Italy and the Congress of Vienna

This thread is three parts.

1. A question: Why wasn't an independent Italy, which could serve as a balance for France, created at the Congress? Did it have to do with the Papal States? I know later proposals (1860ish) had the Pope as almost a Holy Roman Emperor analogue over Italy, ruling some territory in his own right.

2. An AHC: Have some form of independent unified Italy be created by diplomatic concert, rather than by nationalist uprising, preferably in the 19th century.

3. A WI: What would the effects on 19th century Europe (and the world) be if an independent and unified Italy rose from the ashes of the Napoleonic Wars?
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I can only answer 1: Because the powers that be (aka the reactionary forces) wanted to turn the clock as far into 1789 as possible, and thus did not want a united Italy because then you'd be screwing at least 4 or 5 monarchs out of their rightful thrones. As said before, no one wanted Venice or Genoa (or any republic in Europe for that matter sans Switzerland because of concerns that I can't remember at this time) and so did away with them (Genoa to Sardinia-Piedmont, Venice to Austria)
 
I can only answer 1: Because the powers that be (aka the reactionary forces) wanted to turn the clock as far into 1789 as possible, and thus did not want a united Italy because then you'd be screwing at least 4 or 5 monarchs out of their rightful thrones. As said before, no one wanted Venice or Genoa (or any republic in Europe for that matter sans Switzerland because of concerns that I can't remember at this time) and so did away with them (Genoa to Sardinia-Piedmont, Venice to Austria)

Pretty much this. The Congress of Vienna was about restoring the Old Order and insuring that the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars were never repeated. Not only would a unified Italy be against these ideals but it also begs the question of who wold be its King? The Savoys? The Pope? Or one of the Bourbon and Habsburg branches? Plus it would be validating Italian nationalism, something very dangerous for the rest of Europe at this point. And I can't see the Austrians, who occupied Italy at this point, wanting to give up Lombardy-Venetia or depose their relatives in Modena and Tuscany. So the most you could get at the Congress of Vienna in regards to Italy would be an Italian version of the German Confederation, no doubt chaired by the Pope. That's it.
 
Pretty much this. The Congress of Vienna was about restoring the Old Order and insuring that the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars were never repeated. Not only would a unified Italy be against these ideals but it also begs the question of who wold be its King? The Savoys? The Pope? Or one of the Bourbon and Habsburg branches? Plus it would be validating Italian nationalism, something very dangerous for the rest of Europe at this point. And I can't see the Austrians, who occupied Italy at this point, wanting to give up Lombardy-Venetia or depose their relatives in Modena and Tuscany. So the most you could get at the Congress of Vienna in regards to Italy would be an Italian version of the German Confederation, no doubt chaired by the Pope. That's it.

I don't 100% buy that they were only looking to restore the old order. After all, they strengthened several states (not only major powers but also, say, Two Sicilies) and provided counterbalances to France. I could definitely see an Italian Confederation, though. I wonder what the effects would be on the 19th century. The Pope would probably end up with a better result than OTL.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I think there might be some possibility for a 'Italian' state if Eugene de Beauharnais had defected like Murat and Bernadotte. After all the allies at least initially accepted the idea of letting Murat keep Naples until the Hundred Days of course. At various times Eugene was promised the Duchy of Milan if he defected to the allies and let them pass through Italy but he stalwartly stood by Napoleon even as he was clearly loosing. Eventually the offers got smaller and more vague, IIRC the last offer as the Austrian army descended into Italy was for him to become Duke of Genoa. Instead he was forced to surrender once Lombardy was overrun. While his honorable conduct earned him a lot of respect after the war he never given any territorial compensation. While a Beauharnais Milan is not an Italian state per se it could form the kernel for one.

Couple other thoughts. The Savoys really didn't do too well during the Napoleonic period. Three sons of Victor Amadeus III became King each without producing a son leading to Savoy being inherited by the Carignano branch. By 1814 the eldest Charles Emmanuel IV had abdicated and was living in Rome and two other sons Maurizio and Giusepppe had died of Malaria while living in exile in Sardinia which was somewhat less hospitable than Turin. So if Malaria claimed another brother or two, say Charles Felix and Victor Emmanuel I die as well you could wipe out the mainline of the Savoys before there's a chance to restore them, then the only claimant is the distantly related Prince of Carignano. Also there's the fate of Parma, in 1814 I believe the terms were that it would pass to Marie Louise and could then be inherited by the Duke of Reichstadt but post 100 Days the final settlement was for her life only. So there's some room to play around with that.

Broader point is that the displaced Italian princes were by no means guaranteed their realms. Some had been gone since as far back as Campo Formio, and in most cases the rulers who had been displaced had died in exile and it was their sons or even grandsons (in the case of Parma and Modena) who were the claimants. Hence Bourbon-Parma at first had to content themselves with Lucca and Bourbon-Sicily at first had to accept that Naples was lost to them. The 100 Days hardened the allies and pushed for a more stringent restoration. So maybe things unfold just a little differently and we get an Italian Confederation with one or two small states with surviving Napoleonic Dynasts, like a Beauharnais Milan or Genoa and a Habsburg-Bonaparte Parma. Just enough of a change to shake things up and open the door for an earlier unification?
 
I think you underestimate the degree to which it was about restoring the old order, Spelf. The German Confederation (an Austrian-led, decentralised confederation of most of the states of Central Europe) was a successor in spirit to the former Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (an Austrian-led, decentralised confederation of most of the states of Central Europe). It restored the balance of power by creating a body exceedingly similar to what had preceded it. There was no such precedent for an "Italian Confederation".

Given the focus of the Congress of Vienna, in particular, on returning monarchs to their thrones, deposing several monarchs by unifying Italy would be an absolute no-no. The Austrian Empire, one of the four main coalition powers, would definitely not be pleased, and Italian unification would give no great gain to Prussia, the UK or Russia (or Talleyrand for that matter), so none of them would have any especial reason to mortally offend Austria (and thus require changes in Austria's interests and thus against their own interests elsewhere in Europe, in order to balance things out) by uniting Italy.
 
Italy was generally considered an 'Austrian' sphere of influence even before the Napoleonic Wars (hence the Quadrilateral fortresses, and the dogged Austrian attempts at retaking Italy culminating with Marengo in 1800).

The utility of an Italy as a 'balance' is no clear. Given that the Austrians were not popular in Italy (as demonstrated in the 1790s and seen again in 1848), an Italian state might well find France the more attractive partner. Remember that 'Italy' would have also contained what was considered 'core' Austrian territory as well e.g. Southern Tyrolia and the major arsenals at Trieste, not to mention Dalmatia.

Habsburgs also ruled over parts of Italy, most notably the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

Then you have the oft-mentioned idea that Vienna was about upholding the old order, crushing the ideals that the French Revolution had propagated throughout Europe. National self-determination (e.g. Italy for Italians) is one of those ideals.
 
Top