK and served for prestige and military. Generally speaking, Ferdinand of Bourbon was no economist and he thought he administered his state in the best possible way, seeing no point in improving. The technology he liked (the telegraph network was considerable by 1860) was for prestige and if served his scopes, science for science's sake wasn't exactly his creed. So, say that somehow his son Francis II manages not to lose his kingdom (not to be rude, but he was the kind of guy who did not lose his head just because it's on top of his neck), things would just keep going this way in the Two Sicilies, or maybe worse since Ferdinand had done some decent things in the early days of his reign, I doubt Francis could do anything well.
WARNING: this is not to say that the Piemontesizzazione was not bad. Italian unification was really badly managed and it had some dire consequences for the South. However, IMHO this does not change the fact that one would need a radically different reign of Ferdinand of Bourbon to have the South with a bourgeoning economics to rival the North, which has some clear advantages: Po valley, plenty of rivers (both for communication and to generate power), closer to European markets.
So Naples/Sicily would need a more "industrially interested" king than OTL?
 
Pietrarsa and Castellamare (naval industry) were absolute excellences, and Ferdinand promoted a limited industrialization as he feared the social costs of a too strong one (who he rightly reputed not necessary for the economy of the Kingdom). The little railroads are easily explainable with the presence of too many mountains and a lot of sea access who made sea transportation easier and more convenient than the earth one. The Two Sicilies had also a lot of exportations and commerce with the rest of the world.
Your judgement on Francis is too harsh: he inherited the crown when he was not yet ready, still too young and inexperienced and in the end was also betrayed by everyone but his wife). He practically lost his throne without the chance to rule. Give him a little time for finding a balance and he will likely be a not bad ruler
I am not denying the excellence of Pietrarsa, Castellammare, or any other Southern industry: they were generally high-quality, no doubt about it. My main concern is that they were isolated excellences. More quantity would have been more necessary than more quality (and again, there was plenty of the latter). On Francis: yes, he took the throne in the worst moment, yes, he was young (but so was his father when he took the throne, and Ferdinand's first years are arguably his better) but forgive me if I do not expect much from the guy who lay his sword in front of San Gennaro's statue proclaiming the latter "King of Naples" and hoped this would solve anything while Garibaldi was rampaging in Sicily. He might have grown some spine, though, given a lot of time and luck (or maybe just looking at his wife's example).
So Naples/Sicily would need a more "industrially interested" king than OTL?
I would say so. If one can make Ferdinand of Bourbon really interested in industrial expansion and more willing to encourage private initiative, then I can see things a lot better. Having a less conservative vision of economics, making a real agrarian reform, and I would say, recreating the separate Kingdom of Sicily could have made wonders.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
IMHO you need foreign investment - what was that like in the Two Sicilies?

If not good, then you need to give someone a reason to invest there, or to promote investment to their people.

Geopolitically this is complicated though in a surviving Two Sicilies scenario - what are you going to give Britain that Gibraltar-Malta-Alexandria does not? If France is backing the independent North, then that creates difficulties? Russia hasn't got much to invest, but would probably have liked basing facilities on Sicily. Germany? Austria?

I suppose you could throw a left boomerang curve thing, and say how about the USA?
 
IMHO you need foreign investment - what was that like in the Two Sicilies?
Yes, both foreign investments and state sponsorship
If not good, then you need to give someone a reason to invest there, or to promote investment to their people.

Geopolitically this is complicated though in a surviving Two Sicilies scenario - what are you going to give Britain that Gibraltar-Malta-Alexandria does not? If France is backing the independent North, then that creates difficulties? Russia hasn't got much to invest, but would probably have liked basing facilities on Sicily. Germany? Austria?
Two Sicilies wanted be outside of foreign control. And England was too controlling and unfriendly for the liking of the Kings of Two Sicilies
I suppose you could throw a left boomerang curve thing, and say how about the USA?
USA were a big commercial partner of the Kingdom
 
I am not denying the excellence of Pietrarsa, Castellammare, or any other Southern industry: they were generally high-quality, no doubt about it. My main concern is that they were isolated excellences. More quantity would have been more necessary than more quality (and again, there was plenty of the latter). On Francis: yes, he took the throne in the worst moment, yes, he was young (but so was his father when he took the throne, and Ferdinand's first years are arguably his better) but forgive me if I do not expect much from the guy who lay his sword in front of San Gennaro's statue proclaiming the latter "King of Naples" and hoped this would solve anything while Garibaldi was rampaging in Sicily. He might have grown some spine, though, given a lot of time and luck (or maybe just looking at his wife's example).
Ferdinand II had another kind of personality respect to his son and if I you give her the time to adapt in Naples and made friends and allies, Maria Sophie will surely help Francis a lot in taking control of his kingdom.
As I said a) we were still pretty early in the industrialization phase and with time the number of industries of Two Sicilies will go higher as Ferdinand II was pretty unwilling to take too big risks (in terms of social costs) for the industrialization. The most likely scenario see Two Sicilies going slow, but still pretty good. Railroads are a trouble but the conformation of the land play against them (Two Sicilies had rivers and used them)
I would say so. If one can make Ferdinand of Bourbon really interested in industrial expansion and more willing to encourage private initiative, then I can see things a lot better. Having a less conservative vision of economics, making a real agrarian reform, and I would say, recreating the separate Kingdom of Sicily could have made wonders.
 
Personally I think if Tuscany would have been left alone we would have managed just fine. x'D That said I'm on Tarabas side on this, Ferdinand II was not a disaster as a monarch, but he was an absolutist and a conservative and his kingdom needed developement.
 
Personally I think if Tuscany would have been left alone we would have managed just fine. x'D That said I'm on Tarabas side on this, Ferdinand II was not a disaster as a monarch, but he was an absolutist and a conservative and his kingdom needed developement.
He was much less absolutist and conservative than the English propaganda (who was against him for economics and geo-political reasons) made him appear AND while Two Sicilies needed development they were on the right track for it
 
He was much less absolutist and conservative than the English propaganda (who was against him for economics and geo-political reasons) made him appear AND while Two Sicilies needed development they were on the right track for it
While you do have a point regarding the English propaganda, there is no doubt that Ferdinand was an absolutist and a conservative at heart: literally, any decision he made during his reign is proof of that. He was not as insanely cruel as the Brits depicted him, but that is not the matter of this thread. I am curious about what you mean by "right track" for development, too: I mean, Ferdinand followed a Colbertian approach to economics which was outdated, to say the least. And by reading the history of railways on the Two Sicilies, one sees that Ferdinand's will was a bigger obstacle than the mountains: it is enough to look at his negative attitude (nearly obstructionism) towards the initiatives of Melisurgo and De Riseis (both featuring foreign capital, French at least in De Riseis case).
 

kholieken

Banned
my guess is somewhat between Greece and Spain level of industrialization. for various reasons Med countries is less industrialized compared to other EU.
 
my guess is somewhat between Greece and Spain level of industrialization. for various reasons Med countries is less industrialized compared to other EU.
Kingdom of Two Sicilies will most likely end more industralized than both

While you do have a point regarding the English propaganda, there is no doubt that Ferdinand was an absolutist and a conservative at heart: literally, any decision he made during his reign is proof of that. He was not as insanely cruel as the Brits depicted him, but that is not the matter of this thread. I am curious about what you mean by "right track" for development, too: I mean, Ferdinand followed a Colbertian approach to economics which was outdated, to say the least. And by reading the history of railways on the Two Sicilies, one sees that Ferdinand's will was a bigger obstacle than the mountains: it is enough to look at his negative attitude (nearly as obstructionism) towards the initiatives of Melisurgo and De Riseis (both featuring foreign capital, French at least in De Riseis case).
I mean who the Kingdom was starting industrialization process and was promoting all the important sectors. Ferdinand feared (and rightly, considering what was happening in England) the high social costs of a too strong and too quick industrialization (remember who the kingdom was not abandoning the lowest social classes to themselves, specially NOT in the cities). About the railroads is likely who he was pretty much against ruining the landscapes who were a major attractive of his kingdom (who was already a great touristic destination and an essential and indispensable stop of the Grand Tour of any proper European aristocratic). Unlike many other countries Two Sicilies had much more to lose than gain from industrialization (and do NOT need it, at least not yet) so better suited to a slow process of industrialization, concentrated more on quality than quantity (at least at the beginning). Exportations of luxury goods, agricultural products and also of some of the limited more industrial production was more than enough for keeping a positive commercial balance
 
So Naples/Sicily would need a more "industrially interested" king than OTL?
Perhaps this could be done if say Murat manages to keep the Neopolitan throne. The competition with Naples would probably force the Bourbons of Sicily towards modernization in the hopes of retaking their former throne and defending themselves. Murat might actually be able to secure loans from Britain. When Napoleon was defeated Caroline Bonaparte practically opened up the Kingdom to the British.
 
Top