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

31. COUNTERATTACK

Deleted member 147289

31. COUNTERATTACK

The approximately 70,000 Italian troops deployed in Crimea spent their first Christmas in Russia besieging Sevastopol and exchanging shots with the Russians from their positions. Under the command of Alfonso La Marmora and his deputy Alfonso Cialdini, the expeditionary force was composed of men from all over the peninsula but framed in units all from the same state, divided into 8 divisions plus cavalry and Bersaglieri. Most of the troops came from the Kingdom of Sardinia with three divisions and most of the support, followed by Tuscany, Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples. The supplies of the corps were guaranteed by the Confederate navy which had a presence of fifty ships in the Black Sea, mainly stationed in Constantinople. These patrolled the waters protecting the convoys from Russian blockade runners who tried to sink them, exploiting the holes in the joint Italian-British blockade.

In the absence of fighting until the snow melted, Britain used the time gained to direct as many resources as possible into the conflict, increasing its military presence in the Balkans and the Mediterranean in view of the effort to be made. At the same time, British diplomacy was working to prevent Austria from entering the Balkan war, which began with the military occupation of Bosnia. Disraeli was willing to exchange the region for Austrian neutrality in the conflict; the Ottomans would not object, losing a peripheral province was preferable to having their empire dismantled. Therefore diplomatic channels were opened with Vienna still handling the aftermath of the invasion, mainly partisan activity by the more nationalist Serbs which was costing the army precious resources which forced the high command to concentrate much of the forces in the region. Unaware of all this, the British went to Vienna to negotiate with their Austrian counterparts.

With the arrival of spring, the Allies took the offensive on almost all fronts: on April 13, 1874, the English expeditionary force began its advance along the Black Sea towards Varna, while the Ottomans launched a pincer attack towards Sofia. About 600,000 Russians and 500,000 Allies clashed from the Black Sea to Southern Serbia in the largest military operation to date. Varna fell after four days of street fighting, the British suffered heavy losses while the Russians managed to retreat in order to their fortified lines along the Sumen-Constance line. The British advanced rapidly covered on the flanks by the cavalry which proved fundamental in the repression of the Bulgarian partisans. Dobric had been identified as the weakest point of the fortifications and therefore Lord Chelmsford directed his troops there. The goal of the British was to draw on them as many Russian troops as possible to facilitate the Ottoman attack on Sofia which began on May 25 when two armies, one from Macedonia and one from central Bulgaria, broke through the Russian lines in two places and began. to advance. Vannovsky realized too late that the British offensive was a distraction but by the end of June the damage was done: Sofia was surrounded along with 70,000 Russians, while 350,000 men were deployed on the Black Sea. The general ordered a redeployment of forces which moved about 150,000 men in Central Serbia who stopped the Ottoman advance in Nis with the help of the Serbian army and pulled the enemy back 50 km before the resistance was too strong. In six months Russia had lost almost everything it had gained the previous year plus parts of Bulgaria, suffering about 200,000 losses, while those of the allies stood at 150,000. The Russian high command decided to ignore the possibility of a British landing in the Baltic and sent the Belarusian and Baltic armies to the Balkans but reinforcements would arrive in late autumn.

Crimea_Cernaia_DeStefani.jpg

Italian Bersaglieri battle Russian Cossacks during the battle of Yarke, one that would remain in the collective imagery of the unit's history

The Italians had their moment of glory in the summer of 1874 when the tenacity and steadfastness of the Confederate army were tested by the second Russian attempt to break the siege of Sevastopol: on July 2, 15,000 men of the Sevastopol garrison attempted a sortie while 85,000 soldiers of the Crimean Army pressed on the Italian lines to the north. Simferpool was the location of a month-long battle for the control of the city in which the Sicilian and Tuscan troops distinguished themselves for the courage and resourcefulness with which they defended the city preventing a collapse of the Italian flank. The Piedmontese sector was the scene of hard and mobile clashes in which the Cossacks clashed with swords against Carabinieri on horseback as in a battle of a century ago and the Bersaglieri cemented their reputation as elite infantry and experts in charging cavalry as they did to the battle of Yarke. With the arrival of September the Russians ended their offensive actions: they had only managed to advance a few kilometers and the sortie of Sevastopol had failed, halving an already tried garrison. The Italians, on the other hand, had managed, albeit at a high price, to keep up with the Russians by gaining prestige, with newspapers comparing Sevastopol to Alesia.

With the massacre of the Spring Offensive and the Battle of Crimea taking place before its eyes, the world was shocked by the massacre and numerous anti-war organizations in their infancy began to shout their dissent to the conflict. Others, however, moved by more humanitarian purposes, had organized funds and associations to provide relief to soldiers wounded in combat whose photos filled the newspapers. It was the first large-scale intervention of the Red Cross whose symbol quickly filled the rear of the armies. The great promoter of the association was Princess Alice, wife of Umberto, who did her utmost to provide support to the soldiers' families and making donations to the Italian section of the organization. France was the great neutral of the conflict: the Republic had preferred not to intervene in a great international conflict by concentrating its attention on West Africa. In October, Leon Gambetta, president of the French Republic, published the Gambetta manifesto which in its four points saw an agreement for the end of the war. The points were: The freedom of navigation along the Danube, the independence of the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Balkans and the demilitarization of the Black Sea. Russia proved itself in favor of only the first two points, rejecting any diplomatic action until the manifesto was corrected.

On October 16, Austria came out in favor of the manifesto, announcing that there will be no further military intervention in the Balkans after the capture of Bosnia. This news infuriated the Russians, who had always hoped for an Austrian intervention to end the war and was a big blow to allied diplomacy that had neutralized the threat of an attack on the Italian flank, allowing the Confederation to redeploy its troops. part of which was sent to the Crimea to strengthen the siege. On November 24, after repeated assaults that cost the Italians numerous losses, a breach was opened between the walls that was exploited by the Bersaglieri who ran into the city, followed by regular troops and at sunset the tricolor was hoisted on the highest bastion .

After this series of defeats Alexander II summoned his generals and gave them a year to reverse the situation in the Balkans and Anatolia, before the Tsar agreed to negotiate a peace with England. The army's goal would have been to deliver a devastating blow, not to win the war, but to have a better hand in the peace negotiations. The Russian economy had begun to suffer the strain of being at war for four consecutive years: the British naval blockade on the Baltic left only land routes for trade, but the Austrian protectionist tariffs had greatly restricted Russian potential trading partners and the internal market was not yet developed with the largely poor population. Economists predicted that the nation could endure another year of war before struggling to find the funds to continue it so it was vital to end the conflict within the next year.

XCCHVXN.png

The Balkans after the allied counterattack
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 147289

Ouch. Will Alexander be murdered earlier, perhaps by an angry soldier? What about the Poles?
It's not that bad for the Russians, as they still hold much land in the Balkans and have stopped the allies. Alexander II knows that the next year will be crucial and is unwilling to further extend the duration of the war as it would strain the Empire to the limit. Afterall what use has the Bosphorus is there is no Russian Empire to use it? Alexander is a capable leader and knows when to stop as he would not risk his empire in a war.

Polish independence will remain a dream in the forseeable future: Prussia, Austria and Russia have no intention to see a free Polish state so any dream of a free Poland will have to wait. But they can go to America if they don't like it in Russia, like many of their compatriots before them, it's definitely a good way to avoid conscription.
 

Deleted member 147289

Dear readers, do you have any ideas on how the situation in the US is going to develop with Douglas and six months later Breckenridge as president? I don't think that a Civil War would happen as they might be able to keep the union together and kick the problem down the road, probably when slavery becomes more than a burden than a necessity, in both economics and international politics. Any thoughts about the USA?

And, just to spice things, what do you think of a Shogunate Japan instead of an Imperial one like OTL? ITTL how are Tokugawa's chenaces of winning the Boshin War? And what about foreign intrusion, could treaty ports be a thing in Japan ITTL?
 
The thing is in the Untied States they had pretty much kicked the can as far as it could by mid 1800's. The south and north had to many differences on things to paper over them and neither side is going to want to comprise. Slavery wasn't just a matter of economics for the south it was apart of it's identity.
 

Deleted member 147289

would you people be ok with shorter updates about the Americas and Asia, concentrating this TL on Italian and European affairs?
 
32. ONE LAST ATTEMPT

Deleted member 147289

32. ONE LAST ATTEMPT

Both sides prepared for a decisive 1875: for similar reasons both sides knew that at the end of the year there would be a winner and a loser and of course both wanted to win. The war had become unpopular in Italy above all for the nebulous reasons of participation which strengthened the political weight of the Historical Left which was more tending to European neutrality and favorable to colonial expansion. Few saw the benefit of keeping the Ottoman Empire on its feet, especially against the Russians for whom Italy had no reason to fear or hate.

The Russian counter-offensive was not long in coming, and in March some 600,000 Russians and 400,000 Ottoman Anglo soldiers clashed along the Danube plain in fierce relentless fighting. The Russian impetus was irresistible, however, and the allies, after losing Varna and Veliko Tarnovo in early April, began to retreat to the Balkan mountains from which they planned to stop the Russian advance. The 60,000 Russians besieged in Sofia seized the opportunity to attempt a sortie and rejoin the rapidly advancing army and, on 24 April 1875, the vanguards of the Danube Army met the besieged at Botevgrad. The English flank remained steadfast although under heavy pressure but the Ottoman troops, especially those in Southern Serbia and Montenegro, could not resist the ferocity of the Serbs, Montenegrins and Russians and collapsed under their pressure, starting to withdraw towards Albania and Macedonia.

An Italian expeditionary force in Albania was organized in a hurry; made up of 75,000 men directly under the command of Vittorio Emanuele II, eager to prove his worth in war like his father. At the end of May the Italian troops managed to hold the line in northern Albania and part of Kosovo and the front stabilized in the western Balkans but in central Bulgaria the Russians and the British continued to fight each other in Plovdiv which was destroyed in the month and a half of fighting that took place inside and near the city. The only positive implication for the allies during the spring was the success of the Ottoman offensive in Eastern Anatolia against the weakened Russian army that now only garrisoned the region but the Turkish attack ran aground in Georgia and Armenia, hampered by the terrain and the population that in the face of the arrival of the Turks gathered around the Tsarist army which opposed a more fierce resistance.

For the rest of the summer both sides were involved in the battle of Bulgaria during which the Russian troops repeatedly tried to make their way to Constantinople and the Mediterranean but the Anglo-Ottoman troops opposed a fierce resistance that drove the Russians back to the Balkan mountains. in September, with heavy losses from both sides that were now exhausted in the clashes. Disraeli's government contacted French President Gambetta to promote a conference of great powers on the Eastern question now that the front had stabilized, a task that Gambetta accepted without reservation and promoted a congress in Paris in the spring of 1876 to end the war once and for all.

In St. Petersburg Alexander II was all in all satisfied with the progress of the war: although they had not managed to liberate all of Bulgaria and Greece had never intervened in the conflict, a large part of the northern Balkans was free from the Ottoman clutches and had found in Russia their protector. On the other hand, Russia was no longer able to fight the war which had now lasted four years and had exhausted the nation's resources. The army had fought well but failed to overwhelm the Western armies, making reform of the armed forces the new goal of Alexander II who until then had only dealt with bureaucracy, the economy and society.

The winter passed without clashes, both sides had now been in a state of truce since October and no one wanted to risk reopening hostilities after four years of incessant fighting and in the spring all the representatives of the great European powers met in Paris to redesign the map of the Balkans bringing about the first major change of the continent after the Vienna congress 61 years ago.

7M4aBl2.png

The Balkans after the end of the Russian counterattack
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And so the war ended in a bloody stall.

Sure, Italy didn't have an official reason to intervene, because it didn't even had as OTL a "Balkan interest", and look like the government jumped only for mere prestige (showing that the Confederation is a great power now) and economic concessions in India may not have been a proper counterweight for this partecipation: not in proportion of war losses and costs.

What the Confederation establishment didn't fully realize, was that intervening in such war would have far more important reasons and consequences for the peninsula - an unchecked Russian triumph would have open the Eastern Mediterranean to another competitor, and strenght Austrian grip in the Western Balkans and therefore the East Adriatic - which effectively happened with the seizure of Bosnia. In fact, aside for the possible escalation of the war between Austria and Italy, tensions between the two nations ran high once more.

And above all, whatever the outcome of the peace negotiations, Italy got itself meddled in the Balkans in a way which never did for the entire OTL 19th century. Which won't be bad in developing exercises in great power thinking among the other things (also because, now Serbians, Greeks and Bulgarians may look at Italian support whenever to fend Hapsburg or Ottoman dominance or worse each other). At the same time, in Paris Italy can get advantages which in OTL Berlin never even dare to get, also because is in a position of strenght. Let's see if would be able to use it well...

The eventual Italian influence in the Balkans would be also played by a not secondary divergence: no 1866 naval defeat in TTL. Aside the early unification and better Italian preparation, the Confederation isn't restrained in its Adriatic movements and ambitions, and therefore its maritime influence can tap the Balkans very easily - as besides the blockade of the Black Sea proved. Italian ships in those waters in mid 19th century is already a wank achievement in itself.

This will lead me to say how interesting is the Crimean war being played twenty years later than OTL with different players while blending with the Russo-Turk war. But I am glad that the Confederate Army proved its valour and capacities - it would surely help in coalesce further national unity.

Last, there is anyway a loser - Britain. Because the United Kingdom lost men and money in a war which would lead to the same outcome of OTL - only, OTL Britain achieved a diplomatic success in curtail the Russian victory hard without losing a soldier. And it didn't halt the further process of collapse of Ottoman power in the Balkans. Also, without the chain of events leading to the treaty of Saint Stephen, Russia won't be essentially humiliated in asking what effectively holds, unlike later OTL in Berlin.

Despite everything, this round of the Great Game was won by Russia. Britain can retain Ottoman gratitude, but it squandered any opportunity of influence in the nascent Balkan nations. And Austria and Italy can eventually profit from it.
 

Deleted member 147289

And so the war ended in a bloody stall.

Sure, Italy didn't have an official reason to intervene, because it didn't even had as OTL a "Balkan interest", and look like the government jumped only for mere prestige (showing that the Confederation is a great power now) and economic concessions in India may not have been a proper counterweight for this partecipation: not in proportion of war losses and costs.

What the Confederation establishment didn't fully realize, was that intervening in such war would have far more important reasons and consequences for the peninsula - an unchecked Russian triumph would have open the Eastern Mediterranean to another competitor, and strenght Austrian grip in the Western Balkans and therefore the East Adriatic - which effectively happened with the seizure of Bosnia. In fact, aside for the possible escalation of the war between Austria and Italy, tensions between the two nations ran high once more.

And above all, whatever the outcome of the peace negotiations, Italy got itself meddled in the Balkans in a way which never did for the entire OTL 19th century. Which won't be bad in developing exercises in great power thinking among the other things (also because, now Serbians, Greeks and Bulgarians may look at Italian support whenever to fend Hapsburg or Ottoman dominance or worse each other). At the same time, in Paris Italy can get advantages which in OTL Berlin never even dare to get, also because is in a position of strenght. Let's see if would be able to use it well...

The eventual Italian influence in the Balkans would be also played by a not secondary divergence: no 1866 naval defeat in TTL. Aside the early unification and better Italian preparation, the Confederation isn't restrained in its Adriatic movements and ambitions, and therefore its maritime influence can tap the Balkans very easily - as besides the blockade of the Black Sea proved. Italian ships in those waters in mid 19th century is already a wank achievement in itself.

This will lead me to say how interesting is the Crimean war being played twenty years later than OTL with different players while blending with the Russo-Turk war. But I am glad that the Confederate Army proved its valour and capacities - it would surely help in coalesce further national unity.

Last, there is anyway a loser - Britain. Because the United Kingdom lost men and money in a war which would lead to the same outcome of OTL - only, OTL Britain achieved a diplomatic success in curtail the Russian victory hard without losing a soldier. And it didn't halt the further process of collapse of Ottoman power in the Balkans. Also, without the chain of events leading to the treaty of Saint Stephen, Russia won't be essentially humiliated in asking what effectively holds, unlike later OTL in Berlin.

Despite everything, this round of the Great Game was won by Russia. Britain can retain Ottoman gratitude, but it squandered any opportunity of influence in the nascent Balkan nations. And Austria and Italy can eventually profit from it.
Italy benefits from being united for more than twenty years by now, most of which were under the careful guidance of Cavour who allowed the peninsula to thrive (also thanks to favourable economic conditions).

The intervention in the war was, as you've said, a necessity but not necessarily one that the population can comprehend as certain reasons for war are beyond most of the populace. Anyway the army fought well and proved itself to the world.

Italy can be considered a Great Power from now on, having fought as an equal of Britain against Russia and has gained a lot of prestige and recognition, while Britain lost men and money to prop up the crumbling Ottoman Empire which would be carved up like a turkey in order to appease the great powers and establish some balance.

As Italy acts, in essence,as a proxy of Britain, the Balkans will be split up in three spheres of influence with them, Austria and Russia. As Italy develops, it will look outside of it's borders and develop a foreign policy with interests all around the world.
 
Italy benefits from being united for more than twenty years by now, most of which were under the careful guidance of Cavour who allowed the peninsula to thrive (also thanks to favourable economic conditions).

The intervention in the war was, as you've said, a necessity but not necessarily one that the population can comprehend as certain reasons for war are beyond most of the populace. Anyway the army fought well and proved itself to the world.

Italy can be considered a Great Power from now on, having fought as an equal of Britain against Russia and has gained a lot of prestige and recognition, while Britain lost men and money to prop up the crumbling Ottoman Empire which would be carved up like a turkey in order to appease the great powers and establish some balance.

As Italy acts, in essence,as a proxy of Britain, the Balkans will be split up in three spheres of influence with them, Austria and Russia. As Italy develops, it will look outside of it's borders and develop a foreign policy with interests all around the world.

I think such influence would be more than proxy - I have the feeling British public opinion won't be so easily swayed for an eventual second intervention in the Balkans - considering TTL it was the most massive since the Napoleonic ages. And certainly wasn't a walk for the British armies. Is not excluded a parliamentary crisis in London depending how could go the talks in Paris.

The Oriental question may be settled, but at that point British interests towards the Ottomans would hang over just a point - Egypt, and the Canal. Problem, is the United Kingdom didn't have a wide share of the canal, considering is now a triple condominium; therefore chances of meddling in Egypt would be more reduced than OTL.

Dear readers, do you have any ideas on how the situation in the US is going to develop with Douglas and six months later Breckenridge as president? I don't think that a Civil War would happen as they might be able to keep the union together and kick the problem down the road, probably when slavery becomes more than a burden than a necessity, in both economics and international politics. Any thoughts about the USA?

And, just to spice things, what do you think of a Shogunate Japan instead of an Imperial one like OTL? ITTL how are Tokugawa's chenaces of winning the Boshin War? And what about foreign intrusion, could treaty ports be a thing in Japan ITTL?

Growing industrialization in the Deep South may reduce the impact of slavery, when low paid workers would start to appear more profitable than slavers. But it may avoid the transit towards segregation? Maybe, without the cultural impact of a defeat from the Southernerns which source was the issue of slavery. But to avoid a civil war, is necessary solving the "America should be a confederation or not" issue peacefully...

About the Boshin war: for the Shogunate to win, it should be able to get sufficiently modern equipment, hold the ground in Kyoto (and therefore securing the Emperor), and then counterattack and dismantle the Western Han power... I think Yoshinobu had to compromise much more with France if would reaffirm his supremacy. And counter more actively step by step Satsuma and Chosun's actions. After all, Yoshinobu wasn't hostile at all to reforms and opening to the West so if he was more capable...
 

Deleted member 147289

I think such influence would be more than proxy - I have the feeling British public opinion won't be so easily swayed for an eventual second intervention in the Balkans - considering TTL it was the most massive since the Napoleonic ages. And certainly wasn't a walk for the British armies. Is not excluded a parliamentary crisis in London depending how could go the talks in Paris.

The Oriental question may be settled, but at that point British interests towards the Ottomans would hang over just a point - Egypt, and the Canal. Problem, is the United Kingdom didn't have a wide share of the canal, considering is now a triple condominium; therefore chances of meddling in Egypt would be more reduced than OTL.



Growing industrialization in the Deep South may reduce the impact of slavery, when low paid workers would start to appear more profitable than slavers. But it may avoid the transit towards segregation? Maybe, without the cultural impact of a defeat from the Southernerns which source was the issue of slavery. But to avoid a civil war, is necessary solving the "America should be a confederation or not" issue peacefully...

About the Boshin war: for the Shogunate to win, it should be able to get sufficiently modern equipment, hold the ground in Kyoto (and therefore securing the Emperor), and then counterattack and dismantle the Western Han power... I think Yoshinobu had to compromise much more with France if would reaffirm his supremacy. And counter more actively step by step Satsuma and Chosun's actions. After all, Yoshinobu wasn't hostile at all to reforms and opening to the West so if he was more capable...
Effectively after the war British power in the region should decrease seeing the Russian advance and the sorry state of the Ottomans, thus leaving room for Italian power to infiltrate in the Eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic sea. About Egypt, yes. Britain is a bit weaker than OTL in the Middle East, increasing the need to secure a safe passage to India.

The Italians gained British backing for a colonial adventure in Asia, and that means a lot since the Confederation has the support of the world's foremost power and all that comes with it, so Italy might have gained little in Europe, but has much better prospects towards Asia and China.

Regarding the USA, I've resolved my block about the issue and I think you'll find this secession interesting.

About Japan, the French could step up their support to the Shogun, since they haven't meddled in any war since 1848. This might give the Shogunate a better hand equipment and tactics wise, about the war we'll see but it's probable that it will develop in a "proxy" war between the French (and Russian? American?) backed Shogunate and the British backed Emperor.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Regarding the USA, I've resolved my block about the issue and I think you'll find this secession interesting
I do think that with a Southern Democrat in the White House in 1860, the GOP would inevitably garner an absolute majority in the North by 1864. The abolitionist sentiment was growing at the time and would be stronger over the years.
 
Last edited:
Effectively after the war British power in the region should decrease seeing the Russian advance and the sorry state of the Ottomans, thus leaving room for Italian power to infiltrate in the Eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic sea. About Egypt, yes. Britain is a bit weaker than OTL in the Middle East, increasing the need to secure a safe passage to India.

The Italians gained British backing for a colonial adventure in Asia, and that means a lot since the Confederation has the support of the world's foremost power and all that comes with it, so Italy might have gained little in Europe, but has much better prospects towards Asia and China.

Regarding the USA, I've resolved my block about the issue and I think you'll find this secession interesting.

About Japan, the French could step up their support to the Shogun, since they haven't meddled in any war since 1848. This might give the Shogunate a better hand equipment and tactics wise, about the war we'll see but it's probable that it will develop in a "proxy" war between the French (and Russian? American?) backed Shogunate and the British backed Emperor.

I wonder what Italy could gain in the Far East. Generally in a 19th century Italian alternate colonial expansion, is supposed to be Aceh, also for historical connections, but I wonder is a bit too late TTL to prevent the Dutch securing it. But you mentioned China so we'll see.

Russia seemed interested to support the Shogunate as well. But the main support was essentially French, while the Americans apparently traded with both sides.
 
I wonder what Italy could gain in the Far East. Generally in a 19th century Italian alternate colonial expansion, is supposed to be Aceh, also for historical connections, but I wonder is a bit too late TTL to prevent the Dutch securing it. But you mentioned China so we'll see.

Russia seemed interested to support the Shogunate as well. But the main support was essentially French, while the Americans apparently traded with both sides.
It took the Dutch three decades to fully subjugate Aceh. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that the place was just not worth the trouble and gave up.
 

Deleted member 147289

I wonder what Italy could gain in the Far East. Generally in a 19th century Italian alternate colonial expansion, is supposed to be Aceh, also for historical connections, but I wonder is a bit too late TTL to prevent the Dutch securing it. But you mentioned China so we'll see.

Russia seemed interested to support the Shogunate as well. But the main support was essentially French, while the Americans apparently traded with both sides.

It took the Dutch three decades to fully subjugate Aceh. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that the place was just not worth the trouble and gave up.

With British backing a large italian colony in South East Asia was proposed, composed of southern Vietnam, Cambodia and parts of Laos along with maybe parts of Sarawak, Malaya(?) And Aceh, along with a treaty port in China.

It's fairly big to begin with, but with British backing Italy could pull it off, especially if the French are less keen on colonial adventures in Asia or the British want to take revenge on the French for winning a proxy war somewhere against British interests. Britain has good reasons to keep a friendly Italy as a counterbalance to Russian influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. Also, Britain financed the largest European war since the Napoleonic wars and is financially and mitarily overstretched so leaving some space to an ally could be a good move on the British'part.
 
With British backing a large italian colony in South East Asia was proposed, composed of southern Vietnam, Cambodia and parts of Laos along with maybe parts of Sarawak, Malaya(?) And Aceh, along with a treaty port in China.

It's fairly big to begin with, but with British backing Italy could pull it off, especially if the French are less keen on colonial adventures in Asia or the British want to take revenge on the French for winning a proxy war somewhere against British interests. Britain has good reasons to keep a friendly Italy as a counterbalance to Russian influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. Also, Britain financed the largest European war since the Napoleonic wars and is financially and mitarily overstretched so leaving some space to an ally could be a good move on the British'part.

I don't deny, with a different 19th century history of France, certain territories could have been more open to other powers, so is indeed possible via the canal and Indian access for Italian adventurers to secure a stable and rich Asian colonial empire in proper time.
 

Deleted member 147289

I don't deny, with a different 19th century history of France, certain territories could have been more open to other powers, so is indeed possible via the canal and Indian access for Italian adventurers to secure a stable and rich Asian colonial empire in proper time.
Italy has quite a big share of the canal that by now has been in function for 6 years, facilitating their access to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, indeed Assab is the location of a well established Italian trading and coal station that has allowed Italy to gain influence in Eritrea and has started to penetrate in Ethiopia. A base in Zanzibar and Kenya, along with facilitated passage through India would make an Italian attempt in Asia more likely as they have the resources and money to do it.

Without Napoleon III's aggressiveness Indochina would be up for the taking along with Aceh ( with British backing and Bixio's expedition having success), Cochinchina, Cambodia, Annam, parts of Laos, Northern Borneo could be up for the taking and some privilege in Siam under their sphere. A concession in China could be a big boon and Italy could exploit an incident to gain some land.

What would be an interesting location for an Italian treaty port?
 
Top