AHC Two Sicilies
- Thread starter Uruk
- Start date
It would certainly require Austria-Hungary remaining strong enough to keep pulling things in Northern and Central Italy (and consequentially a weaker France and Prussia)
As soon these were unified, there was little room for Two Sicilies being avoided : the national feeling was far too strong.
As soon these were unified, there was little room for Two Sicilies being avoided : the national feeling was far too strong.
Depend... I was told that the official Rissiogiormanto vision of a people 'crying' for unity was not quite so true, and that in the south, there was a localism feeling, the southern italians while knowing they are italians yes, knew - and quite well - that they where different from the north.. The events after the Union may show this, like the rise of rebels-banditism.
There is a (small) minority of bourbon monarchists nowaday... nothing much, but it's one of many things (like the still there contrasts in the economy north vs south) who tell me that the south was at least 'neglegated' in the whole deal.
I had the idea of a thread on asking how to create even more of a southern feeling, a culture(s) distinct enough that there may be a southern nation nowaday.
Localism or regional identity doesn't mean nationalism : we have enough proof of that in basically all the old nation-states.
There's enough facts (I'm not talking about analysis there, but facts) Risorgimento was a thing as well in southern Italy among population : the insurrections of 1848 in the kingdom (Palermo, Messine that revolted again in 1860)
As for elites, I could mention Guglielmo Pepe, as well the court of Naples in large parts in the late 50's.
The whole "evil official history" is a cliché of right-wing revisionists, a bit like its french counter part ("Revolutions were always a thing in Paris, never in France"), but it's an eminently ideological stuff.
I'm not sure that retroactively justify a non-italian feeling before the union, because of the consequences of the union is going to work. Especially when it concerns a minority of loonies so tiny that it barely avoided to be considered as some form of bacteria.
Well, one can make a point that there can be a leftwing revisionism there, considering how was made and who backed the Union - Garibaldi's visions VS Cavour's plans...
The industrial north quite beneficiated. And the more traditional agriculture south furnished workers...
The industrial north quite beneficiated. And the more traditional agriculture south furnished workers...
Such point can be made, but can hardly avoid using facts.
We have enough to point out that southern Italians not only felt Italians, but actively participated in both wars of Independence (heck, Sicilians basically offered their land to Piemont, that didn't asked that much already), so even if there's a "left-wing revisionism" it does at least base itself on reality.
Again, I fail to see the relevance on how the union worked to make a point on the national feeling before the union.
"Union worked badly, so it must means that Northerners weren't interested in the South so it must means that Southerners weren't interested in North either" are two logical fallacies (and inconsitent chronologically) that I won't agree with.