Unification of Northern Italy, Two Sicilies not Included

I came across an Economist article from a few years ago (http://www.economist.com/node/18780831), which convincingly broke down Italy along north/south lines. Today, there's the Lega Nord, which periodically agitates for some sort of breakup. There might even be an equivalent in the south.

Is there any chance that a North Italy could have happened during the Italian Unification and left the Two Sicilies? What I'm thinking is 3 separate nations:

  • Two Sicilies, capital at Naples;
  • North Italy incl. Sardinia, capital at Florence?;
  • Papal States, maybe just Lazio, maybe going to the Adriatic, probably under French protection.
Or is the urge to unify it all too great? With the same language and religion and a shared history, I'm thinking the revolutionaries thought other differences (ie the north was dominated by city-states, the south by one monarchy, leading to very different social structures and levels of trust) would evaporate after everyone became Italian citizens. But after 150 years, the gaps are still huge.

So any chance of a unification of just the north?
 
You could prevent Garibaldi's invasion of the Two Sicilies entirely and just have Vittorio II and Cavour deliberately leave it out of the unification process as they originally intended.

Alternatively, you could end up with a situation where after he conquers Naples, Garibaldi has some kind of disagreement with the Piedmontese leadership and keeps a Republican government in the south, separate from the monarchist north. But I'm don't know, he was quite committed to Italian unification.
 
Last edited:
I'll admit to a fair bit of ignorance about the period, but maybe if Matilda of Tuscany does better against the Emperor in the investiture controversy and leaves most of Central Italy to a competent heir? It's a thought anyway.
 
If the Neapolitan Bourbons are much better then the pack of reactionary, absolutists that they were. Also, if they eject Sicily. The Sicilian Nobles really screwed it up and dug their heels into any attempt at modernizing or anything from Naples.
 
It is quite possible to stop (at least for a time) Italian unification: let's say the situation of 1859 holds up. The Savoys gain Lombardy after the war and Parma, Modena, Bologna, Romagna and Tuscany through local insurrections followed by a plebiscite (which both happened IOTL). Savoy and Nice are not handed over to France, since the treaty of Plombieres has been broken by Napoleon III (unilateral armistice with Austria). Garibaldi's expedition does not leave (the most likely situation) and relations with France are colder (maybe there is an early French guarantee to all the remaining Papal possessions - not just Latium but also Umbria and Marche). The kingdom of Italy is still proclaimed (in 1860, not 1861) and the capital either stays in Turin or moves to Milan (the latter if Cavour wants to appease the non-Piedmontese). Benefits: much easier to integrate the populations of Northern Italy (better industry and agriculture, much better infrastructures), and also easier to integrate bureaucracies and armies. Plus Cavour gets at least a full year as prime minister of Italy, and there is not the unholy alliance of the Piedmontese reactionaries with the big landholders of southern Italy (even more reactionary). Minus: lesser population (not necessarily a bad thing) and weaker navy since the navy of Two Sicilies is not integrated in the Italian one.

The political situation in the peninsula is less than stable, though:
  • what remains of the Papal States is an anachronistic reactionary regime, propped up by France and Two Sicilies. Expect eveb more insurrections than OTL, and more brutal repression. Sooner or later (and probably sooner) the temporal power of the pope must end: maybe not in a single step but I give it 10-15 years, no more.
  • Two Sicilies is another good example of reactionary state, and quite possibly there will be a massive insurrection in Sicily by mid-1860. I would be very much surprised if Two Sicilies can reform so late.
  • What is going to happen in the new kingdom of Italy is more difficult to forecast, in particular if Cavour dies on schedule. The best possible thing might be an early Connubio (a parlamentary majority made up of center-right and center-left moderates) with the Piedmontese right reduced to opposition (which would also result in a decrease of the king's influence on politics). On the plus side, better integration and better economical results. Certainly the lack of a complete unification of the peninsula will fuel militarism and irredentism (but no long and bloody anti-brigandage campaign in the south is a very good thing). On the international side, much cooler relations with France (the more so if France is also perceived as a prop of the Bourbons of Naples) and continued hostility to Austria. Hopefully this might lead to good relations with UK (but don't expect much) and an early interest in Prussia (maybe just after the S-H war) in terms of anti-Austrian reassurance
 
^this, all the way. Apart from:

much easier to integrate the populations of Northern Italy (better industry and agriculture, much better infrastructures)

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know :rolleyes:) the Two Sicilies had a better economy and a more extensive rail network, which is used by Southern independence movements to 'prove' that the North has been holding them back all this time. Does anyone have any info on whether this is true, and what effect a more economically powerful Mezzogiorno would have on geopolitics later on?
 
Would it end up with the somewhat unified area staying as the Kingdom of Sardinia, like it was with most of the peninsula for a while IOTL? I would also like to ask about the islands of Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily. Might there be no trade of Sicily for Sardinia or the Spanish/Austrians instead trade the Presidos, Milan, and other Habsburg areas for it? Though taxes from those areas were probably a bit better than the large islands.
 
^this, all the way. Apart from:



According to Wikipedia (I know, I know :rolleyes:) the Two Sicilies had a better economy and a more extensive rail network, which is used by Southern independence movements to 'prove' that the North has been holding them back all this time. Does anyone have any info on whether this is true, and what effect a more economically powerful Mezzogiorno would have on geopolitics later on?

The only railway was between Caserta, Naples and Salerno all of 100 km . By comparison, Sardinia had some 2000 km IIRC. The only factory in Italy which produced locomotives and all other materials for railways was Ansaldo, founded in 1839 in Genoa (and started producing locomotives in 1850s).
Wiki It has a large scale map of Italian railways in 1861, when the kingdom of Italy was proclaimed (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italia_ferrovie_1861.03.17.png).
As for the rest of the story, the kingdom of Two Sicilies was mostly a sad case: with the exception of Palermo, Naples and Caserta there were practically no industries, the agricultural lands were in the hands of absentee latifundists, infrastructure were few and quite lacking, bureaucracy was corrupt. Sicily was always close to insurrection, and did not accept being governed from Naples. The king had quite good gold reserves, but they were just a personal hoard, not something that could be used for improving the kingdom. I'm not saying that after unification the south was well treated: in many cases they were dealt with like a conquered province and the land reform promised by Garibaldi was not carried out. Abolition of internal protective tariffs worked against the south: northern industries were much more productive and pushed them out of the market. To summarize, there are a few nuggets of truth in the sad story told by Bourbon modern apologists, but no more than that. I don't see how Two Sicilies could have turned around on its own. not in the 1860s and certainly not without a bloody revolution.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
The way I see it, if Northern Italy is united, I can see Papal States dealing with consistent Revolutions. The Two Sicilies on the other hand, the only fate I can see them going through is that of communist revolution down the road. Personally cause I see the Neapolitan Bourbons as essentially, the Latin Romanovs.
 
Sounds to me you're looking for something Napoleonic, with an Italy in the North, a Rome in the centre and a Naples in the South. Of course, Napoleonic Italy had additional anomalies compared to this simple division (Sicily and Sardinia, as island kingdoms, protected by the RN, as well as central duchies/states still existing) but it would not be outside of the long-term to reunite Sardinia with Italy, Sicily with Naples, and have Italy also swallow up the rest.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Sounds to me you're looking for something Napoleonic, with an Italy in the North, a Rome in the centre and a Naples in the South. Of course, Napoleonic Italy had additional anomalies compared to this simple division (Sicily and Sardinia, as island kingdoms, protected by the RN, as well as central duchies/states still existing) but it would not be outside of the long-term to reunite Sardinia with Italy, Sicily with Naples, and have Italy also swallow up the rest.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Sardinia is already under the Savoy, and Napoleonic Italy did not include ethr Piedmont or Tuscany
 
The only railway was between Caserta, Naples and Salerno all of 100 km . By comparison, Sardinia had some 2000 km IIRC. The only factory in Italy which produced locomotives and all other materials for railways was Ansaldo, founded in 1839 in Genoa (and started producing locomotives in 1850s).
Wiki It has a large scale map of Italian railways in 1861, when the kingdom of Italy was proclaimed (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italia_ferrovie_1861.03.17.png).
As for the rest of the story, the kingdom of Two Sicilies was mostly a sad case: with the exception of Palermo, Naples and Caserta there were practically no industries, the agricultural lands were in the hands of absentee latifundists, infrastructure were few and quite lacking, bureaucracy was corrupt. Sicily was always close to insurrection, and did not accept being governed from Naples. The king had quite good gold reserves, but they were just a personal hoard, not something that could be used for improving the kingdom. I'm not saying that after unification the south was well treated: in many cases they were dealt with like a conquered province and the land reform promised by Garibaldi was not carried out. Abolition of internal protective tariffs worked against the south: northern industries were much more productive and pushed them out of the market. To summarize, there are a few nuggets of truth in the sad story told by Bourbon modern apologists, but no more than that. I don't see how Two Sicilies could have turned around on its own. not in the 1860s and certainly not without a bloody revolution.


More or less becoming the western end of the Balkans.

Sounds to me as though the King of Sardinia did his own subjects rather a disservice by saddling them with this millstone around their necks.
 
It is quite possible to stop (at least for a time) Italian unification: let's say the situation of 1859 holds up. The Savoys gain Lombardy after the war and Parma, Modena, Bologna, Romagna and Tuscany through local insurrections followed by a plebiscite (which both happened IOTL). Savoy and Nice are not handed over to France, since the treaty of Plombieres has been broken by Napoleon III (unilateral armistice with Austria). Garibaldi's expedition does not leave (the most likely situation) and relations with France are colder (maybe there is an early French guarantee to all the remaining Papal possessions - not just Latium but also Umbria and Marche).

This is very helpful. But weren't Savoy and Nice given to France in exchange for France permitting Sardinia to annex the Central Italy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_Central_Italy) I thought Napoleon acknowledged that he didn't live up to his earlier promise and got the land another way.

So maybe Sardinia should have unilaterally annexed Central Italy. This would possibly provoke France, but keep Garibaldi in the north. You would need another power giving Sardinia backing, or maybe just a more gutsy Cavour.
 
More or less becoming the western end of the Balkans.

Sounds to me as though the King of Sardinia did his own subjects rather a disservice by saddling them with this millstone around their necks.

Looking from our lofty perch in the 21st century, it's very easy to pass judgement.
Things are a bit more complex than they may appear though.
Besides the obvious pressure of nationalism and the push for a complete unification of the peninsula (which would have made very difficult for any Italian government to refuse unification) and leaving aside for the moment the obviously repressive nature of the Bourbon regime, there were very strong (although covert) British interests pushing for Garibaldi's expedition: these interests were mostly economic (sulfur and mercury mined in Sicily were in great demand: British companies had dominated the market until 1839, when the king of Two Sicilies had replaced them with French companies. This had not gone down well in London, and the fact-finding mission of Gladstone in 1851 also belonged to this commercial and strategic struggle) but also strategic (Two Sicilies had gotten close to Russia in their search for a sponsor and guarantor, and obviously the British were not happy with the possibility that Sicilian ports might become available to Russian ships). No surprise that British gunships covered Garibaldi's landing in Marsala.
 
This is very helpful. But weren't Savoy and Nice given to France in exchange for France permitting Sardinia to annex the Central Italy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_Central_Italy) I thought Napoleon acknowledged that he didn't live up to his earlier promise and got the land another way.

So maybe Sardinia should have unilaterally annexed Central Italy. This would possibly provoke France, but keep Garibaldi in the north. You would need another power giving Sardinia backing, or maybe just a more gutsy Cavour.

Some sources Suggest that some of the areas (I think we can divide them as Nice, Savoy, and the Neutral District) would have voted for France anyways. Given how the Aosta Valley have connections to the languages on the oer side of the border, it wouldn't seem too far fetched. That and I thought part of the deal was France giving Piedmont diplomatic support as well as ceding Lombardy to them, which had rather wealthy areas in it.
 
Sardinia is already under the Savoy, and Napoleonic Italy did not include ethr Piedmont or Tuscany

I know the first, I said it explicitly myself. My point was the to unify the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy with the island kingdom of Sardinia you would either have to have the first conquer the second, or the second agree to rule by the Savoyards

Yes, Napoleonic Piedmont was part of France IIRC

Again, Tuuscany was in the Napoleonic sphere. I am sure I said explicitly again that there were duchies etc which would have to be absorbed by the Northern Italy to get the map the way the OP asked

Regards
Grey Wolf
 
This is very helpful. But weren't Savoy and Nice given to France in exchange for France permitting Sardinia to annex the Central Italy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_Central_Italy) I thought Napoleon acknowledged that he didn't live up to his earlier promise and got the land another way.

So maybe Sardinia should have unilaterally annexed Central Italy. This would possibly provoke France, but keep Garibaldi in the north. You would need another power giving Sardinia backing, or maybe just a more gutsy Cavour.

The OP was to avoid a complete unification of the peninsula in 1859-60. If Marche and Umbria are annexed (militarily would be a push-over, but politically it was a bit more complex), there will be a border shared with the southern kingdom. It's a situation that it cannot last long: sooner rather than later there will be insurrections in the south, sponsored by the kingdom of Italy and the follow up is pretty clear and obvious.
As I mentioned in the post above this one, there were strong British pressures to intervene in the south, in particular Sicily. These may well have been the main reason for which Cavour (who was less than eager to add the south to the new kingdom) turned a blind eye to the preparations for Garibaldi's expedition and let the two ships sail from Quarto. In theory Garibaldi's expedition can target Sicily only, but given the personality of Garibaldi (a true believer) it would be naive to believe he would not cross the straits of Messina (against Cavour's written instructions, btw).

The international situation is not ideal for new Italy: Austria is certainly an enemy; UK pushes for the southern drive but is not certainly a reliable potential ally; Prussia (before the war with Denmark of 1864 and the war with Austria of 1866) is not yet a real player on the European scene. If France is alienated too, Italy is isolated. Which is the true reason for Cavour doing what he did IOTL: realpolitick. Letting Savoy and Nice go keeps France reasonably friendly (and moves the center of the new kingdom completely into Italy); aiding and abetting Garibaldi's expedition keeps the British friendly and offer a good opportunity to bag the southern kingdom; Garibaldi's success and the fear of a "revolutionary" government in the south of Italy offer a neat opportunity to take Marche and Umbria under the pretense of avoiding any unrest in the south. It was a very neat and successful exercise of diplomacy and planning. Pity is that Cavour died just one year after his greatest success, and could not play a role in the formative years of the new kingdom.

The alternative is much riskier: antagonize France by refusing to transfer Nice and Savoy (politically it would have gone much easier and there was a good reason to claim that France had welshed on the Plombieres agreement); refuse to allow the Garibaldi's expedition (not very difficult, and certainly Cavour would have been happier) at a risk of loosing British goodwill. What happens if Austria comes back in a couple of years for another round?

Looking back to what happened in those years, I would believe that France would have done nothing, and that the possibility of a real Russian influence in the southern kingdom was not real; most important, now we know that Bismarck was already planning his deepest game in Germany and that Austria would not have had a chance (maybe not even the will) to come back for another round, busy as they were with Prussia on one side and Hungary on the other one. However any statesman who decided to play with the future of his country by gambling on such a string of possibilities would have been mad.
 
I know the first, I said it explicitly myself. My point was the to unify the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy with the island kingdom of Sardinia you would either have to have the first conquer the second, or the second agree to rule by the Savoyards

Yes, Napoleonic Piedmont was part of France IIRC

Again, Tuuscany was in the Napoleonic sphere. I am sure I said explicitly again that there were duchies etc which would have to be absorbed by the Northern Italy to get the map the way the OP asked

Regards
Grey Wolf

I've difficulties in understanding your point.
I am talking about 1860, not an ATL where the Napoleonic kingdom of Italy lives and prospers
the kingdom of Sardinia had already been in the hands of the Savoys since 1720.
Tuscany (after the short-lived experience of the kingdom of Etruria) was annexed to the French empire.
 
Top