How powerful the Pope would be in the global affairs from 1900's to this day?
Less powerful, most likely. The Papacy's power in world affairs has always stemmed from its moral or spiritual authority, never from its actual military strength - even at its height, it could never project military power beyond Italy. In the modern world, retaining territory would probably shortchange its moral authority and open it to all sorts of criticism on its domestic affairs.How powerful the Pope would be in the global affairs from 1900's to this day?
The world that does have Giuseppe Garibaldi takes Rome immediately rather than hesitating then have France intervene to make Papal States Survive and as such Italy kept disunited. That's it, Papal States survived! (basing on EmperorTigerStar's (Alt) A Failed Resurgence video series)Less powerful, most likely. The Papacy's power in world affairs has always stemmed from its moral or spiritual authority, never from its actual military strength - even at its height, it could never project military power beyond Italy. In the modern world, retaining territory would probably shortchange its moral authority and open it to all sorts of criticism on its domestic affairs.
(Come, let's all debate the morality of the Pope's latest interventions into his local economy! Let's all criticize him for keeping abortion illegal! Let's debate the length of criminal sentences and conditions in the Papal prisons, as well as the latest convict who's still protesting he was framed because he isn't Catholic!)
More interesting, in my mind, would be what sort of world would allow the Papal States to survive. Is the rest of Italy united? Then if it isn't staunchly Catholic in its own right (which would have interesting social implications), you'd need some external power supporting the Pope, and if so, whom and why? Or is it still disunited? Then what does that mean for nationalism and the balance of power in Europe?
Well, OTL France intervened to keep Papal rule over Rome itself... until the Franco-Prussian War, when the French army was needed elsewhere and the Italians marched in to the cheers of the Roman people. Are you saying the French troops would stay indefinitely, in the larger-than-OTL numbers that would be needed to guard the larger territory?The world that does have Giuseppe Garibaldi takes Rome immediately rather than hesitating then have France intervene to make Papal States Survive and as such Italy kept disunited.
You know full well we are talking about the much larger territorial entity that lasted for one thousand years, give or take some decades. But yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a split in power. Land originally went to the Pope because the inhabitants found him to be one of the only people able to protect them. Though that was very early on when dealing with invaders from the north. But yah, if we avoid those Roman Republic guys killing the cardinal who dealt with civil administrations for one of the post-Nappoleonic popes, then some of the reactionaryism could be avoided.It does. It's called Vatican City, and as history has proven, the man in the funny hat has no real say anymore in the temporal realm.