Southern Italy secedes

Could Southern Italy seceded from the North some point post inclusion into the kingdom of Italy

How successful would a south Italian secession

Would Austria support them ?
 

Marc

Donor
While secession is certainly possible - most non-historians and/or Italians don't realize how regionalism oriented Italy was culturally late in the 1800's (and still is). You have to look at the classic trinity: motive, means, opportunity. Given the spate of nation building that dominated European politics through the last half of the 19th century, it's hard to see that necessary trinity occurring.
 
Last edited:
Carmine Crocco tried supported by the Bourbons in exile in Spain but he ended up clashing with the Spanish general José Borjes who was sent to help them.
 
I see a few chances.

1) Following the unification of Italy, Josè Borjes, backed by the Bourbons in exile and the Papacy, manages to somehow come to an agreement with brigand leader Carmine Crocco. The bulk of the brigand bands of the former Kingdom of Two Sicilies are unified in a semi-regular army, Potenza falls, then Taranto, then Salerno, then the rest of the kingdom. The Savoyard-backed National Guard is wrecked and by the 1870s the Kingdom of Two Sicilies is an internationally recognized country once again. Allies include Austria, Russia and the Papacy (the succesful independence struggle likely butterflies away the Roman annexation 1870), while Spain is considered a good friend. Odds are Carmine Crocco is going to be either a general in the new kingdom, or a provincial governor of Basilicata.

2) Kaiserreich scenario. We all know this.

3) The Soviets and Tito's partisans join with the Italian partisans in northern Italy and, eventually, a socialist republic is declared in Tuscany and the rest of the north in the post-war period. Now here's where it gets really really iffy. The Allies decide to divide their occupation zone in two, splitting the central parts of the country from the south. The territory of the former Papal State is assigned to the Pope, where he remains on paper a figurehead, while in the south the people are given the choice on whether to be a republic or remain a monarchy under the Savoyards. The latter case is more likely but I don't exclude the former either. If the monarchy is chosen, there are some chances that it's going to end up like Cuba under Fulgencio Batista, and there are some chances that the monarchy and every political force that back it (Church, landlords, Mafia) will leave in a rather bloody manner. The country may or may not return united if and when the Cold War ends.

4) This one is also a bit iffy, it requires a change of mentality among southerners. At this moment autonomism or even outright independence are associated with the anti-Southern sentiments of the early Northern League. Well, for whatever reason, the idea that Rome and the north are the real burden on the south's development becomes widespread (a reversal of the northern separatist idea that the Rome and the south are a burden on the north) in the near future and parties advocating some form of autonomy begin to take root. As the European Union begins to fracture and countries like Spain and Belgium see a resurgence of their regionalisms, Venetian and Sardinian independentists also gain traction in Italy. The domino effect eventually touches Southern Italy and, as ethnic tensions between Italians and immigrants reach their peak, the Euro disappears leaving behind several extremely weak currencies (some time will be needed for them to stabilize, and Italy doesn't have this time), unemployment skyrockets and buying power sinks, the first armed revolts take place. Meanwhile in the previous years the government also had the good idea of re-instituting military service (not unlikely, there's been a discussion about it for years and our ministry of domestic affairs is in favour), which means that these regionalistic ideologies eventually make their way into the army. The situation reaches the boiling point, the army fractures along regional lines and the government becomes next to powerless. Eventually Italy ends and the south reacquires its independence, most likely as a Mafia-backed rogue state for the first decades.
 
Allies include Austria, Russia and the Papacy (the succesful independence struggle likely butterflies away the Roman annexation 1870), while Spain is considered a good friend.
Would France or Prussia back the Kingdom of Italy ?
 
Would France or Prussia back the Kingdom of Italy ?

France wouldn't care, they got Nice and Savoy and smashed the Austrians on the Savoyards' behalf during the Second War of Independence, but then they were on their own again.

Prussia is iffy, maybe. If the Savoyards continue to pursue Italian unification after the K2S is restored, then there's good chances they'd seek some friendship with Italy, if only because the Two Sicilies remain allied with the Austrians.
 
Would Austria move in to annex Venice and maybe Lombardy ?

Bigger question: would the Frenchies and Prussians let them? Part of it is a question of just when this happens (Specifically, is Prussia at a point where they're seeking to align/reproach with Austria over Italy.) and how testy the Hungarians are being as you'd need them to sign on to any new additions to the Empire. I'm leaning heavily towards "no", if only because of Magyar opposition, and if "yes" only Venetia, assuming this occurs outside the brief window between the Unification and Austro-Prussian War. Though, in that case Austria still has Venetia so...
 
Bigger question: would the Frenchies and Prussians let them? Part of it is a question of just when this happens (Specifically, is Prussia at a point where they're seeking to align/reproach with Austria over Italy.)
If it's post 1866 aren't France and Prussia too focus on each other to intervene

how testy the Hungarians are being as you'd need them to sign on to any new additions to the Empire.
Weren't the Hungarians opposed to eastern expansion due to fears of being surrounded by Austria . Is there any reason for them to oppose an Western expansion of the empire ?
 
If it's post 1866 aren't France and Prussia too focus on each other to intervene


Weren't the Hungarians opposed to eastern expansion due to fears of being surrounded by Austria . Is there any reason for them to oppose an Western expansion of the empire ?

Not really, at least not over Italy keeping Venetia. Both sides are trying to cultivate good relations with the Italians and are in agreement that the region rightfully belongs to them. The only thing allowing Austria to take it does is create a tinderbox in the heart of Europe.

It strengthens Austria and creates a guranteed of a future conflict they'll end up having to shed Magyar blood over despite not giving two hoots?
 
Not really, at least not over Italy keeping Venetia. Both sides are trying to cultivate good relations with the Italians and are in agreement that the region rightfully belongs to them. The only thing allowing Austria to take it does is create a tinderbox in the heart of Europe.

It strengthens Austria and creates a guranteed of a future conflict they'll end up having to shed Magyar blood over despite not giving two hoots?

Would it really strengthen Austria? It seems to me it would be a poisoned chalice, akin to a successful “All of Mexico” movement. After all, Austrian minorities making a pain out of themselves isn’t that far away, how can abandoning the defensible Alpine ridge be outweighed by adding a few million Italians to the Empire?
 
While there are possibilities, in general a Southern Italian secession post-unification is unlikely.
The most likely possibility is, as noted, a different WWII which ends with Italy divided à la Korea or Germany. Perhaps is there is no surrender and Italy is treated as a fully defeated belligerent like Germany, but the end of the war sees only the South under actual WAllies control. Then, the two regimes should legitimize themselves differently from what the German and Korean counterparts did, emphasising the artificial nature of Savoy Italy and trying to establish themselves as true nation states reborn out of it. Kinda hard (claiming to be the "true" Italy is the easier path) but maybe possible with the right people in charge. Maybe Southern Italy opts for a monarchy, but the House of Savoy is so abysmally discredited that they go for a Bourbon? And the Centre-North, while going Communist, feels neutrality a better option and choses a conciliatory approach to the West, as the Red Army is not actually there and the Revolution is locally managed as it was in Yugoslavia?
Quite the long shot, but would make for a fascinating world.
 
Would it really strengthen Austria? It seems to me it would be a poisoned chalice, akin to a successful “All of Mexico” movement. After all, Austrian minorities making a pain out of themselves isn’t that far away, how can abandoning the defensible Alpine ridge be outweighed by adding a few million Italians to the Empire?

It strengthens, or at least increases the influence of, Austria in every way that matters to the Hungarians/intra-Imperial relations. It's more money for Vienna relative to Buda-Pest, raises it's relative power/representation in the common imperial instiutions, and obliged the Hungarians to be prepared to defend/secure the region in the event it's contested. Like the All-Mexico movement, it benefits one half of the union at the expense of the other... so no wonder that other half is against it
 
It strengthens, or at least increases the influence of, Austria in every way that matters to the Hungarians/intra-Imperial relations. It's more money for Vienna relative to Buda-Pest, raises it's relative power/representation in the common imperial instiutions, and obliged the Hungarians to be prepared to defend/secure the region in the event it's contested. Like the All-Mexico movement, it benefits one half of the union at the expense of the other... so no wonder that other half is against it
I somehow doubt that having almost as many Italians as there are Germans - revanchist Italians, to boot - is going to spell anything but disaster for A-H.
 
I somehow doubt that having almost as many Italians as there are Germans - revanchist Italians, to boot - is going to spell anything but disaster for A-H.

You don't seem to be processing what I'm saying. Weather or not Hungary would sign on the a campaign to retake Venetia has nothing to do with the health of the Empire as a whole or the net posative-negatives of it. Hungary gets none of the benefits despite having to take on a share of the costs, while Austria gets the benefits while not having the bare the full costs, so it strengthens Austria RELATIVE to Hungary.

Plus, if you go back and read the post that started all this I argued Austria won't be annexing the region even if for some reason they decided they wanted to try. I said nothing about Vienna wanting to, and will readily clarify I think it's a dumb move
 
Post-unification Lombardy is going to be kept because it was already Savoyard in 1859, two years before official unification, but Triveneto is going to remain Austrian if we stick by my theory. If Crocco's insurgency in the south takes off, more resources will be needed to put down the revolt and this means less manpower to fight in 1866. The Third War of Independence may not even happen.
Also worth noting is that during the naval battle of Lissa the Austrian side was in large part manned by Venetians, and Venetian were the naval traditions of the Austrian monarchy.

The Lombardo-Venetian kingdom can be turned into yet another component of the Austrian monarchy and be used to reinforce Venetian regional identity, which really they never lacked.
 
Top