Italy without Francesco Crispi

MrHola

Banned
A while ago, one of the members on this forum claimed that it was Francesco Crispi policies during his stint as Prime Minister that led to the relatively weak position of Italy in the late 19th century. His anti-French policies and openly courting of Bismarck triggered economic difficulties and was one of the major causes of the Italian diaspora. Suppose that he dies sometime before 1887. What would happen next? The man was pretty much a prototype Duce, after all. Could this lead to a slightly stronger and more stable Italy? One man who could supplant Crispi is Giovanni Nicotera. He seemed to have a smarter head on his shoulders then Crispi...
 
Last edited:

Redhand

Banned
Italy's problems went well beyond the policies of a particularly inefficient prime minister. It was economically screwed by the disparities of North vs South, it had the Papal Question to hang over them, it was probably the most corrupt nation politically in Europe (not really sure if this has changed much), it was weak militarily and had tremendous social strife that was causing a mass exodus of its citizens overseas. Being pro French may help them in the short run but it frankly wasnt feasible as France held territory given away 30 yrs earlier that the Italians simply wanted back. They were also spending money on a colonial empire that wasnt paying off, much like the Germans for hollow prestige motives. For Italy to even be relevant they would have to solve the economic issues that made its government so weak and pathetic to start with while also figuring out some military solution to its disunity, unimpressive manpower and downright stupid commanders.
 
Italy's problems went well beyond the policies of a particularly inefficient prime minister. It was economically screwed by the disparities of North vs South, it had the Papal Question to hang over them, it was probably the most corrupt nation politically in Europe (not really sure if this has changed much), it was weak militarily and had tremendous social strife that was causing a mass exodus of its citizens overseas. Being pro French may help them in the short run but it frankly wasnt feasible as France held territory given away 30 yrs earlier that the Italians simply wanted back. They were also spending money on a colonial empire that wasnt paying off, much like the Germans for hollow prestige motives. For Italy to even be relevant they would have to solve the economic issues that made its government so weak and pathetic to start with while also figuring out some military solution to its disunity, unimpressive manpower and downright stupid commanders.

Arguably, we have much more of a corruption problem now than back then.

The territorial issues with France in Europe were very much low-key for most of the period. What really pissed Italy off about France wasn't Nizza or Savoy, it was Tunis (and to a lesser extent, French meddling in Ethiopia).
The whole silly colonial enterprise was largely Crispi's brainchild, although the foundations (and the attached nationalist frenzy) predated his tenure in government. He was the guy staking his entire political career on the unwinnable war with Ethiopia, which led to the Adowa debacle.
Also, the tariff war with France did a lot to worsen the North-South divide. While the issue is still contentious in terms of historical research, there is some room to believe that the unification of the country contributed to the worsening of Southern economy, specifically damaging its nascent industry. Not that the South hadn't very serious issues anyway, of course, but without the silly policies of Crispi it may have been marginally better (and mind you, Crispi was a Southerner himself).
Interestingly, the alleged reason why Italy wanted colonies was the need for a demographic outlet for her landless peasantry. It worked out abysmally badly, as in, Italian peasants did not colonize Eritrea, but Eritreans were dispossessed of their lands for that purpose anyway (and rightly rebelled).
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Crispi has to have been one of the dumbest statesman ever. The problems with France were largely in Crispi's head- he blamed France for everything that went wrong in Italy (he should have blamed England)

Crispi always overplayed Italy's hand and attached himself far too closely with England- who played him for a sucker. His refusal to come to terms with France on Tunis where the issues were minor and Italy eventually caved in anyway prevented him from playing France and England off against each other.

The net result was the Abyssinia disaster- where England egged him on to contain Menelik and the Dervishes so England could conquer Egypt and they didn't offer him any real support when he asked for help at Zeyla. Instead, they tried to entice him into a war with the Ottomans.

Thankfully he fell before anything came of that nonsense.

So if Crispi dies earlier things have to be better for Italy- Rudini and Blanc both understood the need for decent relations with both France and Russia.

Who knows what an aggressive Italian Prime Minister could have accomplished- perhaps a deal with France where Italy got Egypt and France Morocco. Italy didn't need England against France- she had Germany
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
perhaps a deal with France where Italy got Egypt

French opinions aside, would Italy have been capable of suppressing native rebels, nevermind a Britain that objected to an Italian leading role in Egypt?

The problems with France were largely in Crispi's head- he blamed France for everything that went wrong in Italy (he should have blamed England)

Why so? Are you referring to diplomatic problems, or economic problems?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
French opinions aside, would Italy have been capable of suppressing native rebels, nevermind a Britain that objected to an Italian leading role in Egypt?

Britain might object but how much power would she really have in the Mediterranean against France and Italy? Just their torpedo boats would be enough to end all trade through there. Goschen repeatedly stated his greatest fear was an Italian-Spanish-French alliance. It would end all hope of GB playing a role in the Mediterranean. Something she eventually gives up to confront Germany


Look at the Fashoda incident. What would happen if Italy walked in there and handed Queen Victoria a "friendly note" saying that since Egypt was pacified, Italy thought that the time had come for GB to end its "temporary occupation"?

In 1898, the Italian fleet is very strong especially coupled with France and the British would be forced to fight far from home

If GB could suppress Egypt, then Italy could. As bad as the Italian Army was, it was better than the British army (mainly due to its greater size). Menelik would have defeated the British if they had ventured into Abassynia. The Dervishes beat the Red Coats as well. Egypt could pay for its own conquest something Abassynia could never do.

Why so? Are you referring to diplomatic problems, or economic problems?

Crispi always used France as his whipping post when anything went wrong- be it Adowa or Sicilian peasant uprisings. He used France like Hitler used Jews.

He never grasped his real problem was GB that always took him for granted and wouldn't even let him have crumbs.
 
Top