Napoleon III withdraws from Rome?

I've recently been researching, and learned that Nappy III kept soldiers in Rome in order to guard the pope and gain the support of the Catholic populace at home. However, this pissed off the Italian people, who were angered at the fact that the French occupied their capital. Napoleon III offered some compromises to resolve the issue (all of which were refused by Pius IX), but did not press it further for fear of losing Catholic support at home.

What I'd like to know is-what might make Nappy III change his mind, and take his troops out of Rome?

More importantly, what might happen if he did?

The Italian regime came close to supporting the French, but public opposition to French troops in the Vatican prevented king Victor Emmanuel from doing so. With the issue gone, Italy would side with France in the war. This would in turn have a major impact of its own. With Italy in the war, Austria would join on the French side as well (they said they would if Italy was in). Furthermore, Spain, ruled by Amadeo I (the son of Victor Emmanuel, no less) could end up hopping in as well.

Would this be possible? And what kind of effects would it have in Europe? How would Britain and Russia respond? What would be some effects worldwide? And finally, what would become of Germany-would it still unify, or would it stay fractured?
 
You may need to have it so that Italian nationalists don't shoot his number two when he did not declare a crusade against Austria.
 
I've recently been researching, and learned that Nappy III kept soldiers in Rome in order to guard the pope and gain the support of the Catholic populace at home. However, this pissed off the Italian people, who were angered at the fact that the French occupied their capital.
Rome didn't become the capital city of Italy, or even part of Kingdom of Italy at all, until after those French troops were withdrawn...
 
Rome didn't become the capital city of Italy, or even part of Kingdom of Italy at all, until after those French troops were withdrawn...

Oh yes, but for the italian people and ruling class, Rome was the capital point, it was unimportant that was under another ruler, hell even worse she was under what was perceived as foreign occupation.
After say that, find a solution at the roman question and the piedmontese elite and the King gladly accept an alliance with the French (they even lobbyied for this).
Nappy III get vindicated in foreign politics as his support for italian independece bring fruits (even if he preferred a smaller italian state who was simply a satellite) and Italy don't get herself in a idiotic commercial war with France some years later who basically ruined vast sector of her economy and find herself robbed of Tunisia.
 
If you want to change it from the French side, you would need a more resolute Napoleon III. The man wobbled times from each political group in France. If you could make him more confident and to pick a group and stay with them, he might not need to cater to the whims of some of his population. That being said ticking off French Catholics might not be bright but hey...
 
If you want to change it from the French side, you would need a more resolute Napoleon III. The man wobbled times from each political group in France. If you could make him more confident and to pick a group and stay with them, he might not need to cater to the whims of some of his population. That being said ticking off French Catholics might not be bright but hey...

On the other hand Louis-Napoléon skillfully played each and every one of the various factions in French politics against one another, at least until his latter years when he tried to stop playing and let the system run itself. So a Napoléon III that firmly aligns himself with the liberals, for example, wouldn't necessarily be more effective than IOTL's.
 
On the other hand Louis-Napoléon skillfully played each and every one of the various factions in French politics against one another, at least until his latter years when he tried to stop playing and let the system run itself. So a Napoléon III that firmly aligns himself with the liberals, for example, wouldn't necessarily be more effective than IOTL's.

Gosh darn you! Always one upping me.

I'm kidding, listen to him, he's right. I guess if you have a more pro-Italy Napoleon III (which would be difficult to do) he might be content to give Rome to the Italians.
 
Gosh darn you! Always one upping me.

I'm kidding, listen to him, he's right. I guess if you have a more pro-Italy Napoleon III (which would be difficult to do) he might be content to give Rome to the Italians.

If Napoleon III withdraws his troops from Rome, what would the backlash be in France itself? That was was he was afraid of in OTL. I mean would the french people really rise against Napoleon III over the Pope loving temporal powers?
 
If Napoleon III withdraws his troops from Rome, what would the backlash be in France itself? That was was he was afraid of in OTL. I mean would the french people really rise against Napoleon III over the Pope loving temporal powers?

There could be small outbursts in more devout areas, but I am sure Nap Jr could handle it. That's just what methinks though, I would call upon wolf brother.
 
Like I said earlier, you really need to change the events of 1848 for this to work out peacefully in everyone's favor. Napoléon III could withdraw his troops from Rome... But to do it without a major backlash he'd need something to salve the opinions of the reactionaries, largely hard right monarchists and very strongly Catholic, back in Paris. The best thing to do would be to institute some sort of Italian confederation, with the pope as its de jure leader but real power in the hands of some pan-Italy parliament... As the Italian liberals originally wanted before Pius IX turned out to be such a reactionary. It might be best if there's a new pope in Rome actually for this to work. iirc he nearly died sometime in the 1850s when he was visiting some ancient cathedral the building partially collapsed. Perhaps IOTL he doesn't survive, and his successor is more acceptable to the Italian liberals.

EDIT: Yes, here it is. From Frank J. Coppa's Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli and Papal Politics in European Affairs;
... During the course of 1855 the Pope and Antonelli faced problems flowing from the European war, Piedmontese provocations, such as the Law of Convents, and personal danger and crises. On April 12, 1855, the two men traveled to the excavations of the tomb of Saint Alessandro and stopped at the convent of Saint Agnese. While there, Pius, with the Cardinal at his side, agreed to receive the students of the College of the Propaganda in one of the reception rooms. When the anxious students, who numbered well over a hundred, rushed in to pay their respects, the floor caved in, hurling Pius and Antonelli, and some hundred and thirty others, to the story below with a deafening crash. The entire party, including the Pope and Antonelli, escaped injury. Some considered this no less than miracle, while others insisted that it was symbolic of the impending fall of the papacy...

If Napoléon simply tried to withdraw from Rome with some pressing reason (as in OTL steering the Franco-Prussian War), there's likely going to be a coup attempt by the reactionaries. Would it be successful? Likely not, but that's still not exactly something that Napoléon III wants to risk. At the least unilaterally withdrawing from Rome without something else to maintain some semblance of papal power would drastically hurt France both internationally and domestically.
 
Last edited:
Top