Was There Any Point Italy Could've Beaten Austria-Hungary In A War?

[AltoRegnant]

Italy has long been described as "the least great power," and... yeah it's lived up to the name. Its overseas empire was small, its military weak for a nation its size, it was decidedly less industrialized than the rest of the great powers (with the possible exception of russia,) and it suffered brutally as a result of this during both world wars- its promised empire given to the serbians in Versailles, and being the first axis power to surrender. But i want to know, was it doomed to this status?

Italy fought 4wars against Austria-Hungary- the 1st and 2nd Italian wars of independence with french support, the brother's war as an ally of prussia, and ww1. in all of these conflicts, there was always another, larger power backing them up and doing a lot of the work- to the point where Austria gave Venice to France instead of italy after the brother's war (for like, five minutes before france just gave it to them.) In all of these wars, despite the actual quality of the Italian army, the industrial base and economy just weren't there, or they were outnumbered.

But, there are 48 years between the brother's war/3rd Italian independence war, and ww1 in 1914. During that period, is there any window where italy could've reasonably beaten AH in a relative 1 to 1 war? how wide is the opportunity, and could italy assert itself as a true great power?

in general I've kinda been on an italy kick the last few days so any general Italy Wanking is welcome but i think any such matter has to start with this question

 

[anotherlurker]

In a hypothetical 1950s or 60s showdown it would be possible, tank technology and air power at the time are sufficiently developed to negate the defensive advantage of the Alps.

Otherwise no. AH is significantly bigger, more populous, indistrialized and better defended through natural obstacles while Italy is wide open. Even the italian colonies work against it, they just bind down troops and parts of the navy while not contributing anything.

 

[DocJamore]

The Alps would present formidable challenge to any land invasion from either side and a war against an aggressive Italy would make a good enemy for the minorities of Austria-Hungary to rally against. Even so, I would expect heavy fighting at the land border regardless because that’s how wars typically go.

An invasion of Austria-Hungary by ocean by Italy, backed by aircraft, might be more feasible. Only slightly more feasible, though, since Italy would have to completely crush Austria in the naval war, and even if Austria totally lost sea access it could be mitigated so long as Germany could keep supplying it across its border.

 

[Evil Crusader]

It wasn't doomed to its status, but its leadership was often lacking and the geopolitical situation often objectively unkind to her beyond the very lucky streak between 1848 and 1870.
Specifically, the first two wars there clearly was a major need of outside help, due to the sheer difference in size. The third showed how one doesn't simply become a GP overnight, and how much work was needed to make a whole out of a still extremely new country. The resulting border still was extremely unfavorable, and happened to be in force in the one period of history where defence had a large advantage over attack; couple that with Cadorna definitely not being superior to its peers, and I still think the real problem of Italy was not military, rather in the leadership. Given those circumstances (as well as A-H having other fronts), I would judge WW1 as an overall draw with A-H which still isn't bad.

But, there are 48 years between the brother's war/3rd Italian independence war, and ww1 in 1914. During that period, is there any window where italy could've reasonably beaten AH in a relative 1 to 1 war? how wide is the opportunity, and could italy assert itself as a true great power?

in general I've kinda been on an italy kick the last few days so any general Italy Wanking is welcome but i think any such matter has to start with this question

The time is there, the potential too, but it largely was wasted. You can sum it up with Bismarck's quip: "Italy has a large appetite, but rotten teeth."
I still think they could manage a war, but definitely not a win unless you really give Italy a mastermind politician that manages to remain at the helm for a long time, reform the nation, and actually accomplish something in the diplomatic field rather than clown around or just expect to be handed stuff for almost free.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I still think they could manage a war, but definitely not a win unless you really give Italy a mastermind politician that manages to remain at the helm for a long time, reform the nation, and actually accomplish something in the diplomatic field rather than clown around or just expect to be handed stuff for almost free.

tbh i don't know much about italian politics (and by that, i mean i know Garabaldhi and that it was Sardinia-Piedmont.) is there any OTL figure that could fit given a better hand, or would they basically be made up anyway

 

[Evil Crusader]

tbh i don't know much about italian politics (and by that, i mean i know Garabaldhi and that it was Sardinia-Piedmont.) is there any OTL figure that could fit given a better hand, or would they basically be made up anyway

Well, butterflying Cavour's death definitely goes a long way. He was a liberal politician not far from Bismarck's level of skill.
His heirs, the so-called Destra Storica, tried to follow in his footsteps with mixed success, after them came the Sinistra Storica, most famously led by Depretis - every bit an excellent coalition mastermind as he was lackluster in an administrator role. Then came Crispi - an imperious admirer of Bismarck who decided that trying to compete with France was a good idea, something that only ever worked because the UK was still not sold on rapprochement with them. Then we got Giolitti, who is arguably the best of the bunch, but still too little too late.
Now they certainly had their work cut out for them, a bad hand usually made of diplomatic isolation and a still not fully integrated country, but they often played it to the worst. Look no further than the Slap of Tunis to get a measure of how bad was the bad.

 

[ruffino]

It depends, if there are more actors involved, it would win, in a 1 vs 1 it could go from defeat to a more less favorable draw.
I explain:

Understanding that war would be declared by Italy, Austria - Hungary could remain on the defensive in the Alps, resist the Italian attacks, and subsequently be able to launch a series of attacks to recover lost territory or even reach Italian soil. Without second or third fronts to distract the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it could have more troops from both crowns, while at the same time being a defensive war, far from the border, and by not bringing more Slavs into the empire, the Hungarian side is less likely to cause unrest. , but use the support to renegotiate at the next ausgleich. That would be on land.

At sea, things would change, with Italy being able to exert a better blockade of the Austro-Hungarian commercial fleet by blocking the Otranto channel, and therefore, depriving the merchant fleet of its access to the outside, and forcing the Austro-Hungarians to use third countries both for its exports and imports, with the detriment that they would be more expensive and therefore could harm the imperial economy, and forcing the Austro-Hungarian navy to dispute control of this channel, with Italy benefiting in any case, because in the case of Italian victory, the imperial coast would be effectively blocked, and even if the Austro-Hungarian navy won, it would only block part of the Italian coast, leaving the rest (Sicily, Sardinia, western Italy) open to foreign merchant traffic, while the fleet imperial, would be forced to secure the Otranto canal, or spread across the Mediterranean in order to try to block the Italian coast and protect the imperial merchant ships from Italian attacks, with the obvious weakness of the imperial fleet.

Therefore, if the Italians manage to perform well at the beginning, resisting possible counterattacks, and with the blockade of the Otranto canal, Italy could win, but having to give all three things at the same time, if only two or one were given, Although technically it would be a draw, it would be felt in Italy as a defeat, and if none occurred, a period of instability could be expected in Italy, while in Austria they would move to a situation of improved internal stability and/or a a possible overestimation of imperial forces.

 

[sampleswift]

I think it depends on the definition of "win".
Austria-Hungary getting into an unpopular war against Italy and being forced to withdraw, possible. So basically Austria-Hungary's version of the Afghanistan War, but in the Alps. That being said, you'd need to make the Austro-Hungarian government and military really dumb to 1. get in that war and 2. lose important battles?

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

That being said, you'd need to make the Austro-Hungarian government and military really dumb to 1. get in that war and 2. lose important battles?

I think that 1914 showed that they were quite capable of doing both, without too much effort.

 

[LordKalvan]

IMHO, I believe there is only a single event which can result in an "Italy" capable to confront "Austria" face to face and win: a successful campaign in 1848, which leads to some form of unification (most likely a kind of confederation or federation) and takes Austria down two or three notches. It's not impossible, just difficult and requires a better handling of the political side as well as of the military one. Then Italy would benefit of the long boom which starts in the early fifties, and can start in earnest its industrialization. On the other side of the Alps, the empire would be tottering, and would have to front a lot of internal issues, and most likely economic woes. Give Italy 10-15 years of economic growth and liberal politics and the time comes when they can confront their true enemy with a lot of confidence.

 

[Pax_Nihil]

IMHO, I believe there is only a single event which can result in an "Italy" capable to confront "Austria" face to face and win: a successful campaign in 1848, which leads to some form of unification (most likely a kind of confederation or federation) and takes Austria down two or three notches. It's not impossible, just difficult and requires a better handling of the political side as well as of the military one. Then Italy would benefit of the long boom which starts in the early fifties, and can start in earnest its industrialization. On the other side of the Alps, the empire would be tottering, and would have to front a lot of internal issues, and most likely economic woes. Give Italy 10-15 years of economic growth and liberal politics and the time comes when they can confront their true enemy with a lot of confidence.

It also changes the entire 'personality' of Italy as a Great Power and makes it sorta hard to judge the outcome from how it behaved IOTL

 

[LordKalvan]

It also changes the entire 'personality' of Italy as a Great Power and makes it sorta hard to judge the outcome from how it behaved IOTL

Quite true. This alternate unification would be achieved by Italians without the support of any other European power. It's quite different from OTL 1859 or 1866, and there would be a significant and well justified boost in self-esteem . Couple years ago, @Tarabas and I wrote a TL trying to achieve this result in a fast but also realistic way.

 

[Bones101]

It depends, if there are more actors involved, it would win, in a 1 vs 1 it could go from defeat to a more less favorable draw.
I explain:

Understanding that war would be declared by Italy, Austria - Hungary could remain on the defensive in the Alps, resist the Italian attacks, and subsequently be able to launch a series of attacks to recover lost territory or even reach Italian soil. Without second or third fronts to distract the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it could have more troops from both crowns, while at the same time being a defensive war, far from the border, and by not bringing more Slavs into the empire, the Hungarian side is less likely to cause unrest. , but use the support to renegotiate at the next ausgleich. That would be on land.

At sea, things would change, with Italy being able to exert a better blockade of the Austro-Hungarian commercial fleet by blocking the Otranto channel, and therefore, depriving the merchant fleet of its access to the outside, and forcing the Austro-Hungarians to use third countries both for its exports and imports, with the detriment that they would be more expensive and therefore could harm the imperial economy, and forcing the Austro-Hungarian navy to dispute control of this channel, with Italy benefiting in any case, because in the case of Italian victory, the imperial coast would be effectively blocked, and even if the Austro-Hungarian navy won, it would only block part of the Italian coast, leaving the rest (Sicily, Sardinia, western Italy) open to foreign merchant traffic, while the fleet imperial, would be forced to secure the Otranto canal, or spread across the Mediterranean in order to try to block the Italian coast and protect the imperial merchant ships from Italian attacks, with the obvious weakness of the imperial fleet.

Therefore, if the Italians manage to perform well at the beginning, resisting possible counterattacks, and with the blockade of the Otranto canal, Italy could win, but having to give all three things at the same time, if only two or one were given, Although technically it would be a draw, it would be felt in Italy as a defeat, and if none occurred, a period of instability could be expected in Italy, while in Austria they would move to a situation of improved internal stability and/or a a possible overestimation of imperial forces.

Austria Hungary has significantly more manpower and an army double the size of Italy so it doesn't make sense for this to be a draw. If AH had it's entire army it would be in Rome in a couple of months max. They aren't going to maybe take some Italian land, they are absolutely capable of invading Italy proper with their massive advantages.

 

[ruffino]

Austria Hungary has significantly more manpower and an army double the size of Italy so it doesn't make sense for this to be a draw. If AH had it's entire army it would be in Rome in a couple of months max. They aren't going to maybe take some Italian land, they are absolutely capable of invading Italy proper with their massive advantages.

The problem is not the number of troops, but the following:

- Firstly, Austria-Hungary cannot deploy the entire armed forces, having to leave a sufficient part to dissuade Serbs and Romanians from taking advantage of the opportunity and attacking.
-Secondly, the Alps would be a mountainous region and a narrower front, so deploying a large number of troops would ultimately be an inconvenience rather than a benefit (logistical bottlenecks, distribution problems...)
-Thirdly, imperial exports by sea have to pass through the Otranto canal, so its effective blockade by the Italian navy would weaken the Austro-Hungarian economy, forcing it to use Serbian and German ports. to be able to send and receive merchandise, with the consequent economic, political, etc. cost.
Regarding a tie, I prefer to call it that of a quasi-victory or quasi-defeat. Because if Italy has a good start or resists the imperial counterattacks well and wins at sea, it will not be able to impose its objectives, but it will be able to obtain border adjustments, some cities...
But if he is only good at sea, starting or resisting counterattacks, I assume that someone on the Italian side will be smart enough or pessimistic enough to end the conflict at a time when imperial triumph is not possible. total, and you can get away with the payment of some compensation, or some other not very onerous commitment.

 

[anotherlurker]

-Thirdly, imperial exports by sea have to pass through the Otranto canal, so its effective blockade by the Italian navy would weaken the Austro-Hungarian economy, forcing it to use Serbian and German ports. to be able to send and receive merchandise, with the consequent economic, political, etc. cost.

Few problems with that idea, namely that a) dutch harbors were more important to A-H than Triest was as mediterranean trade had been meaningless for a long time and b) the actual merchant fleet of A-H was not worth mentioning, British or German ships that do the heavy lifting can not be blockaded.

 

[Pax_Nihil]

Austria Hungary has significantly more manpower and an army double the size of Italy so it doesn't make sense for this to be a draw. If AH had it's entire army it would be in Rome in a couple of months max. They aren't going to maybe take some Italian land, they are absolutely capable of invading Italy proper with their massive advantages.

You're forgetting or unaware of the 3 to 1 attacker/defender ratio, AFAIK it lol

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Is there a way for Italy to rapidly industrialise in the late 19th century? ISTM that that would be the best way to even the odds against A-H, as well as boosting Italy's power and status more generally.

 

[LordKalvan]

Is there a way for Italy to rapidly industrialise in the late 19th century? ISTM that that would be the best way to even the odds against A-H, as well as boosting Italy's power and status more generally.

That's exactly the point I was making. Italy cannot afford to lose the decade of the 1850s, which means that must be set up earlier, as a result of a more successful 1848

 

[LordKalvan]

Austria Hungary has significantly more manpower and an army double the size of Italy so it doesn't make sense for this to be a draw. If AH had it's entire army it would be in Rome in a couple of months max. They aren't going to maybe take some Italian land, they are absolutely capable of invading Italy proper with their massive advantages.

Do you have any idea how many big rivers an invader has to cross to invade Italy from the east? And after the rivers, there are the Appennines to cross. Logistics to reach Rome would be a nightmare.

 

[Bones101]

Do you have any idea how many big rivers an invader has to cross to invade Italy from the east? And after the rivers, there are the Appennines to cross. Logistics to reach Rome would be a nightmare.

And it's still doable as long as Austria-Hungary has access to trade. Their overwhelming advantages are too strong. Those rivers have been crossed before, just as the alps, the Carpathians and others have been crossed.