Italian Republic

With a POD no earlier than 1857, is it possible for Italy to be created as a Republic, rather than as a monarchy under the old kings of Sardinia? How does this come about? If it does come about, how does a Republic south of the Alps affect the history and politics of Europe prior to 1900?
 

maverick

Banned
This is quite a challenge.

I think that what we need is for Sardinia to fail in its quest to unify Italy, say that for example the Battle of Magenta or Solferino end as a failure, perhaps even with the death of King Vittorio Emmanuel II and Napoleon III deciding to just give up his Carbonari dream.

The Problem is that the most cohesive Liberal Republican Group, Mazzini's Young Italy was discredited after their failure to take over Milan in 1853, not to mention that Republicanism was also somewhat discredited by the failure of the Roman Republic of 1849. But let's say that the Sardinian King is dead, the dream of a Sardinian-led Unification are over and Napoleon decides to move on to Indochina and America.

Fast forward to Austria clinging to Lombardia and perhaps taking some border provinces from Sardinia.

Fast forward to 1860 and Garibaldi, still bitter over the defeat at Solferino or Magenta leads an ITTL version of the Expedition of the Thousand, taking over Sicily with a volunteer force funded by the French and the British, and then marching on Naples as IOTL, as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies collapses and with it the Bourbon Monarchy. Now Garibaldi is President of the Italian Republic and his next target is Rome.

Killing Cavour, the Italian Bismarck, might also help as it leaves Sardinia without a Prime Minister capable of keeping Garibaldi's Republic from invading the Papal States and the Habsburg Duchies in Central Italy.

Due to Napoleon III's relation with the Pope and the Republic's possible anti-clericalism, not to mention Austrian and Sardinian opposition, it's hard to say how successful this Republic could be, but maybe if the British support it to counter Louis Napoleon's ambitions on the peninsula, or if Napoleon III is preoccupied elsewhere and can't jump to Rome's defense in time, then it's possible that after conquering central Italy Garibaldi can overrun the Habsburg Principalities, which of course brings the problem of him having to fight against the Austrian Army without French support.
 

maverick

Banned
Now that I check this again, the idea of a Paris-like Republican Commune in Milan in 1853 would be an interesting scenario on its own.

Also short-lived was the Roman Republic of 1848-1849, which was crushed by a French Army called in help by the Pope Pius IX (initially hailed by Mazzini as the most likely paladin of a liberal unification of Italy).

I also can't shake this line out of my head, not sure why. :p
 
A commune in Milan does sound interesting. I wonder if it can garner enough support to become a center around which a larger movement can coalesce.
 
I was under the impression that the best option for Italy was Cavour's Sardinia-Savoy-Piedmont confederacy. They were moderately industrialized and possessed some sort of state while most of Italy was barely more than medieval. I guess I am saying that while all these revolutions where nice none of them really had any hope because they were revolutions opposed to status quo something that after 1848 would be crushed thoroughly by the reactionary Austrians.

With that said Italy throughout this period is the center of the proxy fight between Austria and France so I suppose if Britain feels like breaking its non-interference policy to establish a dependent Republic in Italy to assure it's continued domination of the Suez, I suppose it could. It seems to be something that wouldn't accomplish much, Britain would be better off letting the French and Austrians mess around and then step in when one was getting the upper hand. Controlled chaos would be best.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I was under the impression that the best option for Italy was Cavour's Sardinia-Savoy-Piedmont confederacy. They were moderately industrialized and possessed some sort of state while most of Italy was barely more than medieval. I guess I am saying that while all these revolutions where nice none of them really had any hope because they were revolutions opposed to status quo something that after 1848 would be crushed thoroughly by the reactionary Austrians.

With that said Italy throughout this period is the center of the proxy fight between Austria and France so I suppose if Britain feels like breaking its non-interference policy to establish a dependent Republic in Italy to assure it's continued domination of the Suez, I suppose it could. It seems to be something that wouldn't accomplish much, Britain would be better off letting the French and Austrians mess around and then step in when one was getting the upper hand. Controlled chaos would be best.

The South Was more industralized than Sardinia.
 

maverick

Banned
The South Was more industralized than Sardinia.

The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was more industrialized than Sardinia-Piedmont?

I find that odd, although not unsurprising...but how much more industrialized?

A commune in Milan does sound interesting. I wonder if it can garner enough support to become a center around which a larger movement can coalesce.

I can only guess that it'd turn into something like the Paris Commune, although it might destabilize the Austrians in Lombardy and rock some cages for a few months in 1853.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was more industrialized than Sardinia-Piedmont?

I find that odd, although not unsurprising...but how much more industrialized?

I'm not sure by how much; commerce wise it had the third merchant marine in the world and a ridiculously large naval industry.
The one figure I could find has the southern kingdom as dwarfing the rest of the peninsula banking wise - economically it seems to have been solid but politically, well, the main problem was generalized apathy; the region had changed hands so much people didn't care all that much who lorded over them apart for a minority :p
 

maverick

Banned
I'm not sure by how much; commerce wise it had the third merchant marine in the world and a ridiculously large naval industry.
The one figure I could find has the southern kingdom as dwarfing the rest of the peninsula banking wise - economically it seems to have been solid but politically, well, the main problem was generalized apathy; the region had changed hands so much people didn't care all that much who lorded over them apart for a minority :p

I also remember that the Kingdom of Sicily had an impressive army at the Volturno that was nevertheless defeated by Garibaldi. I guess this is just a reminder than A) The underdogs are sometimes extremely lucky and B) countries that look powerful on paper like the Two Sicilies and the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy don't necessarily work out in RL; and of course that present stereotypes of an industrial north and backwards agrarian South don't extend back in time.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I also remember that the Kingdom of Sicily had an impressive army at the Volturno that was nevertheless defeated by Garibaldi. I guess this is just a reminder than A) The underdogs are sometimes extremely lucky and B) countries that look powerful on paper like the Two Sicilies and the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy don't necessarily work out in RL; and of course that present stereotypes of an industrial north and backwards agrarian South don't extend back in time.

Yeah, Garibaldi's success against Sicily was impressive but probably explainable by social causes. Local forms of opposition to the Italian state only started to appear after Rome was conquered IIRC because at this point they went on a serious centralization spree that also kind of messed the local economy and gave birth to the mafia. That's probably really the best bet for a Mazzinian republic: Sicily could be a house of cards (although in 1848 it wasn't so yeah - giving up on Sicily is also a respectable alternative ;) ) again. The basic problem would be how French they intend to be: going full centralism and departments whose executive is basically named in Rome will be a very hard pill to swallow. I'm not quite sure how much of a federalist Mazzini was.
 
Would it be plausible for Mazzini and Garibaldi to accomplish a takeover in the Two Sicilies, consolidate their hold on a "Sicilian Republic" for a number of decades, and wait to reunify the peninsula until the 1866-1870 era when Austria and France have their own issues to sort out?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Would it be plausible for Mazzini and Garibaldi to accomplish a takeover in the Two Sicilies, consolidate their hold on a "Sicilian Republic" for a number of decades, and wait to reunify the peninsula until the 1866-1870 era when Austria and France have their own issues to sort out?

That's the problem, they fell very fast in 1860, but in 1848 they recovered extremely fast and basically pacified the revolution on their own, so even with the weakness of the house of Bourbon-Sicily there was still some life in the regime somehow...
 
Last edited:
Would it be plausible for Mazzini and Garibaldi to accomplish a takeover in the Two Sicilies, consolidate their hold on a "Sicilian Republic" for a number of decades, and wait to reunify the peninsula until the 1866-1870 era when Austria and France have their own issues to sort out?

Would it be a Republic? or only in name?

This is a great idea and would make for a fascinating TL. An Italian Republic comes about in the height of the Fossil Monarchies, interesting indeed.
 
A republic is anything, including dictatorships, that is not styled as monarchy. So "being republic in name only" seems like a difficult thing :p
I guess one could see something like Cromwell's Protectorate and North Korea as 'republics in name only', as they in practice act much as monarchies that just happen not to call the monarch a monarch. Still, they lack the headgear, so probably not.
 

Susano

Banned
I guess one could see something like Cromwell's Protectorate and North Korea as 'republics in name only', as they in practice act much as monarchies that just happen not to call the monarch a monarch. Still, they lack the headgear, so probably not.

Wait, theres the PLC. That called itself a republic, and yet had a king. So I guess theres one example in history. And since Cromwell was actually afforded royal adress and all that I guess that could count, too.

Of course that has nothing to do with the thread anymore :D
 

maverick

Banned
Indeed, it doesn't.

Would it be plausible for Mazzini and Garibaldi to accomplish a takeover in the Two Sicilies, consolidate their hold on a "Sicilian Republic" for a number of decades, and wait to reunify the peninsula until the 1866-1870 era when Austria and France have their own issues to sort out?

Basically what I was thinking.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
Make your point of departure the revolutions of 1848, and you can unite Italy.
 
Wasn't Cavour still nervous that Garibaldi would live up to his republican roots after Garibaldi defeated the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies? I remember reading one of his letters, where he was fretting about what Garibaldi could do with the resources of the south behind him. Was this fear realistic?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Wasn't Cavour still nervous that Garibaldi would live up to his republican roots after Garibaldi defeated the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies? I remember reading one of his letters, where he was fretting about what Garibaldi could do with the resources of the south behind him. Was this fear realistic?

The fear that Garibaldi could decide to go republican was probably realistic, however, I think the fear that "the resources of the south" would have been at his disposal were unfounded. The south would probably have cared as much for Garibaldi as it did for the house of Bourbon and would later for the policies of the kingdom of Italy; at best it would be unlikely to revolt, but also unlikely to rise up in massive support.
 
Top