WI italy have been a federal monarchy?

The title says all, what if instead of centralizing italy into a unitary kingdom under the house of savoy, the italian monarchy had instead adopted a model close to what the german empire came to be decades later, with each region being ruled by it's royal family but all bowing to the King of savoy?

The main problem that I see with this model is that the italian unification happened before the Prussian one, so it is unlikely that they would adopt that model, but I believe that with a different philosophy in the Risorgimento this could be worked into
 
Very unlikely. The petty Italian states were ruled by cadet lines not rooted in their domains and in the two Sicilies there was little fealty to the resident Bourbons. Italian unification was based on a combination of popularly acclaimed conquest of the petty states and the overthrow of the Bourbons. And of course you also had territories under direct Austrian or Papal rule which just needed to be conquered. A more federalized state was possible but under royal governors and not local rulers. There is just no basis in Italy for a Federal Empire such as the German Second Reich, where the unconquered monarchies and free cities 'voluntarily' joined in Imperial Union with Prussia and retained their local ruling dynasties or regimes.
 
The title says all, what if instead of centralizing italy into a unitary kingdom under the house of savoy, the italian monarchy had instead adopted a model close to what the german empire came to be decades later, with each region being ruled by it's royal family but all bowing to the King of savoy?

The main problem that I see with this model is that the italian unification happened before the Prussian one, so it is unlikely that they would adopt that model, but I believe that with a different philosophy in the Risorgimento this could be worked into
There are a few problems in this scenario.

The first one is that outside the Savoy there is no other Italian dynasty on the thrones: Lombardy-Venetia are an Austrian province, Modena and Tuscany are governed by Habsburgs, Parma and Two Sicilies by Bourbons. None of these dynasties are supportive of an Italian unification (which is not the real issue: after all the German states too were not in favor of coming under a Prussian supremacy, and still all of them was brought into the empire, mostly at bayonet point), but even more importantly none of these dynasties would be trustworthy. The lessons of the short-lived Customs Unions in the 1840s (only the Papal States, Tuscany and - with some reluctance - Sardinia joined it but it never worked in practice) and even more importantly the betrayal of the idea of a national fight for Italian independence in 1848 (the Papal States were the first to renege, quickly followed by Two Sicilies and finally by Tuscany too) were too vivid in the minds of Italians. Even if the war of 1848 is successful, the end result would simply be an 1859 ante-litteram: Lombardy, Parma, Modena and the Papal Legations had already voted for annexation to Savoy-Piedmont. Even most of the cities in Venetia and Friuli had followed suit, and the only one sticking with a republican system was Venice itself. IMHO Tuscany too might send the grand-duke packing (as they did in 1859) and Venice could not stay aloft forever. In 1859 there was no doubt on the outcome within a couple of weeks from the start of the war.

The second problem (maybe should be the first one) is what to do with the Papal States. It would not be possible to have the pope subordinated to a king of Italy, if only in his role as temporal ruler, and the Papal administration of its territories was by far the worst one in Italy (or I should say in western Europe). Equally unthinkable would be an Italian Federation under the presidency of the pope, as argued by the neo-Guelph in the 1840s: that idea never gained real traction and was dead in the water after the events of 1848-49. In any case it would never have worked as a practical solution.

Finally Piedmont-Sardinia ordainment was patterned on the French one: a centralized state with the provinces controlled by prefects appointed by the central government. In a way it's the smallest of the problems (if there were an alternative system it might have been considered) but the point is that there were no practical alternatives to a centralized state.

A federal state might have been a possible outcome if the popular insurrections of 1848 had been more successful and better coordinated (starting for example with Cattaneo convincing the Provisional Government in Milan to refrain from offering Lombardy to Charles Albert), but the coordination was not there and more importantly the only hope for a successful war against Austria required the willing participation of the Sardinian army. It's not a surprise if the popular insurrections were successful for a limited time only (with the only exception of France): even in Germany the parliament of Frankfurt did not manage to successfully secure the constitutional gains of the beginning, their offer of the German crown to the king of Prussia was unsurprisingly rebuked ("the crown from the gutters") and in the end Prussian troops restored the previous order without too much trouble.
 
There are a few problems in this scenario.

The first one is that outside the Savoy there is no other Italian dynasty on the thrones
Actually... the Savoyards aren't even Italian, or at least they weren't originally. They were French, then Franco-German under the HRE, then became more and more Italian after the TYW when the Duchy of Savoy left the HRE.
 
Actually... the Savoyards aren't even Italian, or at least they weren't originally. They were French, then Franco-German under the HRE, then became more and more Italian after the TYW when the Duchy of Savoy left the HRE.
A lot of centuries have passed since when they were just counts in upper Savoy, a part of the kingdom of Burgundy in the X century. In the XVI century their political and economical interests were clearly located in Italy, and their capital was moved to Turin in 1563. I'd say they can count as Italians (even if the language at the court in Turin was still French). At the very least, they were not Hapsburgs or Bourbons like all the other dukes and kings in Italy.
 
A lot of centuries have passed since when they were just counts in upper Savoy, a part of the kingdom of Burgundy in the X century. In the XVI century their political and economical interests were clearly located in Italy, and their capital was moved to Turin in 1563. I'd say they can count as Italians (even if the language at the court in Turin was still French). At the very least, they were not Habsburgs or Bourbons like all the other dukes and kings in Italy.
fixed that for you.
 
fixed that for you.

How incredibly generous. I'm glad you're here to fix these pesky archaic Anglicanizations mistakes, especially given that there's been no debate or confusion on the spelling whatsoever and this is clearly an error as opposed to a valid stylistic choice or an acceptable archaic spelling.

/snark -- I'm mostly just confused as to how it's worth it to post only that tiny quibble in an otherwise healthy and productive thread. That being said, pot meet kettle, I'm responding to it-- even if only because it clearly struck a nerve! :p


There are a few problems in this scenario.

The first one is that outside the Savoy there is no other Italian dynasty on the thrones: Lombardy-Venetia are an Austrian province, Modena and Tuscany are governed by Habsburgs, Parma and Two Sicilies by Bourbons. None of these dynasties are supportive of an Italian unification (which is not the real issue: after all the German states too were not in favor of coming under a Prussian supremacy, and still all of them was brought into the empire, mostly at bayonet point), but even more importantly none of these dynasties would be trustworthy. The lessons of the short-lived Customs Unions in the 1840s (only the Papal States, Tuscany and - with some reluctance - Sardinia joined it but it never worked in practice) and even more importantly the betrayal of the idea of a national fight for Italian independence in 1848 (the Papal States were the first to renege, quickly followed by Two Sicilies and finally by Tuscany too) were too vivid in the minds of Italians. Even if the war of 1848 is successful, the end result would simply be an 1859 ante-litteram: Lombardy, Parma, Modena and the Papal Legations had already voted for annexation to Savoy-Piedmont. Even most of the cities in Venetia and Friuli had followed suit, and the only one sticking with a republican system was Venice itself. IMHO Tuscany too might send the grand-duke packing (as they did in 1859) and Venice could not stay aloft forever. In 1859 there was no doubt on the outcome within a couple of weeks from the start of the war.

The second problem (maybe should be the first one) is what to do with the Papal States. It would not be possible to have the pope subordinated to a king of Italy, if only in his role as temporal ruler, and the Papal administration of its territories was by far the worst one in Italy (or I should say in western Europe). Equally unthinkable would be an Italian Federation under the presidency of the pope, as argued by the neo-Guelph in the 1840s: that idea never gained real traction and was dead in the water after the events of 1848-49. In any case it would never have worked as a practical solution.

Finally Piedmont-Sardinia ordainment was patterned on the French one: a centralized state with the provinces controlled by prefects appointed by the central government. In a way it's the smallest of the problems (if there were an alternative system it might have been considered) but the point is that there were no practical alternatives to a centralized state.

A federal state might have been a possible outcome if the popular insurrections of 1848 had been more successful and better coordinated (starting for example with Cattaneo convincing the Provisional Government in Milan to refrain from offering Lombardy to Charles Albert), but the coordination was not there and more importantly the only hope for a successful war against Austria required the willing participation of the Sardinian army. It's not a surprise if the popular insurrections were successful for a limited time only (with the only exception of France): even in Germany the parliament of Frankfurt did not manage to successfully secure the constitutional gains of the beginning, their offer of the German crown to the king of Prussia was unsurprisingly rebuked ("the crown from the gutters") and in the end Prussian troops restored the previous order without too much trouble.

Do you see any earlier PODs as being able to change the starting field of what you describe to make things more likely to coalesce under an Italian dynasty? (Example... what if no Habsburgs or Bourbons?) How could a change in significantly earlier political, economic, or familial dynamics prevent the acceptability of foreign heirs on the Italian thrones?

Those questions are 100% dependent on the POD or time period the OP has in mind, and one's personal interpretation of Butterfly Strength.

For example, I think it's possible to go back far enough to change this kind of thing and meet the OP's challenge in a basic sense, but it would make Italy (and likely the Europe and the World) a very different place.
 
Do you see any earlier PODs as being able to change the starting field of what you describe to make things more likely to coalesce under an Italian dynasty? (Example... what if no Habsburgs or Bourbons?) How could a change in significantly earlier political, economic, or familial dynamics prevent the acceptability of foreign heirs on the Italian thrones?

Those questions are 100% dependent on the POD or time period the OP has in mind, and one's personal interpretation of Butterfly Strength.

For example, I think it's possible to go back far enough to change this kind of thing and meet the OP's challenge in a basic sense, but it would make Italy (and likely the Europe and the World) a very different place.

Let's see from the most recent extinctions to the older ones:
  • House of Este (Modena and Reggio): Ercole III of Este-Modena (died in 1803) did not have male sons: give him one, and even if his daughter Maria Beatrice still marries an Habsburg archduke the House of Este will continue. Note that this heir (let's call him Rinaldo II) also inherits from his mother Maria Theresa Malaspina the duchy of Massa and Carrara (I'm assuming that the House of Este would regain the throne at the Congress of Vienna). If you go back to the late XVI century and give a son to duke Alfonso II (Nostradamus himself predicted that the duke would sire a male son on his third wife), even Ferrara might be retained: Ferrara was a papal fief, and pope Clement VIII did not recognize the succession of the duke's cousin Cesare, claiming that his father was illegitimate. A bogus claim under many aspects, but the pope wanted back the city of Ferrara which had prospered under the prudent government of the House of Este. The alleged illegitimacy did not have effect over the succession to Modena and Reggio, which were imperial fiefs.
  • House Farnese (Parma and Piacenza): the last two dukes Francesco (1727) and Antonio (1731) died without legitimate issue, and the throne of Parma went to don Carlos of Bourbon, son of the queen of Spain Isabella Farnese. Antonio is recorded to have had illegitimate sons, so he might get a legitimate male heir with a little luck. It would not a guarantee that the Farnese might keep the throne, since Parma was often involved in the European war and was for a short time under the Habsburg after don Carlos got the crown of Naples: however in 1748 the peace of Aquisgrana gave the duchy back to the Bourbon of Spain, in the person of don Philip, brother to don Carlos. Who knows what may happen later on (there may be some butterflies for sure) but IOTL the Bourbon-Parma were reinstated on the ducal throne at the death of Marie Louise of Habsburg.
  • House Medici (grand-duchy of Tuscany): the end of the house Medici is a sad counterpoint to the splendor of of the XV and XVI centuries. Cosimo III died in 1723 after a long (53 years) but very ineffective reign that ruined the economy of the grand-duchy. His elder son Ferdinand pre-deceased him by 10 years, and died in 1713 of (probably) syphilis, without leaving heirs. Cosimo's successor was the younger son, Gian Gastone, a notorious homosexual who never married and left no heirs either. The only daughter of Cosimo, Anna Maria Luisa, could not have children. Even before the death of Gian Gastone, the powers had chosen the former duke of Lorraine (and husband of empress Marie Therese) as heir (he visited Florence just twice, being almost constantly in Vienna with his wife). The poor Ferdinand was very unlucky in his arranged marriage with Violante Beatrice of Wittelsbach: the marriage may or may not have been consummated, and the marital life of the couple must have been a kind of hell (Violante hated Italy, and preferred to stay in a castle in Bohemia). IIRC his sister Anna Maria (married to the Elector Palatine) had tried to arrange a different marriage for his brother (possibly to one of the many sisters, or maybe to a different Wittelsbach) but it did not work for some reason I don't remember. So the POD here is that Ferdinand marries a better and fertile wife, and the dynasty is saved. There are still a lot of hurdles to have the Medici last until the 19th century, and subtracting Tuscany from the game of musical thrones in the 1730s creates a lot of butterflies.
There are heaps of other possibilities, such as the Gonzaga of Mantua and Montferrat, the Visconti or the Sforza in Milan; I cannot go into too many alternatives, and the survival of one of these would change future history significantly. I'd just spend a word for Ferdinand (Ferrante) of Naples, illegitimate son of Alfonso I of Aragon. Notwithstanding his Aragonese origins (his mother was from Naples anyway) Ferrante became very much and very quickly Italianized and his diplomatic skills (usually in alliance with the Sforza of Milan and the Este) contributed to the long peace in Italy in the second half of the XV as well as to the economic resurgence of the kingdom of Naples. Late in his life he foresaw the danger of a French invasion of Italy, but for a number of reasons which it's not possible to go into here, he failed to convince the other Italian rulers of the need to stop him at once. In the end the attempt of establishing a separate Aragonese dynasty in Italy ended with the invasion of Ferdinand the Catholic in 1504. If Ferrante had been able to establish this dynasty (and the Sforza in Milan had been a bit more far-seeing) the Italian wars of the XVI century might not eventuate, and once gain history would be changed in a major way
 
The title says all, what if instead of centralizing italy into a unitary kingdom under the house of savoy, the italian monarchy had instead adopted a model close to what the german empire came to be decades later, with each region being ruled by it's royal family but all bowing to the King of savoy?

The main problem that I see with this model is that the italian unification happened before the Prussian one, so it is unlikely that they would adopt that model, but I believe that with a different philosophy in the Risorgimento this could be worked into

Didn't the Mezzogiorno decline after unification because the northern-based government didn't really give a toss about its problems? If so, such a scenario might end up with a stronger and more prosperous southern Italy compared to OTL.

Do you see any earlier PODs as being able to change the starting field of what you describe to make things more likely to coalesce under an Italian dynasty? (Example... what if no Hapsburgs or Bourbons?) How could a change in significantly earlier political, economic, or familial dynamics prevent the acceptability of foreign heirs on the Italian thrones?

Fixed that for you.

(Sorry, couldn't resist. :p)
 
Top