The ideal of competition is one potential. Actually, to some degree, neighboring countries or countries perceived as similar can always be seen in competition... Intra-state competition between states is something special. In cases with weak centrifugal tendencies and little heterogeneity, like Germany or Austria, the federal make-up will always come under criticism as dysfunctional. Where centrifugal tendencies are strong, the alternative is rather between civil war and peaceful "why learn from THEM, they are so DiFFERENT"! (Ask the Swiss, the US or the EU...)

It can work that way, yes.

I, for one, am already curious as to who is going to be the first to challenge the status quo...
 
I, for one, am already curious as to who is going to be the first to challenge the status quo...
I will assume that you refer to the new status quo, the one created by a successful 1848 not just in Italy but also in other parts of Europe.

As far as Italy is concerned, I expect that the main internal challengers will be the conservative portion of Catholic Church and the big landowners, who are going to find support among the most conservative portions of the electorate; later on, there will be a challenge from the left, but I would expect it only after the living standards and the education have improved.
Note that I consider the end of temporal power, the separation of church from state or the abolition of the old ecclesiastical privileges will be beneficial for the Church as a whole. By the same token, the "most conservative portions of the electorate" includes a lot of persons who are not destitute, but are borderline, as well as the people who are seeing they are going to loose by the economic changes and, obviously, those influenced by church doctrine and condemnation of modernism.
The "left" will raise to challenge the new order in the medium to long term (in particular if the liberal-democrats act in a "reasonable" way, and can understand that economy is not - and should not - be a zero-sum game. However, even with the best of intentions from all, it is utopist to assume that the domination of the "big center" can last forever. As a minimum, I anticipate that towards the end of the economic boom the center-right will separate from the center-left, and it might happen even sometime in the 1860s, if something goes wrong or even if the generation which has fathered the "1848 miracle" will fail to rejuvenate. As a matter of fact, I would be quite happy to see an alternative to a big center who will inevitably become stodgy, and an alternation in power would certainly be much healthier. It is anyway better if this split happens only after the seeds of democracy have become well rooted, and the primacy of the law is uncontested.
Incidentally, I am reasonably convinced that democracy can only prosper among a reasonably educated population, which is why I am in favor of widening the franchise in steps: universal franchise is a worthy goal, but going in a single step from absolutism to universal franchise is a dangerous approach.

Looking to Europe as a whole, I would expect that both Austria and Prussia will not be enthused by the way the social and economic situation have changed. Regarding Russia, I tend to believe that they will react by increasing isolation from the west: a kind of cordon sanitaire to keep out new social ideas and paradigms. I may be wrong with regards to Russia anyway.
 
I will assume that you refer to the new status quo, the one created by a successful 1848 not just in Italy but also in other parts of Europe.

As far as Italy is concerned, I expect that the main internal challengers will be the conservative portion of Catholic Church and the big landowners, who are going to find support among the most conservative portions of the electorate; later on, there will be a challenge from the left, but I would expect it only after the living standards and the education have improved.
Note that I consider the end of temporal power, the separation of church from state or the abolition of the old ecclesiastical privileges will be beneficial for the Church as a whole.
In my way of thinking with the end of Temporal power, the church and The Confederation are at a cross roads. If to much is taken you run the risk of having a knife in the back of the Confederacy's leadership from the deeply roman Catholic nation and if you don't separate church and state and remove the archaic ecclesiastical privileges with a quick and swift motion you run the risk of turning the liberals against you.

I look forward to how you two handle this cluster😉
 
I will assume that you refer to the new status quo, the one created by a successful 1848 not just in Italy but also in other parts of Europe.
Yes, I did. Sorry for being unclear.
As far as Italy is concerned, I expect that the main internal challengers will be the conservative portion of Catholic Church and the big landowners, who are going to find support among the most conservative portions of the electorate; later on, there will be a challenge from the left, but I would expect it only after the living standards and the education have improved.
Note that I consider the end of temporal power, the separation of church from state or the abolition of the old ecclesiastical privileges will be beneficial for the Church as a whole. By the same token, the "most conservative portions of the electorate" includes a lot of persons who are not destitute, but are borderline, as well as the people who are seeing they are going to loose by the economic changes and, obviously, those influenced by church doctrine and condemnation of modernism.
The "left" will raise to challenge the new order in the medium to long term (in particular if the liberal-democrats act in a "reasonable" way, and can understand that economy is not - and should not - be a zero-sum game. However, even with the best of intentions from all, it is utopist to assume that the domination of the "big center" can last forever. As a minimum, I anticipate that towards the end of the economic boom the center-right will separate from the center-left, and it might happen even sometime in the 1860s, if something goes wrong or even if the generation which has fathered the "1848 miracle" will fail to rejuvenate. As a matter of fact, I would be quite happy to see an alternative to a big center who will inevitably become stodgy, and an alternation in power would certainly be much healthier.
I fully agree. Even assuming fifteen or so years of constructive cooperation across all these different schools of thought would be miraculous in any parliamentary system, unless the ultra-conservative opposition is strong enough to serve as a realistic threat. For which they would have to - ironically - modernise, something which conservative parties haven't done until the 20th century IOTL. The limited franchise will help them by overrepresenting them, probably. Stil, I would think parties and factions begin to start rivalling and fighting against each other (even if only by parliamentary-constitutional means) from the moment they meet for the first time in a Confederal assembly (does that one have a name already?). Or, maybe, they might stick together long enough to finalise the constitutional make-up, and only start fighting against each other afterwards.
Incidentally, I am reasonably convinced that democracy can only prosper among a reasonably educated population, which is why I am in favor of widening the franchise in steps: universal franchise is a worthy goal, but going in a single step from absolutism to universal franchise is a dangerous approach.
We don't have to agree on that issue ;) I'm looking forward to these educational reforms, too, and wonder which grandmothers and grandfathers of Maria Montessori will rise to prominence here ;-) (Sorry, she's the only didactician from Italy I know...)
Looking to Europe as a whole, I would expect that both Austria and Prussia will not be enthused by the way the social and economic situation have changed.
Both Austria and Prussia might be somewhere between collapse and civil war... The current governments would be, as you say, "not enthused". But I don't see them holding on for much longer... New German governments might be even more energetic about social and economic transformations.
Regarding Russia, I tend to believe that they will react by increasing isolation from the west: a kind of cordon sanitaire to keep out new social ideas and paradigms. I may be wrong with regards to Russia anyway.
That would be the no. 1 plausible reaction for Nicky1. I know you favour Russia staying out of the conflict. I would tend towards Russian involvement, and failure. Such a failure that the transition from Nicky1 to Alex2, and the ousting of Nesselrode, occurs earlier than IOTL. (Thus probably preventing the Crimean desaster...) Just my 2 cents.
 
Incidentally, I am reasonably convinced that democracy can only prosper among a reasonably educated population, which is why I am in favor of widening the franchise in steps: universal franchise is a worthy goal, but going in a single step from absolutism to universal franchise is a dangerous approach.
I agree, in part - an illiterate shepherd from the Valtellina could probably care less about international economics for example, but they know their own community better than whoever will sit in Milan's parliament, and could take part in their town's civic life without accidentally paving the way for the rise of an incompetent populist on the national stage.

Hell, even Imperial Russia granted rural communities some degree of self-government. :p
 
In my way of thinking with the end of Temporal power, the church and The Confederation are at a cross roads. If to much is taken you run the risk of having a knife in the back of the Confederacy's leadership from the deeply roman Catholic nation and if you don't separate church and state and remove the archaic ecclesiastical privileges with a quick and swift motion you run the risk of turning the liberals against you.

I look forward to how you two handle this cluster😉
Let me start by saying that I doubt there is an optimal solution to the mess, and in any case it will not be "pretty".
OTOH, the crisis is coming to a cusp in 1848 ITTL, the pope is outside of Rome (and is not very likely to come back, at least as long as Pio IX is pope) and the situation on the ground is completely different. What I mean is that IOTL the Roman Republic and the pope's exile came only at the end of November 1848, when the war had already gone badly (there was an armistice in Northern Italy, and both Lombardy and Veneto had been already regained by Austria): in many ways, the proclamation of the Roman Republic was more a last ditch defiance rather than a true hope for the future. The 1850s brought the return of the Pope, restauration all over the peninsula, and a vindictive one to booth, and a Church who more and more entrenched in a condemnation of modernism and a blind defense of all the privileges of the clergy. Pio IX and the Curia never understood or accepted that the clock could never turn back, since the world was experiencing a momentous transformation and the paradigms of the past were no more applicable. Quis Deus perdere vult, caecat: God makes blind those He wants to destroy. These words are very much to the point, I think.
It goes without saying that even IOTL the Pope got just a short reprieve: he lost the legations in 1859, Umbria and Marche in 1860 and Rome in 1870. Of course he left also a legacy of bitterness and division that turned into a long-lasting wound for Italy, and for the Church too.

I would anyway believe that reaching the end result 20 years earlier, and when the Pope is already outside Rome, may end up producing a more beneficial outcome for both.
There is also the not negligible matter that the Church itself is not a monolith: the Curia and the upper levels of the hierarchy are mostly conservative or worse, but the lower ranks are much more aware and in agreement with the changing. Who knows, maybe ITTL Vatican I will be a council of regeneration of the Church, or might end up being the formalization of a schism in the Catholic Church, with excommunications, anathemas and all that jazz (as a matter of fact, OTL Vatican I came dangerously close to this latter hypothesis. In the end the progressive faction stepped back from the brink at the very last moment, avoiding the formal break up (but they also left the Council to avoid having to cast vote). In truth, some intermediate position among the two extremes will be the most likely outcome, if there is a Vatican I equivalent (which will not be named Vatican I, for the obvious reason that it will not be held in Rome. Maybe in Seville, or possibly in Louvain).
 
I fully agree. Even assuming fifteen or so years of constructive cooperation across all these different schools of thought would be miraculous in any parliamentary system, unless the ultra-conservative opposition is strong enough to serve as a realistic threat. For which they would have to - ironically - modernise, something which conservative parties haven't done until the 20th century IOTL. The limited franchise will help them by overrepresenting them, probably. Stil, I would think parties and factions begin to start rivalling and fighting against each other (even if only by parliamentary-constitutional means) from the moment they meet for the first time in a Confederal assembly (does that one have a name already?). Or, maybe, they might stick together long enough to finalise the constitutional make-up, and only start fighting against each other afterwards.
I would be surprised if the liberals and the democrats start fighting at the Confederal Constitutional Convention: there might be some moderate bickering, and some specific issues might be hotly debated, but the goodwill and the endorphins :D accrued during the successful war should be more than enough to push them to a conclusion in no more than 6 or 8 weeks. Incidentally, what I am looking forward as the final draft of the CC shouldn't be a very long document (the USA constitution was barely 12 pages long, the last of which was for signatures, and has been around for 250 years, albeit with the addition of 27 Amendments. Hint, hint ...;)).
We don't have to agree on that issue ;) I'm looking forward to these educational reforms, too, and wonder which grandmothers and grandfathers of Maria Montessori will rise to prominence here ;-) (Sorry, she's the only didactician from Italy I know...)
The issue of the educational reforms was an argument of hot and long debates, and a lot of intellectuals devoted their life to producing proposal. I have myself to do some reading before I come out with suitable names for it, but one name I can put forward immediately: Count Terenzio Mamiani (who masterminded the educational reforms in Italy after OTL unification. Obviously, TTL Mamiani is a different man under many aspects - for one, he's a husband and father, for another he came up on the winning side in 1848) is a possibility. I would like to avoid following too closely the French system, since I believe that Germany and Uk. In particular Germany, since I was reading that around mid 1850s most of the medium and high level technical personnel employed by British industries came from the German states. It is also a given that I am a strong supporter of STEM studies.
Both Austria and Prussia might be somewhere between collapse and civil war... The current governments would be, as you say, "not enthused". But I don't see them holding on for much longer... New German governments might be even more energetic about social and economic transformations.
In the end, both Austria and Prussia are going to survive, although their position will be much weaker. For how long? It's a good question for which I don't have an answer right now. New German governments are expected to be more proactive in incentivizing economic transformations: it is also true that economic transformations unavoidably produce social transformations. Overall, I believe that the states who are the quickest to embrace both, will be the ones who will prosper.
That would be the no. 1 plausible reaction for Nicky1. I know you favour Russia staying out of the conflict. I would tend towards Russian involvement, and failure. Such a failure that the transition from Nicky1 to Alex2, and the ousting of Nesselrode, occurs earlier than IOTL. (Thus probably preventing the Crimean desaster...) Just my 2 cents.
The problem of a Russian involvement (which sooner rather than later will become an intervention) is that I do not believe Russia may have the financial strength to support a war in Hungary (or in Germany) for long, but once they are in, it is difficult to convince them to call quits. Overall, you are right when you say my strong preference would be for them with the cordon sanitaire (which is a stupid policy, since borders cannot stop ideas). I dearly hope the expedition to Crimea will not happen ITTL, but it is also a given that the Balkans will always be the power keg they were IOTL. Maybe a better outcome for Wallachia and Moldova might help, but I am not very confident in such an outcome. We'll have to see where the narrative takes us: both @Tarabas and I have been already surprised in this respect (they were pleasant surprises, mind, but quite unanticipated).
 
I agree, in part - an illiterate shepherd from the Valtellina could probably care less about international economics for example, but they know their own community better than whoever will sit in Milan's parliament, and could take part in their town's civic life without accidentally paving the way for the rise of an incompetent populist on the national stage.

Hell, even Imperial Russia granted rural communities some degree of self-government. :p
The gradual expansion of the franchise will affect the state elections as well as the confederal ones (and is not a given that every state will follow this strategy: Rome has already announced that the first election will be based on universal franchise).
The elections for town councils were a bit more informal, and even the income required for the franchise was significantly lower. Smaller hamlets were even more informal, and usually governed according to local traditions. Unavoidably, the elites of landowners and the clergy, with a sprinkle of professionals (doctors, lawyers, pharmacists in the towns) dominated the landscape.
It is interesting that the same happened in France too, notwithstanding the fact that most of the agricultural land was not included in large estates, but worked by individual owners. One of the reasons for the failure of the democrats to successfully contest the elections in the countryside was due to the influence of the "Notables". The democrats recognized this problem, and were much better prepared for the next elections. It's a pity it was too late.
 
Isn't it ironic that the one person to solve this mess in 50 years was Mr Benny the moose😂
It was certainly a good deal for Fascism, and a good deal for the Church too: the former got legitimacy and the Pope's blessing, the latter secured a significant soft power.
I am not sure if it was such a good deal for the Italians.
 
It was certainly a good deal for Fascism, and a good deal for the Church too: the former got legitimacy and the Pope's blessing, the latter secured a significant soft power.
I am not sure if it was such a good deal for the Italians.
More or less I thik it was; It unlocked constructive energies and created a frame for Church-State relationship.
 
Exile of the Pope to, I don't know, a small desert island in the south Pacific far away from any kind of civilization?
There are something like 200 million Catholics in the world (a number taken from the very same address by which Pio IX announced that the Pope could not make war against a Catholic power), and maybe 25 million Italians. I don't see any need or any advantage for the Confederation (or even for the Roman Republic) in trying to punish the Pope.
The Temporal Power is over for good, the privileges of the clergy are going to be cancelled soon (and no one is going to ask the papal opinion on that step), the Pope is out of Rome.
I firmly believe that Cavour's principle (Free Church in a Free State) was the right path to follow, and should be openly declared.
Let the Pope freely choose his own path.
The unilateral declaration of the Free Church in a Free State was criticized by persons very close to Cavour himself ( a common criticism was that the Church is going to be freed of the negative effects of temporal power, and will end up gaining prestige without having done anything to deserve it), but it is always better to take the high moral ground, and stick to it: the more so when one is on the winning side.
 
Top