Italico Valore - A more successful 1848 revolution in Italy - a TL

I would go with the first option. Hard to resurrect the Duchy of Spoleto with Spoleto itself in the Roman Republic. I really do not see the problem of admitting the Kingdom (aptly renamed the Kingdom of Naples, of course) though, nor I see why the plotters should agree to have the kingdom broke into, say four duchies (Abruzzi, Puglia, Campania, Calabria). Maybe a Regency council can be put in place and the crown bestowed on Amedeo of Savoy, VE's third son (who should be 15 now) creating a third branch of the House of Savoy down the line, of Savoy-Naples. I am partial to offering the crown to Lucien Murat, but that might just be me.
In my opinion annexing the whole of TS would "break" the balance in the Confederation ( 4 monarchies and 3 republics) and TS is just big. I was going for another republic and at least one kingdom, maybe a duchy in the Abruzzi and another in Naples with a republic in Puglia. The "goal" of this Italy would be to consider the local differences of the various regions and southern culture is not a single block so to have the soon to be Federation more representative of local diversity.

As for Amedeo, I have other plans for him.
 
In my opinion annexing the whole of TS would "break" the balance in the Confederation ( 4 monarchies and 3 republics) and TS is just big. I was going for another republic and at least one kingdom, maybe a duchy in the Abruzzi and another in Naples with a republic in Puglia. The "goal" of this Italy would be to consider the local differences of the various regions and southern culture is not a single block so to have the soon to be Federation more representative of local diversity.

As for Amedeo, I have other plans for him.
And I get the point of local diversity, however, the South had been united for around 700 hundred years in one form or another and the only part of the Kingdom vying for autonomy has already obtained it (in the form os Sicily). It just feels unnecessary and artificial to create a Republic in, say, Puglia (historically, the South was deeply devoted more to Monarchy than to a single house or monarch, to the point that in the Referendum of 1946 the south voted for the Monarchy). I mean, the Roman Republic and the United Provinces were a thing for a reason TTL. I really see no harm in having the South as a Kingdom, it can be less centralized, but I can't see nobody really wanting it to break up for no reason other than plot...
 
In my opinion annexing the whole of TS would "break" the balance in the Confederation ( 4 monarchies and 3 republics) and TS is just big. I was going for another republic and at least one kingdom, maybe a duchy in the Abruzzi and another in Naples with a republic in Puglia. The "goal" of this Italy would be to consider the local differences of the various regions and southern culture is not a single block so to have the soon to be Federation more representative of local diversity.
Wouldn't greater Sardinia-Piedmont(-Lombardy-Veneto) not be more powerful overall? At the very least, the rest of Italy would act as a counterbalance.


However, it would depend on whether there are local republican/autonomist movements (maybe Naples might like to be given the Venetian treatment), or whether Calabria and southern Apulia might want autonomy due to their Far Southern Italian dialects?



EDIT: the Kingdom of Naples might be the Bavaria of the Italian Confederation.
 
Last edited:
And I get the point of local diversity, however, the South had been united for around 700 hundred years in one form or another and the only part of the Kingdom vying for autonomy has already obtained it (in the form os Sicily). It just feels unnecessary and artificial to create a Republic in, say, Puglia (historically, the South was deeply devoted more to Monarchy than to a single house or monarch, to the point that in the Referendum of 1946 the south voted for the Monarchy). I mean, the Roman Republic and the United Provinces were a thing for a reason TTL. I really see no harm in having the South as a Kingdom, it can be less centralized, but I can't see nobody really wanting it to break up for no reason other than plot...
Wouldn't greater Sardinia-Piedmont(-Lombardy-Veneto) not be more powerful overall?

However, it would depend on whether there are local republican/autonomist movements (maybe Naples might like to be given the Venetian treatment), or whether Calabria and southern Apulia might want autonomy due to their Far Southern Italian dialects?

Well Sardinia Piedmont is the leader of the Confederation so it makes sense that they would be large and powerful. The south is backwards and in dire need of modernization. Maybe someone from a cadet branch of the Savoia family could become "king" or "Prince" of Naples. Either solution, both the unitary and fragmented one, are fine even though I'd go for fragmentation for the sake of AH
 
Well Sardinia Piedmont is the leader of the Confederation so it makes sense that they would be large and powerful. The south is backwards and in dire need of modernization. Maybe someone from a cadet branch of the Savoia family could become "king" or "Prince" of Naples. Either solution, both the unitary and fragmented one, are fine even though I'd go for fragmentation for the sake of AH
As some phases of the reign of Ferdinand showed, a capable leader in Naples had a good potential to develop the South (something Francis could have never done or even imagined to). I am not sure that breaking the south would be so beneficial to anybody, but that is just my opinion, of course.
 
I'm becoming more and more in agreement with @Tarabas on this one.

A Kingdom of Naples, with autonomy given to the fifteen departments, would be an adequate balance between (a) keeping the area politically unified, (b) allowing for local diversity, and (c) keeping it weak enough not to challenge greater Sardinia-Piedmont. Hopefully, that should satisfy enough of the interested parties.

Of course, there could be a whole load of different levels of autonomy given to the different parts of Naples - you could still get creative there.
 
I have a couple of problems with this last update.

Garibaldi ITTL is not the up-and-coming guerrilla leader he was IOTL: he has probably an official position in the RR (which one is a bit of a question, though. IOTL Garibaldi had the laurels of the gallant defense of the Roman Republic, and later on he had a visible participation in the war of 1859, but ITTL neither of these events happened: he still has his successes in Uruguay to give him some notoriety, but he has not really proved his mettle in Italy. He may certainly have been involved in the establishment of the army of the RR, but he has to confront with other career officers, Durando first of all, and I have a few doubts he'll find it easy to be accepted - IOTL he did not ask nor was offered a commission in the army). IMO, Garibaldi would be a politician first of all ITTL, sitting on the left of both the RR and the Confederal Parliament: the problem here is that he was neither a theoretician nor a great organizer, and probably he would get bored pretty soon (as it happened when he was elected to the Italian parliament IOTL). His strength is leadership of irregular troops, and probably he would end up doing exactly that: while on the political side he will bring up continuously the Southern Question (which ITTL has replaced the Roman Question of IOTL), he will also start recruiting and training Neapolitan expatriates and exiles and possibly infiltrating into the kingdom of Naples and trying to promote insurrections. Funding will not be a big issue, either by public subscriptions or by donations if not by Cavour's discretionary funds (there is no problem if Cavour has a plausible deniability, and the relations between the two men are going to be much better ITTL: the main issues which poisoned their relations IOTL - cession of Nice to France and refusal to integrate the Garibaldines in the Italian army - don't happen ITTL).
There is also the problem of finding a justification for kicking out Ferdinando or his son Francesco from his throne: the kingdom of Naples position had been sanctioned at the Conference of London of 1848, and some casus belli must be built up before an invasion. IMHO it will be not a huge problem to slowly build up a situation where the continuing existence of an independent kingdom of Naples becomes unviable. Ferdinando is not going to change his reactionary attitudes after seeing Austria kicked out of Northern Italy, the Pope fleeing Rome and himself loosing Sicily. He is not going to grant a Constitution, not even a conservative one, the expenses for the army and the navy will increase (even IOTL they were about 1/3 of the kingdom's revenues) and taxes will have to increase, since there are less revenues ITTL with the loss of Sicily. In the end (and the increased cost for loans, Naples is not an attractive place for foreign investors or bankers ITTL, Ferdinando will have to tax either the properties of the aristocracy or those of the church, probably both, alienating two theoretical pillars of his rule. I can see spontaneous insurrections starting within three-four years after the London Conference, also because there is now the comparison with the Italian Confederation, where political liberties are constitutionally guaranteed and economy is healthy if not yet booming. By mid 1850s the situation will be close to untenable, and that will be the moment for Garibaldi to make his move, entering the kingdom of Naples with his volunteers from the Latium border (and not landing in Calabria: why go there by sea and have to come back a long way toward Naples? Furthermore, the Italian Confederation needs a plausible fig leaf, and sending the navy to protect Garibaldi's landing in Calabria would be a bit too obvious). Once the volunteers are beyond the borders, and have proclaimed a full scale insurrection against the liberticide king, the Confederal army will come into play and enter Abruzzi on the east and Campania on the west (if one wants to go full hog, have Sicilian troops landing in Calabria too). Best case is if Naples' insurrection (which would not be too difficult to organize) is successful, and Garibaldi enters the city first , worst case if the insurrection is not completely successful and the Confederal army has to become involved.
In this scenario, Ferdinando dies in exile, and Francesco is not even crowned.

The other problem is why the pope tries to flee by land. That worked when he had to flee Rome, at least he had a place to reach within reasonable distance.
Where would he go now? On the mountains to live like an hermit? It would make more sense to leave Gaeta by sea, provided he has found a Catholic nation who is willing to take him as an exile (Spain, or maybe Portugal, since Austria is not going to take him in and I don't see him going in exile in Republican France).
 
In my opinion annexing the whole of TS would "break" the balance in the Confederation ( 4 monarchies and 3 republics) and TS is just big. I was going for another republic and at least one kingdom, maybe a duchy in the Abruzzi and another in Naples with a republic in Puglia. The "goal" of this Italy would be to consider the local differences of the various regions and southern culture is not a single block so to have the soon to be Federation more representative of local diversity.

As for Amedeo, I have other plans for him.
In theory it would be nice to split the Kingdom of Naples into an eastern seaboard and a western seaboard, but I am not sure it would work too well.
I'm quite in agreement with @Tarabas: keep the kingdom of Naples intact (although it would make economical sense to include Abruzzi in the Principality of Adria), and put on of VE's sons on the throne: the choice would be between Amedeo and Oddone, and in both cases there would be a regency (which is not a bad thing in itself). Abolishing the KoN would be a bad introduction with the people living there. Logic would dictate that the elder (Amedeo) should become king of Naples. If you have plans for Amedeo (Spain?), Oddone has the same genealogy
 
I have a couple of problems with this last update.

Garibaldi ITTL is not the up-and-coming guerrilla leader he was IOTL: he has probably an official position in the RR (which one is a bit of a question, though. IOTL Garibaldi had the laurels of the gallant defense of the Roman Republic, and later on he had a visible participation in the war of 1859, but ITTL neither of these events happened: he still has his successes in Uruguay to give him some notoriety, but he has not really proved his mettle in Italy. He may certainly have been involved in the establishment of the army of the RR, but he has to confront with other career officers, Durando first of all, and I have a few doubts he'll find it easy to be accepted - IOTL he did not ask nor was offered a commission in the army). IMO, Garibaldi would be a politician first of all ITTL, sitting on the left of both the RR and the Confederal Parliament: the problem here is that he was neither a theoretician nor a great organizer, and probably he would get bored pretty soon (as it happened when he was elected to the Italian parliament IOTL). His strength is leadership of irregular troops, and probably he would end up doing exactly that: while on the political side he will bring up continuously the Southern Question (which ITTL has replaced the Roman Question of IOTL), he will also start recruiting and training Neapolitan expatriates and exiles and possibly infiltrating into the kingdom of Naples and trying to promote insurrections. Funding will not be a big issue, either by public subscriptions or by donations if not by Cavour's discretionary funds (there is no problem if Cavour has a plausible deniability, and the relations between the two men are going to be much better ITTL: the main issues which poisoned their relations IOTL - cession of Nice to France and refusal to integrate the Garibaldines in the Italian army - don't happen ITTL).
There is also the problem of finding a justification for kicking out Ferdinando or his son Francesco from his throne: the kingdom of Naples position had been sanctioned at the Conference of London of 1848, and some casus belli must be built up before an invasion. IMHO it will be not a huge problem to slowly build up a situation where the continuing existence of an independent kingdom of Naples becomes unviable. Ferdinando is not going to change his reactionary attitudes after seeing Austria kicked out of Northern Italy, the Pope fleeing Rome and himself loosing Sicily. He is not going to grant a Constitution, not even a conservative one, the expenses for the army and the navy will increase (even IOTL they were about 1/3 of the kingdom's revenues) and taxes will have to increase, since there are less revenues ITTL with the loss of Sicily. In the end (and the increased cost for loans, Naples is not an attractive place for foreign investors or bankers ITTL, Ferdinando will have to tax either the properties of the aristocracy or those of the church, probably both, alienating two theoretical pillars of his rule. I can see spontaneous insurrections starting within three-four years after the London Conference, also because there is now the comparison with the Italian Confederation, where political liberties are constitutionally guaranteed and economy is healthy if not yet booming. By mid 1850s the situation will be close to untenable, and that will be the moment for Garibaldi to make his move, entering the kingdom of Naples with his volunteers from the Latium border (and not landing in Calabria: why go there by sea and have to come back a long way toward Naples? Furthermore, the Italian Confederation needs a plausible fig leaf, and sending the navy to protect Garibaldi's landing in Calabria would be a bit too obvious). Once the volunteers are beyond the borders, and have proclaimed a full scale insurrection against the liberticide king, the Confederal army will come into play and enter Abruzzi on the east and Campania on the west (if one wants to go full hog, have Sicilian troops landing in Calabria too). Best case is if Naples' insurrection (which would not be too difficult to organize) is successful, and Garibaldi enters the city first , worst case if the insurrection is not completely successful and the Confederal army has to become involved.
In this scenario, Ferdinando dies in exile, and Francesco is not even crowned.

The other problem is why the pope tries to flee by land. That worked when he had to flee Rome, at least he had a place to reach within reasonable distance.
Where would he go now? On the mountains to live like an hermit? It would make more sense to leave Gaeta by sea, provided he has found a Catholic nation who is willing to take him as an exile (Spain, or maybe Portugal, since Austria is not going to take him in and I don't see him going in exile in Republican France).
I do have the same issues. Besides, I find it more interesting to see open rebellion to Ferdinand rather than to poor Francis (who OTL publicly surrendered his sword to the Statue of San Gennaro, proclaiming the Saint as "King of Naples"... )
 
I do have the same issues. Besides, I find it more interesting to see open rebellion to Ferdinand rather than to poor Francis (who OTL publicly surrendered his sword to the Statue of San Gennaro, proclaiming the Saint as "King of Naples"... )
What happened IOTL with Garibaldi and his expedition was a very unlikely combination of problems, needs and opportunities which will never happen again (kudos to Cavour for having seen the only possibility to land all the eggs he was juggling without breaking a single one, but it was a hell of a risky bet, and ultimately it did not work well at all, otherwise there would not be a Southern Question 160 years after the unification).
ITTL, the IC (or the kingdom of Sardinia, if you prefer) has already rolled a lot of points, and there is no need to pray that the dices are still hot.
It's better to go back to "standard" realpolitik: wait for Ferdinando to ruin his kingdom and when he is tottering and cannot any more control the unrest, send in the Contras, who have been trained and prepared to give the last push. After which, the Confederation will intervene to "stop atrocities, protect civilians and restore the rule of law".
I can say it with a straight face and without feeling any shame ;)
 
What happened IOTL with Garibaldi and his expedition was a very unlikely combination of problems, needs and opportunities which will never happen again (kudos to Cavour for having seen the only possibility to land all the eggs he was juggling without breaking a single one, but it was a hell of a risky bet, and ultimately it did not work well at all, otherwise there would not be a Southern Question 160 years after the unification).
ITTL, the IC (or the kingdom of Sardinia, if you prefer) has already rolled a lot of points, and there is no need to pray that the dices are still hot.
It's better to go back to "standard" realpolitik: wait for Ferdinando to ruin his kingdom and when he is tottering and cannot any more control the unrest, send in the Contras, who have been trained and prepared to give the last push. After which, the Confederation will intervene to "stop atrocities, protect civilians and restore the rule of law".
I can say it with a straight face and without feeling any shame ;)
The same straight face Cavour would have used ;) Yokes aside, it is the most sensible path (and which has a lot of precedents IOTL). Seeing how things went TTL, I definitely see Ferdinando screw thing up (he might well earn his OTL nickname of King Bomb for repression in the mainland). Then Rome to Naples is a very easy ride, even easier if some well targeted "salve d'oro" had been shot (although TTL this would probably be necessary). I guess the OOC reason for having Garibaldi landing in Calabria is to give him the glory he had been so far denied. But, from what I have read on him, he would have found something to fight for somewhere in the world (OTL he was the only "FRENCH" general who managed to take a Prussian banner in the Franco-Prussian War).
 
I guess the OOC reason for having Garibaldi landing in Calabria is to give him the glory he had been so far denied. But, from what I have read on him, he would have found something to fight for somewhere in the world (OTL he was the only "FRENCH" general who managed to take a Prussian banner in the Franco-Prussian War)
OTOH, ITTL Anita did not die in 1849, and Garibaldi should have a fifth child: I don't think he should have anything to complain about, considering also how much the Italian political landscape has been changed and improved. Maybe Garibaldi will go back to being a ship captain, it was his early vocation after all, or raise cattle and horses in Maremma (Anita would love this), while peacefully rusticating and raising his children.
It would also be a good thing for Italy in the long-term, I think: the myth of Garibaldi was needed IOTL, considering how badly 1848 and 1849 went, how even the success of 1859 was in a way tainted by the need for French help, and again by the bungling of the war of 1866. ITTL nothing of this has happened or will happen, and the myth is not necessary: I'm not in principle against myths and legends, they are useful to forge a national identity and to provide a focus, but it is quite a good thing that ITTL the hagiography of Garibaldi (a man of courage and an idealist, but also a potentially dangerous loose cannon) will simply not happen. Something similar will happen to Mazzini too, who's going to discover that there is a difference between political theory and reality, and governing is ultimately based on the need to compromise. On the grip hand, I'd expect he'll live a happier life too: a republican government he can try to shape, no exile in the 1850s, an early united Italy. If we're lucky, he'll be able to see that the next step will be to organize the workers, both in agriculture and in the new industries (earlier mutual aid societies, saving unions, and so on).
 
I've given chapter 21 a bit of a rework seeing that Garibaldi's myth has very few reasons to exist ITTL since the 1848 rebellions were far more successful and the founding moments of Italian unification would be those during the war and the later consolidation of the kingdom. Now Garibaldi and his men slip through the border and start creating dissent among the populaton organizing a revolt that dethrones the king and invites the Confederation to restore order. The crown was given to VE II but it would pass to a cadet branch of the Savoia family in order to avoid an excessive concentration of titles in a single person.
 
I see we are back to the "Prisoner in the Vatican" situation. There is no possibility that Pius IX accept any proposal by the Confederal Government, but I would assume that something similar to the Law of Guarantees would be enacted. However this time there is no need for the Confederation to renounce the right to demand an oath of allegiance from the new bishop, and probably not even to renounce the "right of presentation", i.e. the right that the various sovereigns had to put forward candidates to the vacant bishoprics (since Italy had the highest number of bishoprics, VE II had the right IOTL to present candidates for 237 bishoprics, before renouncing to this right through the Law of Guarantees). This can cause some problems, if Pius IX refuses to ordain any new bishop for Italian dioceses (as he is likely to do): however this is quite a risk for the Holy See too, since a bishop can be ordained by any three bishops (and at a pinch, one is enough).
OTOH, the Italian Confederation is in a stronger legal position than the kingdom of Italy was IOTL: Pius IX has fled from Rome, and it might be argued that by doing so he has renounced his title of bishop of Rome, and the Holy See is vacant. In reality, no one on the Italian Confederation side has the willingness to precipitate such a crisis, but the years up to the death of Pius IX will be very tense, and there is no doubt that the pope will public a TTL equivalent of the Non Expedit encyclic.

The other things I saw is that Cavour has been given some time on the bench. Not a bad idea, Camillo needs some R&R and hopefully he may find the time to put his mind to the land reform, which is becoming very urgent.
 
Last edited:
I see we are back to the "Prisoner in the Vatican" situation. There is no possibility that Pius IX accept any proposal by the Confederal Government, but I would assume that something similar to the Law of Guarantees would be enacted. However this time there is no need for the Confederation to renounce the right to demand an oath of allegiance from the new bishop, and probably not even to renounce the "right of presentation", i.e. the right that the various sovereigns had to put forward candidates to the vacant bishoprics (since Italy had the highest number of bishoprics, VE II had the right IOTL to present candidates for 237 bishoprics, before renouncing to this right through the Law of Guarantees). This can cause some problems, if Pius IX refuses to ordain any new bishop for Italian dioceses (as he is likely to do): however this is quite a risk for the Holy See too, since a bishop can be ordained by any three bishops (and at a pinch, one is enough).
OTOH, the Italian Confederation is in a stronger legal position than the kingdom of Italy was IOTL: Pius IX has fled from Rome, and it might be argued that by doing so he has renounced his title of bishop of Rome, and the Holy See is vacant. In reality, no one on the Italian Confederation side has the willingness to precipitate such a crisis, but the years up to the death of Pius IX will be very tense, and there is no doubt that the pope will public a TTL equivalent of the Non Expedit encyclic.
I doubt anyone wants a repeat of the "I'm the pope! No I'm the pope!" phase.
 
I doubt anyone wants a repeat of the "I'm the pope! No I'm the pope!" phase.
Of course, those times are long gone. Best thing is not to pay too much attention to the strident screeches of the Prisoner-in-the-Vatican. The more he screeches, the more his prestige decreases. ITTL Pius IX will live another 20 years: hopefully, by next Conclave the idea that a Concordat is needed will have percolated in the minds of the Curia.
 
I see we are back to the "Prisoner in the Vatican" situation. There is no possibility that Pius IX accept any proposal by the Confederal Government, but I would assume that something similar to the Law of Guarantees would be enacted. However this time there is no need for the Confederation to renounce the right to demand an oath of allegiance from the new bishop, and probably not even to renounce the "right of presentation", i.e. the right that the various sovereigns had to put forward candidates to the vacant bishoprics (since Italy had the highest number of bishoprics, VE II had the right IOTL to present candidates for 237 bishoprics, before renouncing to this right through the Law of Guarantees). This can cause some problems, if Pius IX refuses to ordain any new bishop for Italian dioceses (as he is likely to do): however this is quite a risk for the Holy See too, since a bishop can be ordained by any three bishops (and at a pinch, one is enough).
OTOH, the Italian Confederation is in a stronger legal position than the kingdom of Italy was IOTL: Pius IX has fled from Rome, and it might be argued that by doing so he has renounced his title of bishop of Rome, and the Holy See is vacant. In reality, no one on the Italian Confederation side has the willingness to precipitate such a crisis, but the years up to the death of Pius IX will be very tense, and there is no doubt that the pope will public a TTL equivalent of the Non Expedit encyclic.

The other things I saw is that Cavour has been given some time on the bench. Not a bad idea, Camillo needs some R&R and hopefully he may find the time to put his mind to the land reform, which is becoming very urgent.
The relationship between the Papacy and the kingdom will be...interesting to say the least. It's likely that TTL Italy will be less clerical than OTL and a later pope might make amends. TTL's Laws of Guarantees are going to be different and more restrictive on the Papacy with the government retaining some power and influence among it. Paradoxically the pope ( at least Pious IX) would be more of a prisoner TTL than OTL.

The land reform has been carried out in the Confederation during the 10 years of Cavour's premiership, the issue remains the south as the future "Southern Question" would pop up and Italy will need to enact more efficient policies than OTL but seeing the Confederation as a whole they might be up to the task.

Any suggestions on the future monarch of TS? Or should VE II keep the crown as his?
 
The relationship between the Papacy and the kingdom will be...interesting to say the least. It's likely that TTL Italy will be less clerical than OTL and a later pope might make amends. TTL's Laws of Guarantees are going to be different and more restrictive on the Papacy with the government retaining some power and influence among it. Paradoxically the pope ( at least Pious IX) would be more of a prisoner TTL than OTL.

The land reform has been carried out in the Confederation during the 10 years of Cavour's premiership, the issue remains the south as the future "Southern Question" would pop up and Italy will need to enact more efficient policies than OTL but seeing the Confederation as a whole they might be up to the task.

Any suggestions on the future monarch of TS? Or should VE II keep the crown as his?
I believe it would be wise to have a different King, although it is hard to say whom might be best (aside from Amedeo or Oddone, which is not in your plans). What about a foreign candidate with some vestigial claim (which may be a stretch, but anyhow). Lucien Murat would be maybe too controversial, but what about Henri d'Orleans?
 
Top