What if? What if Italy had never been Unified?

What if? What if Italy had never been Unified?
Perhaps the different kingdoms would still have intervened in WW1 and WW2?
My Prediction, The Italian kingdoms would not have intervened in the First and Second World Wars, Thus Germany would have a somewhat better chance in WW2, and Austria would be able to send more soldiers to other area's of the war, and not be distracted by failed Italian attacks, and have a small advantage in the Great War.
 
Italy not uniting probably means WWI (and then WWII) doesn't happen. Not because Italy existing means WWI happens, but because you just majorly changed the political situation.

Something similar might happen, or not, but you just upset the situation enough that what happens fifty years later could be anyone's guess.
 
A disunited Italy would change the political landscape of Europe easily; for one the lack of a Risorgimento done through conquest means that irredentism isn't as powerful a movement.
 
Hmmm given Napolean III's ambitions, I'd say that a large part of northern Italy would become french territory. Austria would probably hold Venice. Might be some grounds for Austro-French conflict.
 
1901

When Garibaldi died in the 1848 Rome uprising, one of Italy's bright lights of Unification died with him.
This was followed in 1859 by the death of the King of Savoy-Sardinia and Family in a Yachting accident, while traveling to Sardinia.

When Napoleon III moved to occupy Savoy, the Franco-Austrian war of 1860 erupted.
Almost all he war was fought inside North Italy, and while the Fighting ended by 1863, the F-A Border was not officially accepted till the Berlin Conference of 1885.
However in the Franco-Naples Treaty of 1864, Naples became a French ally in return for Sardinia & a free hand in Tunisia.
Also a Dispute over the Northern Border with French Italy was settled in Naples favor.

In the Berlin Conference France got Eritrea to go with Djibouti, while Britain got Somalia.

In the 3 years since the Fadosha war of 1897, Britain has begun funneling aid to Ethiopia to counter increased French Influence there.
Britian is also helping the Ottomans to prevent a Franco-Naplean attempt to take Libya

no italy 1901.png
 
When Garibaldi died in the 1848 Rome uprising, one of Italy's bright lights of Unification died with him.
This was followed in 1859 by the death of the King of Savoy-Sardinia and Family in a Yachting accident, while traveling to Sardinia.

When Napoleon III moved to occupy Savoy, the Franco-Austrian war of 1860 erupted.
Almost all he war was fought inside North Italy, and while the Fighting ended by 1863, the F-A Border was not officially accepted till the Berlin Conference of 1885.
However in the Franco-Naples Treaty of 1864, Naples became a French ally in return for Sardinia & a free hand in Tunisia.
Also a Dispute over the Northern Border with French Italy was settled in Naples favor.

In the Berlin Conference France got Eritrea to go with Djibouti, while Britain got Somalia.

In the 3 years since the Fadosha war of 1897, Britain has begun funneling aid to Ethiopia to counter increased French Influence there.
Britian is also helping the Ottomans to prevent a Franco-Naplean attempt to take Libya

Interesting! Is there an independent Papal States/Vatican equivalent, or is Naples (and perhaps San Marino?) the only independent state in the peninsula?
 
Not to mention what does Austria do between 1863 and the present. It seems like it would look for a way to get back at France.
 
I'm not sure with not united Italy also Germany could reach unification: the seven weeks war could went in favor of Austria ( so also no AH), Bismarck was kicked, and we could have still the second empire in France.
 
I'm not sure with not united Italy also Germany could reach unification: the seven weeks war could went in favor of Austria ( so also no AH), Bismarck was kicked, and we could have still the second empire in France.

It could go in Austria's favor, but there's no reason a defeat of Italy's hopes leads to a defeat of Germany's.
 
When Garibaldi died in the 1848 Rome uprising, one of Italy's bright lights of Unification died with him.
This was followed in 1859 by the death of the King of Savoy-Sardinia and Family in a Yachting accident, while traveling to Sardinia.

When Napoleon III moved to occupy Savoy, the Franco-Austrian war of 1860 erupted.
Almost all he war was fought inside North Italy, and while the Fighting ended by 1863, the F-A Border was not officially accepted till the Berlin Conference of 1885.
However in the Franco-Naples Treaty of 1864, Naples became a French ally in return for Sardinia & a free hand in Tunisia.
Also a Dispute over the Northern Border with French Italy was settled in Naples favor.

In the Berlin Conference France got Eritrea to go with Djibouti, while Britain got Somalia.

In the 3 years since the Fadosha war of 1897, Britain has begun funneling aid to Ethiopia to counter increased French Influence there.
Britian is also helping the Ottomans to prevent a Franco-Naplean attempt to take Libya

The funny thing about France in that scenario is that it has its First Empire borders and then some in Italy; perhaps the Low Countries and Prussia are now afraid that France will try and push to the Rhine again :p
 
The funny thing about France in that scenario is that it has its First Empire borders and then some in Italy; perhaps the Low Countries and Prussia are now afraid that France will try and push to the Rhine again :p

I would have to say that France making a massive landgrab in Italy would have all kinds of effects down the line; like you said, everyone else in the region will start expecting to be the next target of French expansionism. Bismarck's job is probably even easier then OTL, since "unify or see Napoleon III do what Napoleon I did to Germany" would have a lot of resonance. The Low Countries might also end up diplomatically aligned to Germany due to fear of French expansionism, and I imagine Britain would much more friendly towards the German unification if they think Germany is needed to counter expansionist France.
 
IIRC, Napoleon III never looked for major annexations in Italy (except for Savoy and Nice): his plans were centered on the expulsion of Austria from Italy, and setting up three states (plus the papal states in Latium): a kingdom of Northern Italy, under the house of Savoy; a kingdom in central Italy, under prince Murat; and finally the kingdom of Two Sicilies in the south, under the Bourbons. While this final configuration might have been too ambitious, the secret agreement of Plombieres in 1858 was that France would intervene in Italy to make war against Austria, and liberate Lombardy and Venetia (which were to go to the house of Savoy after a plebiscite); also Bologna should be warded to Piedmont. As a compensation, France would receive Nice and Savoy.

This smacks a bit of 18th century diplomacy, and completely ignores the lessons of 1848: as a matter of fact, as soon as the Franco-Piedmontese troops won decisive battles at Solferino and Magenta, there were popular insurrections in the duchies and in the papal states, which quickly forced the previous rulers to leave. Nappy's appetite for war was decreasing very quickly: French losses at Solferino and Magenta had been very heavy, the conquest of Venetia would have required another bloody campaign and the unsettled situation in central Italy was quite worrysome for France.

France signed a unilateral armistice at Villafranca, without consulting its ally.
On the basis of this armistice and the subsequent Austro-French negotiations, Austria would cede Lombardy, but all the insurrections would be put down and the previous rulers reinstated. The cat was out of the bag, though: the former duchies and legations formed the League of United Provinces, with covert British and Piedmontese support, and Cavour was able to play Nappy beautifully (a republican state in central Italy could have been a problem) and ultimately the kingdom of Italy was proclaimed.

This brief recapitulation of OTL events has been set up here to show that unification was very hard to derail.

The unification has not to come necessarily in 1859: Nappy might have refused to sign the agreements of Plombieres (even if from his point of view it looked like a very good opportunity to extend a kind of French protectorate to Italy). Notionally, it is also possible that Austria will be able to keep the staus quo in both Italy and Germany (both of them: a German unification promoted by Prussia would necessarily go through a war with Austria and this would be the spark for the Italian war), and to keep the Hungarians in the fold and to suppress Slav aspirations: this was Metternich strategy, and failed in 1848. The Austrian empire was able (barely) to survive and fight back. Can they hold everything frozen for another 30 years? I doubt it very much: this is the time of nationalism and popular aspirations, and the more one keeps a lid on the stronger the explosion which will eventually come.
 
Without the events of 1859, or Cavour managing to present Piedmont as the best bet for Italian unification, perhaps Italy could be united differently. An earlier republic, perhaps?
 
Without the events of 1859, or Cavour managing to present Piedmont as the best bet for Italian unification, perhaps Italy could be united differently. An earlier republic, perhaps?

For an early unification in the 19th century the best possibilities are:
  • Murat, managing an Italian unification during the Congress of Wien. Quite difficult, and requires a fall out among the winners (Prussia and Russia against Austria, France and UK)
  • Ferdinand I of Two Sicilies: he showed promise in his youth, and was considered a liberal. Unfortunately he did not prove himself after his accession to the throne. However he did some economical reforms
  • a different 1848: this is the only chance for a republic, btw. Very difficult, but could work if the Hungarians rebel early.
 
For an early unification in the 19th century the best possibilities are:
  • Murat, managing an Italian unification during the Congress of Wien. Quite difficult, and requires a fall out among the winners (Prussia and Russia against Austria, France and UK)
  • Ferdinand I of Two Sicilies: he showed promise in his youth, and was considered a liberal. Unfortunately he did not prove himself after his accession to the throne. However he did some economical reforms
  • a different 1848: this is the only chance for a republic, btw. Very difficult, but could work if the Hungarians rebel early.

Funny, the second is exactly what I'm doing in my Victoria AAR that I need to resurrect when I'm less busy.
 
Without the events of 1859, or Cavour managing to present Piedmont as the best bet for Italian unification, perhaps Italy could be united differently. An earlier republic, perhaps?

Cavour as I remember was the one responsible for transferring Nice and Savoy to France.
 
Cavour as I remember was the one responsible for transferring Nice and Savoy to France.

Not only that. Sure Charles Albert was the first King of Sardinia to exploit Italian unification, but Cavour made sure to keep France in S-P's side so that it could be the unifier of Italy.

Not only did he "sacrifice" regions he deemed were needed to keep France friendly (though Garibaldi never forgave Cavour for this), but the Sardinian participation in the Crimean War was basically Cavour saying «you owe me one, Napoleon III».
 
Not only that. Sure Charles Albert was the first King of Sardinia to exploit Italian unification, but Cavour made sure to keep France in S-P's side so that it could be the unifier of Italy.

Not only did he "sacrifice" regions he deemed were needed to keep France friendly (though Garibaldi never forgave Cavour for this), but the Sardinian participation in the Crimean War was basically Cavour saying «you owe me one, Napoleon III».

But many people called him a traitor afterwards.
 
Top