WI: Italy never unified?

To be honest, there wouldn't be a huge difference, save if the POD is Garibaldi getting killed.

What's easiest in this scenario is an Italy divided between a Savoyard north and a Bourbon south, with a rump Papal State that would become a bone of contention.
 
To be honest, there wouldn't be a huge difference, save if the POD is Garibaldi getting killed.

What's easiest in this scenario is an Italy divided between a Savoyard north and a Bourbon south, with a rump Papal State that would become a bone of contention.
Thats what I was thinking. But how would it work down the line. Going into WW1?
 
Smaller Italy, or several pieces of Italy stay out of WW1. This frees up large numbers of German and Austrian soldiers to other fronts.


It also means that Rommel's first military campaigns occur against more competent opponents. And given the risks he took in Italy, might result in his killing or capture.

While the overt effects might be very small, there might be thousands of butterflies let loose. for example
1)Libya might remain independent as three separate kingdoms, or be divided into halves by France and England.
2)Mussolini has no march on Rome. He might be a goofball leader of a small city state.
3) Venice remains Austrian. Think listening to waltzes during your gondola ride along the canals.


Through both world wars Italy was more a load than a player. consequences of not having to deal with the load might make the side they were stuck with more successful.
 
Smaller Italy, or several pieces of Italy stay out of WW1. This frees up large numbers of German and Austrian soldiers to other fronts.


It also means that Rommel's first military campaigns occur against more competent opponents. And given the risks he took in Italy, might result in his killing or capture.

While the overt effects might be very small, there might be thousands of butterflies let loose. for example
1)Libya might remain independent as three separate kingdoms, or be divided into halves by France and England.
2)Mussolini has no march on Rome. He might be a goofball leader of a small city state.
3) Venice remains Austrian. Think listening to waltzes during your gondola ride along the canals.


Through both world wars Italy was more a load than a player. consequences of not having to deal with the load might make the side they were stuck with more successful.

What? No. Butterflies. Rommel won't be born with such an early POD. There might not even be any world wars.
 
What? No. Butterflies. Rommel won't be born with such an early POD. There might not even be any world wars.

It really depends on the severity of the butterfly effect. It could lead to the situation of OTL, but it could lead to something completely different.
 
In any case this means Austria still has one less possible front to worry about given a general European conflict, especially if it retains its influence over Italy as the Congress of Vienna created.
 
In any case this means Austria still has one less possible front to worry about given a general European conflict, especially if it retains its influence over Italy as the Congress of Vienna created.

Possibly not. A united North Italian plain under the Savoyards that is (somehow) kept out of Central Italy (likely by the French), or barring that out of Naples (perhaps a surviving Muratist dynasty) would still be quite the thorn in the side of the Hapsburgs.
 
Last edited:
IMHO, the way the Congress of Vienna set up Italy cannot be a viable solution in the medium to long term. It came out as a very unstable configuration, and it went through a number of crisis (1820, 1839 and 1848) even before IOTL unification in 1861: every time Austria had to intervene militarily to prop up its clients, and every time it became more difficult. It is not a case that in 1859-60 all the Italian states outside of Piedmont-Sardinia collapsed like a house of cards (and the Pope was barely able to hold on to Latium just because of French intervention). My reading is that even if the 1859 war is somehow butterflied away (say because Nappy changes his mind for any reason) there will be some other opportunity in the late 1860s or early 1870s, and in the end Austria will be expelled from Italy.

This said, it appears that the best opportunity to keep Italy at least partially disunited (say within a loose confederation plus custom union) has to come early: I would suggest 1830 (SteveP's The Talleyrand Plan is a good TL). I'm not sure it might work in 1848: theoretically it could, but I'm quite sceptic that the pope, the king of Naples and the grand-duke of Tuscany can really play ball to the end. Best outcome would be a federation under a nominal presidency of the pope, as the catholic liberals were proposing (but in any case I am pretty sure that the duchies would be toast in any case).

In 1859 the genie is out of the bottle for sure: the pope would keep Latium for sure, the kingdom of Two Sicilies might remain independent (Cavour was never completely happy with the Garibaldine venture) and Venice might remain Austrian as it did IOTL. All the rest of Italy would be annexed as per IOTL, and IMHO it would be named "kingdom of Italy" anyway.
It might be argued that by avoiding the entanglement in Southern Italy the new kingdom would be more omogeneous and prosperous: it might be true, or it might open another front for irredentism and a further militarization of Italy. Very hard to say.
 
IMHO, the way the Congress of Vienna set up Italy cannot be a viable solution in the medium to long term. It came out as a very unstable configuration, and it went through a number of crisis (1820, 1839 and 1848) even before IOTL unification in 1861: every time Austria had to intervene militarily to prop up its clients, and every time it became more difficult. It is not a case that in 1859-60 all the Italian states outside of Piedmont-Sardinia collapsed like a house of cards (and the Pope was barely able to hold on to Latium just because of French intervention). My reading is that even if the 1859 war is somehow butterflied away (say because Nappy changes his mind for any reason) there will be some other opportunity in the late 1860s or early 1870s, and in the end Austria will be expelled from Italy.

This said, it appears that the best opportunity to keep Italy at least partially disunited (say within a loose confederation plus custom union) has to come early: I would suggest 1830 (SteveP's The Talleyrand Plan is a good TL). I'm not sure it might work in 1848: theoretically it could, but I'm quite sceptic that the pope, the king of Naples and the grand-duke of Tuscany can really play ball to the end. Best outcome would be a federation under a nominal presidency of the pope, as the catholic liberals were proposing (but in any case I am pretty sure that the duchies would be toast in any case).

In 1859 the genie is out of the bottle for sure: the pope would keep Latium for sure, the kingdom of Two Sicilies might remain independent (Cavour was never completely happy with the Garibaldine venture) and Venice might remain Austrian as it did IOTL. All the rest of Italy would be annexed as per IOTL, and IMHO it would be named "kingdom of Italy" anyway.
It might be argued that by avoiding the entanglement in Southern Italy the new kingdom would be more omogeneous and prosperous: it might be true, or it might open another front for irredentism and a further militarization of Italy. Very hard to say.
I was thinking that it would be Piedmont-Sardinia, Papal States and the Two Sicilies as left over.
 
I was thinking that it would be Piedmont-Sardinia, Papal States and the Two Sicilies as left over.
If the POD is in 1860 (no expedition of the Mille, mind: if Garibaldi goes to Sicily and somehow gets to be mauled, there will be a major outcry all along Italy and the new Italy would be willy-nilly forced to fight the Bourbons), it is to be expected that everything up to that is as per OTL. Therefore insurrections in the duchies, Tuscany, Romagna, Marche and Umbria, which are all annexed after plebiscites. Nappy will go again for the Villafranca armistice, since the Italian situation is not evolving the way he wanted. The Papal States survive (limited to Latium only) with French support. It is also possible that Cavour - who ITTL is free from the entanglement in southern Italy) manages to keep Nice and Savoy (or at least the former), since Nappy has reneged on the terms of the alliance (both Lombardy and Venetia were to be given to Piedmont).

Perhaps we could see the Papal State acting as a buffer state between Piedmont-Sardinia and the Two Sicilies?

I doubt it very much: there is no way that Pius IX can accept loosing 3/4 of the Papal States with a smile and a blessing. So the rump Papal States will go along more or less as per IOTL; it might even be possible that the survival of the southern kingdom gives the pope more confidence, and leads him on an even more confrontational path with the new kingdom of Italy.
It might even be possible that France extends some sort of protection to the Bourbons in Naples (besides the protection that in any case would be given to the pope): this might not be such a bad thing for Italy, everything considered. Besides the fact that it would be much easier to incorporate into the new kingdom Northern and Central Italy without the Southern portion, the stronger French antagonism might make it even clearer that the new Italy needs new allies: with both France and Austria obviously hostile, there are just two choices on the table: UK, who would be unhappy with the stronger economical and political French penetration into southern Italy, and Prussia, who has its own anti-Austrian agenda in Germany and cannot certainly be happy with French ambitions over the left bank of the Rhine.

It is barely possible that the young king of Two Sicilies might have been capable of introducing reforms after his accession to the throne in May 1859: his newly appointed prime minister, Carlo Filangieri, recommended both an alliance with Piedmont against Austria and the granting of a constitution to the kingdom. Both these suggestions were refused by the king, who was very much under the thumb of the church, the most reactionary aristocracy of southern Italy and his step-mother, Marie Therese of Habsburg. The POD should be a different Francis, better schooled and with more liberal leanings (and without the phisical problem which made it impossible to consummate the marriage with Maria Sophie of Bavaria for a few years). This alternate Francis might possibly turn the tide, and a phisical intimacy with his wife - who was a strong-willed, intelligent woman - would have done wonders to minimise the negative influence of his stepmother. The kingdom of Two Sicilies was not poor, and there were significant industries around Naples and Palermo. If a constitution is granted, the influence of the church is reduced and the power of the Camarilla - the association of the most reactionary nobles - is curbed, the tide might be stopped. The alliance with Piedmont would get rid of the Garibaldine expedition, and Francis would gain at least a few years to put his kingdom in shape. A lot of big ifs :D: strander things have happened, though.
 
Since we seem to be mostly talking about an 1859 PoD how about the Second Italian War of Independence not happening at all? IIRC I'm fairly sure I remember that whilst France allied with Sardinia they insisted in the treaty that the fighting had to be started by Austrian aggression as they didn't want to annoy the British or possibly drag Prussia in on Austria's side. So Sardinia called up the army and tried to provoke the Austrians by supporting revolutionaries in Lombardy-Venetia but for once they refused to rise to the bait. Eventually Russia and the UK suggested that the whole situation be sorted out with a Congress which Napoleon III grudgingly agreed to since he knew the French public weren't behind a war if Austria wasn't going to conveniently start it. The Austrians however took the agreed idea of a Congress as a sign of weakness and in a completely idiotic move sent a diplomatic note to Sardinia that they demobilise their army within three days or face war, giving them and Napoleon III exactly what they wanted.

So suppose Buol doesn't overreach himself and thinking the opposition is weak demand Sardinia demobilise? With no excuse to bring a major ally in Sardinia who were already thinking about demobilising as having the army standing about doing bugger all wasn't achieving anything does so. Cavour seeing his dream of a major military victory which he believed was the only way to start the unification off probably sinks back into a depression even if he manages to keep his position and possibly commits suicide. With Sardinia for the foreseeable future put off the idea of adventurism Garibaldi gets impatient and tries an Expedition of [Insert Number Here] but with no victory in the Austro-Sardinian War he doesn't get as many volunteers and backing as in OTL and when he attempts an expedition - it doesn't have to be to Sicily, he might try for Lombardy or the central Italian states hoping that Sardinia will be forced to back him - with fewer resources and possibly different local conditions it turns into a fiasco with him and a large number of the group killed and the rest driven off.

Sardinia's only hope at any advancement out of the whole sorry affair then becomes whatever can be achieved at the proposed Congress, and with one of their best diplomats in Cavour dead they're certainly not going to get all of Lombardy like they did with OTLs war. Hell, if the Austrians plays things right they may not have to give up much of anything at all. IIRC Napoleon III had at one point thrown around the idea of something similar to the German Confederation for Italy with the Pope as a powerless figurehead, might that end up as the compromise solution? Really though I don't know enough about that point of history to say what the different powers might of been willing to push or support and outcome would. Anyone got any ideas?
 
How about this for a POD: Garibaldi is killed by French troops in 1849.

Things continue largely as IOTL for the first few years. Garibaldi becomes a martyr to the cause, but is replaced by Bixio as leader of the 'Garibaldian' faction of the Italian cause. The Mazzinians and other, more strongly republican, factions likely benefit from the moderate loss. The Second War of Independence still happens, and we still see Hunters of the Alps, led by Bixio, in the Campagne d'Italie. The Expedition of the Thousand also still goes forward, but is smaller as Bixio didn't have the charisma (or legend) of Garibaldi, which means the Neapolitans might have a chance of surviving; at least for a bit longer. However Sicily is definitely broken away from Naples, and this is where things get tricky. The Sicilians were largely uninterested in Italian irredentism, and more so in their own independence. Add to that the fact that Bixio is a weaker leader than Garibaldi was(/would have been), and the Expedition is likely ITTL made up more so of republican diehards as opposed to Italian nationalists, and we might see a Sicilian Republic declared. That's going to have huge ramifications, especially if the Savoyard Italians attempt to take it.
 
I wonder if Italy could be united in a scenario like this or not by the *SOUTH*.
To screw the bad ideas some peoples have about the southerners, by example...
 
I wonder if Italy could be united in a scenario like this or not by the *SOUTH*.
To screw the bad ideas some peoples have about the southerners, by example...

There are a couple of opportunities, very long shots, though: the first is a Murat-succeeds TL, in 1815; the second is centered on Ferdinand II of Two Sicilies. Both of them are quite long shots, though.

For Murat to succeed it requires no 100 days and the coalition members to get into a fight during the 1st Congress of Vienna (which they almost did, Prussia and Russia confronting GB and Austria - plus France - on the Saxon issue). In March 1815 Murat marched north along the Adriatic coast, and from Rimini called all Italian patriots to arms. He however lacked a clear strategic view, and was defeated by Austrian forces near Tolentino. It is very doubtful he can manage to unify Italy - or at least a major portion of it: it is quite unlikely that in 1815 a Bonapartist marechal can be allowed to go around conquering, and anyway Murat was always more famous for his courage than for his intelligence and strategic gift.

Ferdinand II could be a better proposition, and he started his reign with the best of intentions in 1830. His proactive vein did not last long, and anyway he never granted a constitution (until in 1848, for a limited time) nor addressed the general malaise of the kingdom. If he had done better, he'd be very well positioned in 1848 to lead the Italian struggle for independence. Unfortunately, he was the stereotypical Bourbon king, prone to sloth, not much interested in governing and failing to understand the issues that plagued his subjects (in particular the excessive power of the great landholders and of the church and their privileges). Strangely enough, he was certainly a better man than his son and heir, well educated and interested in economy and science: not really fit to be a king, though

In principle, I do agree with you: a better fate for the south would do wonders to help Italy in general.
 
How about this for a POD: Garibaldi is killed by French troops in 1849.

It does not make a huge difference: the kingdom of Two Sicilies was doomed because of bad government, a reactionary aristocracy and no reforms. To save it, something must be done, and the earlier the better. However, even at the last moment it could survive if Francis II grants a constitution and accepts one (or both) of the invitations he received from Cavour: in May 1859 he was invited to join Piedmont in the war against Austria, in August was invited again to partition the papal states (excluding Rome only). He could not understand the issues, and was too much under the thumb of his Habsburg step-mother and of the church.
 
Since we seem to be mostly talking about an 1859 PoD how about the Second Italian War of Independence not happening at all? IIRC I'm fairly sure I remember that whilst France allied with Sardinia they insisted in the treaty that the fighting had to be started by Austrian aggression as they didn't want to annoy the British or possibly drag Prussia in on Austria's side. So Sardinia called up the army and tried to provoke the Austrians by supporting revolutionaries in Lombardy-Venetia but for once they refused to rise to the bait. Eventually Russia and the UK suggested that the whole situation be sorted out with a Congress which Napoleon III grudgingly agreed to since he knew the French public weren't behind a war if Austria wasn't going to conveniently start it. The Austrians however took the agreed idea of a Congress as a sign of weakness and in a completely idiotic move sent a diplomatic note to Sardinia that they demobilise their army within three days or face war, giving them and Napoleon III exactly what they wanted.

So suppose Buol doesn't overreach himself and thinking the opposition is weak demand Sardinia demobilise? With no excuse to bring a major ally in Sardinia who were already thinking about demobilising as having the army standing about doing bugger all wasn't achieving anything does so. Cavour seeing his dream of a major military victory which he believed was the only way to start the unification off probably sinks back into a depression even if he manages to keep his position and possibly commits suicide. With Sardinia for the foreseeable future put off the idea of adventurism Garibaldi gets impatient and tries an Expedition of [Insert Number Here] but with no victory in the Austro-Sardinian War he doesn't get as many volunteers and backing as in OTL and when he attempts an expedition - it doesn't have to be to Sicily, he might try for Lombardy or the central Italian states hoping that Sardinia will be forced to back him - with fewer resources and possibly different local conditions it turns into a fiasco with him and a large number of the group killed and the rest driven off.

Sardinia's only hope at any advancement out of the whole sorry affair then becomes whatever can be achieved at the proposed Congress, and with one of their best diplomats in Cavour dead they're certainly not going to get all of Lombardy like they did with OTLs war. Hell, if the Austrians plays things right they may not have to give up much of anything at all. IIRC Napoleon III had at one point thrown around the idea of something similar to the German Confederation for Italy with the Pope as a powerless figurehead, might that end up as the compromise solution? Really though I don't know enough about that point of history to say what the different powers might of been willing to push or support and outcome would. Anyone got any ideas?

The cat was already out of the bag in 1859: even if Austria refrains from an ultimatum (doubtful, given the kind of men who were leading the empire), and even assuming that Austrian troops can keep a lid on insurrecturions in Lombardy-Venetia, both the duchies and the Papal Legations are a tinderbox, and will go up in flame as soon as any incident happens (or Cavour activates his partisans there). Can you imagine Austrian troops again trying to repress popular insurrections? Not to mention that this time the Piedmontese would send troops and an armed clash would be unavoidable, which would in turn activate the Franco-Piedmontese alliance.
 
Top