Emperor Casey
Banned
So basically what it says. Your challenge is to have The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies circa 1848 be the one to unite Italy and beat Piedmont. However it turns out is part of the fun.
AHC Kingdom of the Two Sicilies Unites Italy
- Thread starter Emperor Casey
- Start date
What you are asking here is totally ASB. None of the Kings of Two Sicilies at the time had any kind of interest in uniting Italy (and really Piedmont also had zero interest in it until Cavour decided who, seeing the success of Garibaldi in destroying the kingdom of Two Sicilies, was the time to unite Italy) and they respected the Pope too much for only thinking to expand their lands at his expense (plus Ferdinand II, the King of Two Sicilies at that time was noted for saying who "il Regno era difeso per tre lati dall'acqua di mare e per il quarto dall'acqua santa")
Seconded. The only chance for an Italy unified by the South, would be for Gioacchino Murat to retain the throne of Naples after Napoleon's exile and, even though this could have very well happened, he'd have had a very hard time pushing his own brand of Napoleon-flavoured reforms in a country dominated by a reactionary Church, by a landed aristocracy straight out of the feudal era, and by an illiterate, impoverished but extremely devout (to altar and throne both) populace.
Sure, the House of Savoy did a number on the South and its nascent industries, and a peninsula united from Naples would have been a better deal for the region than de facto Piedmontese colonialism, but the fairy tale of an affluent Mezzogiorno pushed even today by the Bourbon nostalgics is just that, a myth.
I forgotten to traslate Ferdinand II's quote, its meaning is (my) kingdom is defended for three sides by the sea and for the fourth by State of the Church.
The Two Sicilies were not perfect but "the fairy tale of an affluent Mezzogiorno" was much closer to the truth than the classical description of that Kingdom who is owed mostly to a mix of the English propaganda against Ferdinand II (the London goverment and the King of Two Sicilies had their reason for hating each other) plus the status of the Kingdom after the arrival of Garibaldi and then of the Savoy (who totally destroyed the kingdom).
The problem with this, it's that it's almost impossible to find an impartial, neutral, modern analysis of the economies of all the peninsula's states prior to the Piedmontese annexation of the rest of the peninsula, since the politicization of the issue started even before unification. The only certainty, it's that it would've been far better for everyone if Cattaneo's federalist views had prevailed, instead of what actually happened in OTL.
Well, it specifies the Sicilies, so perhaps the duke of Genoa (who was elected king of Sicily at some point survives and manages to take Naples (sponsoring Garibaldi's Expedition of the 1000 perhaps?), and becomes king of the Two Sicilies. Then he pushes North and takes several other states.
Its borderline ASB (at least to my mind), but it would be fun seeing the king of Sardinia having to kiss his younger brother's ring when said younger brother is king of almost all of Italy
Its borderline ASB (at least to my mind), but it would be fun seeing the king of Sardinia having to kiss his younger brother's ring when said younger brother is king of almost all of Italy
Here in Italy the debate over the economic status of the South before and after the unification is debated by legions and every expert has his own idea on it.
That the South was the richest state pre-unification is renown by written dates. The fact it was an essentially agricule state is false.
Is also true however the Two Sicilies immediate pre-unity budget was active and the Sardinian-Piedmontese passive. But only because Turin invested in infrastructures and industrial development, while Naples thesaurized. When the unification happened the Piedmontese took the active balance of the South to re-asborb in part their debt. And this affected the capacities of the South and would be one of the first signals of the rising gap between North and South of Italy.
That the South was the richest state pre-unification is renown by written dates. The fact it was an essentially agricule state is false.
Is also true however the Two Sicilies immediate pre-unity budget was active and the Sardinian-Piedmontese passive. But only because Turin invested in infrastructures and industrial development, while Naples thesaurized. When the unification happened the Piedmontese took the active balance of the South to re-asborb in part their debt. And this affected the capacities of the South and would be one of the first signals of the rising gap between North and South of Italy.
There's a question to which I've never heard a sensible answer: if the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was such an advanced country, how come it fell like a house of cards when hit by a handful of volunteers?
It can't all ascribed to Francesco II's ineptitude.
Which opens another question I had already asked in an old thread of mine:
Garibaldi, supposedly, decided for the expedition after Ferdinando II died. What if he didn't?
OTL he had a thigh abscess caused by diabetes which could have been easily treated with surgery even in those days, but the physician who proposed that had too progressive ideas for the tastes of the court. Suppose this didn't happen and the king had survived. How would the unification go?
Likely would never happen... The Sicilian revolt who Garibaldi exploited was caused by the death of Ferdinand II. Without that death, the part of English government who ordered, paid and supported the expedition of Garibaldi, would have not found the opening needed for that attack (and its original purpose was to take away Sicily from Bourbon's rule for making the island an English protectorate de facto if not in name (and trust me the circumstances of Garibaldi's landing in Marsala prove without any doubt he had English support)...
Garibaldi and his menswere not the romantic bad armed patriotic group of volunteers of the legend but a well paid, well armed band of mercenaries with a lot of money to be used for corruption
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Wonderful summery, Isabelle. I think its important to remember just how wildly different the levels of development and political culture was between the "two" Sicilys of the island and mainland. Sicily the island is highly provincial/village level and run more or less by local strongmen/families (Or, shall we say, the original Mafia) who were highly vulnerable to bribery and less loyal to Naples than the more center-attached mainlanders, which combined with the weak local military presence (which couldn't be reinforced due to interference by the Royal Navy) was really key in the island falling so quickly and dealing the hammer blow to Bourbon prestige. The sleepy state of the island has really has a lot to do with the misperception of the Kingdom as a whole as backward and agrarian prior to the Expedition.
Have Turin back the Revolutionaries to the hilt and get whacked down by Vienna and Paris, with the Papacy backed by Two Sicilies playing the roll of gendarme. If the romantic nationalists get tarred too badly as radicals, you could see Italian Nationalism take on a more conservative tone so by the time Napoleon III comes to power (or, better, have a Bourbon/Orlean restoration after a few more years of unstable Republicanism instead of Nappy pulling a coup) and starts endorsing the idea of an Italian state it's best structure looks Catholic, decentralized/particularist, and Bismarckian conservative/ "Alliance of Iron and Rye" in character.
I think to know a way for having the Two Sicilies as the main force for the union: take away from the State of the Church all the lands excluding Lazio at the Congress of Vienna dividing them between Two Sicilies, Tuscany and Modena. That will force the Kings of Two sicilies to work with the other kingdoms and can push Ferdinand II to promote a decentralized unitary state with himself as head and all the other rulers on their own kingdoms (so like Germany). The papal states can be inside or outside the Kingdom of Italy as nobody will be forced to join the Confederation/Kingdom of Italy
It wasn’t caused by Ferdinand II dying. Piedmont was on a roll after its alliance with the French Empire, and Ferdinand had already alienated English support. Francis II was a weaker guy than him, that’s for sure, but Bourbons lost safe control over the Kingdom since 1848. They weren’t beloved at all.Victor Emmanuel II wanted war for the sake of war, the sooner the better, Garibaldi was only to happy to oblige and England really wanted to get The Two Sicilies out of Russia’s control since the Bourbons were already getting closer to Alexander II. If Ferdinand II stood in the way of that, h’d end up just like his son.
The way I see it, Joachim Murat does what Bernadotte did and explicitly supports the coalition against Napoleon. His dynasty stays in power, perhaps its members are a bit more receptive to liberal ideas and end up being the flag bearers of national unity like Savoy (who was as absolutist but not as stubborn as the Bourbons) was.
They weren’t that devout to the throne by 1848, at least not the ones who lived in the cities. in due time Murat, or someone smarter than him, could make something out of Southern Italy.
Absolutely wrong. Victor Emmanuel II, Cavour and France had nothing to do with Garibaldi and his expedition (Garibaldi was a Republican)...
The Sicilian revolt Garibaldi used as support started after and because Ferdinand II's death and while the control of Bourbons on Sicily was never so strong the mainland population loved their rulers and many were faithful to them also after the end of the Kingdom. Corruption and a lot of mistakes by the inexperienced and bad counselled Francis II caused the end of the Kingdom but with Ferdinand alive the expedition of Garibaldi would not be succesful at all...
Plus without a couple of English ship who forced the Navy of Two Sicilies (they were in the port, officially waiting to embark some officers and when asked to go away from the fire line because the Sicilian Navy needed to open the fire against Garibaldi's ship for stopping them from landing, they refuted to left the area and said who if the Sicilian Navy had the fired only one shot while they were still there, that would be taken as a declaration of war against England) let Garibaldi and his men landing in Marsala the expedition would be failed from the start.
They were still devout to the throne and their king, trust me... But Murat was able to make himself loved by the population of Naples while he was in power
Garibaldi was not a Republican at all, you have to trust me on that. At first, in his youth, he was fascinated by Mazzini and the Giovine Italia, once he got back from Uruguay, however, and after barely escaping with his life after the failed attempt at a Roman Republic in 1849, Garibaldi understood that the Monarchy was his best shot at leading his armies into a revolutionary war. Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi were profoundly different, but if there’s one thing that they shared, was an insatiable love for war. Garibaldi wanted revolution, no matter the means and the cost, Victor wanted war for glory, and the unification of Italy was his best excuse for that. Garibaldi and the king shared a somewhat uneasy alliance right until 1866, there’s countless proof of that, Aspromonte among those. So believe me, the former had no real propensity for an Italian Republic. Once the conquest of The Two Sicilies was complete, Victor wasted no time descending the whole boot to get the prize, all his attempts at stopping Garibaldi were just for show, and while Cavour feared repercussions with French, the emperor could just watch and tell Cavour to not let things get too far, which they didn’t, for a while.
Now even if Garibaldi had failed in his endeavor, provided he survived, he would have tried again next year, he had that itchy trigger finger, and unless Ferdinand showed himself more willing to liberal reforms, foreign pressure would have done him in in a matter of years. Popular support wasn’t that necessary, Italy got united without it after all.
Trust me who I know exactly what I am talking about as I am Italian, from the former Kingdom of Two Siciles and the period of the rule of the Bourbons is my main area of interest/study of the last years so forgive me if I think to know very well the reasons and alliance systems who caused the unification of Italy (who was mostly owed to an accident) and sure a sort of alliance between Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel II existed for some time but started after not before the italian unification.
Sure Garibaldi had zero propensity for an Italian unification: his journey on Sicily was not an his idea and its fine had nothing to do with the Italian unification who was just something who happened on the way and was never programmed or thinked until almost the moment in which happened
Pur’io sono Italiano, vengo da Salerno, anyway of course Garibaldi wanted to see Italy reunited, I never said he didn’t, but by 1861 he didn’t much care if it became a Monarchy or a Republic, he just wanted to see it whole. Now what I’m saying I read from biographies of Cavour, Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel, where it’s clearly said that Garibaldi and the king met as early as 1860. Victor wanted to use Garibaldi and the Left to get rid of Cavour, but since he was too inept and indolent to go all the way with it, he balked, and left Garibaldi to his devices.