Italian population & power comparable to germany and france?

What was the reason that Southern Italy seems to have been less developed from the Renaissance onward? Can we avert the Aragonese, French, Spanish rule and get rid of feudalism on schedule?
Not true... Developement in Southern Italy really stagnated only after the unification, not before...
 
Not true... Developement in Southern Italy really stagnated only after the unification, not before...
Let's not start with Neoborbonic drivel, please. While Savoy did make a mess out of the unification of Italy, it's most in ignoring the many problems the Two Sicilies had had - serfdom, brigands, basically no middle class, basically no industry. The closest nation to the Two Sicilies at the times, in fact, would be Russia - one or two modern cities, but surrounded by a sea of underdeveloped, backward land (and even the modernity of Naples was more facade than anything else - the much vaunted Napoli-Portici was the first railway line in Italy, true, but nothing but minor extensions was laid down afterwards - even as Piedmont started later but actually worked on a network, rather than just a very short luxury showcase).

Naples was squeezed dry by Spanish domination, and even as its own independent nation it never quite recovered from that.
 
Let's not start with Neoborbonic drivel, please. While Savoy did make a mess out of the unification of Italy, it's most in ignoring the many problems the Two Sicilies had had - serfdom, brigands, basically no middle class, basically no industry. The closest nation to the Two Sicilies at the times, in fact, would be Russia - one or two modern cities, but surrounded by a sea of underdeveloped, backward land (and even the modernity of Naples was more facade than anything else - the much vaunted Napoli-Portici was the first railway line in Italy, true, but nothing but minor extensions was laid down afterwards - even as Piedmont started later but actually worked on a network, rather than just a very short luxury showcase).

Naples was squeezed dry by Spanish domination, and even as its own independent nation it never quite recovered from that.
I am not saying who the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was perfect but while it had his own troubles (and at least the basically no industry bit is totally false) was much more advanced than Russia.
Serfdom and any residue of feudalism were already abolished (at least formally) during the Napoleonic era, the brigands were a danger but they were nowhere near to the “Brigands” post-unification...
Ferdinand II do not see any reason for forcing an accelerated industrialization on the Kingdom but a “underdeveloped, backward kingdom” surely would not have the third commercial navy of the world, little but developing industries in all sectors, and would not be know for the high quality of some of their products (after the unification a lot of people lamented because they were unable to find good paper like the one who was produced in the Kingdom of Two Siciles)...
Underdeveloped parts of territory were present in all Italy before unifications (and the poorest and less developed of all were in North Italy, not in the South)....
The unification for the South was a disaster, much worse than the Spanish domination (who had not destroyed the Kingdom, who was able to rececover from it and from the Austrian one)...
And remember who the Two Sicilies were object of a political campaign from the English government who wanted destroy the reputation of that Kingdom and its King because Ferdinand II refuted to let the English do what they wished in his lands...
 
Italy successfully discovers Libyan oil around 1920. By 1940 Italy is a major oil producer with a European majority in Libya. They avoid Ethiopia.

Italy sells to both sides in WWII up until 1944 when they join the Allies and win at almost no cost. They are awarded some small Japanese islands they use as a base and tourist trap to the present.

I think that these premises could lead to a German victory in WWII.
 
I am not saying who the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was perfect but while it had his own troubles (and at least the basically no industry bit is totally false) was much more advanced than Russia.
Serfdom and any residue of feudalism were already abolished (at least formally) during the Napoleonic era, the brigands were a danger but they were nowhere near to the “Brigands” post-unification...
Ferdinand II do not see any reason for forcing an accelerated industrialization on the Kingdom but a “underdeveloped, backward kingdom” surely would not have the third commercial navy of the world, little but developing industries in all sectors, and would not be know for the high quality of some of their products (after the unification a lot of people lamented because they were unable to find good paper like the one who was produced in the Kingdom of Two Siciles)...
Underdeveloped parts of territory were present in all Italy before unifications (and the poorest and less developed of all were in North Italy, not in the South)....
The unification for the South was a disaster, much worse than the Spanish domination (who had not destroyed the Kingdom, who was able to rececover from it and from the Austrian one)...
And remember who the Two Sicilies were object of a political campaign from the English government who wanted destroy the reputation of that Kingdom and its King because Ferdinand II refuted to let the English do what they wished in his lands...

The Kingdom of Two Sicilies was basically one step above the 'failed nation status', while the Savoy had not be the best of the monarch and really botched many things...the situation they 'inherited' was a disaster as the past Borbonic leaderships accumulated his treasure by taking the tax and avoiding any expense for the state and population...there was a reason that Garibaldi was capable of conquer it and the Savoyard leaderships to bribe the great part of the Neapolitan army to defect
 
What was the reason that Southern Italy seems to have been less developed from the Renaissance onward? Can we avert the Aragonese, French, Spanish rule and get rid of feudalism on schedule?

Effectively a much earlier unification, specially pre-industrial age, could keep the peninsula economically more balanced.

Depends, IOTL the most direct reason for the north's development was agriculture; where 75-90% of the population and economy resided. What happened IOTL was that the clergy in the north, which poorly administered 1/2-1/3 of the land loaned out a lot of the land to entrepreneurs who inflated the land's value through productivity investments which the chronically spendthrift clergy was unable to "buyback" the land so the temporary ownership became pernament and thus began the centuries long process of transferring land from the clergy to commercial landowners. It may seem convoluted, but in an era where land=power and status it was one of the few ways land actually changed hands. Anyways, by 1400 the north was 1/4-1/5 clergy owned while the south was a whooping 1/2 clergy owned. As for why, I need to look more into it but hazarding a guess it was the fact that fertile land was concentrated in two noble dominated regions (from history against the Arabs) which crushed their trading cities in the south while mercantile interests gained power in the north; so geography, whims of politics, and logical places for trade.

As for the later Spanish era, the phrase massive mismanagement suits it quite well. By the time the Spanish realized the need to reform it was too late, the economic shock and imperial obligations hobbled Spain while it barely administered its colonies.

As for decline, while the Netherlands and England did surpass Italy by the 16th century things were at parity until the 19th century when industrialization gave soggy England and Belgium the edge.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the Holy Roman Empire is key, if it became more centralized and based truly out of Rome.

Over time German falls out of favor for Italian and you end up with a huge Italy that covers most of central Europe from Denmark to Sicily, maybe even including Denmark.
 
What do we mean by Italy here as in the Kingdom within the HRE or the entire peninsula? The Kingdom within the HRE would require it to develop as a strong and more central polity, as you plenty of cities of note. Although what do we mean by France and Germany here as well? Could one prevent the French state from considering Lorraine the French-Comte as part of its territories, what if Aquitaine becomes a separate polity, what if German expansion east is limited and it only stops at Saxony? There are many ways to play around with the parameters.

However, how would one manage the entire peninsula, considering there are plenty of vested city-states that want to maintain power. Unless the Lombards remain in power and it sees a different dynamic in Italy develop?
 
Have a unified Italy emerge in 1848 under the Savoys.

During TTL's Austro-Prussian War, Italy gains Trentino and pushes its eastern border to the Kupa River (gaining Dalmatia, Kotor, Istria/Littoral, Carniola, and western Croatia).

Following the TTL Russo-Turkish War, Italy gets Bosnia rather than Austria.

At the Berlin Conference, Italy gets Tunisia (French Libya?).

With Italy's natural colony in Italian hands with access to the coal of Bosnia, Sardinia, and Savoy, fewer Italians leave Italy. Coal means more industry meaning less of a need to leave Italy for greater wealth. Italian Tunisia and Bosnia means there's someplace else overseas for Italians to go to.
 
Catholic Church is always the biggest issue with Italian unification until the later 1800s. Let’s say technology and progress follow similar paths and trends as otl. Milan or Venice unite all of Italy north of the Papal State during the medieval or renaissance era. If it is Venice colonies are likely and I think industrialization is more likely. The trade and merchant nature of the country I think makes Venice likely to follow a mix of Belgium and British industrialization. They could honestly be one of the first to industrialize if Venice stays strong and maintain republic values. Venice between the 1200s to 1700s centuries allies with Spain and Britain as protection against France. During this era Venice supports Spanish influence over Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica in exchange for their support. Venice unites all of Northern Italy and even expands into France when they are weak or distracted in other conflicts. It’s western border is the Rhône River. It also expands into Switzerland eventually taking it all hoping the mountains will create more defensible borders. This will provide them coal later in the 1800s. Venice expansion East is similar but even more successful. Venice out west have Trentino, Istria, and Dalmatia. They mostly try to create defensible borders against Austria and deny them any major access or land connecting them with the Mediterranean. Venice builds a strong navy which is one of its keys to power. It’s navy helps expand the republic into ottomans lands and beyond. Venice takes Albania, Ionia Islands, Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Peloponnese. They ally the Romanians who becomes their biggest ally in the Balkans. In Africa they take Tunis and Libya in a similar way to how France took Algeria. In the rest of the world Venice focuses on settler colonies, trade vital holdings, and small valuable colonies or trade ports. In the Americas Venice colonize all of Guiana, Venezuela, Florida, Haiti, Panama, Belize, mosquito coast, Jamaica, and Bahamas. Slavery is big and profitable in these colonies but not as strict or harsh as other colonial powers. Slavery in Venice tries to follow more classical Roman style slavery and not make colonies dependent on it. Venice also colonize Argentina and southern Chile. In Sub Saharan Africa and Asia Venice sets up trade ports. They have some in west Africa and one in Congo but most are in the Horn of Africa or Kenya and Tanzania. They also set up in Yemen and one in India. Their other one is in China and a few in Indonesia.

By the 1800s something like the French Revolution and Concert of Europe happens. Venice comes out of this similar to otl Prussia. With Spain weakening and falling apart Venice starts to expand influence into Naples, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia. Venice quickly gains Corsica and Sardinia early in 1800s. They also gain Malta. They help revolutionaries in the Balkans and Greece to help drive out the ottomans. Venice gains Constantinople in this. Venice would have a other war with the ottomans during the oriental crisis which ends with Egypt free but under Venice influence and the ottomans are broken up. This expansion and actions makes there relationship with Britain become more strained so they drift towards Prussia as an ally who share common enemies with Venice(France and Austria). When the Venetian Republic annexes independent Sicily Naples declares war with the backing of the Papal State and France in the mid 1800s. Venice calls in Prussia who help defeat them. Venice unites Italy into the Italian Federation. After this Italy starts expanding its African ports and coastal settlements into large colonies. This includes Libya, Tunis, Kenya, Tanzania, Horn of Africa, Congo, and a few other small colonies in west Africa. They also incorporate Egypt plus its Middle East holding. Would this be good enough for this pod?
 
If Lothringia did not become part of France, unitified Italy would be stronger than France.
This, essentially.
The French conquest of Lorraine has allowed them to get their hands not only on the largest iron ore deposits of Western Europe but also a greater access to coal resources, which otherwise they only substantially had in Nord-Pas-de-Calais - ie French Flanders, Hainaut and Artois.
France, without Lorraine, is industrially stunted and would remain focussed on lighter industry.
 
Top