Recently, I've been interested in Italian history, and I was wondering if the largest Italian state, Two Sicillies, founded the Kingsom of Italy? How would this be done? Would this be a stronger, Or Weaker Italy, and who would this nations enemies and allies? What would be Sicily's ambitions and goals be? How would this change Italy?
WI: Two Sicillies founded Italy?
- Thread starter mazzil68
- Start date
-
- Tags
- italy two sicillies
Bourbon Kings of the Two Sicilies were defensors of the statu quo after 1815. You would need an ample change in mind for them and the Neapolitan elites to support nationalism and Italian unification.
I know it's not the same thing, but if Murat could hang onto his crown after Waterloo, Naples (which is part of the Two Sicilies) could be at the forefront of the liberal movement in Italy couldn't it?
Just a pity they're not spelling out a composer's name with that, so I guess when they scrawl that graffito on walls the Austrians/Bourbons won't take too kindly to it...
The tricky part of course would be having Murat keep his throne when the legitimate monarchs are so close and enjoy great suppprt from the British among others, so that even handling better the alliance with Austria would likely not be enough.
If we stick to the Bourbons it is really hard to do: they were such-archconservatives that even people who started out relatively well (like Francesco with his almost support for the constitutionalists in 1820 or Ferdinando II with his modernisation projects like the Napoli Portici railway) end up becoming paranoid authoritarians, largely propped up by Swiss mercenaries.
There is also the factor that economically and socially the South was less developed than the North, although this must not be overestimated, especially when looking at the pre-1848 situation. Italy as a whole was an agrarian and quite underdeveloped country and the sifferences in things like railway kms built start getting big only with Cavour's ministry in Sardinia-Piedmont.
Maybe there is a certain old thread of mine which I should revisit...
A big point would be the dualism between Naples (maybe eventually including Sicily, for I don't see that regime stay around for long after the Bourbons are removed from France) and Sardinia: will it lead to a more federal united Italy or to self-destructive intra-italian wars?
Didn't the duke of Genoa end up as king of Sicily at some point? If he can go on and conquer Naples then we could see Savoy uniting Italy from the south?
That would be new for me... But the Duke of Savoy got Sicily out of the War of Spanish Succession, holding it untik 1720 when it was swapped for Sardinia. Sicily would be quite hard to hold and impossible to defend against Spain if the swap had been refused. At the time the only Savoyard port was Nice
Think it was after the 1848 Revolutions. The Sicilian deputation offered him the crown, but Genoa was absent and by the time he had returned from his army manoeuvres the sìtuation had changed.
Last edited:
Considering how easily Garibaldi took Southern Italy historically, maybe Garibaldi sets up a Two Sicilies Republic and unites Italy from there.
This would likely involve some kind of screwing of Sardinia or bolstering of some sort of alternative. Maybe Leopold's Tuscany establishes a Grand Duchy (or Kingdom?) of Central Italy by absorbing the other Austria-dominated statelets and eventually absorbs Lombardy (a cession from Austria to a fellow Hapsburg realm) and Piedmont, leaving the Savoyards a rump in Sardinia.
Garibaldi vs the Hapsburgs and the Pope - what a timeline.
This would likely involve some kind of screwing of Sardinia or bolstering of some sort of alternative. Maybe Leopold's Tuscany establishes a Grand Duchy (or Kingdom?) of Central Italy by absorbing the other Austria-dominated statelets and eventually absorbs Lombardy (a cession from Austria to a fellow Hapsburg realm) and Piedmont, leaving the Savoyards a rump in Sardinia.
Garibaldi vs the Hapsburgs and the Pope - what a timeline.
As far as I recall, the Bourbons-Two Sicilies were quite devout: how are they going to feel about annexing the Papal states?
On the other hand, the Piedmontese ruling class from Cavour to the royal house was secular. Plus, their initial aim was to unify northern Italy, without necessarily opening that can of worms with the Church.
I think this needs an earlier start.
On the other hand, the Piedmontese ruling class from Cavour to the royal house was secular. Plus, their initial aim was to unify northern Italy, without necessarily opening that can of worms with the Church.
I think this needs an earlier start.
In the timeline Dead Skunk; Murat does exactly what has been discussed; keeping his crown and moving to unify Italy. I don't remember the details of how or why he was able to do that though.
Oh you are right, it was Duke Ferdinando of Genova (VE II's younger brother), for some reason I was thinking about an earlier time period...
There might be an opportunity for him to become King of Sicily, but only in the framework of a Sardinian victory in the First War of Independence and, even then, it would be a longshot. Anyways, that would mean an Italian confederation of sorts, not certainly the Two Sicilies taking the lead in the unification effort.
If in 1820 the King hadn't asked for Austrian intervention at the Congress of Laibach, given how Britain only agreed with extreme reluctance it is posible that a Constitutional government could have lasted, but it is very difficult. It would already be quite difficult to do in Sardinia, with a Carlo Alberto who at the time was in one of his liberal times, with Ferdinand and Francesco it is almost impossible, especially considering how I don't think the Carbonari would accept a more moderate option (like extending Sicily's 1812 Constitution, which sort of copied the Westminster system) rather than their preferred monocameral Spanish constitution.
Probably the only opportunity is a surviving Murat dinasty, this would have a good chance in the 1848 equivalent.
A two Sicilies founded Italy would be pretty different than OTL Italy. I'd wager it would be basically a French puppet state, still rather unindustrialized, and no way in hell able to even think about fighting Austria. The Papal States would still be a force to be reckoned with and probably left alone. The only way I could see it uniting in the first place is after a Piedmont-France war France just gives Piedmont to 2Sic to keep them happy and the loose Austrian client states in Italy slowly floating into 2Sic's orbit.
Though, imo you'd need a POD around the Congress of Vienna or before to get this to happen.
Though, imo you'd need a POD around the Congress of Vienna or before to get this to happen.
Giving Piedmont to the Two Sicilies seems quite unlikely, to say the least, a split between France and Austria (with say Genoa remaining independent) seems quite more likely.
So, if the Two Sicilies is able to unify Italy it means that they have developed differently between 1815 and 1860 and are more powerful and at list somewhat more liberals (so as to make Italian nationalists influence the government enough that participation in the independence war(s) is seen as desirable). Therefore Italy, when it is formed is more homogeneous and has lesser internal opposition and hence is at least a bit stronger.
The best approach to this seems to be avoiding the French Revolution and have a strong Bourbon monarchy in France, with the Two Sicilies becoming a junior satellite. France could then back Sicily in wars against Habsburg Italian states. With enough of them conquered they could unite the peninsular in a similar way Prussia did Germany.
As mentioned, the biggest challenge is the Papal States. One option would be for the eastern parts to have previously been conquered by someone else. Then a later Pope prefers them to go to conservative Catholic Siciliy than anyone else. The quid pro quo could be Lazio being kept out of the new Kingdom of Italy.
As mentioned, the biggest challenge is the Papal States. One option would be for the eastern parts to have previously been conquered by someone else. Then a later Pope prefers them to go to conservative Catholic Siciliy than anyone else. The quid pro quo could be Lazio being kept out of the new Kingdom of Italy.
Maybe the Pope gets kicked out of Rome by liberals and restored by the Two Sicilies, and in gratitude he agrees (or "agrees") to give the eastern Papal States to the Sicilian crown.
They were always closer to the Spanish Bourbons, but this is a possibility too.
If we are willing to go further back with the POD one could consider the Norman or Staufer Kingdoms as "Two Sicilies". Had they endured without Sicilian Vespers and with a slightly better dynastic luck than the Anjous then I can see tge Anconitan March and Duchy of Spoleto eventually going to them. Hegemony on Tuscany could be indirect, through allies in Siena and especially Pisa and maybe Milan/whatever else polity becomes dominant in the north can eventually be inherited by marriage (and some wars to make the claim stand). So ideally when other European states have coalescend into a more modern form, let's say by the end of the xv century, Italy is mostly united under the King of Sicily and can compete with them as a peer, rather than being a battleground for the other powers. Being an establoshed monarchy, Sicily would have a better time expanding to the whole peninsula than Republics like Florence and Venice or Signorie of questionable legitimacy like the Visconti in Milan.
I doubt Palermo would stay the capital though, maybe Naples could, but ideally one would need something more connected to the riches of Northern Italy and the Alpine frontier.
Incidentally, I'd say that, with a xix century unification, Naples could well stay the capital for a long time (if there is a compromise with the papacy so that Rome is not touched). The relationship with Milan could be a bit like that between Berlin and Frankfurt in the German Empire.