Modern Day Papal States?

Is there anyway to have the papal states to survive to today? And No i dont mean the Vatican i mean a fair sized nation? If the Bonepartes (Napoelon III) remain in power would france still back it? Maybe a POD where Rome is attacked earlier? What effects would this have on italian unification? Could there still be a somewhat unified italy minus papal states? Bonus points if you can have the POD after the third italian war of independence.

Also I was thinking, could Giuseppe Garibaldi instead of invading two siciles attack instead the kingdom of sardinia with his red shirts after the sardinians agree to sell his home city of Nice to france (which they did)? Would france avoid the fight and give it up? Would Giuseppe Garibaldi manage to take over the Sardinia kingdom with or without french aid? If he takes over would he march south and take rome? After would France (and maybe austria or spain) declare war on him and reinstate the papal states?

Also could we see a French Northern italy? Also would two sicilies remain at peace with the pope? or would they try to take it?
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I'm not overly familiar with Italian history though I am familiar with the Italian Unification Period.

In order for the Papal States (at the time would consist of Latium) to exist past it's annexation by the Kingdom of Italy (9/20/1870) it would revolve around the Franco-Prussian War. Two reasons led to the collapse of the Papal States both involving France,

1) the French garrison protecting the Remnant Papal States had been recalled to fight Prussia

2) the Second French Empire's collapse after France's defeat in Sedan.

For this OTL to work, it would require France to be doing well enough in the Franco-Prussian War to not warrant any of the two scenarios to work. As far as how it would affect Italian Unification, Italy was united for the most part, it was called the Kingdom of Italy and it's capital was roughly at the center of the country, to be specific, the old Tuscan Capital of Florence. Thing is, it would not dull the unification issue much. More or less unfortunately, it would involve a war with the French however, a conflict that could go either way.

As for Garibaldi and Papal-Sicilian relations, I don't know too well on how that would play out.
 
Garibaldi was able to defeat the Bourbons only beacause of the discreet, but substantial, Sardinian backing. He was politically faraway from the Sardinian government, but he understood that it was the only realistic subject able to unify Italy under an acceptably liberal rule.
He surrendered the whole Kingdom of Naples to the House of Savoy OTL, and this was AFTER they had given Nice to France in exchange for Lombardy.
No way he could overthrow the Sardinian government after 1859, and he wasn't so willing to in any case.
 
Do you think that possibly the french to avoid war could just cede Ascale-Lorraine? or did france start the war?

France started the war: Nappy was more or less bambloozed by Bismarck and reacted badly (and predictably) to his bluff. There were also other issues with "Germany": the grand-duchy of Luxembourg almost triggered a war two years earlier, and the Spanish succession crisis was another sore point. Mostly however Nappy needed a "short victorious war" to shore up his regime, and he got it (except the victorious part, I mean).

The idea of France agreeing to cede Alsace-Lorraine without a war (a la Sudetenland :D) is obviously ludicrous.
 
Garibaldi was able to defeat the Bourbons only beacause of the discreet, but substantial, Sardinian backing. He was politically faraway from the Sardinian government, but he understood that it was the only realistic subject able to unify Italy under an acceptably liberal rule.
He surrendered the whole Kingdom of Naples to the House of Savoy OTL, and this was AFTER they had given Nice to France in exchange for Lombardy.
No way he could overthrow the Sardinian government after 1859, and he wasn't so willing to in any case.

Garibaldi made a couple of attempts at liberating Latium and Rome (in 1862 and 1867, IIRC) and in both cases he was stopped by Italian troops before he entered the papal states. Notwithstanding this, in 1866 he was again commanding volunteers in Trentino against Austria (quite successfully, and was stopped by the armistice while he was on the offensive. His famous telegram to the king - Obbedisco, I obey - is quite a good representation of the man).
 
Garibaldi was able to defeat the Bourbons only beacause of the discreet, but substantial, Sardinian backing. He was politically faraway from the Sardinian government, but he understood that it was the only realistic subject able to unify Italy under an acceptably liberal rule.
He surrendered the whole Kingdom of Naples to the House of Savoy OTL, and this was AFTER they had given Nice to France in exchange for Lombardy.
No way he could overthrow the Sardinian government after 1859, and he wasn't so willing to in any case.

Mostly correct, even if the cession of Nice and Savoy was in exchange of French acceptance of the annexations of the Emilian duchies, of Tuscany and all of the papal states, excepting Latium only.

Considering that Nappy's goal was to have an Italy divided in three kingdoms (Norther Italy under the Savoy, Central Italy under the Pope and southern Italy under the Bourbons - or even better under prince Murat) the price Cavour paid was not excessive.

Agreed on your take of Garibaldi: even if he was much to the left of the political spectrum, Garibaldi accepted in the 1850s that the only feasible way of unifying Italy was through the Savoys, and after that he always played ball.
 

Susano

Banned
France started the war: Nappy was more or less bambloozed by Bismarck and reacted badly (and predictably) to his bluff.
No. Gramont and Olliver started a war of aggression about a diplomatic note published in a regional newspaper, after Prussia had already conceded to Frances first set of demands. There was no manipulation going on: France was the aggressor, and that is all there is to it.
 
No. Gramont and Olliver started a war of aggression about a diplomatic note published in a regional newspaper, after Prussia had already conceded to Frances first set of demands. There was no manipulation going on: France was the aggressor, and that is all there is to it.

Come on, the famous telegram from Essien or whatever the name of the spa where Bismarck was taking the waters is well known, and IMHO is a feather in the cap of the Kanzler. That Nappy was feeling frustrated and overreacted is also true, obviously, and the responsibility of the war is straight with France
 

Susano

Banned
Come on, the famous telegram from Essien or whatever the name of the spa where Bismarck was taking the waters is well known, and IMHO is a feather in the cap of the Kanzler. That Nappy was feeling frustrated and overreacted is also true, obviously, and the responsibility of the war is straight with France

If Bismarck had wanted war, he would have pushed the Sigmaringen candidacy. That, too, would have resulted in a rather unjustified French DoW, and would have ensured a friendly Spain. Instead, he at great effort convinced both the Prince and the King not to do that, thusly coping with France first set of demands. THEN, France makes another demand, demanding Prussia should vow that there should NEVER be a Hohenzollern on the Spanish throne. France adds insult to injury, so Bismarck in oproven game theory tit for tat (also always working in diplomacy) also gives slight insult by publishing the note in a shortened form. And France declares war over that. Looking at it Id say the French side had been itching for a war during the entire crisis.
 
Mostly correct, even if the cession of Nice and Savoy was in exchange of French acceptance of the annexations of the Emilian duchies, of Tuscany and all of the papal states, excepting Latium only.

Considering that Nappy's goal was to have an Italy divided in three kingdoms (Norther Italy under the Savoy, Central Italy under the Pope and southern Italy under the Bourbons - or even better under prince Murat) the price Cavour paid was not excessive.

Agreed on your take of Garibaldi: even if he was much to the left of the political spectrum, Garibaldi accepted in the 1850s that the only feasible way of unifying Italy was through the Savoys, and after that he always played ball.

Cavour had managed a good deal indeed, especially considering that Nice and Savoy have never been linguistically Italian, and culturally only Nice was partly tied to Italy. The original agreement assumed Nice and Savoy to France in exchange for Lombardy and Venetia to Sardinia, but Napoleon, scared by the Sardinian takeover or the Duchies, made peace with the Austrians letting them keep Venetia.
Sardinians got really angry at that, and refused to give Nice and Savoy for a while. Many Italians actually felt Nice as part of the country and were disgusted ad giving it to France. The king OTOH would have liked to keep Savoy as the ancestral land of his house.
But when it was was clear that Sardinia was going to annex Central Italy, France insisted and the Sardinian government agreed to hold plebiscites in Nice and Savoy after the ones in the Duchies and Romagna (i think before the ones in Umbria, Marche and the South but not so sure).
Interestingly, the plebiscite was massively pro-french in the perceveidly Italian Nice, while in Savoy a significant minority voted for Sardinia (out of dynastic loyalty, no to mention issues with Switzerland about Higher Savoy).
 
If Bismarck had wanted war, he would have pushed the Sigmaringen candidacy. That, too, would have resulted in a rather unjustified French DoW, and would have ensured a friendly Spain. Instead, he at great effort convinced both the Prince and the King not to do that, thusly coping with France first set of demands. THEN, France makes another demand, demanding Prussia should vow that there should NEVER be a Hohenzollern on the Spanish throne. France adds insult to injury, so Bismarck in oproven game theory tit for tat (also always working in diplomacy) also gives slight insult by publishing the note in a shortened form. And France declares war over that. Looking at it Id say the French side had been itching for a war during the entire crisis.

Exactly, Nappy was trying to save his worthless hide by starting what he thought would be a short,victorious war and just because the French got their butts handed to them doesn't mean they didn't start it.
 
If Bismarck had wanted war, he would have pushed the Sigmaringen candidacy. That, too, would have resulted in a rather unjustified French DoW, and would have ensured a friendly Spain. Instead, he at great effort convinced both the Prince and the King not to do that, thusly coping with France first set of demands. THEN, France makes another demand, demanding Prussia should vow that there should NEVER be a Hohenzollern on the Spanish throne. France adds insult to injury, so Bismarck in oproven game theory tit for tat (also always working in diplomacy) also gives slight insult by publishing the note in a shortened form. And France declares war over that. Looking at it Id say the French side had been itching for a war during the entire crisis.

you know we are saying practically the same thing? I've always said that France was looking for a short victorious war (the 1860s had not been a string of successes for the 2nd empire), and i am sure that Bismarck too shared this opinion. However if an experienced diplomat leaks such a note he knows what's he's doing: at this stage the issue of the second set of demands was still undisclosed to the general public, so if he really had no need to raise the stakes as he did. But he did, which means he had a plan.
 
Cavour had managed a good deal indeed, especially considering that Nice and Savoy have never been linguistically Italian, and culturally only Nice was partly tied to Italy. The original agreement assumed Nice and Savoy to France in exchange for Lombardy and Venetia to Sardinia, but Napoleon, scared by the Sardinian takeover or the Duchies, made peace with the Austrians letting them keep Venetia.
Sardinians got really angry at that, and refused to give Nice and Savoy for a while. Many Italians actually felt Nice as part of the country and were disgusted ad giving it to France. The king OTOH would have liked to keep Savoy as the ancestral land of his house.
But when it was was clear that Sardinia was going to annex Central Italy, France insisted and the Sardinian government agreed to hold plebiscites in Nice and Savoy after the ones in the Duchies and Romagna (i think before the ones in Umbria, Marche and the South but not so sure).
Interestingly, the plebiscite was massively pro-french in the perceveidly Italian Nice, while in Savoy a significant minority voted for Sardinia (out of dynastic loyalty, no to mention issues with Switzerland about Higher Savoy).
Well, actually Nappy after the armistice renounced to his claims on Nice and Savoy, provided that Sardinia did not annex anything but Lombardy. Then the situation precipitated very quickly, since the duchies and Romagna, as well as Tuscany, were governed by provisional governments set up by the insurgents with Sardinian support.
When Garibaldi landed in Sicily (with British support, don't forget it) and the Bourbon regime started to unravel, Cavour realised that Garibaldi would have not stopped at the border of Latium, but would have certainly marched on Rome, and this would have left all the cats out of the bag. So he convinced Nappy that the least damaging solution would have been for the Sardinian army to stop Garibaldi, which they did. The need to go south through the Papal States was certainly unfortunate :D
Under this new scenario, Nice and Savoy were the east that could be given to France. Mind, the plebiscites were never in doubt: the last thing Cavour might have wanted would have been an anti-French plebiscite, and he informed the prefects accordingly
 
Top