Italy: unified or devided

What do you prefer: Italy united or divided?


  • Total voters
    108
Uh...

The ranking is now reversed... More people like a divided Italy to an unified one... Still, the race is very close... :p

I will keep the pool open till the end of this week.

Thanks a lot guys!
 
Hey
I am currently planing out a Vienna Congress TL and have reached the 1860's. While the situation in my TL comes about rather differently (Murat Naples) by said point in time Austria has "drawed"/ lost two wars against France/Savoy/Murat (in different constellations). Thus funnily enough my Italy map looks almost exactly like yours (2 Italian Powers [North/South], Austria holding LV and Papal States reduced to Lazio).
With my limited understanding of the Italian unification I have identified Rome as the crucial keystone that will unite the two powers. As opposed to lets say Austria and Prussia where no single city had that kind of influence on german nationalism (Yes, Frankfurt worked for the 48' revolution, but it wouldn't work for two sovereign great powers fusing together).
So currently I am analysing butterflies to look for the next big conflict in which both Austria (obviously) and France(never underestimate French catholics in the 19th century) will be distracted and the Italians get an opportunity to take Rome.
Not wanting to spoil my TL (if I ever post it:rolleyes:) my Austria gets different territories out of the Vienna congress (italian provinces are almost OTL) thus changing their perception of nationalism and regional devolution. So no big italian revolts in Austria. And a small touch of "we are the superior Italians" mentality in Venetians and Lombardians, how much of that is Metternich propaganda I leave to the reader.

Now I dont know how strong and stable both of your Italian states are and what the internal situation in the great powers looks like but that are just my two cents.

Hi,

I'm not an expert either but fully agree with you - Rome is the only city that both North and South can regard to it as it owns.
 
I like the idea of a divided Italy, but I think it only needs two; Italy up north and Two Sicilies/Naples/Sicily down south. But yeah, seeing as Italy is historically only the north anyway, I think it should only go by that, unless Two Sicilies is going to be called South Italy, which doesn't make sense.

The Problem is that once the North take Rome, they will go after the South (vice verso is not doable). I see the Papal States as a keystone of stability in this equation (with Italy divided).

The Northern Italy will become known very soon as Italy, while the Two Sicilies... maybe it will change the name int he future... I'm not sure yet.:confused:
 
As long as there are two states (which I prefer) one can not allow the other to gain "rome" - this will save the papal state. As long as you get a papal state Vienna and Paris will have a say in this state (but they won't annex it - no one can "own" the pope - at least not officially).

Concerning "poor" and "rich" Italy I assume all "agricultural" hinterland will be comparable poor while larger towns and cities will have at least some wealth - especially if industry is flourishing.

In any TL where Lombardo Venetia is still Austrian you will have some noticeable changes to OTLs infrastructure.

Austria will have a (large) rail-line from Triest to Venice along the coast then to Verona and Milano. This line will have links up the Etsch/Adige towards Innsbruck (this is a major line to South Germany too) and a second junction to Udine and up the "Kanaltal" to Carinthia (links to Graz, Linz and Vienna)

Those lines will complement the OTL eastern lines from Trieste and Rijeka to Vienna.

Along those rail-lines you can expect extensive growth (OTL Triest and Rijeka were major European harbors).

The main line will connect also to Turin and probably south to Bologna connecting Italy MORE to "Mitteleuropa" than OTL (More or less a dead end border) - Thats why the Lombardo Venetians will consider them "lucky" to be in the Austrian sphere ;)

I assume a personality like Maximilian (OTL of Mexico) as Vice-King allowing the Lombardo Venetians "cultural" leeway might function as positive integrative figure. Of course Lombardo Venetia will be a cash cow for the empire, but a thriving one, so it does not hurt (too much).
 
Just a random thought, and it's rather late in history for this kind of thing - but supposing that the House of Savoy and House of Murat last for a generation or two: could the last stage of Italian unification be a union of crowns?

That is: the heir and heiress of the two houses marry?

As I noted, it's late in history for this. The last nominal union of crowns was Britain-Hanover; the last effective union was England-Scotland.

Bonus points if the union develops because the two young people fall in love and marry in spite of family pressure. Though in that case, it might be a requirement that the lady is not heir presumptive at the time. Otherwise the family opposition would be immovable.

Perhaps she has a much younger brother who is expected to inherit, and who dies tragically a few years after the wedding; the next heir by blood being an uncle who is... unacceptable. (Uncle Luigi, who is notoriously debauched, strongly suspected of the attempted murder of his brother the King and the murder of his nephew the crown prince, and hand in glove with the nastiest reactionaries in the kingdom. He's a slick operator, and has enough support that he can't be bypassed.)
 
Just a random thought, and it's rather late in history for this kind of thing - but supposing that the House of Savoy and House of Murat last for a generation or two: could the last stage of Italian unification be a union of crowns?

That is: the heir and heiress of the two houses marry?

As I noted, it's late in history for this. The last nominal union of crowns was Britain-Hanover; the last effective union was England-Scotland.

Bonus points if the union develops because the two young people fall in love and marry in spite of family pressure. Though in that case, it might be a requirement that the lady is not heir presumptive at the time. Otherwise the family opposition would be immovable.

Perhaps she has a much younger brother who is expected to inherit, and who dies tragically a few years after the wedding; the next heir by blood being an uncle who is... unacceptable. (Uncle Luigi, who is notoriously debauched, strongly suspected of the attempted murder of his brother the King and the murder of his nephew the crown prince, and hand in glove with the nastiest reactionaries in the kingdom. He's a slick operator, and has enough support that he can't be bypassed.)

I like that! even if it's not applicable for my timeline:p
 
Sigh - I am wondering if the foreign perception of Italy weighted over the prevalence of the votes over the split...
 
Sigh - I am wondering if the foreign perception of Italy weighted over the prevalence of the votes over the split...


I am Austrian, so you can eexpect me to be against a strong Italy (in this timeframe)

;)

Today - I like pasta, pizza, the wine, grappa and the adriatc beaches (nad Tuscany, don't forget Tuscany)

And I am not sure if I want Südtirol back :D
 
Sigh - I am wondering if the foreign perception of Italy weighted over the prevalence of the votes over the split...


I honestly have to say that I didn't even vote on this poll. My reason for this is pretty simple: I don't have a "preference" about the "unity" of a state.Some nations are more easily united for example France or Spain or England will be united in most ATLs. Some nations like Italy or Germany have higher potential for split offs to survive to modern day in ATLs (kinda like Austria). I mean in a DBWI would you ask people if they prefered a unified or divided Germany? This is not to critic the OP who just asked a question for his TL.
But maybe a better title (when keeping in mind patriotic sensibilities) would have been: "How likely is Italian unification in the following scenario, and which parts of modern day Italy does it entail?".

Edit: I didn't vote but wanted to further encourage discussion about the inevitability of Italian unification.
 
I honestly have to say that I didn't even vote on this poll. My reason for this is pretty simple: I don't have a "preference" about the "unity" of a state.Some nations are more easily united for example France or Spain or England will be united in most ATLs. Some nations like Italy or Germany have higher potential for split offs to survive to modern day in ATLs (kinda like Austria). I mean in a DBWI would you ask people if they prefered a unified or divided Germany? This is not to critic the OP who just asked a question for his TL.
But maybe a better title (when keeping in mind patriotic sensibilities) would have been: "How likely is Italian unification in the following scenario, and which parts of modern day Italy does it entail?".

Edit: I didn't vote but wanted to further encourage discussion about the inevitability of Italian unification.

Hi fishingfred!

Thank you very much for your comment and attention.
The points you mentioned are very good and pertinent. Perhaps my question was not correctly formulated.
I wished to see the perception of the majority of the readers about an unified Italy vs a divided one. Also, I have wanted to know if they see the unification as an inevitable processes or not.
Of course, in alternative timelines, as well as in OTL, there were countries that were wanked and other countries that were screwed, often ones on the expense of others. Sometimes, the history reversed the roles and the places switched. My intention ITTL was not to screw Italy but to make it more prosperous and just I was/still am not sure if this should be better done in a formula with 1 country/peninsula or 3 (As I've said, 2 it's not workable as Rome is a cornerstone and for the balance of powers should be independent if the peninsula is split).

There could be nationalistic preferences. For e.g. an Austrian or a French could want to prefers a divided Italy as well as an Romanian will always want a small Hungary and an Hungarian will want a small Romania. (Both big can't be simply done as they overlaps on a BIG part of the territory).

Again, thanks to all who vote and comment and read my threat!
 
As completion, I would be very curious what the Italians think about the OTL unification.
It is perceived as a good thing (for the Italians, both from the north and south) or not so?
 
As completion, I would be very curious what the Italians think about the OTL unification.
It is perceived as a good thing (for the Italians, both from the north and south) or not so?


This is not an easy question to answer. Personally I am glad Italy is united, as divided it was almost completely under direct control or influence of other states.

However I think the unification process didn't happen in the best possible way. In particular I think that many of today's political problems may in part derive by the destruction of municipal autonomies by the Savoia kings. I can understand that they wanted a uniform state, but this meant that, especially in the south the Italian state has been seen as something almost foreign, oppressive or benevolent, but never truly representative of all the Italian society. Probably a federal system would have been much more positive for the political and economical development of Italy.

You may be aware that today in Italy there is a political party that at least in theory(1) argues for the independence of the north, as they say that their economical resources are being suckled away by the lazy southrons and "Roma Ladrona" (Robber Rome).
All this is very ironic, as most Italian patriots in the risorgimento came from the northern regions... It also horrifies me how they adopted the "Va Pensiero" choir in Verdi's Nabucco as an anthem for the north, when it is clear that it alluded to the wh9le of Italy ("mia latria sì bella e perduta" /oh my beautiful and lost country).

There are also some tiny indipendentist groups in the south who argue for a "bourbon restauration" but they are really not significative. But they produce a lot of revisionist literature over the economical strengths of the two sicilies, the briganti as partisans and patriots and also on how the Savoia basically treated the south as a colony.
Most of this is exaggerated, but I think that it is true that some policies of the Savoia were taken hving in mind the interests of piedmontese industry over those of the rest of the country. It is sad to see how the south still today remains relatively backwards and suffering from crime and unemployment. (By the way I am trying to make things better for southern Italy in my Tl about a surviving Muratian dinasty in Naples, and I am still not sure if there will be a unification or not, so this thread was much interesting for me too).
 
And I am not sure if I want Südtirol back :D

Please, if we play nice you will take it back?:D



Now we are disscussing my (planned) TL not the OP's TL. Since I value your input and if you are interested I will write you a PM containing my italian "plotpoints" for the 19th Century.

You can and i will try to answer you at the best of my possibility, but in all honesty i think that LordKalvan is much more qualified than me to give you a very sound advice regarding that period of Italy

For the sake of this disscussion lets just say. Austria "won" those two "wars" but didn't have the political will (As well as the political will of her allies) to go into Italy and reeinstate some Dukes in Italy that fled as soon as the war / revolution broke out
.

While a win made things more 'probable', at the same time leave A-h in a not pleaseant situation as the former nations free to join Italy create future problem and OTL it was ready to launch a military campaign to retake the place.
Maybe, the second war of independence go as OTL till the signing of the peace treaty, France is not asked or refuse to support Sardinia in taking the formers Dukes and Papal land, A-H launch an offensive agaisnt the rebels...but botched it badly, retreat and decide that enough is enough and cut it losses, as consequence Piedmont officially absorb the place (and keep Nice and Savoy as France had not delivered anything and has go behind Turin back with the Peace Treaty...that was also OTL, the land was given only due to the support for the incorporation of Parma, Modena, Tuscany and Romagna plus Lombardy)...but it's a strech


Linking that back to the OP's TL if Austria is in a position of strength and able to hold onto LV (which is in someway devolved). An Italian unification without LV and a possible economic fallout can make Austria look even more appealing (+ of course the effect that [strong] Austria doesn't want to let go).

The problem is that in your previous post you had mentioned a Murat led Napoles, and this is a PoD big like the Himalaya regarding Italian unification as it mean a much more strong South Italy (the Bourboun basically run the place to the ground) and a more federal Italian nation as in that case, i doubt that the Kingdom of naples will be easily absorbed. Honestly while i think that Veneto can be retained using devolution and a very big dose of propaganda, the better case for Lombardy was keeping Mantua and the 'quadrilatero' so having a perfect route for an invasion of the place, but leaving to the Italians the rest

Also wasn't the hinterlands of Venice and Friaul pretty poor? Maybe my economic research is bad
.

No Veneto and Friuli were not very rich but Trieste and Venice make up for this due to their importance.
 
Thi final....

As the majority choose a divided Italy, I will go with this choice and keep a divided Italy all along XIX century and beyond, at least till an alternate Great War. :D

Thanks guys and please send me as many feedbacks and comments you consider pertinent.
And of-course, read my timelines :rolleyes:

Cheers!
 
Italians have had a self-conception of a unified nation since the Renaissance, so in the long run, a divided Italy is unlikely unless one of the regions of Italy realigned itself with a separate nationalism. Perhaps for whatever reason Northern Italy discovered that its local language isn't really Italian and developed a Lombard or Padanian or whatever nationalism early... but there would have to be a reason for such discovery, since it didn't speak Italian in the Renaissance either, and yet Milan was viewed as an integral part of Italy.
 
Top