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

[Analytical Engine]

Why king of the Italians? It's like Napoleon emperor of the French, it sounds a bit too revolutionary and "radical"

Tell that to Belgium.

 

[Tarabas]

Taking the box of sand ITTL too would certainly not be my first choice, at least not at the beginning of imperialism.
The first place where I would look is Egypt, where the is a very numerous and affluent Italian community in Alexandria. I don't remember if the Suez canal is already under way (but if it is not, what are we waiting, guys?), but if it is, the second place to go is Far East (I do remember Sardinia was a junior partner of the Franco-British in the 2nd Opium War, so there is always the opportunity to secure a couple of trading concessions there.
There is also a Piedmontese fortune seeker, Cesare Celso Moreno, who travelled to Aceh who in the 1850s travelled to Aceh, became a bosom friend of the sultan, was appointed minister and claimed to have married one of the sultan daughters. CCM travelled back to Italy in early 1866, and got an introduction at court where he claimed to be the envoy of the sultan, who was looking for an Italian protectorate (Aceh was in war with the Dutch, who were trying to complete their conquest of Sumatra). Unfortunately, CCM chose the wrong time to make a call home, since the attention was all on the coming war, and nothing came out of it (although, in 1869 Nino Bixio was in Aceh, with a couple of ships, ostensibly looking for trade opportunities. It didn't end well this time too, Bixio died of cholera not long after arriving in Aceh).
Of course a presence in the Far East must be supported by coaling stations along the way, which makes it very likely that the bay of Assab will be purchased ITTL too, and a colony will be set up in Eritrea.
Since there is no 2nd Empire in France, French penetration in Indochina may be weaker (or even absent), which might open a few opportunities (in particular if the relations with the UK are good). The island of Borneo is still mostly unclaimed, and the Sultanate of Brunei might be another opportunity.
All of these possibilities might eventuate if the Italian commerce with China and the Far East grows, obviously, otherwise it would just be wasted money.
It would also make necessary to send a squadron of cruisers, and a few gunboats, to the Far East, which is why a naval base in Aceh would be interesting.

In Africa, the focus should be on Egypt : sooner or later the khedive is going to default on European loans (IOTL it happened in 1882, IIRC), and ITTL Italy might take advantage of the British offer for a joint intervention. For sub-Saharan Africa, it would pay to send explorers before it is too late. Some opportunities might always come up, maybe Uganda or Tanganyika (or even Congo, if the stars align well). The theoretical 15 years advantage in time that Italy has gained ITTL might be a good leg up, if Italy plays well its cards.

Lybia because of location, Egypt is of course better. An Anglo-Italian condominium, perhaps? Now that I think about that, with Tunisia Italy is already master of the Central Mediterranean, so Lybia becomes unnecessary. And TTL Italy has a lot less need for prestige colonies than OTL.

 

[Deleted member 147289]

Egypt could remain an independent state and could be carved up in spheres of Influence much like Persia, and the canal becoming an "independent" zone guaranteed by France, Britain and Italy as all of the three are in favour of free trade and the canal is very strategic. ITTl the shares of the canal (which has been under construction for at least five years) would be split in four even packages, three to the GPs and one to Egypt.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Lybia because of location, Egypt is of course better. An Anglo-Italian condominium, perhaps? Now that I think about that, with Tunisia Italy is already master of the Central Mediterranean, so Lybia becomes unnecessary.

I'm wondering if Egypt might end up as some kind of Anglo-Franco-Italian condominium. Maybe with Alexandria having multiple districts like Shanghai.

Ninja'd by Gerna.

And TTL Italy has a lot less need for prestige colonies than OTL.

But Italy has big boy trousers now, so of course it must have as many colonies and ships as the other big boy powers.

 

[Vinization]

There is no way that a fully unified Italy would not make Rome its capital, that city is just too important psychologically.

As for any fears that the title of "King of the Italians" is too radical, the state was literally built on the backs of revolutionaries who fought and died in 1848-49. I don't think that will be a major concern.

 

[Tarabas]

You're right on the Protectorate, it was a bit of a mistake to say annexation. Definitely the Ottomans would be more ok with this along with the other powers. Just a small display of gunboat diplomacy.

VE II is VE I of Italy but still VE II of Sardinia. The creation of the Federation didn't abolish the existence of tbe other states, just tightened the bonds between them. The Confederation has existed for more than a decade and under Cavour and his careful guidance is enough to develop the nation, slowly propping up the central government at the expense of the states but leaving them enough autonomy. In 10 years the Military would be well on the way of integration and in the meddle of the 1860s the process should be complete. This is the period where a truly united Italy is made along with it's people. Cavour already reformed the education to a uniform one already during the Confederation, and more reforms to unify laws and other issues for the Federation are on the way. The Federation does not curb the power of it's states. It's still young but on it's way to become a Great Power and is not radically changing it's structure. Rome is a great symbol for Italy, claiming legacy from Rome and since Rome has always been considered the capital of Italy. Federal and Republic officials are meeting in the city but in different buildings as Rome has many places where a Parliement could be set up, especially in the Papal Palaces which have been recently expropriated. Setting the civilian government in Rome is also a great affront to the Pope because placing the royal authority in the eternal city means that the king rules Italy, not the pope. OTL the capital was moved to Rome as soon as it was taken and ITTL it would happen the same way.

Why king of the Italians? It's like Napoleon emperor of the French, it sounds a bit too revolutionary and "radical"

I agree with @LordKalvan: ten years may be much in the XX century, but I see a lot more problems in the XIX. I would say that King of the Italians reflects better TTL' situation, and seems more appropriate since there are Republics as well into the Federal Kingdom. Besides, all the wake of Italian nationalism is due to Napoleon, so a Napoleonic reference seems fit.

 

[Tarabas]

But Italy has big boy trousers now, so of course it must have as many colonies and ships as the other big boy powers.

Yes, this is very true. My point was simply that TTL Italy has no need to take Lybia just because it's there and thank God nobody wants so the "Great Proletary" can move.

 

[Deleted member 147289]

Eritrea and the bay of Assab are very interesting prospects, much like the Horn of Africa and some East Africa, Kenya and Zanzibar should be feasible. Interesting idea on Borneo and Indochina, maybe along with a protectorate over Siam and we have Italian South East Asia even though this is a bit of a stretch due to the Italians being latecomers to the colonial party. Maybe not all of indochina but just Cochinchina and half of Annam with Cambodia?

Also, I don't think that the French would not try to expand their empire. Africa is a must for France, but Asia should be up for grabs for them, maybe also in Korea or Indonesia/New Guinea? ITTL the British control the mouth of the Pearl River along with the surrounding areas like Canton and after the Second Opium War are the main influencers of southern China with Russia being very influent in the North. But the Middle Kingdom is still open, and Japan has not modernised yet. The Great Game will define the politics of the remainder of the century.

Also, Italy and Britain are pals now. The daughter of Victoria has married the dashing Italian Prince and relations between the countries have improved. Cavour has been helping too, with his realpolitik he knows that Italy is still not strong enough to make it's power plays alone so it's best to have a powerful ally.

Any prospects on the middle East? Oman? UAE? Bahrein? Arabia itself? Persia?

 

[Deleted member 147289]

By the way Rome was made the capital in 1860 but the administrative and burocratic transfer was completed only in late 1865.

 

[LordKalvan]

Rome is a great symbol for Italy, claiming legacy from Rome and since Rome has always been considered the capital of Italy. Federal and Republic officials are meeting in the city but in different buildings as Rome has many places where a Parliement could be set up, especially in the Papal Palaces which have been recently expropriated.

Has Rome always been considered the capital of Italy? The last time it happened was before Diocletian moved the capital to Milan (286 CE).
The hullabaloo of the Roman Question IOTL was mostly because the pope was still temporal lord of Latium (and also because the glories of Italy were long past, sadly: it was necessary to find a founding myth, and the glory of Rome was an easy bet. The bitter fruit of this choice were harvested when Fascism double and trebled on the myth of Rome reborn). ITTL, the founding myth of the united Italy is the campaign of 1848 ("we made it on our own"), and a different myth is not really necessary. The purple of Rome has over the centuries been claimed by too many different people (most of whom had no right to do so), but in my view the legacy of Rome is to all the western civilization, not only to those who - by happenstance - have been born in Italy.

Setting the civilian government in Rome is also a great affront to the Pope because placing the royal authority in the eternal city means that the king rules Italy, not the pope. OTL the capital was moved to Rome as soon as it was taken and ITTL it would happen the same way.

Is this a good thing? Anyway, the point is moot, since the pope is no more the temporal ruler of Rome since the day he fled dressed as a common priest.

Why king of the Italians? It's like Napoleon emperor of the French, it sounds a bit too revolutionary and "radical"

Louis Philippe, king of the French, and Leopold, king of the Belgians, beg to differ.

 

[LordKalvan]

Egypt could remain an independent state and could be carved up in spheres of Influence much like Persia, and the canal becoming an "independent" zone guaranteed by France, Britain and Italy as all of the three are in favour of free trade and the canal is very strategic. ITTl the shares of the canal (which has been under construction for at least five years) would be split in four even packages, three to the GPs and one to Egypt.

It might happen, but the Khedives of Egypt were always big spenders. Sooner or later (rather sooner I think) the Khedive will start defaulting on his repayments, and that is when the lenders start grabbing the customs office to pay back themselves. Then the backers of the lenders want more and more control on government policies and expenditures. Finally there is always someone in the military who gets fed up with foreign influence in the country (in Egypt it was colonel Orabi Pasha in 1881) and try to take back control: that is when gunboats arrive and regiments are disembarked.

Eritrea and the bay of Assab are very interesting prospects, much like the Horn of Africa and some East Africa, Kenya and Zanzibar should be feasible. Interesting idea on Borneo and Indochina, maybe along with a protectorate over Siam and we have Italian South East Asia even though this is a bit of a stretch due to the Italians being latecomers to the colonial party. Maybe not all of indochina but just Cochinchina and half of Annam with Cambodia?

Eritrea is a necessity as coaling station. Ethiopia is certainly not worth invading, when it is more productive to gain influence and exert a soft control (the more so since Ethiopia is not a very cohesive state, and there are local potentates who can be maneuvered with loans and supply of weapons a bit outdated).
Kenia and Uganda would be nice (since ITTL Italy would be in the co-dominium of Egypt, the British should not have OTL obsession with controlling the source of Nile).
Forget Siam: can be a potentially good market, but not worth the effort of establishing a protectorate.
In today's Indonesia there is a centuries-old Dutch presence (usually supported by the British). It doesn't mean that there are no opportunities there. The Dutch stronghold is Batavia, on Java, but there are plenty of independent/semi-independent sultanates around who might appreciate a friend who keeps out the Dutch.
Same game can be played in Borneo, but we are at the beginning of imperialism, which means there are a number of juicy opportunities around: it's better to be choosy and pick up only worthy bargains.
South Vietnam and Cambodia might work, in particular if the French are less aggressive here ITTL. Best thing would be keeping missionaries on a leash: overbearing French missionaries caused plenty of troble.

Also, I don't think that the French would not try to expand their empire. Africa is a must for France, but Asia should be up for grabs for them, maybe also in Korea or Indonesia/New Guinea? ITTL the British control the mouth of the Pearl River along with the surrounding areas like Canton and after the Second Opium War are the main influencers of southern China with Russia being very influent in the North. But the Middle Kingdom is still open, and Japan has not modernised yet. The Great Game will define the politics of the remainder of the century

Korea is very far away, and there are Russians and Japanese sniffing around. It is also a matter of power projection, in the end, and the associated costs: to keep a strong naval presence there is quite expensive, and to keep a weak naval presence is simply stupid. A middle way has to be found, and in the end it depends on what your trade is worth and what interests you need to protect. A couple of concessions on the Chinese coast and trading rights in China with an Open Door policy looks the best option to me.

Any prospects on the middle East? Oman? UAE? Bahrein? Arabia itself? Persia?

Do you want to pick up a fight with the British? The Persian gulf is a British lake, and has been for the last century

By the way Rome was made the capital in 1860 but the administrative and burocratic transfer was completed only in late 1865.

I suppose you're talking of TTL.
The population of Rome in 1871 was 200,000 people. Bringing in a federal government with all its annexes is not an easy task, since I guess it will be at least 40-50,000 people needing accommodation, offices, water, sewage. IOTL it was done, but the results were not heart warming (except for the developers, obviously. They made a fortune)

 

[isabella]

Has Rome always been considered the capital of Italy? The last time it happened was before Diocletian moved the capital to Milan (286 CE).
The hullabaloo of the Roman Question IOTL was mostly because the pope was still temporal lord of Latium (and also because the glories of Italy were long past, sadly: it was necessary to find a founding myth, and the glory of Rome was an easy bet. The bitter fruit of this choice were harvested when Fascism double and trebled on the myth of Rome reborn). ITTL, the founding myth of the united Italy is the campaign of 1848 ("we made it on our own"), and a different myth is not really necessary. The purple of Rome has over the centuries been claimed by too many different people (most of whom had no right to do so), but in my view the legacy of Rome is to all the western civilization, not only to those who - by happenstance - have been born in Italy.

Is this a good thing? Anyway, the point is moot, since the pope is no more the temporal ruler of Rome since the day he fled dressed as a common priest.

Louis Philippe, king of the French, and Leopold, king of the Belgians, beg to differ.

Both Louis Philippe and Leopold were put on their thrones by a Revolution against the previous rulers so they are not a very good example to follow... The Savoy would always take the denomination of Italy for not looking too much revolutionaries.
About the Italian capital Turin is pretty unsuitable for the role and in OTL Florence was chosen as replacement with the intention of a transfer to Rome once it was possible. About alternatives Naples was explicitly discarded because choosing it would have made a successive transfer to Rome impossible and likely Milan had similar troubles on a smaller scale or was directly forbidden as choice.
Venice‘s and Genoa’s positions (and maybe also recent history) made them pretty unsuitable (aka worst choices as capital than Turin) and same for Palermo (aggravated by the fact who the city is on an island) so the viable candidates as italian capitals are only Naples, Milan and Rome... Florence, Turin, Venice, Genoa are all second rate choices not downright impossible but still pretty implausible and unlikely

 

[Deleted member 147289]

After the German victory in the Franco-Prussian war the German Empire was immediately established, with the NGC exixting for just five years. It means that a quick change is definitely possible. I don't understand all this worries on the Federation, as I've said it's like the Confederation but with a much stronger central executive, that is a must in order to quickly uniform the various lands in economic, social and military affairs. The contenders for the capital would be Milan (too north), Florence (too small as said earlier), Naples (big no since it has just been taken) and Rome. Rome is the most obvious choice being at the center of Italy, would play nice on exalting the differences between Italian states with Rome being in the middle between North and South and carries the Roman legacy. Byzantium and Ravenna apart, Rome is still recognized as the heart of the Roman Empire and thus of Italy. It's not just about washing out some trauma or attempting to gain legittimacy, it's the only choice for a united Italy.

 

[Drex]

About the dispute with the tittle of the monarch, the concept of "King of the X People" usually refers to a situation in which the people or the government that was in place bestowed the crown upon a new monarch different from that that was before. In Belgium the National Congress declared the new country to be a monarchy yet it had no monarch, and ultimately decided for Leopold. In 1830's France the National Assembly chose Louis Philippe to become monarch. In both cases there was no previous monarch, and the decission to create a monarchy fell on the parliament or whatever government body drafted the constitution, hence said king would be chosen by "the people's will" and not by natural succession. In this Italy the king Vittorio Emmanuele has inherited the throne naturally, no one has properly "elected" him as king, so the tittle of "King of the Italians" makes little sense. However, given that most of the kingdom was created by revolutionaries and popular uprisings it makes sense to change the tittle to appeal to that revolutionary sentiment and make the monarch more liberal.

 

[LordKalvan]

After the German victory in the Franco-Prussian war the German Empire was immediately established, with the NGC exixting for just five years. It means that a quick change is definitely possible. I don't understand all this worries on the Federation, as I've said it's like the Confederation but with a much stronger central executive, that is a must in order to quickly uniform the various lands in economic, social and military affairs.

I do hate breaking these news to you, but the creation of the German Empire (which was not in the cards when Bismarck goaded LN into declaring a war France couldn't win) became necessary for political reasons which have little to do with the empire itself. Bismarck had envisaged a short, victorious war with limited objectives: it went according to plan up to a point, but at the critical point LN decided - against the advice of his best generals and also of his cousin Plon-Plon - to roll the dice and tried to relieve the Armee du Nord besieged in Metz: the result was a crushing defeat at Sedan and his own capture on the battlefield (which was the last thing Bismarck wanted). The 2nd Empire folded like a house of cards, and its demise killed any hope of reaching a peace treaty in a short time, since the new French Republic refused to negotiate.
Prussia could not afford to keep an occupying army in the north of France, to besiege Paris and to fight the new armies raised in the south of France forever. There was a money problem (new budgets had to be approved by Parliament), there was a diplomatic problem (Prussia had already gobbled a lot of land after the war of 1866, and even the possibility that in the end they would take Northern France too was threatening the balance of power in Europe in a massive way) and there was an economic problem (with the army fully mobilized, the German economy was grinding to a stop, not just in Prussia but also in the other German states). Bismarck chose to stabilize the home front, by tossing a juicy bone to German nationalists: the 2nd Reich. It took him more than a couple of months, and a lot of golden handshakes, but in the end the 2nd Reich was proclaimed at Versailles in January 1871, when the German princes offered the crown to the king of Prussia (no crown from the gutters this time ). The point is that Bismarck did not decide to resurrect the German Reich on a whim, he had to do it because it was the least unappetizing option at his disposal (and he had the fig leaf of a successful war to justify it). It doesn't look to me that the same necessities were in play when the Italian Confederation metamorphosed into the Italian Federation.

 

[LordKalvan]

Both Louis Philippe and Leopold were put on their thrones by a Revolution against the previous rulers so they are not a very good example to follow... The Savoy would always take the denomination of Italy for not looking too much revolutionaries.

Are you arguing that a people should not be allowed to take the choice of its future in its hands? That anointed kings should never be toppled because it is their divine right to rule and their blood is more pure than the blood of their subjects?
Times are changing, and ITTL they are changing at a faster pace: the title of "king of Italians" (which I still consider premature) is a smart political move, which does not detract anything from the constitutional position and the powers granted to the king and at the same time formally recognize that the Italian unification was achieved through the joint efforts of the king and all the Italian people. A win-win situation, if there ever was any.

 

[LordKalvan]

Rome is the most obvious choice being at the center of Italy, would play nice on exalting the differences between Italian states with Rome being in the middle between North and South and carries the Roman legacy. Byzantium and Ravenna apart, Rome is still recognized as the heart of the Roman Empire and thus of Italy. It's not just about washing out some trauma or attempting to gain legittimacy, it's the only choice for a united Italy.

The legacy of Rome was not exactly an endorsement of federalism, and Italy is different from the Roman Empire.
It's curious that you are insisting on the legacy of the Roman Empire, but were utterly against granting VE the title of Emperor of the Italians.
The discussion we're having about the proper location for the Federal capital also underlines why changing from Confederation to Federation may be premature.
The Confederal capital is in Milan, and it is not controversial for the time being.
If and when the Mediterranean will become again Mare Nostrum, it would be the proper time to move the capital to Rome.

 

[Thomas1195]

After the German victory in the Franco-Prussian war the German Empire was immediately established, with the NGC exixting for just five years.

I don't think Bismarck could goad Thiers into war like the way he did with Bonaparte. And Bismarck is not going to declare war on France - he wants France to be isolated when such a war comes, and actively declaring war on France would totally defeat that goal.

Well, unless you were only referring to OTL.

 

[Deleted member 147289]

Yes, I was referring to OTL events but I didn't know that the German Empire was born out compromise and chance!

Anyhow, I still see Rome as the "true" capital of Italy but as of now Milan has consolidated it's position as the capital of the Confederation and, even though I don't understand the dislike that the Federation is recieving, I've decided to postpone the proclamation of the Federal Kingdom to a much later date, along with a military success, as a crowning and defining moment of a decade. For now the Confederation shall extend it's control on the South, keep Milan as it's capital and restore order to the former Kingdom of Two Sicilies which, as we'll see in the next updates, is going through some upheval during the decade.

 

[Deleted member 147289]

Credits to @Drex for this map