A prior Italian identity, however weak, existed before the unification, which obviously would not have occurred in its total absence. While Italian unification may be described as "Piedmont conquered the peninsula and styled itself Italy" this would be such an oversimplification that it ends up being inaccurate. Urban elites, and even parts of the rural elites, at least in the North, tended to support Piedmontese "conquest", which would never have been successful without such support. Also, a democratic component of the national unification movement existed and operated from the bottom-up. While they were mostly sidelined by the winning Savoy establishement, the presence of this component was key to the success of the whole enterprise (much more so than it was the case in Germany, where it existed as well) and its adherents certainly felt "Italians" enough.In 1870 Prussia formed the unified German state, but what other states could've happened?
Italy also unified, without a prior Italian identity but was maintained from then to even now.
So, what other unifications could've occurred?
In 1870 Prussia formed the unified German state, but what other states could've happened?
Italy also unified, without a prior Italian identity but was maintained from then to even now.
So, what other unifications could've occurred?
A united Poland in the 1800es would be hard but managerable ? Other Pan-Slavic unifications like South Slavs would be the question.In 1870 Prussia formed the unified German state, but what other states could've happened?
Italy also unified, without a prior Italian identity but was maintained from then to even now.
So, what other unifications could've occurred?
Liberals have a tendency to be overly idealistic sometimes. Iberian Unity would require either Spain or Portugal to lose their overseas empires. Or Both. In fact the likely hood is far better if both were to lose their empires.Iberian nationalism was also a thing. Spanish liberals wanted to establish a single Iberian country under the Braganza dynasty.
Both had already lost their overseas empires though. That’s partially why Iberian nationalism existed - the nationalists perceived that Portugal and Spain were in decline and could only hope to match the other European powers through their union.Liberals have a tendency to be overly idealistic sometimes. Iberian Unity would require either Spain or Portugal to lose their overseas empires. Or Both. In fact the likely hood is far better if both were to lose their empires.
They still had enough colonies left that they could occupy themselves with those things instead of each other. Basically their colonial national idendity was more important to them than any common idendity the two shared. Portugal needs to lose its colonies in Africa and Indonesia before it would reconcile with Spain and the rest of the continent. Spain needs to lose the Philippines and perhaps Cuba too before it would agree to Portuguese monarch.Both had already lost their overseas empires though. That’s partially why Iberian nationalism existed - the nationalists perceived that Portugal and Spain were in decline and could only hope to match the other European powers through their union.
United States and Canada.Does the US count? It's assimilation of Texas and California was pretty much a unification by any other name, except that it was a much larger region unifying with a much smaller.
Of course, if you want a US unification of two regions of at least on some level similar size, the end if the civil war, with North and South not just being good neighbors again, but becoming one big happy family within 10 years would count as a unification in my play book.
Were Cuba and the Philippines really that prestigious?Iberian Unity would require either Spain or Portugal to lose their overseas empires.