Why Not Two Sicilies?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why couldn't the kingdom of two sicilies be the basis for a United italy?

I personally think it would have been cooler, Sardinia Piedmont was too french oriented, in my opinion.
 
Why couldn't the kingdom of two sicilies be the basis for a United italy?

I personally think it would have been cooler, Sardinia Piedmont was too french oriented, in my opinion.

Because by the time of the 48's revolution and first war of independence, the kingdom was very conservative and reactionary even for the time standard and a little too economical backward
 
Plus the people didn't support their rulers and tried I believe at least three times to overthrow them between 1800 and 1851,when the Kingdom became a part of the new Kingdom of Italy, it's kind of hard to unite an entire peninsula under your rule if you can't even get your own people to like you.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Plus the people didn't support their rulers and tried I believe at least three times to overthrow them between 1800 and 1851,when the Kingdom became a part of the new Kingdom of Italy, it's kind of hard to unite an entire peninsula under your rule if you can't even get your own people to like you.

Especially in Sicily which really didn't want to be part of the same Kingdom as Naples. They wanted their traditional independence that was lost when Sicily went from being in a personal union with Naples to a mere region of a larger kingdom. It's demonstrative of the fact that both the people and the rulers in southern Italy saw those two kingdoms as discrete units with great traditions behind them. Non of the Sicilian Bourbons ever expressed an interest in territorial aggrandizement. Quite the reverse. So even if you set aside the economic and political problems that run against a leadership role in Italian unification there is still the fact that none of the elites we're really interested.

The events of '48 changed this to some extent. The extreme reaction of the Bourbons forced many liberals and intellectuals into exile, strait to Turin where they suddenly transformed from Neapolitan patriots, favoring reform in southern Italy through some kind of revolutionary action, to Italian nationalists, favoring reform in the south via Italian unification led by Piedmont. Up until then the sentiment of the bourgeoisie pretty much hewed to that of the nobility (such as was left of the old baronial nobility) and the monarchy. Which is to say all saw southern Italy as a state, even a nation, apart from Italy. Ferdinand II advised his son in reference to the conflict between Piedmont and Italy in the north that he remain neutral because 'I don't know what is meant by the independence of Italy, all I know is the independence of Naples'. It was much more than a statement made in dynastic self interest but representative of national viewpoint.
 
Yes, as other posters have noted, the Bourbon-Two Sicilies rulers were just too reactionary to use the nationalist movement to their advantage. Sure, Ferdinand II's reign started well, but he fell into the trap of Bourbon reaction.

And the Savoys... in reality, they weren't the most liberal of houses, but if they saw a way to increase power, they'd do it. Of course, the only reason they won was because they got a little help from Napoleon's nephew and that Prussian statesman.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Yes, as other posters have noted, the Bourbon-Two Sicilies rulers were just too reactionary to use the nationalist movement to their advantage. Sure, Ferdinand II's reign started well, but he fell into the trap of Bourbon reaction.

And the Savoys... in reality, they weren't the most liberal of houses, but if they saw a way to increase power, they'd do it. Of course, the only reason they won was because they got a little help from Napoleon's nephew and that Prussian statesman.

I think politics are important, and you make a great point about the rather superficial nature of Savoy's liberal politics. But to me that only reinforces the point that the Savoyard dynasty was bent on expansion, territorial aggrandizement and conquest going back the late 17th century. They certainly bought into Italian nationalism and later liberalism and merged that into their drive to dominate Italy but the core expansionist philosophy was already there. That was never something that one found in Naples and Sicily under any native dynast.

Where as Savoy had spent most of the 18th century eyeing Milan the Neapolitan Bourbons were quite content with their realm. So if the question is how can Naples-Sicily lead Italian unification I think you need more than a more liberal ruler but a wholesale change in the dynasty and upper echelons of society. The only ruler of Naples who ever made a play for more territory was Murat and that's telling because he was a recent French import with preexisting ambitions and little political, social or empathic connection to the Neapolitan people or state.

So then its more about finding a monarch who could leverage his rule of Naples-Sicily to conquer/unify Italy. But said monarchy really won't bring anything Neapolitan with him to Rome because by definition a Murat like figure isn't quintessentially Neapolitan. So its more like unification lead by the King of the Two Sicilies than by the Kingdom as a whole. So when the question is phrased "Why couldn't the kingdom of two sicilies be the basis for a United italy?" I think the answer has to have a substantially POD set somewhere well before the mid 19th century. Otherwise its just a matter of marching an ambitious monarch from the Reggia di Caserta to the Quirinale through force of arms and military genius (or luck). But Naples will become just another provincial capital soon there after with no remaining importance to said monarch.

Sorry for all the exposition, I know I need to try to be more brief but I can never seem to manage it.
 
I think politics are important, and you make a great point about the rather superficial nature of Savoy's liberal politics. But to me that only reinforces the point that the Savoyard dynasty was bent on expansion, territorial aggrandizement and conquest going back the late 17th century. They certainly bought into Italian nationalism and later liberalism and merged that into their drive to dominate Italy but the core expansionist philosophy was already there. That was never something that one found in Naples and Sicily under any native dynast.

Where as Savoy had spent most of the 18th century eyeing Milan the Neapolitan Bourbons were quite content with their realm. So if the question is how can Naples-Sicily lead Italian unification I think you need more than a more liberal ruler but a wholesale change in the dynasty and upper echelons of society. The only ruler of Naples who ever made a play for more territory was Murat and that's telling because he was a recent French import with preexisting ambitions and little political, social or empathic connection to the Neapolitan people or state.

So then its more about finding a monarch who could leverage his rule of Naples-Sicily to conquer/unify Italy. But said monarchy really won't bring anything Neapolitan with him to Rome because by definition a Murat like figure isn't quintessentially Neapolitan. So its more like unification lead by the King of the Two Sicilies than by the Kingdom as a whole. So when the question is phrased "Why couldn't the kingdom of two sicilies be the basis for a United italy?" I think the answer has to have a substantially POD set somewhere well before the mid 19th century. Otherwise its just a matter of marching an ambitious monarch from the Reggia di Caserta to the Quirinale through force of arms and military genius (or luck). But Naples will become just another provincial capital soon there after with no remaining importance to said monarch.

Sorry for all the exposition, I know I need to try to be more brief but I can never seem to manage it.

That actually makes sense. Before the industrial period Naples-Sicily was the wealthiest kingdom on the peninsula; not to mention that the Bourbons got it back because they saw it as part-and-parcel of the Spanish inheritance. I think the only reason Charles III abdicated when he became King of Spain was because of the treaties ending the War of the Spanish Succession.
 
To start this, King Ferdinand IV makes Two Siciles a Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy. The people are really happy about this, and people really like the king.

From 1816 to 1838 Two Siciles industrialized and made there army dominant. In 1838, The Kingdom Of Two Siciles declare war on The Papal States. Two Siciles quickly take Rome, and March northwards. In The Battle Of Ancona, Papal States Surrender.
The Treaty of Ancona
  • Two Siciles Annexes The Papal States
  • Two Siciles releases The Vatican City in the Basilica Grounds
  • Signed on July 6, 1845
So, After This Two Siciles, fearing a Sardinian Attack, Creates an Alliance with France Called The Sicilian Concordat. Two Siciles asked France to not declare war on Prussia later, meaning no Franco-Prussian war.

Two Siciles parliament wanted Italian Unification. So, Tuscany and Two Siciles United. In 1953, Modena declared war on Two Siciles. The Sicilians quickly defeated them, and in 1954, Modena Surrendered. And Two Siciles just annexed all of Modena. Then, In 1856, Two Siciles declared war On Parma, They surrendered with only one death, because Parma didn't think that they had a chance, and Again they annexed the entirety of Parma. Kingdom of Two Siciles and France declared war on Austria. Sardinia also declared war on Two Siciles, Austria, and The French Empire. Then, The Ottomans for some reason joined the Austrians. Prussia and war on northern Germany declared war on Austria. This was World War 1, then Russia joined Austria. Britain joined France and Two Siciles. Denmark declared war on Sweden-Norway, causing Denmark to join the Austrians and then Sweden-Norway joining Sicily. South Germany declaring war on North Germany. So Basically... Sicily wins. Germany Unifies into the Kingdom of Germany. Italy Unifies under Two Siciles.
Italy Annexes Venice, Istria, Dalmatia, and puppets the Kingdom of Bosnia. Russia releases the Kingdom of Finland, The Duchy of Estonia, The Kingdom of Livonia, Kingdom of Kiev. Russia dissolves into many city States. Ottoman Empire releases All of the Balkan nation's, just under monarchies. Ottoman Empire just becomes Turkey just without the European part. Italy Annexes the rest of The Ottoman empire as their Colonies. Denmark is left alone, but Sweden-Norway dissolves. So That's World War One. But let's move on. Fascism, nor Communism rises. Two Siciles put their Fascists down. The world is pretty peaceful. In this timeline, World War one really was the War to End All Wars, seriously there were no more wars after that.
 
Burbons of two Sicilies didn't want to unify Italy
Absolutely true but most likely they would have accepted the leadership of an Italian Confederation (as they were Catholic rulers who respected the Pope too much for thinking to take away his lands).
If you want a viable Italian Confederation you need to put the Pope or the King of Two Sicilies as leader or the GrandDuke of Tuscany (but he would be viable only if both Lombardy and Venetia are added to the lands under his direct rule)

Because by the time of the 48's revolution and first war of independence, the kingdom was very conservative and reactionary even for the time standard and a little too economical backward
Plus the people didn't support their rulers and tried I believe at least three times to overthrow them between 1800 and 1851,when the Kingdom became a part of the new Kingdom of Italy, it's kind of hard to unite an entire peninsula under your rule if you can't even get your own people to like you.

Absolutely wrong. The great majority of the population in the continent always supported their rulers...
And the Kingdom was neither economical backward neither so much conservative or reactionary (but Ferdinand II of Two Sicilies was a sworn enemy of London’s government so the foreign liberal press and his English enemies regularly depicted him as a monster when he was more alike to Franz Joseph).

Especially in Sicily which really didn't want to be part of the same Kingdom as Naples. They wanted their traditional independence that was lost when Sicily went from being in a personal union with Naples to a mere region of a larger kingdom. It's demonstrative of the fact that both the people and the rulers in southern Italy saw those two kingdoms as discrete units with great traditions behind them. Non of the Sicilian Bourbons ever expressed an interest in territorial aggrandizement. Quite the reverse. So even if you set aside the economic and political problems that run against a leadership role in Italian unification there is still the fact that none of the elites we're really interested.

The events of '48 changed this to some extent. The extreme reaction of the Bourbons forced many liberals and intellectuals into exile, strait to Turin where they suddenly transformed from Neapolitan patriots, favoring reform in southern Italy through some kind of revolutionary action, to Italian nationalists, favoring reform in the south via Italian unification led by Piedmont. Up until then the sentiment of the bourgeoisie pretty much hewed to that of the nobility (such as was left of the old baronial nobility) and the monarchy. Which is to say all saw southern Italy as a state, even a nation, apart from Italy. Ferdinand II advised his son in reference to the conflict between Piedmont and Italy in the north that he remain neutral because 'I don't know what is meant by the independence of Italy, all I know is the independence of Naples'. It was much more than a statement made in dynastic self interest but representative of national viewpoint.
True. But I think who the biggest reason for which the Kings of Two Sicilies were against an expansion of their lands was who they were truly Catholics and for them stealing the lands of the Pope would be an unforgettable sin who they had neither intention or reason to make. The reaction of the Bourbons in ‘48 was not worse than that of others Kings who had their same problem in that timeframe (but Ferdinand II was a sworn enemy of many members of London’s government, because he was a King who defended the freedom and independence of his own kingdom, so the liberal press was persuaded to transform him in a monster).
Southern Italy had its own unitary story - under the same ruler or at worst splitter between mainland and Sicily - separated from the rest of Italy since the fall of the Roman Empire so their line of thinking was quite logical but still if Ferdinand II had received the offer of the Crown of an Italian Confederation who left the Papal States intact is pretty likely he would have accepted it.



To start this, King Ferdinand IV makes Two Siciles a Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy. The people are really happy about this, and people really like the king.

From 1816 to 1838 Two Siciles industrialized and made there army dominant. In 1838, The Kingdom Of Two Siciles declare war on The Papal States. Two Siciles quickly take Rome, and March northwards. In The Battle Of Ancona, Papal States Surrender.
The Treaty of Ancona
  • Two Siciles Annexes The Papal States
  • Two Siciles releases The Vatican City in the Basilica Grounds
  • Signed on July 6, 1845
So, After This Two Siciles, fearing a Sardinian Attack, Creates an Alliance with France Called The Sicilian Concordat. Two Siciles asked France to not declare war on Prussia later, meaning no Franco-Prussian war.

Two Siciles parliament wanted Italian Unification. So, Tuscany and Two Siciles United. In 1953, Modena declared war on Two Siciles. The Sicilians quickly defeated them, and in 1954, Modena Surrendered. And Two Siciles just annexed all of Modena. Then, In 1856, Two Siciles declared war On Parma, They surrendered with only one death, because Parma didn't think that they had a chance, and Again they annexed the entirety of Parma. Kingdom of Two Siciles and France declared war on Austria. Sardinia also declared war on Two Siciles, Austria, and The French Empire. Then, The Ottomans for some reason joined the Austrians. Prussia and war on northern Germany declared war on Austria. This was World War 1, then Russia joined Austria. Britain joined France and Two Siciles. Denmark declared war on Sweden-Norway, causing Denmark to join the Austrians and then Sweden-Norway joining Sicily. South Germany declaring war on North Germany. So Basically... Sicily wins. Germany Unifies into the Kingdom of Germany. Italy Unifies under Two Siciles.
Italy Annexes Venice, Istria, Dalmatia, and puppets the Kingdom of Bosnia. Russia releases the Kingdom of Finland, The Duchy of Estonia, The Kingdom of Livonia, Kingdom of Kiev. Russia dissolves into many city States. Ottoman Empire releases All of the Balkan nation's, just under monarchies. Ottoman Empire just becomes Turkey just without the European part. Italy Annexes the rest of The Ottoman empire as their Colonies. Denmark is left alone, but Sweden-Norway dissolves. So That's World War One. But let's move on. Fascism, nor Communism rises. Two Siciles put their Fascists down. The world is pretty peaceful. In this timeline, World War one really was the War to End All Wars, seriously there were no more wars after that.
Fully ASB. You need to fully change Ferdinand IV or II’s personalities in that of a not Catholic warmonger...
Make the liberal elites of Two Sicilies (who by the way were do not supported by the great majority of the population who was fiercely loyal to their beloved King) more reasonable and you can get a somewhat liberal Constitution under Francis I or Ferdinand II (not Ferdinand IV). Then in 1948 offer to Ferdinand II the Crown/leadership of an Italian Confederation who left the Papal States (and the other states in Italy) intact and he likely will accept it and rule well...
 
Absolutely wrong. The great majority of the population in the continent always supported their rulers...
And the Kingdom was neither economical backward neither so much conservative or reactionary (but Ferdinand II of Two Sicilies was a sworn enemy of London’s government so the foreign liberal press and his English enemies regularly depicted him as a monster when he was more alike to Franz Joseph).

Sorry, but not our Kingdom of the two sicilies, Garibaldi had a very very easy work in start a general rebellion, being cheered all his way from Palermo to Naples and the bulk of army was easily bribed by the Savoyard goverment to step down...two signs that really don't point to the great general love and stability of the Bourbon goverment...the rebellion and the bandit phenomenon come after much of Garibaldi promises were reneged by the Savoyard.
Ah, sure Franz Joseph a great example of liberalism, sorry but the Kingdom of the Two sicilies was poor, had very few industry almost no railway system, an extremely limited litteracy and almost no infrastructure...the Bourboun failed to invest the tax money in the upkeeping of the nation choosing instead the Hoard like a dragon option
 
Sorry, but not our Kingdom of the two sicilies, Garibaldi had a very very easy work in start a general rebellion, being cheered all his way from Palermo to Naples and the bulk of army was easily bribed by the Savoyard goverment to step down...two signs that really don't point to the great general love and stability of the Bourbon goverment...the rebellion and the bandit phenomenon come after much of Garibaldi promises were reneged by the Savoyard.
Ah, sure Franz Joseph a great example of liberalism, sorry but the Kingdom of the Two sicilies was poor, had very few industry almost no railway system, an extremely limited litteracy and almost no infrastructure...the Bourboun failed to invest the tax money in the upkeeping of the nation choosing instead the Hoard like a dragon option

False. Sicily was already in full rebellion before Garibaldi’s arrival and wanted indipendence from the Bourbon mainland (at least at the moment, plus the rebellion, born at the death of Ferdinand II, was pretty usual for the island). Then Garibaldi encountered very little resistance not because people were favorable to him, but because he bribed many officers (who then consigned themselves and their troops, who had no choice in the matter and often were not soldiers to him), and the army of Two Sicilies was not used to fight plus Francis II was young, unprepared, and bad counseled so reacted to Garibaldi too late and not always in the right manner. If Ferdinand II had not died exactly when he died most likely Garibaldi (who by the way was able to land in Marsala only because he was helped by his English commitments) would be unable to do anything.

The Two Sicilies was by long the richest of the pre-Unitarian Italian states (was richer than all the others together), had an industry not yet very big but developing and promising (before the Savoy destroyed it) and present in all sectors with many excellences (specially in the luxury productions). A forced industrialization like the Savoy one was totally excluded by Ferdinand II who feared its social cost and in a reign full of mountains railroad we’re not easy to build and neither a priority considering who the Kingdom’s commerce was mostly maritime and Two Sicilies had one of the biggest commercial marines of Europe, with commercial relationship and exportation in many lands including Russia and Americas.

Franz Joseph was not a liberal but neither was a reactionary monster like Ferdinand II was often depicted.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top