Papal State forms Italy

I'm not exactly incredibly knowledgeable on the subject, but I don't believe the church held enough power anywhere in Europe by this point for the Papacy to be successful in uniting Italy.

Though I do suppose that Europe was steadily rebuilding itself after the Napoleonic Wars so perhaps many in Italy would look to the Pope to lead them. Just some ideas.
 
I'm not entirely sure, but wasn't one of the early plans for a unified Italy an extremely loose confederation of states under the Pope? somehow get rid of the Savoyards and you might be able to get all the conservative monarchist nationalists to fall behind it.
 
I think that by that time the Pope was not considerate a influential enough figure to unite Italy maybe before the Renaissance but im not sure there was such nationalistic spirit to support his claim back then. Only viable way i see is Victor Emmanuel giving the pope a place that is similar to today's English Queen to gain more legitimacy but i dont know how plausible is that.
 
Me being Catholic, the Pope wouldn't have had nearly enough power at 1820 to do anything really to unify Italy. The last time the Pope was really a major major leader was before the Protestants and Luther; probably thinking a little after the last crusade.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The Pope who got closest to "uniting" Italy was Alexander VI, mostly thanks to his son Cesare conquering everything he could get his mitts on, though that was all way back in 1492-1503.

Hrmm. For an early 19th century POD, maybe you could have Cardinal Consalvi manage to have the Papal States be awarded some more territory at the Congress of Vienna. Perhaps some chunks of Tuscany (the State of Presidi, maybe) get rewarded to the Papacy and they use it as a springboard to compete with the Savoyards for dominance in Italy, probably by embracing (rather than largely ignoring) the concept of Italian nationalism.
 
Last edited:
The Pope who got closest to "uniting" Italy was Alexander VI, mostly thanks to his son Cesare conquering everything he could get his mitts on, though that was all way back in 1492-1503.

Hrmm. For an early 19th century POD, maybe you could have Cardinal Consalvi manage to have the Papal States be awarded some more territory at the Congress of Vienna. Maybe some chunks of Tuscany (the State of Presidi, maybe) get rewarded to the Papacy and they use it as a springboard to compete with the Savoyards for dominance in Italy, probably by embracing (rather than largely ignoring) the concept of Italian nationalism.

the problem then becomes somehow getting the Pope reforming enough to prevent a revolution in Italy without changing doctrine in a way that would cause a massive Schism

or have Franz Joseph (while, Archduchess Sophia) or whoever ends up on top in France go extremely pro-catholic as an attempt to rally support.
 
What if they take control of Naples, say at some point before1500, getting, gradually, enough power to unify Italy after the Napoleonic wars
 
Only viable way i see is Victor Emmanuel giving the pope a place that is similar to today's English Queen to gain more legitimacy but i dont know how plausible is that.

The "reduction" of the Pope to an absolute figurehead within the hierarchical structure of a unified monarchical Italy would benefit the Papacy greatly. A socio-religious co-op of the Vatican would grant the Italian king more legitimacy and stability. Such a move would likely avoid the defiant papal "imprisonment in the Lateran". This move would also reassure the Papacy that its Roman holdings beyond the Vatican hill would remain firmly in the grasp of the Church. Any symbolic union between the papacy and Italy would likely dissolve with the establishment of a Republic as in OTL.

Any republican government of Italy (as in OTL) would render the Pope a titular monarch utterly devoid of even feeble figurehead temporal influence. The dissolution of the Papal figurehead after a dissolution of a monarchical Italy might jeopardize the papacy's Roman holdings, however. Still, this ATL system of a symbolically temporal Pope would not and could not last forever especially with the conversion of many European states to republican forms of government after the world wars. Remember that Paul VI dramatically rejected the temporal power of the Papacy by shunning the tiara soon after his coronation. He ushered in the modern and sole role of the Pope as Bishop of Rome and shepherd of the Universal Church. The modern popes' sole use of the mitre as symbol of pure spiritual leadership was an inevitable development OTL and probably in this ATL as well.
 
Last edited:

Vitruvius

Donor
I'm not entirely sure, but wasn't one of the early plans for a unified Italy an extremely loose confederation of states under the Pope? somehow get rid of the Savoyards and you might be able to get all the conservative monarchist nationalists to fall behind it.

There were plans during the 1840's-50's to make the Pope President of an Italian Confederation. After the election of Pius IX (who had seemed to favor such plans as a Cardinal) there was some serious support for the idea. It would have seen the removal of Austrian hegemony by pushing Austria out of Northern Italy. That vacuum would have been filled by a Pope-President balancing the power of a few autonomous consititutional monarchies. Pius was initially a liberal Pope reversing many of the conservative policies of his predecessor Gregory XVI. But he refused to involve himself in the Italian Unification movement and was left behind by the events of '48. Indeed those revolutions led him to become something of a a conservative and an uncompromising opponent of Italian nationalism and above all else of republicanism.

So one possibility is a more politically savvy/ambitious/nationalist Pius IX who takes up the call of the Italian nationalists in '48. Its possible that a negotiated settlement would see the Austrians exit Lombardy and Venetia (which where in rebellion at the time) and the establishment of an Italian Confederation. The Savoys in the North, the Bourbons in the South and the Habsburg-Tuscans in the center with the Pope as President. I could see Napoleon III supporting such a state as a fait accompli and a way to appeal to conservatives and Catholics in France but I'm not sure how it would fair through the late 1800's and beyond. Possibly it would follow a trajectory of gradual unification and secularization from Confederation of Monarchies with a Pope-President to a strongly federal Republic. But so much would depend on Italy's/the Italian states' response to wider European events.
 
The "reduction" of the Pope to an absolute figurehead within the hierarchical structure of a unified monarchical Italy would benefit the Papacy greatly. A socio-religious co-op of the Vatican would grant the Italian king more legitimacy and stability. Such a move would likely avoid the defiant papal "imprisonment in the Lateran". This move would also reassure the Papacy that its Roman holdings beyond the Vatican hill would remain firmly in the grasp of the Church. Any symbolic union between the papacy and Italy would likely dissolve with the establishment of a Republic as in OTL.

Any republican government of Italy (as in OTL) would render the Pope a titular monarch utterly devoid of even feeble figurehead temporal influence. The dissolution of the Papal figurehead after a dissolution of a monarchical Italy might jeopardize the papacy's Roman holdings, however. Still, this ATL system of a symbolically temporal Pope would not and could not last forever especially with the conversion of many European states to republican forms of government after the world wars. Remember that Paul VI dramatically rejected the temporal power of the Papacy by shunning the tiara soon after his coronation. He ushered in the modern and sole role of the Pope as Bishop of Rome and shepherd of the Universal Church. The modern popes' sole use of the mitre as symbol of pure spiritual leadership was an inevitable development OTL and probably in this ATL as well.
True but in the history books it would be stated that the first head of state of the modern unified Italy was the Pope therefore it would satisfy the question in hand. Also i believe that the Pope would not accept being a simple figurehead but would consistently get involved in the everyday politics by influencing the majority of Italians that remained and mostly remain faithful Catholics. We see something similar in today's Greece especially with the last Greek Archbishop who initiated protests and affected election results. Considering all those facts not only a unified Italy under the theoretical leadership of the Catholic Church would not be viable but would diminish what is left of the influence of the Pope.
 
Top