Questions about Papal Italy

mad orc

Banned
What if by some POD, the Papal states had united Italy .

In that case, who rules Italy after that pope .
I don't think that Italians would allow themselves to be ruled by random men from random countries posing as Popes .
 
What if by some POD, the Papal states had united Italy .

In that case, who rules Italy after that pope .
I don't think that Italians would allow themselves to be ruled by random men from random countries posing as Popes .

When are we talking?
If we are talking Risorgimento, this almost Happened under Pope Pius IX. In fact it was the most popular format for Italian Unification, as it was not merely accepted by radicals, specifically you can read about it in Of the Moral and Civil Primacy of the Italians, by the first guy to have proposed it. Other periods IDK.
On non italian popes, one I dont think it would be an issue, the favourite Pope of many Italians is still John Paul, and secondly from 1523-1978, John Paul's election, there was no Non-Italian popes, so with Italian unification it seems even less likely for this too happen.
 
Last edited:
It is very hard to find a way for this to work, unless it is in some sort of confederal form where the Pope reigns but does not rule. In principle, well, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica were Papal fiefdoms, and it may be conceivable that a sufficiently energetic Pope in a favorable international context (which is, however, very hard to come by) might make good on these claims and convert them to direct rule. The best time for it is probably during the Italian Wars, if you take Charles and Ferdinand of Habsburg out of the equation and tinker with other circumstances.
This might create a Papal State that is large and powerful enough to be a player in the Italian Wars in its own right, setting the stage for eventual takeover of most of Northern Italy in some future conflict with the Empire. This is going to boost Protestantism, or at least calls for a Western equivalent of autocephaly, very significantly everywhere outside Italy. Perhaps an "Avignonese" Papacy is revived to counter the spiritual authority of such a powerful temporal ruler. Expect "Babylon's whore" cries sung all over Europe. Of course, all of this is very implausible.
 
It is very hard to find a way for this to work, unless it is in some sort of confederal form where the Pope reigns but does not rule. In principle, well, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica were Papal fiefdoms, and it may be conceivable that a sufficiently energetic Pope in a favorable international context (which is, however, very hard to come by) might make good on these claims and convert them to direct rule. The best time for it is probably during the Italian Wars, if you take Charles and Ferdinand of Habsburg out of the equation and tinker with other circumstances.
This might create a Papal State that is large and powerful enough to be a player in the Italian Wars in its own right, setting the stage for eventual takeover of most of Northern Italy in some future conflict with the Empire. This is going to boost Protestantism, or at least calls for a Western equivalent of autocephaly, very significantly everywhere outside Italy. Perhaps an "Avignonese" Papacy is revived to counter the spiritual authority of such a powerful temporal ruler. Expect "Babylon's whore" cries sung all over Europe. Of course, all of this is very implausible.

You overstate how unlikely it is. Of course it seems unlikely for Italy to unite during the middle ages, or even Renaissance, as those periods were highly fractious for italians. But had Pius IX not supported, or even opposed the Austrian Intervention in Italy during 1848, it seems likely that Italy would unite before Germany, especially as Pius had previously been infavour of Risorgimento, before turning against it.
 

mad orc

Banned
Actually, in vic2 ,i united Italy as the papal states and formed the 'Italian Papal confedration'
I was having a tough time imagining what would happen after the current pope dies .
 
Actually, in vic2 ,i united Italy as the papal states and formed the 'Italian Papal confedration'
I was having a tough time imagining what would happen after the current pope dies .

Realistically, just based on Historical Popes, another Italian becomes Pope, and life goes on.
 
You overstate how unlikely it is. Of course it seems unlikely for Italy to unite during the middle ages, or even Renaissance, as those periods were highly fractious for italians. But had Pius IX not supported, or even opposed the Austrian Intervention in Italy during 1848, it seems likely that Italy would unite before Germany, especially as Pius had previously been infavour of Risorgimento, before turning against it.
Pius was never in favour of Italian Risorgimento, although there were considerable hopes at first that he would be. He also initially opposed the Austrian and sent volunteers in the Italian national army, but he then recanted, which was logical for him (critically after radicals shot his finance minister Rossi) as he understood that Risorgimento, aside from the concept national unification, was largely a liberal and secular movement that, in many areas, opposed the Church and the traditional teachings she upheld. He could not head the Church as a conservative force (which it mostly was at the time) and be the standard bearer for a movement who at the very least aimed at upsetting one of the geopolitical cornerstones of the Old Order, that is, the staunchly Catholic Austrian Empire. He tried to ride the contradiction for a time, but when he had to choose, his choice was almost overdetermined.
This does not mean that under different circumstances, an Italian confederacy headed by the Pope was not a possible endgame of the Risorgimento. The idea was popular in some circles and many (as Gioberti whom you quoted) regarded it as the obvious way to square the circle: the contradiction between the need to preserve Papal authority and prestige and the will to unify Italy was there and was rather intractable as long as the Papacy insisted on its temporal power (which Pius IX was unflinhcing about) and a lot of people saw that as the way to solve the problem. This lot of people, however, never really included any Pope or cllose advisor of the Popes, and there were some serious problems abiut it. If it happened, however, the Pope would not rule Italy, that was never the plan. He would be the cerimonial president of some structure with any political power lying elsewhere.
 
Pius was never in favour of Italian Risorgimento, although there were considerable hopes at first that he would be. He also initially opposed the Austrian and sent volunteers in the Italian national army, but he then recanted, which was logical for him (critically after radicals shot his finance minister Rossi) as he understood that Risorgimento, aside from the concept national unification, was largely a liberal and secular movement that, in many areas, opposed the Church and the traditional teachings she upheld. He could not head the Church as a conservative force (which it mostly was at the time) and be the standard bearer for a movement who at the very least aimed at upsetting one of the geopolitical cornerstones of the Old Order, that is, the staunchly Catholic Austrian Empire. He tried to ride the contradiction for a time, but when he had to choose, his choice was almost overdetermined.

That determination I would posit has more to do with the fact that men like Rossi, were assassinated, and his subsequent turn away from Moderate Political positions, which he had occupied upon his election. Similarly, while Piedmont was the most compromising of the Italian states, hence why it ended up receiving the support of Garibaldi, they cant be construed to be anything but moderate. Similarly, in the years prior to the 1848-50 revolutions and upheaval, there was a move by some moderates towards National Unification, and while certainly more liberal, than the despotism before it, the support of the Moderate Middle Class, wasn't highly secular, considering Gioberti. To me it seems more clear that he sided with Austria, and France, more because he felt threatened than anything else, what with the Roman Republic being declared.

This does not mean that under different circumstances, an Italian confederacy headed by the Pope was not a possible endgame of the Risorgimento. The idea was popular in some circles and many (as Gioberti whom you quoted) regarded it as the obvious way to square the circle: the contradiction between the need to preserve Papal authority and prestige and the will to unify Italy was there and was rather intractable as long as the Papacy insisted on its temporal power (which Pius IX was unflinhcing about) and a lot of people saw that as the way to solve the problem. This lot of people, however, never really included any Pope or cllose advisor of the Popes, and there were some serious problems abiut it. If it happened, however, the Pope would not rule Italy, that was never the plan. He would be the cerimonial president of some structure with any political power lying elsewhere.

On this I don't have much to say, other than the fact that many at the time called Pius IX, Gioberti's Pope, which while not conclusive does suggest that at least initially Pius was in favour of the plan. This obviously comes to an end with Gioberti's banning, post 1850.

One thing I do wonder however is if the plan would have been better for italy in the long run, considering the fact that it likely have helped to smooth over many of the conflicts in post-Unification Italy, such as the Non Expedit, the conflict between regions, due to economic integration, and the long standing 3 way split in Italian Politics. It would also likely prevent the existence of San Marino, and possibly Monaco.
 
I honesty can't see the Papal united Italy. As time goes on, it becomes more and more of an aging relic from the Middle Ages. It days was almost always number once you move away from the Middle Ages, and into the 18th and 19th Century.
 

mad orc

Banned
I honesty can't see the Papal united Italy. As time goes on, it becomes more and more of an aging relic from the Middle Ages. It days was almost always number once you move away from the Middle Ages, and into the 18th and 19th Century.
Ala vic2, alas most stategy games .
Give power in the hands of an all powerful player, and the impossible indeed happens .
I just allied with France to crush Austria and Two Siclies and then got rid of the French by allying Germany .
 
I honesty can't see the Papal united Italy. As time goes on, it becomes more and more of an aging relic from the Middle Ages. It days was almost always number once you move away from the Middle Ages, and into the 18th and 19th Century.

I mean this is pretty wrong. The most popular pope probably ever was and is John Paul the second. A man who supported Ratzinger, and Ratzinger was literally in charge of the Papal Inquisition, hardly a beacon of Modernism. Similarly, many Italian Fascists hoped to have the pope support them, and in general there was a rather bitter conflict in Italian society about the position of the Pope. This is due to the simple fact that when every Little Old Italian Woman has a picture of the Pope on her Mantle place, you listen to said Pope.

Overall, your post stinks a bit to much of historical determinism.
 
Pius was never in favour of Italian Risorgimento, although there were considerable hopes at first that he would be. He also initially opposed the Austrian and sent volunteers in the Italian national army, but he then recanted, which was logical for him (critically after radicals shot his finance minister Rossi) as he understood that Risorgimento, aside from the concept national unification, was largely a liberal and secular movement that, in many areas, opposed the Church and the traditional teachings she upheld. He could not head the Church as a conservative force (which it mostly was at the time) and be the standard bearer for a movement who at the very least aimed at upsetting one of the geopolitical cornerstones of the Old Order, that is, the staunchly Catholic Austrian Empire. He tried to ride the contradiction for a time, but when he had to choose, his choice was almost overdetermined.
This does not mean that under different circumstances, an Italian confederacy headed by the Pope was not a possible endgame of the Risorgimento. The idea was popular in some circles and many (as Gioberti whom you quoted) regarded it as the obvious way to square the circle: the contradiction between the need to preserve Papal authority and prestige and the will to unify Italy was there and was rather intractable as long as the Papacy insisted on its temporal power (which Pius IX was unflinhcing about) and a lot of people saw that as the way to solve the problem. This lot of people, however, never really included any Pope or cllose advisor of the Popes, and there were some serious problems abiut it. If it happened, however, the Pope would not rule Italy, that was never the plan. He would be the cerimonial president of some structure with any political power lying elsewhere.

Gioberti and his neo-Guelphs always represented a minority position: prior to the start of the insurrections in Italy and the Sardinian intervention, the most vocal component which demanded constitutional reforms and Italian unification was the republican one, loosely headed by Mazzini from exile, but again they were not likely to gain a majority even if they were certainly more numerous (and more likely to direct intervention) than the neo-Guelphs. IMHO, the majority of the liberal bourgeoisie and aristocracy was in favor of moderate reforms and the granting of a constitution but were certainly not so sanguine in terms of national unification: the best example among them was certainly Daniele Manin, who always argued for "reforms within the law" and even after the insurrection of Venice did not change his position substantially and certainly did not canvass for any national unification.
The enthusiasm for the election of Mastai Ferretti to the papal throne in 1846 owes more to the fact that his predecessor - Gregory XVI - was a reactionary of the deepest die (he was notorious for his opposition to railways, which he considered a diabolic invention, but also for the indiscriminate repressions of any agitation in the papal states and for the bad government of his states: Metternich himself is reported to have said that the restoration of the papal states was not one of the best decisions taken at the Congress of Vienna) and also that his major contender in the conclave of 1846 was card. Lambruschini, another notorious reactionary and filo-Austrian.
Another reason for which he was considered a liberal was his mediation during the insurrections of 1831 (while he was delegate for Spoleto and Rieti), when he convinced the papal troops not to fire against the insurgents, allowing them to leave Umbria with passports and some money (curiously, one of these insurgents was Louis Napoleon).
The first couple of years of his papacy seemed to confirm this fame of liberalism, and he was considered (without canvassing for it and most likely to his private chagrin) the emblem of Italian liberalism: in March 1848 he granted a constitution, and soon after allowed a division of papal troops and one of volunteers to march north after the insurrections of Milan and Venice (however these troops were forbidden to cross the Po river to engage Austrian troops). The writings of Gioberti date from this period, but Pius IX never took such a position as his own.
April 1848 was however the month when he realized the difficulty and the contradiction of his position (and it is quite certain that the college of cardinals was pretty vocal), and this culminated in his speech "Non Possumus", where he clearly stated that a pope could not wage war against a catholic monarch.

Unsurprisingly, the next 6 months the liberal reforms were slowly watered and the population of Rome became more and more restive, until on 15 November 1848 Pellegrino Rossi was assassinated and soon after the pope (in incognito during the night) left Rome for Gaeta: which clearly shows that his change of mind did not come up because of the assassination of Rossi, but rather his slow abandonment of liberal policies was the reasons for disorders and the assassination of his minister.

Over the rest of his life, he appears to have done his best to blot out his previous liberalism: the pope's executioners were always busy, a strong censorship was imposed, any liberal conspiracy or insurrection was dealt with very harshly (the worse episode was in 1859: the insurrection of Perugia was quashed in blood, and the city was given to the papal Swiss troops to sack for three days), the liberties given to the Jews in 1846 were revoked. His writing reflect well this U-turn: Quanta Cura, the Syllabus, Pastor Aeternus, the "non-expedit" speak very clearly and show the bitterness of a vindictive old man who had lost his temporal crown.
No surprise, anyway: theocracies never work well, irrespective of which particular God they claim to speak for.
 
His Holiness Julius II likes this.

You have to dig really deeply into the old-school narrative histories of the late-fifteenth century and early-sixteenth century Italian wars, but squint and you can see it. Cardinal della Rovere invites the French under Charles VIII into Italy to rid him of his archenemy, Alexander VI. He then regrets it when their effort to enforce their claims to Milan and Naples transforms into a pretty blatant effort to dominate the whole peninsula. Years later, his implacable hatred of Alexander VI is rewarded when della Rovere then wins the subsequent papal election in the anti-Borgia reaction. What follows next is really hard to follow, because what the now-Julius II does, almost systematically, is to make an alliance, exploit that ally to its maximum, make marginal gains, and then betray that ally by selling his support to a more powerful former enemy at the ally's expense, and using the resulting whiplash effect to its maximum against the very princes who trusted him. Eventually, he is strong enough to take on his real opponent, France, and Louis XII. The idea is to expel the French from Italy to secure an Italy ruled by Italians, and at the same time to aggrandize the papacy. To this purpose he was willing to go so far as to lure Henry VIII into a war with France by declaring the French throne vacant and awarding it to the English king.

Here are some clues as to the scale on which Julius II thought. He named himself not after the Dark Ages nonentity Julius I, but after Julius Caesar. He held triumphs for himself modeled after those of the Roman emperors. He commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel in particular because it was named after Sixtus IV, his uncle. Michelangelo's statue of Moses was meant for Juilus's enormous tomb, which was probably too expensive ever to be built.

If Pope Julius wasn't fighting for an Italy united under the papacy, it was because his designs (manias?) were larger even than that.
 
Also, if you want to interrogate various schemes regarding the papacy and its potential transformations in different political roles, here's some things to consider. Plenty of people at the time believed Alexander VI's long-term plan was the conversion of the papacy into an hereditary office. Was this the case, or was this disseminated by propaganda, or is the truth somewhere in between? Who knows? Also, during Alexander's reign some or other dissident cardinal made it to the court of Maximilian, King of the Romans and tried to convince him that he could make himself pope though he was not a priest. Those years were pretty crazy.
 

mad orc

Banned
So what's the conclusion, is Papal Italy possible or not .

I came here for imaginging my Vic2 game and ended up being enlightened so much on Ppal politics .
Thanks guys, you are so knowledgeable .
Hats off to you .:)
 
Here are some clues as to the scale on which Julius II thought. He named himself not after the Dark Ages nonentity Julius I, but after Julius Caesar. He held triumphs for himself modeled after those of the Roman emperors. He commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel in particular because it was named after Sixtus IV, his uncle. Michelangelo's statue of Moses was meant for Juilus's enormous tomb, which was probably too expensive ever to be built

Good catch. Erasmus of Rotterdam (who never admitted the authorship for obvious reasons) satirized the "Warrior Pope" in his "Julius excluded from Heaven": a drunken Julius, in full armor and followed by the ghosts of all the soldiers died in his campaign, presents himself at the door of Heaven, and asks admittance for himself and his followers; when Saint Peter refuses to admit him, he starts a tirade arguing that the pope can wash away any sin, even the worst ones, and tries to open the door with the key to his moneybox.

upload_2018-5-20_16-13-17.jpeg

So what's the conclusion, is Papal Italy possible or not .

Not possible nor advisable from any point of view.
Not to mention that it would blatantly contradict the evangelical text: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21
 
So what's the conclusion, is Papal Italy possible or not .

I came here for imaginging my Vic2 game and ended up being enlightened so much on Ppal politics .
Thanks guys, you are so knowledgeable .
Hats off to you .:)

Practically speaking, the biggest problem you have with it is that Italy, at least in the sixteenth century though I think people more knowledgeable about later periods will probably report similar things, exists in a kind of equipoise among multiple external powers. In the 16th c. that's France, the Holy Roman Empire and Aragon/Spain. When the HRE and Spain enters into a personal union under Charles V, the Papacy suddenly becomes the Fan Club of the House of Valois and tries to ally with Francis I. When Charles defeats him, that forces France out, and not long after that Rome gets sacked, and basically the only question left is just how much power the Habsburgs have without actually owning the whole peninsula. So to at least maintain Papal power you want to keep a diversity of multiple external influencers. Best thing you could do for that to happen is have Ferdinand's son by Germaine of Foix live and Aragon stay independent. Aragon and Naples are the perfect size to counteract the French without running the show themselves. Also, Naples is nominally (I think) a papal fief, though only some popes feel bold enough to actually assert that in any meaningful way. But if you were to concoct a formula for a papal Italy, you could do worse than starting off with them running the papal states and the Kingdom of Naples.
 
But if you were to concoct a formula for a papal Italy, you could do worse than starting off with them running the papal states and the Kingdom of Naples.
Well they tried from time to time, at least before the Great Western Schism, but their usual recipe was to invest someone else to do the work in the field, and it never worked well.
In the 9th and 10th century the scriptorium of the Roman Curia went creative, and forged documents to first "prove" that Charlemagne had included Campania, Sardinia and Corsica in the Patrimonium Petri (which never happened); they even went much wilder with the infamous Donatio Constantini (which again dates in the 9th or 10th century), which purported to be a document signed by emperor Constantine granting the overlordship of the western Roman empire to the pope. Sicily is a different kettle of fish, since Robert the Guiscard was invested with the title of count (and later on of king) of Sicily by the pope on condition that he reclaimed the island to Christianity. William the Conqueror equally received a papal standard and a recognition of his claim to the throne of England, and also the invasion of Eire one century later was under a similar papal fig-leaf. Possibly the most glaring papal meddling was in 1297, when Boniface VIII created out of whole cloth the "kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica" and gave its crown to James II of Aragon (who had anyway to conquer the island), in order to broker a peace between Aragon and the Anjou of Naples, conveniently forgetting that the eastern coast of the island had been given in fief to Pisa by former popes, who had also recognized as papal vassals the local kings of southern and western Sardinia. The popes were not really shy throwing their weight around, but their overlordship was always more a legal fiction than an effective control. The true weapons the popes could wield were effectively only religious ones (excommunication and interdict).
 
Top