WI: British Sicily

Alright, so in the Treaty of Utrecht Spain ceded Gibraltar and the Island of Minorca to Britain.

So what if, in addition to this Britain managed to obtain small concessions in Sicily, namely the Island of Pantelleria and a small Gibraltaresque
area of the Island of Sicily itself as shown in the below.

Assuming that Britain keep them as it has Gibraltar and nearly did Malta, how would this affect history?

Sicily.png
 
I can't speak for what the knock-on effects might be but if the British have Pantelleria would they really want 'small Gibraltaresque area of the Island of Sicily' as well? When you already have an island which is more defensible a land border just seems like way too much of a hassle unless that piece of territory has something about it that makes it really special. The only reason they took Gibraltar itself was that it was in such a strategic location at the mouth of the Mediterranean and also insanely difficult to take by force.
 
I can't speak for what the knock-on effects might be but if the British have Pantelleria would they really want 'small Gibraltaresque area of the Island of Sicily' as well? When you already have an island which is more defensible a land border just seems like way too much of a hassle unless that piece of territory has something about it that makes it really special. The only reason they took Gibraltar itself was that it was in such a strategic location at the mouth of the Mediterranean and also insanely difficult to take by force.

Honestly I was originally gonna have just the part of Sicily, but then I gopt to thinking and I came up with a little situation where they get the part of Sicily, but near the end some British diplomat who's more concerned with the growth of the Empire than strategy manages to get the island thrown in as well.
 
Actually, the British commisioner on Sicily during the late Napoleonic Wars - Wilson, I think his name was - was a sympathiser with Italian nationalism who, frustrated with the king, at one point thought British annexation was the only way to change anything on the island.

If we have a compromise between Napoleon and Britain (the old "Bonie doesn't act like a twit in Spain" should do it), Sicily ends up at the very least as a "dominion of honour".
 
Garibaldi would hate it.

And if it won't be returned during the Italian unification, then my guess is that it will be Italy's "condition sine qua non" for an entry into WW1 on the side of the Entente.
 
Garibaldi would hate it.

And if it won't be returned during the Italian unification, then my guess is that it will be Italy's "condition sine qua non" for an entry into WW1 on the side of the Entente.

Um, WW1 as we know it will never happen.

This is going to butterfly the whole development of Italian nationalism. People often forget that if Napoleon had been born on Elba - never mind won - Garibaldi would have remained a French citizen, which is going to butterfly his exploits just a bit.
 
I think it probably would be, they gave back the United States of the Ionian Islands a decade or two after Greece gained its independence IIRC. The only reason you want something in that area is to control the Mediterranean so what you really need is a decent harbour and a defensible position. Assuming that the Napoleonic war goes ahead and the British still pick up Malta afterwards I could see them happily offloading Sicily as soon as the Italian unification comes about 50 or so years later. Malta has the location, excellent harbours, and is much smaller meaning less costly to run and easier to administer. Hell, they might trade it back to the Kingdom of Naples in the intervening period if they can get some sort of diplomatic advantage out of it.
 
For the sake of the thread let's assume the British, for whatever reason keep them.

Though I am interested in what scenarios Britain would give them back in, IE what they'd get in return.
 
For the sake of the thread let's assume the British, for whatever reason keep them.

Though I am interested in what scenarios Britain would give them back in, IE what they'd get in return.

Well they handed back the Ionian Islands to Greece for nothing more than diplomatic goodwill.
 
Um, WW1 as we know it will never happen.

This is going to butterfly the whole development of Italian nationalism. People often forget that if Napoleon had remained on Elba - never mind won - Garibaldi would have remained a French citizen, which is going to butterfly his exploits just a bit.

I respect butterflies, but this is not about British Sicily, but just very minor adjustments. Or did I miss something?

Also, even growing up in a French Nizza (I do not see the context with the thread, however), Garibaldi might still have become a leading Italian nationalist.
 
As Simon said, the only reason anything in the area would be held on to was as a strategic base for the fleet.
I really do not see them holding onto the land bit, as Simon said, the only reason Gibraltar was held was because of its location, however had there been a beautiful little island with a nice natural harbour sitting in the middle of the Straits of Gibraltar, I would wager they would have taken it instead.

If they did somehow hold onto the bit of Sicily, it would require quite a readjustment of mindsets, so I don't think I am qualified to comment, but regarding Pantelleria, there is two possibilities from my perspective:

1. Somehow they lose Malta. They would then need a base in the central Med and may develop one of these two areas into that. I have no idea how or why they would lose Malta, especially if they still have a presence in the Mediterranean, but nevertheless they would be more likely to hold onto it if they had nothing else.

In that case the island would develop similar to Malta.

2. They retain Malta yet still decide to hold onto Pantelleria. Pantelleria would just likely develop slowly, little intervention, little investment, not all that much effect on world history. (Maybe something in WWII during the Med war?)
 
Well they handed back the Ionian Islands to Greece for nothing more than diplomatic goodwill.

True.

For the nation that holds Malta the Ionians are of minor strategic importance. Furthermore, the Ionian islands likely wanted to join Greece, hence Britain would have to hold them against a hostile population.

Both aspects will hold for British Sicily in case of unified/unifying Italy as well. The main difference is that Sicily by itself wouldn't be a minor holding.
 
Um, WW1 as we know it will never happen.

This is going to butterfly the whole development of Italian nationalism. People often forget that if Napoleon had been born on Elba - never mind won - Garibaldi would have remained a French citizen, which is going to butterfly his exploits just a bit.

?!?
Nice was part of Pidemont until 1859
 
2. They retain Malta yet still decide to hold onto Pantelleria. Pantelleria would just likely develop slowly, little intervention, little investment, not all that much effect on world history. (Maybe something in WWII during the Med war?)

I agree that it's all a little protracted. However I disagree with this point. Given the locations of Malta and Pantelleria, and given Pantelleria's lack of independent tradition, I think Pantelleria would be made a dependency of Malta. Given its low population and relatively small size, I think it would be fairly easy for Malta to fund and eventually it would turn into a second Malta - with a population who adopt Italian culture but largely speak an Anglo-Italian mix, and view themselves as a physically the same as Sicilians but mentally a world apart. Given Pantelleria's population (it's about 7,500 now so it would probably be barely 3,000 then) you'd probably get about half the population emigrating to Sicily to return to their native government, with the rest being entirely eclipsed and absorbed by Maltese culture. This could well result in Pantelleria becoming an inalienable part of Malta.

As for the little outcropping on the Sicilian mainland, I agree though. It would require exceptional circumstances for the British to take it let alone hold it, as it would be something of a liability.
 
As for the little outcropping on the Sicilian mainland, I agree though. It would require exceptional circumstances for the British to take it let alone hold it, as it would be something of a liability.

Could we have an Elgin-equivalent raiding the Temple Valley and runsacking sicilian greek temples from Agrigento to Syracuse? :D
 
?!?
Nice was part of Pidemont until 1859

The French annexed it earlier in the Revolutionary wars. My mistake in thinking they kept it by the Paris treaty (that was a part of Savoy, I got them mixed up).

However, the French had annexed Nice and Savoy before the rest of Piedmont, and they kept it in a variety of peace deals that were chucked out in 1813-1814 while losing everything beyond the Alps. The Vienna powers never really cared about "legitimacy" when it got in the way of their interests (the Austrians would have recognised Murat and let Ferdinand of Sicily go hang), so after decades of French possesion it was hardly "occupied" in the way that the Prussians were occuping Belgium or the Russians Saxony.
 
I agree that it's all a little protracted. However I disagree with this point. Given the locations of Malta and Pantelleria, and given Pantelleria's lack of independent tradition, I think Pantelleria would be made a dependency of Malta. Given its low population and relatively small size, I think it would be fairly easy for Malta to fund and eventually it would turn into a second Malta - with a population who adopt Italian culture but largely speak an Anglo-Italian mix, and view themselves as a physically the same as Sicilians but mentally a world apart. Given Pantelleria's population (it's about 7,500 now so it would probably be barely 3,000 then) you'd probably get about half the population emigrating to Sicily to return to their native government, with the rest being entirely eclipsed and absorbed by Maltese culture. This could well result in Pantelleria becoming an inalienable part of Malta.

As for the little outcropping on the Sicilian mainland, I agree though. It would require exceptional circumstances for the British to take it let alone hold it, as it would be something of a liability.

True, but I meant more to say that the development wouldn't be the same as Malta as there wouldn't be any Royal Dockyard built on the island, with all the infrastructure that a dockyard entails, which would leave it to much more natural growth.
 
As I said it was occupied by french troops.
As you say legitimy and occupation are tricky words, and a peace deal coud be thrown down the throat of a loser peace-seeker, but the fact that in OTL there was a substantial pro-italian stance (Garibaldi being the case) nothwistanding the french administration hints that Paris claims were not accepted

On the other hand, since Nice-born Massena went French-side, I agree that Garibaldi could go that side as well.
 
Last edited:
Top