Would Rome always be the capital of a united Italy?

This is just something that popped into my head, but would Rome, being a historically important city, in both religious and non-religious senses, always by a united Italy’s capital?
 
Yes unless you have something like a united Italy in the middle ages. The city is simply too important both religious and not to be the capital for any unified Italy.
 
This is just something that popped into my head, but would Rome, being a historically important city, in both religious and non-religious senses, always by a united Italy’s capital?
Yes, unless you can somehow keep it outside of a United Italy, but I'm not sure how you accomplish that for very long.
 
There have been other capitals of Italy…Pavia, for example. It (Rome) was the 3rd capital of modern Italy (Turin and Florence came first) though that had a lot to do with it being under Papal control until Napoleon III died (having been the protector of Papal authority). But an interesting innovative possibility emerged before Rome was finally chosen; three capitals, one for each of the three primary institutions (parliament, government and Supreme Court). In the end that idea didn’t enough support, but it’s an intriguing potential POD.
 
Last edited:
If the conception of Italy as only the land North of the Papal States is kept, a non-Rome Capital is practically inevitable.
 
With some finagling you could get Ravenna. Assuming early medieval.
Interesting, and I like the idea, but I think that you can get it only with an Italian state that is post-Roman and stays united. At least in the North. If you get any unification going around the early middle ages, you're past the Lombard invasion and possibly the early dawn of the Northern cities. By that time you have something of a tradition for a capital in the northern plains, such as Pavia or Milan, and furthermore Ravenna is basically half-abandoned and depopulated.
 
Interesting, and I like the idea, but I think that you can get it only with an Italian state that is post-Roman and stays united. At least in the North. If you get any unification going around the early middle ages, you're past the Lombard invasion and possibly the early dawn of the Northern cities. By that time you have something of a tradition for a capital in the northern plains, such as Pavia or Milan, and furthermore Ravenna is basically half-abandoned and depopulated.
Not to mention that Ravenna's had silted even before the fall of the empire, and that it was surrounded by malarial swamps.

Rome makes sense as a capital only after an OTL-style unification (a single centralized state, imitating France): it didn't work very well, did it?
If Italy is unified on a federal basis, and in the 19th century, Verona or Bologna would make much more sense.
 
Well if the Socii had won the Social War, then you'd have a unified Italian state (controlling most if not all of Italy) that would certainly not have its capital in Rome.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Well if the Socii had won the Social War, then you'd have a unified Italian state (controlling most if not all of Italy) that would certainly not have its capital in Rome.
Didn't they create a city called Italia for their capital?
 
Well if the Socii had won the Social War, then you'd have a unified Italian state (controlling most if not all of Italy) that would certainly not have its capital in Rome.
Winning the social war for almost all of the socii meant getting Roman citizenship. When the Romans offered it, most of them stopped fighting.

Didn't they create a city called Italia for their capital?
They renamed Corfinium Italica, yes.
 
Winning the social war for almost all of the socii meant getting Roman citizenship. When the Romans offered it, most of them stopped fighting.
And had the Romans not offered it, due to their own stubbornness and internal division, or because the Socii had somehow defeated the Romans so decisively early on that just citizenship would not be enough to pacify them, then the war might have gone on until the Socii established their own separate Italian state.
 
Have Garibaldi die on his March on Rome in 1862. He was shot by Italian troops when he made a speech Napoleon style and attempted to get them to defect to the revolutionaries and join his invasion of the papal states. He was only wounded.

Rumors that he had died or was going to be executed on the orders of Victor Emmanuel caused huge demonstrations throughout the country and a revolution scare in the Italian court.

Have this crisis instead break out and necessitate a Franco-Austrian intervention in Italy. Louis Napoleon would be too tempted to find some arrangement that would safeguard the pope permanently, keep Rome out of Italian hands, and keep Italy a conservative power with good relations with the catholic powers and the pope.

From there it's not hard to imagine some kind of deal between Italy and the Papal States that leaves the PS autonomous inside Italy.
 
Last edited:
From there it's not hard to imagine some kind of deal between Italy and the Papal States that leaves the PS autonomous inside Italy.
I think a deal with the Papal States is probably going to be necessary, although that in turn would require the Italian unification movement to be less influenced by liberalism and clericalism. I'm not sure what you'd need to achieve this, but if you did, I could see some kind of deal whereby the Pope agrees to support (/not oppose) Italian unification in return for being allowed to keep control of Rome (and depending on how generous the Italian government is, maybe Ostia and the land in between, to give him access to the outside world).
 
I think a deal with the Papal States is probably going to be necessary, although that in turn would require the Italian unification movement to be less influenced by liberalism and clericalism. I'm not sure what you'd need to achieve this, but if you did, I could see some kind of deal whereby the Pope agrees to support (/not oppose) Italian unification in return for being allowed to keep control of Rome (and depending on how generous the Italian government is, maybe Ostia and the land in between, to give him access to the outside world).
What if the citizens of this rump of PS are unhappy with this solution?
IMHO, any kind of Temporal Power has been living on borrowed time since the first (technically the second, but let's not quibble) Roman Republic was proclaimed in 1798, unless it is reduced to the dimensions that was agreed by the Lateran Treaty of 1929, or something very similar.
 
Not to mention that Ravenna's had silted even before the fall of the empire, and that it was surrounded by malarial swamps.

Rome makes sense as a capital only after an OTL-style unification (a single centralized state, imitating France): it didn't work very well, did it?
If Italy is unified on a federal basis, and in the 19th century, Verona or Bologna would make much more sense.
Not necessarily. Rome is also the obvious choice for a Neo-Guelfist Federal Italy.
 
Top