There is that, of course (and it dates back to when Cavour was a page at the court of Turin). For that matter, even his son never truly loved Cavour.Like the idea of the last update. Was it considered OTL? Just another small thing: from what I know, CA did not like Cavour at all. What changed here?
Totally agree. Who do you think it would have been more likely?There is that, of course (and it dates back to when Cavour was a page at the court of Turin). For that matter, even his son never truly loved Cavour.
Anyway, in 1848 Cavour was quite a new entry in the Turin Parliament (he was elected on 27 April 1848 for the first time), and was mostly known as a political journalist (together with Cesare Balbo, he founded Il Risorgimento, a liberal newspaper supporting the transformation of Sardinia into a constitutional monarchy). He's certainly not the person who CA will choose to mediate between Cattaneo and Casati.
Balbo or Massimo d’AzeglioTotally agree. Who do you think it would have been more likely?
D'Azeglio was a really good colonel in the Piedmontese army (he distinguished himself defending Vicenza), so maybe he'd best stay with the Army (for the sake of the TL). Balbo wanted to unify Piedmont and Lombardy but his position was defeated in Parliament (leading to his resignation three months later), so it would be nice if he could broker the deal. Also, his analysis of the situation and the possibilities on how to reach Italian *unity seem the most pragmatic, so having him in a better position than OTL gives room for nice developments.Balbo or Massimo d’Azeglio
And the king would not stay in Milan, but would be with the army
Balbo and Cavour were friends (as I mentioned they co-founded "Il Risorgimento", and fundamentally on similar positions politically (although Balbo was also a devout Catholic, while Cavour was more influenced by his mother's relatives in Geneva). In terms of approach to the future of Lombardy, they were in perfect agreement: Lombardy was to be annexed to Sardinia. No ifs or buts, no republics and so on. I might add that neither of them was thinking of "Italian unification" in 1848, except in terms of some vague (and loose) confederation. For that matter, Cavour changed his positions over the next decade (and his agents were all over the map in Italy), and Sardinia became a safe haven for the political exiles (well, not necessarily all the rabid republicans at least, but when he set up the war of 1859 his objectives were substantially limited to Lombardy, Veneto, Parma and Modena. To his merit, his goals were never set in stone, and he managed to take the good and the bad in stride (well, he felt betrayed when Louis Napoleon signed a separate cease fire with Austria without prior consultations with Sardinia, and it was the only single time his composure was lost, luckily only for a few days).D'Azeglio was a really good colonel in the Piedmontese army (he distinguished himself defending Vicenza), so maybe he'd best stay with the Army (for the sake of the TL). Balbo wanted to unify Piedmont and Lombardy but his position was defeated in Parliament (leading to his resignation three months later), so it would be nice if he could broker the deal. Also, his analysis of the situation and the possibilities on how to reach Italian *unity seem the most pragmatic, so having him in a better position than OTL gives room for nice developments.
All I was saying is that, between Balbo and d'Azeglio (the two options you mentioned), I would have the former mediate for the annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont. If he succeeds, this could also speed up Cavour's career by some months given their mutual friendship you mentioned.Balbo and Cavour were friends (as I mentioned they co-founded "Il Risorgimento", and fundamentally on similar positions politically (although Balbo was also a devout Catholic, while Cavour was more influenced by his mother's relatives in Geneva). In terms of approach to the future of Lombardy, they were in perfect agreement: Lombardy was to be annexed to Sardinia. No ifs or buts, no republics and so on. I might add that neither of them was thinking of "Italian unification" in 1848, except in terms of some vague (and loose) confederation. For that matter, Cavour changed his positions over the next decade (and his agents were all over the map in Italy), and Sardinia became a safe haven for the political exiles (well, not necessarily all the rabid republicans at least, but when he set up the war of 1859 his objectives were substantially limited to Lombardy, Veneto, Parma and Modena. To his merit, his goals were never set in stone, and he managed to take the good and the bad in stride (well, he felt betrayed when Louis Napoleon signed a separate cease fire with Austria without prior consultations with Sardinia, and it was the only single time his composure was lost, luckily only for a few days).
I was saying exactly the same thing: it'd not make any difference to have one or the other negotiating in Milan, they'd have the same goal (and possibly Balbo is the better choice, being more flexible and diplomatic that the early Cavour not to mention better known and respected)All I was saying is that, between Balbo and d'Azeglio (the two options you mentioned), I would have the former mediate for the annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont. If he succeeds, this could also speed up Cavour's career by some months given their mutual friendship you mentioned.
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification, sorry, I got a little confused. I know it might be a bit of a stretch, but it would be fun to see Cavour as the Finance Minister of a Balbo government when the war is over. I keep imagining what he could have done with the whole (ora sizeable chunk) of Northern Italy instead of "only" Sardinia-Piedmont.I was saying exactly the same thing: it'd not make any difference to have one or the other negotiating in Milan, they'd have the same goal (and possibly Balbo is the better choice, being more flexible and diplomatic that the early Cavour not to mention better known and respected)
That might be interesting, but it might be difficult to have CA swallow the name of Cavour in the cabinet, in particular in a such important ministry. However it depends how much of Northern Italy falls into Piedmontese hands, and how the next election plays. It should be to the benefit of liberals, but do not discount the influence of the landholders and how small a lot of colleges were. In any case, CA will not last many more years in any case, his health is quite bad and I think he will abdicate anyway pretty soon after the end of the war. The difference ITTL is that the abdication will be in a much better and happier state of mind than IOTL .Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification, sorry, I got a little confused. I know it might be a bit of a stretch, but it would be fun to see Cavour as the Finance Minister of a Balbo government when the war is over. I keep imagining what he could have done with the whole (ora sizeable chunk) of Northern Italy instead of "only" Sardinia-Piedmont.
Cavour was not in the diplomatic service. He was an aristocrat and a newspaper editor who had started to dabble in politics, but was not even a MP at this stage (the first election was scheduled for 27 April). Finding him in the Piedmontese official delegation is a bit strange, considering that CA did not like him at all.Cavour is not there as a big player, he's just there in Milan with other Piedemontese diplomats who are helping the king in the negotiation process
It would be reasonable, but it would not be in the chords of CA: his upbringing as well all the traditions of House Savoy called for him to be with the army. It's also his first war (his participation in suppressing the constitutionalists in Spain doesn't count: it happened almost 30 years earlier, and he was just a minor officer under a cloud), and he knows it will be his last. He will never renounce leading from the front.For the moment CA is leaving the direction of the army to his officers, a bit unconventional for sure, but he wanted to make sure that a smooth transition would occour by using his prestige as liberator to find a satisfactory deal
Verona was the main fortress of the Quadrilateral, and it's hard to believe that the Austrians did evacuate it completely. I can understand not trying to hold the city, and holing up in the citadel, but evacuating it completely...On the 6th the Piedmontese entered Verona. The city was completely devoid of Austrian troops
Chioggia was already liberated by Venice. I don't see the need to send a major general to liaise with Venice at this stage.On the 9th De Sonnaz himself took Chioggia
the Republic of Venice which in the meantime had created a 5000 man strong civil guard in the city and had made contact with other revolutionary groups in the Venetian plain. Lamarmora (who was sent by CA IOTL) is probably a better choice
Why meet them in Rovigo, which is quite out of the way? Vicenza would be a much better choice.On the 10th Carlo Alberto met General Giovanni Durando in Rovigo, commander of the papal expeditionary force, accompanied by the Bourbon and Tuscan troops.
There were no Austrian warships in Venice (actually, Wien had been worried for years about the political unrest in Venice). The Austrian fleet was at port in Pola, at the southern tip of Istria. Just after the successful insurgency, a number of Venetian patriots urged Daniele Manin to send a fast ship to Pola, in order to engineer a mutiny in the fleet (a majority of the sailors was Venetian, and the official language was the Venetian dialect). Unsurprisingly, Daniele Manin refused, and instead of taking advantage of this opportunity decided to send back the Austrian soldiers and administrators to Trieste by ship: the ship taking them to Trieste met an Austrian warship at sea, notified them of the successful insurrection in Venice and any chance of a successful mutiny evaporated forever. Daniele Manin was a fervent Venetian patriot, a good and honest man, but was not really cut out of revolutionary cloth. The best that can be said of him is that he tried to set up a law-abiding insurrection, not a revolution. Maybe ITTL Niccolo Tommaseo and the other firebrands will prevail, and there is an attempt to incite a mutiny in Pola.Venice was now free from the Austrians and the provisional government led by Daniele Manin had already started the first steps to create a functional state: he created the national guard to form the embryo of an army and requisitioned the Austrian ships in port creating a navy, began the reorganization of finances and transformed Venice into the heart of Italian republicanism with the arrival of Mazzini and his republican volunteers,
Of course not! As I have already said, I'm a bit of an amateur so there are many things that I ignore. This kind of insight is very useful as I aim for a plausible story, even if sometimes a bit stretched.I do fear my comments are starting to tire you, but I cannot help noticing that some of your ideas are running against historical record and the personalities of the players. I wanted to help you writing a more credible story, but it's up to you as the writer to choose what to put in. I add some final comments about the last developments; if you are not interested, just ignore them.
Cavour was not in the diplomatic service. He was an aristocrat and a newspaper editor who had started to dabble in politics, but was not even a MP at this stage (the first election was scheduled for 27 April). Finding him in the Piedmontese official delegation is a bit strange, considering that CA did not like him at all.
It would be reasonable, but it would not be in the chords of CA: his upbringing as well all the traditions of House Savoy called for him to be with the army. It's also his first war (his participation in suppressing the constitutionalists in Spain doesn't count: it happened almost 30 years earlier, and he was just a minor officer under a cloud), and he knows it will be his last. He will never renounce leading from the front.
Verona was the main fortress of the Quadrilateral, and it's hard to believe that the Austrians did evacuate it completely. I can understand not trying to hold the city, and holing up in the citadel, but evacuating it completely...
The same hold true for the second main fortress, Mantua. Peschiera and Legnago were minor fortresses, and quite obsolete. Evacuating them is much more reasonable.
Chioggia was already liberated by Venice. I don't see the need to send a major general to liaise with Venice at this stage.
Why meet them in Rovigo, which is quite out of the way? Vicenza would be a much better choice.
Incidentally, the Neapolitan contingents cannot have already arrived, they had quite a lot of way to go. The Tuscan volunteers would not cross the Po river near Ferrara, they would go via Mantua.
There were no Austrian warships in Venice (actually, Wien had been worried for years about the political unrest in Venice). The Austrian fleet was at port in Pola, at the southern tip of Istria. Just after the successful insurgency, a number of Venetian patriots urged Daniele Manin to send a fast ship to Pola, in order to engineer a mutiny in the fleet (a majority of the sailors was Venetian, and the official language was the Venetian dialect). Unsurprisingly, Daniele Manin refused, and instead of taking advantage of this opportunity decided to send back the Austrian soldiers and administrators to Trieste by ship: the ship taking them to Trieste met an Austrian warship at sea, notified them of the successful insurrection in Venice and any chance of a successful mutiny evaporated forever. Daniele Manin was a fervent Venetian patriot, a good and honest man, but was not really cut out of revolutionary cloth. The best that can be said of him is that he tried to set up a law-abiding insurrection, not a revolution. Maybe ITTL Niccolo Tommaseo and the other firebrands will prevail, and there is an attempt to incite a mutiny in Pola.
Obviously, Manin was not at all a follower of Mazzini: the republic Manin dreamed of was a resurgent Serenissima, Mazzini's ideas were quite different.
From the point of view of the purely military aspects, the presence of CA would not help anything. It's probably more beneficial if he stays away and avoids juggling the elbow of the generals. My objection was rather in terms of personality: CA craves martial laurels, and will suffer a lot being away. His son was exactly the same. He couldn't delegate and was always breathing on the shoulder of the generals in (nominal) charge.His leading the army to the generals is a bit of delegation as he knows Bava is probably Sardinia's best general and his trust in De Sonnaz has been proven right at the moment. The king has already met Tuscan and Papal troops and is marching to the front
I said that the Austrians would not try yo held the cities of Verona and Mantua, only the two citadels. It would be a few thousand soldiers, mostly fortress gunners, and the two citadels might be a bargain point at the peace table.Even of the Quadrilateral fortresses were manned their garrisons would be much smaller without Radetzky's units and would make resistance harder and pointless, especially with a rebellious population.
If the mutiny is properly organised and comes as a surprise, I'm quite confident the Venetians might pull it off. As I said, a good majority of the sailors is Venetian. Even if they manage to gain a handful of ships, it will be very much useful for Venice, and it might lead to some possible attempt to foment insurrections in Dalmatia and the islands (Tommaseo was himself from Spalato, and was very much for it). At least, warships would be useful to oppose any Austrian attempt to blockade Venice from the sea (IOTL, the French navy did this, for a time) and allow some commerce raiding.About the navy, I'll se what to do. I don't feel confident that the Venetians would be able to pull that off because it would take just one Austrian ship to prevent it. Anyway the navy was useless in this war OTL and it would be the same ITTL.
As I said, Venice idea of a republic was not a Mazzinian one.Venice is the only republic in Italy. The Milanese are under Piedmont and more monarchical and the rest of Italy was not that warm to mazzinian ideas except for Rome maybe. OTL Venice would be annexed by Sardinia and TTL it won't go differently. I figured Venice could have it's spotlight as a safe heaven for Mazzini and other republicans to organise their contribution to the war.
NiceInsights like this are extremely precious, thank you for noticing!
Manin was utterly incapable of seeing the benefits of joining forces with the cities of the mainland. A typically Venetian blind spot. He did not even coordinate efforts when Nugent came down from FriuliAs another minor nitpick, OTL Manin outright ignored the insurgents in the former Venetian Terrafirma. I see that TTL he is being far more efficient, but any particular reason to do so? I perfectly understand the problems of writing a story being an amateur (as my only, short-lived attempt at a timeline shows), so, please do take my questions and constructive criticism for what they are: a sign of appreciation of your TL and your ideas.
Yes, and that is surprising to me. One would think that to restore the Serenissima he would have thought "big", coordinating both with the former Stato da Mar and the former Stato da Tera as well. Speaking of which, this turning of events could have repercussions in Zara as well. OTL the city rose in rebellion on March the 18th, same day as the "Five Days". This string of successes could set the whole Dalmatian coast (at least the cities, at this point still very much Italian) aflame.Manin was utterly incapable of seeing the benefits of joining forces with the cities of the mainland. A typically Venetian blind spot. He did not even coordinate efforts when Nugent came down from Friuli
Yeah, had Manin been replaced by a more revolutionary leader, Italy could have well grabbed the whole Dalmatian coast.Yes, and that is surprising to me. One would think that to restore the Serenissima he would have thought "big", coordinating both with the former Stato da Mar and the former Stato da Tera as well. Speaking of which, this turning of events could have repercussions in Zara as well. OTL the city rose in rebellion on March the 18th, same day as the "Five Days". This string of successes could set the whole Dalmatian coast (at least the cities, at this point still very much Italian) aflame.