WI Savoy gets to keep Sicily, and Austria keeps Sardinia?

Let's say that for whatever reason, the Habsburgs decide to stick with keeping Sardinia, and so Savoy gets to keep Sardinia. What ramifications does it have further down in history? Does that give the Savoys a better, or worse, chance at uniting Italy - or can it butterfly the Risorgimento entirely?
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I was just thinking about this after the thread about the Two Sicilies and Italian unification. I think it would probably hurt Savoy long term. Sicily would be harder to hold, not just because of the distance but because its a more tempting prize for other states and because the island is notoriously recalcitrant. Any successful viceregency there would require more autonomy than Savoy gave Sardinia.

But more than that I think it would really change the dynamics for the Bourbons in Naples. I think Don Carlos' takeover of Naples is largely inevitable. But ITTL he will have Naples and Sardinia. It seems like Savoy-Naples rivalry would be pretty intense given that Naples would want Sicily, given proximity and historical ties. If Naples gets Parma during the war of Austrian Succession or it goes to Philip as OTL that rivalry is only amplified since you have a Bourbon triangle of Parma-Naples-Sardinia with Savoy eyeing Milan and Parma in the north and retaining Sicily as a thorn in the side in the south. So TTL Don Carlos will not be content with Naples but will be more interested in expansion - largely at the expense of Savoy.

I suppose diplomacy could prevail and some kind of swap could be arranged but that seems like a tough sell. OTL Sicily-Sardinia was only done under some duress from the great powers. I don't see why Savoy would agree to that when negotiating with an equal weight state like Naples. So a lot of things may play out differently, like the alliances worked out during the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War. Probably Italy is not spared the effects of the later war during which Savoy may be hard pressed to remain neutral. Corsica could also be a flash point, if one or the other moves in there before the French. I could also see more naval build up in the Mediterranean. OTL Don Carlos built up a pretty respectable navy in Naples and Sicily, used mostly to counter Barbary pirates. But as soon as Naples starts building a navy Savoy would have to respond to secure Sicily. So possibly long terms effects could be greater Italian naval strength going into the end of the century.

Even if things play out like OTL through the Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (a big if) the 19th century may have a much more aggressive Naples balancing Sicily-Savoy. Sicily-Savoy may have an edge in resources but the achilles heel is going to be Sicily. If the island revolts like it did OTL in 1848 it could tip things decidedly in favor of Naples. Plus Naples doesn't have Austria next door like Savoy does vis a vis Milan.
 
Furthermore the price Savoy really wanted was the (entire) duchy of Milan, although becoming king (they already had the titles king of Cyprus and Jerusalem in pretence), especially from a wealthy kingdom like Sicily (when compared to Sardinia) was a pretty good consolation.
Being kings did matter, when they were forced to exchange Sicily for Sardinia IOTL the duke of Savoy could at least stay a king.

I once thought of a different alternative myself: Savoy gains the duchy of Milan and the kingdom of Sardinia and Austria receives the kingdoms of Sicily and Naples instead (together with the Southern Netherlands).
 
Last edited:
I once thought of an alternative myself: Savoy gains the duchy of Milan and the kingdom of Sardinia and Austria receives the kingdoms of Sicily and Naples instead.

That would be interesting. Victor Amadeus could then proclaim himself King of Lombardy or something (would he get Mantua as well in this scenario?).

However, if Austria keeps the southern Italian territores, do we still get the same invasion by the future Charles III of Spain (but at that point, Duke of Parma) during the *War of the Polish Succession, only he gets all three of them ITTL?
 
That would be interesting. Victor Amadeus could then proclaim himself King of Lombardy or something (would he get Mantua as well in this scenario?).

However, if Austria keeps the southern Italian territores, do we still get the same invasion by the future Charles III of Spain (but at that point, Duke of Parma) during the *War of the Polish Succession, only he gets all three of them ITTL?

I suggested to give Sardinia and Milan to Savoy, so Austria gets Naples and Sicily. However you seem to want Austria getting Sicily, Naples and Sardinia?

Proclaiming yourself king of Lombardy has similar objections to the elector of Brandenburg & duke of Prussia just proclaiming himself king of Brandenburg, there was a reason why the elector of Brandenburg was only recognized as king in Prussia (later king of Prussia). (Lombardy was formally still considered a part of the HRE, granting a crown of an already established kingdom would be less controversial).
Sardinia OTOH already was a kingdom since medieval times, however relatively speaking it wasn't as important as Naples or Sicily. So Sardinia would have been the best option for a royal crown for the duke of Savoy, if he already gains Milan (the other former Spanish territories like the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily would have been considered too much).
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I suggested to give Sardinia and Milan to Savoy, so Austria gets Naples and Sicily. However you seem to want Austria getting Sicily, Naples and Sardinia?

Proclaiming yourself king of Lombardy has similar objections to the elector of Brandenburg & duke of Prussia just proclaiming himself king of Brandenburg, there was a reason why the elector of Brandenburg was only recognized as king in Prussia (later king of Prussia). (Lombardy was formally still considered a part of the HRE, granting a crown of an already established kingdom would be less controversial).
Sardinia OTOH already was a kingdom since medieval times, however relatively speaking it wasn't as important as Naples or Sicily. So Sardinia would have been the best option for a royal crown for the duke of Savoy, if he already gains Milan (the other former Spanish territories like the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily would have been considered too much).

When are people proposing this switch? After the War of Spanish Succession or after the War of the Quadruple Alliance. Because I can't see Austria given up Milan in 1720. But things get tricky when talking about the settlement for the former. The reason Austria got Sardinia OTL was because Sardinia was set aside by the Peace of Utrecht for the Duke of Bavaria whose territories were still being occupied by Austria. Austria refused to sign on to said treaty and fought another year before negotiating a separate peace. Under the Treaty of Rastatt Austria restored Bavaria to its elector and recognized most of the rest of the settlement of Utrecht but gained Sardinia, as there was no longer any point in giving it to Bavaria.

So you would need a very different settlement at the end of the War of Spanish Succession. Mainly you would have to get Austria to sign on so you could get Bavarian territories back and free up Sardinia. Under those circumstances its possible to switch Sicily and Sardinia. But Milan seems a harder sell and Savoy getting the de jure title King of the Lombards harder still. And if Austria is negotiating seriously at Utrecht, alongside the other allies while the terms of a general peace are still somewhat fluid (less a few preconditions and British side-dealings directly with France) I doubt it would get a worse deal than OTL when it was essentially isolated and defeated when it sued for peace at Rastatt.

As for Don Carlos I think his attacks are inevitable. He and his mother, the Queen of Spain, were set upon restoring Spanish power in Italy. The Neapolitans on the other hand were not particularly pleased with the Austrian viceregency. They really wanted a native King not some foreign ruler. So their loyalty will always be in doubt. Look at the War of the Quadruple Alliance. Sardinia and Sicily were quickly lost to Spain and it was only British naval intervention that allowed Austria to defeat Spain. But Britain was neutral during the War of Polish Succession and the Spanish already have a toe hold in Italy in the form of Parma. And if Austria doesn't have Milan its ability to hold southern Italy will be weaker still.
 
Last edited:
@ Vitruvius: a very informative post.

I know that both Austria and Savoy really wanted the duchy Milan; however I fully agree (see my post) that it will be very implausible for the duke of Savoy becoming a king of the Lombards, the only option for Savoy to gain a royal crown in such a scenario would be the least important of the Spanish 'Italian' kingdoms Sardinia. However if Savoy would already gain Milan, that will be hard, yet possible.
I see your point that Austria would have to perform a bit worse than IOTL. Maybe now Sicily is set aside for Bavaria (Especially if Savoy gains Sardinia and Milan)? Although not all is worse, switching Sardinia for Sicily would have been an improvement, but losing Sardinia & Milan for Sicily probably makes their position a bit worse than IOTL. IMHO this would a worse deal for Austria, but not that much worse, that it wouldn't be a possible deal.
 
I wonder... is there any way to unite the House of Savoy to the House of Habsburgs?

When combined with Austrian Sicily and Sardinia, they've gone a long way towards locking up the penninsula.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I see your point that Austria would have to perform a bit worse than IOTL. Maybe now Sicily is set aside for Bavaria (Especially if Savoy gains Sardinia and Milan)? Although not all is worse, switching Sardinia for Sicily would have been an improvement, but losing Sardinia & Milan for Sicily probably makes their position a bit worse than IOTL. IMHO this would a worse deal for Austria, but not that much worse, that it wouldn't be a possible deal.

Well I believe France originally proposed giving Bavaria Sicily but the British had already promised it to Savoy. So I suppose if the British promise Milan to Savoy that frees up Sicily for Bavaria. But that's really a stab in the back of Austria. Furthermore there are so many variables its hard to say. OTL Sardinia ended up being more of a bargaining chip than anything else. The French pushed for Bavaria to get it as compensation and to reward their ally's service but because of the way negotiations played out, with separate Austrian and HRE settlements at Rastatt and Baden, it became a means for Bavaria to negotiate the return of its lost lands.

So I don't see why that wouldn't happen again with Sicily instead of Sardinia. Under this scenario Austria would have Naples and Sicily like OTL but not Milan (Mantua probably stays with Austria). So Savoy is a definite winner here but the War of the Quadruple Alliance could upend that if it shows Savoy can't defend itself against Spain, perhaps Sardinia goes back to Austria so the net result is a wash except Savoy is concentrated in the north and Austria in the south. Clearly its easy to find a POD during the war or subsequent peace negotiations and then the follow up war of the Quadruple Alliance to divide up Italy in almost anyway you want between Austria, Savoy and/or Bavaria, Spain and France.

All of this is somewhat off topic of the OP which was specifically about retaining the original settlement vis a vis Sicily and Sardinia - which is what I was originally trying to address.
 
I suggested to give Sardinia and Milan to Savoy, so Austria gets Naples and Sicily. However you seem to want Austria getting Sicily, Naples and Sardinia?

Sorry, missunderstood you there. :eek:

Anyway, the main reason (as far as I can tell) that Savoy only got Sicily in the peace IOTL was that Savoy wasn't that big of a state, and it was quite a big gain in comparison. Getting Milan and Sardinia is going to take a few major butterflies, like maybe Savoy siding with the anti-Bourbon side sooner or something.

Proclaiming yourself king of Lombardy has similar objections to the elector of Brandenburg & duke of Prussia just proclaiming himself king of Brandenburg, there was a reason why the elector of Brandenburg was only recognized as king in Prussia (later king of Prussia). (Lombardy was formally still considered a part of the HRE, granting a crown of an already established kingdom would be less controversial).
Sardinia OTOH already was a kingdom since medieval times, however relatively speaking it wasn't as important as Naples or Sicily. So Sardinia would have been the best option for a royal crown for the duke of Savoy, if he already gains Milan (the other former Spanish territories like the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily would have been considered too much).

I don't see why. The HRE hadn't really controlled Italian lands for ages. Anyway, there had been a Lombard Kingdom historically, so there's that going for the Duke.

I wonder... is there any way to unite the House of Savoy to the House of Habsburgs?

When combined with Austrian Sicily and Sardinia, they've gone a long way towards locking up the penninsula.

One thing that I dug up during research for Vive la Francewank - Savoy used Salic Law - uniting the two is going to be a bit hard due to that.
 
Sorry, missunderstood you there. :eek:

Anyway, the main reason (as far as I can tell) that Savoy only got Sicily in the peace IOTL was that Savoy wasn't that big of a state, and it was quite a big gain in comparison. Getting Milan and Sardinia is going to take a few major butterflies, like maybe Savoy siding with the anti-Bourbon side sooner or something.



I don't see why. The HRE hadn't really controlled Italian lands for ages. Anyway, there had been a Lombard Kingdom historically, so there's that going for the Duke.



One thing that I dug up during research for Vive la Francewank - Savoy used Salic Law - uniting the two is going to be a bit hard due to that.

As said by others Sardinia was mostly used as a bargaining chip. Sicily was more important (populous and wealthy) than Sardinia. Milan would be considered a similar valuable reward as Sicily, yet more strategic and thus wanted by more countries.

Regarding any Lombard kingdom, IMHO that is a too modern attitude, in fact, since the Austrian Habsburgs were usually Holy Roman Emperor (king in Germany, king of Italy and king of Arles (Burgundy)), not getting Milan and being forced to recognize the duke of Savoy as king of the Lombards within the HRE would be IMHO considered too insulting by the other powers. (Savoy was a member of the Upper Rhenish Circle in the HRE.) So either Savoy also gains the 'bargain chip' and relatively unimportant kingdom of Sardinia, or they probably won't gain a royal crown (for Lombardy at least not until an ATL version of the dissolution of the HRE).

Regarding the original question, if Austria gets the possibility to trade Sardinia for Sicily, they IMHO have done so. Sicily is closer to Naples and more populous and wealthy than Sardinia. Austria might have wanted to keep both, but the other European powers might still have wanted the OTL trade.
 
Last edited:

Vitruvius

Donor
Regarding any Lombard kingdom, IMHO that is a too modern attitude, in fact, since the Austrian Habsburgs were usually Holy Roman Emperor (king in Germany, king of Italy and king of Arles (Burgundy)), not getting Milan and being forced to recognize the duke of Savoy as king of the Lombards within the HRE would be IMHO considered too insulting by the other powers. (Savoy was a member of the Upper Rhenish Circle in the HRE.) So either Savoy also gains the 'bargain chip' and relatively unimportant kingdom of Sardinia, or they probably won't gain a royal crown (for Lombardy at least not until an ATL version of the dissolution of the HRE).

I agree, its a bridge too far for the Habsburgs to accept. Especially in this time period. I think there's also the fact that it was the pillar, legally speaking, of Imperial power in Italy. So I think giving it to Savoy also opens up questions about Imperial authority and immediacy, who reports to who, if Savoy now has an Imperial vicariate etc. Not unimportant considering that the Austrians took Mantua by claiming its Duke was in rebellion against the Empire and his territories could therefore be confiscated. Of course it also helped that he died childless shortly there after but Imperial authority did provide de jure justification. There are also succession disputes looming in Tuscany and Parma, so its a pertinent issue even if its more symbolic than practical.

You're probably also right that the Habsburgs wouldn't choose to keep Sardinia if they had a chance to swap for Sicily. But there are other ways to arrange it if for example one changes the various peace settlements we've discussed or the War of the Quadruple Alliance. At any rate I think it is interesting to speculate on what might have happened in such a scenario because I do think such a modest switch would really up end the politics and strategic interests of the various Italian states.
 
Top