Italy unified from Naples?

It's a stretch, I agree. On the other hand, it was the largest Italian state, with -- in theory -- the largest army and the most resources. And OTL the Neapolitan leadership was so breathtakingly stupid that it would be really hard not to improve on it.

Step one is probably to get rid of the utterly hopeless King Ferdinand. Say he chokes on a calzone in 1830. The crown would go to his younger brother Carlo, Prince of Capua (b.1811). Next in line would be Leopoldo, Count of Siracusa (b.1813). I don't know much about either of these guys, but it's hard to imagine them being as bad as Ferdinand.

(We could go all the way back to 1815 and leave Murat in power, but I think that's kind of a stretch -- even before the Hundred Days, the Allies had lost faith in Murat, and I think his days were numbered even if he hadn't foolishly jumped for Napoleon. So we're probably stuck with the Neapolitan Bourbons, lame though they are.)

Now, even if we get some competent leadership, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies has some big problems hardwired in. The Sicilians hate hate hate being ruled from Naples. The peasantry is badly degraded, and there's virtually no middle class, but there's just enough of an urban proletariat to make liberal ideas really dangerous.

Austria, France and England all think they have strategic interests in the Kingdom -- and Brittania is at her least liberal when contemplating threats to that long trans-Mediterranean corridor. All would rather see a weak and stupid regime than an energetic and competent one. And Austria, at least, is willing to invade outright with very little pretext if necessary to support R/e/a/c/t/i/o/n legitimacy.

Still... surely the humiliating collapse of OTL was avoidable. Again, one could hardly do worse.

"Italy unified from Naples" is, I'll freely agree, a long longshot. A stronger Naples is more likely to delay unification! On the other hand, it seems almost certain to happen sometime in the late 19th century -- and a less backward Mezzogiorno would have serious knock-on effects on Italian history.

Thoughts?


Doug M.
 
Does it have to be in the 19th century? What about several centuries earlier, when it was called plain Sicily and under the Hohenstaufen dynasty? Have them win their quarrel with the pope and unite all of Italy.
 
What about several centuries earlier, when it was called plain Sicily and under the Hohenstaufen dynasty? Have them win their quarrel with the pope and unite all of Italy.

Beating the papacy in the middle ages is pretty much impossible: even if you manage to win a war or to bend a pope to your will, sooner or later the immense political lever of the papacy will disloge from Rome. The Holy roman emperors tried for nearly three centuries to achieve a victory and failed, so the french and the normans. Even the Spanish at the height of their power could not control completely Rome.

Back to the topic: why not Murat? If he turns against Napoleon could gain enough support from the allies and remain in charge. Under his command, Naples would be a more dinamic state and could achieve unification in due time.
 
Beating the papacy in the middle ages is pretty much impossible: even if you manage to win a war or to bend a pope to your will, sooner or later the immense political lever of the papacy will disloge from Rome. The Holy roman emperors tried for nearly three centuries to achieve a victory and failed, so the french and the normans. Even the Spanish at the height of their power could not control completely Rome.

Back to the topic: why not Murat? If he turns against Napoleon could gain enough support from the allies and remain in charge. Under his command, Naples would be a more dinamic state and could achieve unification in due time.

I thought the Austrians were inclined to keep Murat in Naples until he jumped ship. Leave him on the Hapsburg ship and he probably keeps it, but what does that leave for compensation to the Bourbons of Naples. Naples and Sicily are only in personal union at this time so perhaps some small scraps are all that are needed.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Fundamentally the problem with Naples is that the Norman conquest created a relatively strong and unified state much like that other Norman conquest did in England. Only in this case it is actually a hindrance to the unification of Italy of which, in the modern since, it is a mere region.

Having said that I think that a POD involving Murat or the Napoleonic Kingdom has some potential. One key to making Naples stronger might be a successful invasion of Sicily either under Joseph or Murat. Murat came close but could never get Napoleon's approval to launch the attack (undermining his authority). Plus there was the British support to contend with. But if Napoleonic reforms were extended to Sicily it would make for a stronger Kingdom of Two Sicilies afterwards either under the Bourbons or Murat. It may even be enough to keep Murat in power. If not maybe you could get some competent Bourbons to step in and take the reins.
 
It's pretty much in the ASB territory. Not going to happen, even if Naples were led by Cavour himself. The Matternich system depended on divided Italy and Germany, and successive French governments agreed insofar as those two regions. It took the farcically incompetent Louis Napoleon to change the traditional French diplomacy, giving both Bismarck and Cavor their chance. I guess a partial unification could've happened during 1848 if Naples had been well-run since 1815 and had an army to defeat the Sardinians and cause distracted Austrians trouble. IF, a big IF, Naples help destroy Sardinia as a regional Power in 1848 with Austria, then when the big realignment comes after Austrian mistakes during the Crimean War, Naples could be in the position that Milan was in the 50's-60's. If Sardinia had not recovered by then and if Molke believed that Naples could march through Sardinia and Lombardy to tie up Austrians, then we'd have a repeat of 66.
 
Murat might have a (very long) shot at unification of Italy.
Everything must go well for him, starting obviously with his behavior in the 100 days (it would be even better if there are no 100 days, actually. To avoid complications down the line, Nappy still embarks for France, but is intercepted and arrested by the French navy).

Without the second scare, UK might be less keen to back a big-time restoration in Europe. Let's assume that TTL Vienna congress comes out with an European arrangement not dissimilar from OTL, with the only exception of Southern Italy: here Murat gets Naples, and the Bourbons keep Sicily.

I am quite convinced that the insurrections of the early 1820s would still be too early to roll the dice. Still Murat could stick to a constitution, and be a haven for European revolutionaries. Then - when the 1830 revolution gets fired - he may have a shoot to unification of Italy (but my guess is that he's going to fail)
 
An alternative scenarion would involve Ferdinand, who was not so bad as he's painted (in particular when he got the crown). A slightly luckier and more decisive Ferdinand could easily become a much better king, and play a significant role in Italian politics. I'm pretty sure he cannot unify Italy on his own, but he could play a much better and more significant role in the 1848 insurrections, and end up with a federal Italy.
 
It's a stretch, I agree. On the other hand, it was the largest Italian state, with -- in theory -- the largest army and the most resources. And OTL the Neapolitan leadership was so breathtakingly stupid that it would be really hard not to improve on it.

Step one is probably to get rid of the utterly hopeless King Ferdinand. Say he chokes on a calzone in 1830. The crown would go to his younger brother Carlo, Prince of Capua (b.1811). Next in line would be Leopoldo, Count of Siracusa (b.1813). I don't know much about either of these guys, but it's hard to imagine them being as bad as Ferdinand.

(We could go all the way back to 1815 and leave Murat in power, but I think that's kind of a stretch -- even before the Hundred Days, the Allies had lost faith in Murat, and I think his days were numbered even if he hadn't foolishly jumped for Napoleon. So we're probably stuck with the Neapolitan Bourbons, lame though they are.)

Now, even if we get some competent leadership, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies has some big problems hardwired in. The Sicilians hate hate hate being ruled from Naples. The peasantry is badly degraded, and there's virtually no middle class, but there's just enough of an urban proletariat to make liberal ideas really dangerous.

Austria, France and England all think they have strategic interests in the Kingdom -- and Brittania is at her least liberal when contemplating threats to that long trans-Mediterranean corridor. All would rather see a weak and stupid regime than an energetic and competent one. And Austria, at least, is willing to invade outright with very little pretext if necessary to support R/e/a/c/t/i/o/n legitimacy.

Still... surely the humiliating collapse of OTL was avoidable. Again, one could hardly do worse.

"Italy unified from Naples" is, I'll freely agree, a long longshot. A stronger Naples is more likely to delay unification! On the other hand, it seems almost certain to happen sometime in the late 19th century -- and a less backward Mezzogiorno would have serious knock-on effects on Italian history.

Thoughts?


Doug M.

I think the South was way too poor and underpopulated to be the source of Italian unity without a POD further in the past. Nobody even really included it in their plans for Italian unification until Garibaldi forced the issue.

Also, I think Ferdinand wasn't as awful as he's painted. A lot of the horror is painted by British travellers (notably Gladstone, who hated pretty much every other culture that existed, ever had, or could conceivably develop), and the Bourbon admininstration had to deal with huge problems, and the region didn't do all that well under the Postrisorgimento regime, having it's taxes hugely increased while remaining poverty-stricken and largely illiterate.

I'm kind of at a loss to come up with a scenario that would work.
 
Top