Unification of Italy?

How could Venice, the Papacy, or Naples unite Italy instead of Sardinia? Even if it's just North Italy.
 
Firstly I think it'd be easier for your cause if you can keep Spain and France out of Italy early. Once they come in, they don't actually get out, at least until it doesn't matter anymore (see option 3 for this to really apply).

That being said, there are a few scenarios that quickly come to mind with regards to Venice. You can have Venice continue its many successes over Milan during the height of its power under Doge Francesco Foscari, with Visconti living longer and the war continuing in the Republic's favour.

In 1482 you can have Venice's war against Ferrara go better. It was allied with Pope Sixtus IV against Ferrara and her allies of Florence, Naples, and Milan. If the battle of Campomorto is avoided or goes better for the Papal-Veneto alliance, you could be in a position to claim much of the area. Even despite the loss of the battle and the Pope as an ally, Venice still managed to make considerable gains in the war, while upping its prestige.

Or, maybe have Ludovico Sforza of Milan not give France a free entry into Italy, instead requesting the help of Maximillian against Venice. The war can go south for the Empire, as Venice seemed to be quite effective against its forces such as in 1508, and Venice could go on the offensive, taking much of Milan.

A combination of the three actually sounds pretty good IMO. You could possibly have a significantly stronger Venice by the beginning of the 1500s, with a significantly weakened Florence, Milan, and possibly no Ferrara.

Those are just a few. Forgive me, my mind seems to be solely on the war option today...
 
Last edited:
The Visconti, or at least having Gian Galezzo live longer and his conquests stick are another option. The biggest Issue outside of France and Spain, is the Holy Roman Emperor who is King of Lombardy, and while influence in Italy itself might be questionable. The Emperor would the most in his power possible to keep it.
 
For the Papal States, you've got the Borgia scenario where the Duchy of the Romagna is made to stick and perhaps has Florence added to it- that's the Marche, Tuscany and Ferrara off the bat.
 
13th C., moving north from their S. Italian/Sicilian bases of power, more successful than OTL Hohenstaufens conquer the Guelf communes of the North. The Pope, his worst fears of being surrounded by a single power realized, either flees or reaches an accommodation with the rulers of an united Italian peninsula.
Et Voilà...


Not entirely impossible -- I once was kicking around the idea of writing a TL on the very subject.
 
The only one to have a real chance was Gian Galeazzo Visconti: he lived in the right temporal window and evrything was working for him (a weak HRE, a divided papacy and a France which started to show some muscles but was moving fast toward another bout of the 100 years war. Even Aragon is moving toward a nasty succession crisis). He laid down the foundations for a single Italian state (well, maybe 3: he never confronted Aragon is Southern Italy and I believe Venice - the Venice of the Stato da Mar, with very minimal possessions on the Italian mainland - would have remained independent but probably allied to GG) but he died when he was just in his prime at 50 years of age. If he survives the plague and get another 15 years or so he still would not get himself the crown of Italy, but his son or granson might.

Venice cannot do it: the money is there, but not the manpower; and even more importantly not the mindset: there is no dinastic drive in the Serenissima nor the understanding and acceptance that the citizens of the mainland would become citizen of Venice.

The pope cannot do it: whoever he is he he does not have enough money, the loyalty of the citizens has always been doubtful to say the least and even at the peak of nepotism the dinastic drive consisted in carving out possessions for his family.

The kingdom of Sicily might have done it in a single case: if Frederick II manages a decisive victory aginst the pope and his supporters. He also almost managed it but never underestimate the resiliency of the papacy and the problems in dealing at the same time with Italy and Germany. After him, no chance: the economy of the kingdom of Sicily went into a spin, absentee landlords squeezed the tenants and gave nothing back, climatic changes added their own weight to make everything worse than before.
 
I still think that if Murat hadnt invaded north during the 100 days, he'd likely have stayed in power. Then, by backing the nationalist movement in 1848, he, or rathere Achilles his son, could well play the role that Piedmont attempted to do then, and succeeded at in '60.
 
I still think that if Murat hadnt invaded north during the 100 days, he'd likely have stayed in power. Then, by backing the nationalist movement in 1848, he, or rathere Achilles his son, could well play the role that Piedmont attempted to do then, and succeeded at in '60.

It's a possibility, but it would take a lot of stretch. In any case his kingdom would be the mainland one (Sicily would have a Bourbon king) so the population base would not be great, a lot of the Neapolitan intelligentsia was killed or emigrated during the troubles of the 1790s and the fall of the republic in Naples, he would be lacking the Sicilian sulphur mines which were quite valuable and strategic in the 1800s as well as Palermo (which with Naples was the bright spot in the South).

Then there is the question of who is going to support him at the Vienna Congress: not France for sure and Great Britain was supporting the Bourbons in Sicily; this leaves Austria and Russia (and Prussia who would follow Russian lead anyway). IIRC Austria did not like Murat at all, but Alexander (allegedly) was somehow winking. The problem is that Russia did not really care enough and the British would likely be unhappy with a Russian dependance in the Mediterranean; the other problem is that the price to keep the throne would certainly be to cancel the constitution and set up a restauration.

Let's be very optimistic and assume that Napoleon does his 100 days or so as OTL but Murat stays put (which is not very much in character). At Vienna 2 he is confirmed on the throne and the constitution of Naples is cancelled. Murat is 48 in 1815, so he can reasonably expect another 15-20 years and there would the time to implement reforms in southern Italy. Can anyone see Murat playing a major reformist role (and the kingdom of Naples would require truly major reforms to become a viable state)? Where fould he find the money? Which would be his power base (the first and most necessary reform would be to curb the power of the great land owners to be followed by a land reform, but if he alienates the land owners on one side and what remains of the liberal intelligentsia on the othe one I don't know what would happen to him: governing with the army and the police?).
 
The OP is not achievable; Venice has no reason to want to control all of Italy, the Papacy lacks the manpower, will, and resources to do so directy, and Naples is simply too weak and detached from the north to do it.
 
I agree with Wendell. There is a ahistoricism here. Prior to the 1800's there was not a concept of a thing of Italy as a political entity. Medieval and early Modern Italian princes may have sought to expand their domains, but the concept of a united Italy and the rigorismento is a 19th century Romanic construct. Or even more directly a Napoleonic construct. No one before Napoleon would have been acting on the construct of 'uniting Italy' as opposed to expanding their particular domain. "Italy" did not exist then.
 
I dont see Murat as being accepted, let alone confirmed, by the Congress of Vienna, its just that, if he's not too obnoxious, the only power likely willing to spend money and men on ousting him is Austria, and I rather think theyd want at least some support from one of the other Great Powers, and ALL of them were tired of war by then.

As for being a reformer, he was. Iirc, Naples had the most liberal constitution in Italy at the time, although thats not saying much.

Also, he instituted so major infrastructure improvements, which the Bourbons completely neglected.
 
Italy did exist in the form of the Kingdom of Italy, it's just like the Kingdom of Germany were apart of the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor. I do agree that limiting by it to those 3 you can't achieve the OP, the Papal states and Venice had no inclination to do so. Naples, would either be focused on the conflict the Aragonese if we are taking early on, or later having to have Murat get accepted, and somehow navigate gaining deal with the Austrians and any other power.
 
Top