What if the Pope offered to give up most of Rome, would the Italians agree to that?

[Diego]

Let's say that before the fall o Napoleon the Pope Pius IX had offered to the Italians an agreement in which the Papal States would cede all of its territory outside the walls of Urban VIII, also the entirety of Rome east of the Tiber, plus the areas on the other side of the river that were inside the Aurelian Walls and also the rest of the city south of it.

In exchange the Pope would want guarantees that Italy would not claim more land, would not interefere in the transit of people and goods in and out of the Papal States, would give extraterritorial rights to the Church buildings in Rome (treat them like embassies), would protect the Church property from seizing and also would trasnfer 0,1% of all Italian revenues received from taxes and other tributes to the Papal States each year in perpetuity.

I think that the territory the Papal States would be able to keep would be a little less than 2.5 sq Km, around 5 times bigger than the Vatican currently.

Would the Italians agree to that? What effects would it have in Italy and around the world?

 

[Diego]

Just throwing a map to show what territory I'm talking about, it is the one inside the black borders on the western side of the Tiber.

The proposal would be something like this:

1. Should be given to Italy:
a - Territory east of the Tiber
b - Territory outside of the many walls of Rome
c - Territory inside the Aurelian Walls and any papal territories south of the Via Aurelia
d - All public buildings used by the civil administration of the city of Rome (followed by a list of those buildings)

2. Should be given to the Papals States
a - The thousandth part of what Italy collects in taxes and tributes of every kind each year.
b - Guarantee that freedom of passage will be given to the Papal States, in, out, and through the Italian territory for people and goods transiting between the Papal States and another territory outside of the Italian territory, provided that the Italian State is also prohibited of stopping such movements for any reason without the previous agreement of the government of the Papal States through discretionary means or through treaty.
c - Guarantee that properties of the Church in Italy will be kept by the Church in perpetuity or until the Church freely relinquish them.
d - Guarantee that no taxes, fees or tributes are going to be levied by Italy in trade between parties from or in the Italian Territory and the Papal States, even if the Papal States chooses to impose it on products leaving or entering the Papal States.
e - Guarantee that the Port of Civita Vechia will be always open to the transit of goods and people from and to the Papal States.
f - Guarantee that the buildings owned by the Church on the date of the agreement, in special the temples and official residences, receive at least the same extraterritorial rights that embassies of friendly nations receive in Italy at the date of the agreement.
g - Guarantee the defence and independence of the Papal States, not allowing armed forces of any nation to enter or shoot against the Papal States.

 

[Slime_blob]

Do you have any guarantee that Italy wont just come in at the Papal States and get it's clay. Seems implausible

 

[DanMcCollum]

One of the issues here is that the Papacy during the 19th century was very strongly wedded to the idea of having a territorial state to secure it's own protection and independence. The fear was, of course, that giving up its territorial sovereignty would force it to rely upon the protection of whichever nation ruled Rome (In this case, Italy) - and the fact that whatever nation this would be would be a secular naion, meant that said nation wouldn't neccesarily have the best interests of the Papacy in mind. Furthermore, the Popes were very strongly aware that the Catholic Church was a transnational faith and organization and that being seen as under the thumb of any one state could diminish their abilities to represent the interests of all Catholics (for instance, what would happen if Italy and France went to war? Both are Catholic majority nations - but if the Papacy was at the mercy of Italy it might damage not only the prestige of the Church in France, but also the Church's abilities to minister to it's French flock).

And to be fair, the Popes had reason to worry. The French Revolution hadn't happened all that long ago, and they certainly wouldn't have forgotten the treatment of the Church and clergy by the French revolutionaries, nor the actions of Napoleon. And 1848 had been even closer in time - and that saw a Pope chased from Rome by nationalist revolutionaries. Furthermore, the Church is an organization that goes back nearly 2000 years and that brings with it a fair bit of institutional memory: the Popes would have been aware of the multitude of times that their predecessors had been forced to rely on the protection of other nations during the Medieval and Early Modern eras (Charlemagne, the Avingon Papacy, the conflicts withthe Holy Roman Emperors, the Schisms, etc). And most of these instances would have simply reinforced their notion that the Papal States needed to remain secure and, if nothing else, then Rome certainly needed to remain independent.

Also, let's not forget that during the early formtion fo the modern Kingdom of Italy, the Papacy was assured that the new state had no desire to take Rome and would establish their capital elsewhere - only for this agreement to be almost immediately violated, with Italian forces invading the city. So - if this agreement were to ccur after that - the Pope doesn't really have any reason to trust Italy at this point.

 

[Diego]

Do you have any guarantee that Italy wont just come in at the Papal States and get it's clay. Seems implausible

Not exactly the scope of my question, but I will answer because it is pertinent on reasons for Italy to keep the agreement.

Yes, more than one in fact, the first would be France, because it was before the fall of the Second Empire.
Second, not everything is brute force in international politics, Italy could invade the same way that they or other nations could invade San Marino, the Vatican, Monaco, Andorra... in other words unlawfully. That means that they would be taking a big diplomatic hit by simply occupying a country that is recognized by Italy, doesn't offer risk to them, that they promised to defend, and that also is the Papacy. Unless the Pope go mad and start using artillery against the residential districts of Rome the ammount of national and international outrage would make any government fall.
Third, probably there will be a population exchange between the Papal States and Italian Rome, people that wanted to be Italian would probably move to the Italian regions, maybe even invited by the Pope to move out of the Papal States, with Papal Rome being populated mostly by people connected to the administration of the Church or the administration of the Papal States themselves. The local population would be probably hostile to Italy.
Fourth, there is a very good chance of it going violent. If the Pope doesn't back down and that is a pretty reasonable expectation, the Italians are going to attack a very defensible area risking the lives of foreign dignataries, clergy of many different nationalities and the Pope himself, not counting the risk of damaging invaluable property like art, documents and buildings, and the risk for the local population.

Italy could still ignore everything and go for the kill, but so could every nation against every other nation.

One of the issues here is that the Papacy during the 19th century was very strongly wedded to the idea of having a territorial state to secure it's own protection and independence. The fear was, of course, that giving up its territorial sovereignty would force it to rely upon the protection of whichever nation ruled Rome (In this case, Italy) - and the fact that whatever nation this would be would be a secular naion, meant that said nation wouldn't neccesarily have the best interests of the Papacy in mind. Furthermore, the Popes were very strongly aware that the Catholic Church was a transnational faith and organization and that being seen as under the thumb of any one state could diminish their abilities to represent the interests of all Catholics (for instance, what would happen if Italy and France went to war? Both are Catholic majority nations - but if the Papacy was at the mercy of Italy it might damage not only the prestige of the Church in France, but also the Church's abilities to minister to it's French flock).

And to be fair, the Popes had reason to worry. The French Revolution hadn't happened all that long ago, and they certainly wouldn't have forgotten the treatment of the Church and clergy by the French revolutionaries, nor the actions of Napoleon. And 1848 had been even closer in time - and that saw a Pope chased from Rome by nationalist revolutionaries. Furthermore, the Church is an organization that goes back nearly 2000 years and that brings with it a fair bit of institutional memory: the Popes would have been aware of the multitude of times that their predecessors had been forced to rely on the protection of other nations during the Medieval and Early Modern eras (Charlemagne, the Avingon Papacy, the conflicts withthe Holy Roman Emperors, the Schisms, etc). And most of these instances would have simply reinforced their notion that the Papal States needed to remain secure and, if nothing else, then Rome certainly needed to remain independent.

Also, let's not forget that during the early formtion fo the modern Kingdom of Italy, the Papacy was assured that the new state had no desire to take Rome and would establish their capital elsewhere - only for this agreement to be almost immediately violated, with Italian forces invading the city. So - if this agreement were to ccur after that - the Pope doesn't really have any reason to trust Italy at this point.

All fair points, I agree with you in fact, but that is a little out of the scope of my question, my question is about the Italian response and other ramifications if the proposal was made, not if it is plausible that the proposal would be made in the first place.

 

[Tarabas]

I do not see why Italy would reject such a proposal, which seems fair and reasonable, provided that the Italian state is allowed to move its capital to Rome. I honestly do not see Pio IX making this offer, but hey, let's say he does. The implications would be huge, as we are taking out one of the main reasons for the anticlericalism of the early Italian Kingdom, and the Catholics will enter the political arena way sooner than OTL. I would need to think a bit further regarding the implications, but they would be huge: you are basically changing the political landscape of the Italian Kingdom in a single strike a mere 10 years (or less) after the Unification.

 

[LordKalvan]

And 1848 had been even closer in time - and that saw a Pope chased from Rome by nationalist revolutionaries.

The Pope was not "chased from Rome", but rather left, upon the advice of Cardinal Antonelli, as a thief during the night and masqueraded as a common priest to go searching the protection of Ferdinand II, the very same who would in less than one year gain the nickname of "King Bomb" after the ferocious bombardment of the city of Messina (a bombardment that attracted the censure of France and England, but which the Pope did not deign to comment).
The Republican Government which was established in Rome, by free elections, after the flight of the Pope offered more than one time to him to return to Rome, guaranteeing his independence and the inviolability of the Vatican Palace and other palaces to be negotiated, but such offers, made in earnest, where always rejected by Pio IX, who was not interested in playing a spiritual role only, but wanted also to rule the Papal States as a monarch.
Pio IX was not even eager to come back to Rome immediately after the Republic had been destroyed by French bayonets (in a blatant contravention of the French Constitution of the time, but that is another story): before going back, he sent three Cardinals to cleanse Rome of the taints of the Republic, and they they became known as the "Red Triumvirate", but not because they were dressed in red 😏 .

The older Pio IX became, the more bitter and vindictive: this man would never accept to discuss a compromise while he was still the petty monarch of Latium, as he never accepted to any compromise after Rome was annexed by Italy in September 1870 (but he insisted on a token resistance of his mercenaries, which costed 50 lives to the attackers and 30 to the defenders).

The Italian Parliament voted a Law of Guarantees in 1871, which granted him both the extraterritorial possession of the Vatican, Castel Gandolfo, and other palaces in Rome, as well as a generous funding (3 million Liras per annum), but again the self-imprisoned man in the Vatican refused to discuss it (which is why it was unilateral 😏), and equally refused the funds voted for him. Ironically, after his death in 1878, his nephews sued the Italian State for the money accrued between 1871 and his death, proving once more that Vespasian was right when he said that "money doesn't stink".

 

[Diego]

The Italian Parliament voted a Law of Guarantees in 1871, which granted him both the extraterritorial possession of the Vatican, Castel Gandolfo, and other palaces in Rome, as well as a generous funding (3 million Liras per annum), but again the self-imprisoned man in the Vatican refused to discuss it (which is why it was unilateral 😏), and equally refused the funds voted for him.

The same parliament that gave those extraterritorial rights could take them back at will by passing a simple law. It had even less value than the word of the Kingdom of Italy, that was already very close to zero. You could make an interpretation of this proposal as "You accept to be a subject of Italy and we allow you to pretend to be independent until we change our minds."

Anyway, all of this is also out of the scope of the topic.

 

[LordKalvan]

The same parliament that gave those extraterritorial rights could take them back at will by passing a simple law. It had even less value than the word of the Kingdom of Italy, that was already very close to zero. You could make an interpretation of this proposal as "You accept to be a subject of Italy and we allow you to pretend to be independent until we change our minds."

Anyway, all of this is also out of the scope of the topic.

Even if there was an early negotiated Concordat, because this is what you are talking about, any of the two Contracting Parties would have the possibility to terminate it unilaterally, because the Italian Parliament is sovereign, and the Pope is ... well, the Pope.
It would not make any difference.

However, I understood that your thread was asking if it was possible to reach a negotiated agreement, before Rome is annexed to Italy, and the answer is not, because Pio IX would never accept to recognize the termination of his sovereign powers over the Papal States (while the Italian state wanted to close the matter).
60 years later, it became possible to sign a Concordat, the Lateran Pact: that was because the Pope was a different man from Pio IX, and recognised that a restoration of the Temporal Power was not possible (nor advantageous for the Church).

 

[Diego]

Even if there was an early negotiated Concordat, because this is what you are talking about, any of the two Contracting Parties would have the possibility to terminate it unilaterally, because the Italian Parliament is sovereign, and the Pope is ... well, the Pope.

That is true.

It would not make any difference.

That on the other hand is not true for obvious reasons. One nation attacking another sovereing state when both nations recognize each other and have dropped any territorial claims over each other will certainly be different and much more serious than revoking some special rights of a single individual.

 

[LordKalvan]

That on the other hand is not true for obvious reasons. One nation attacking another sovereing state when both nations recognize each other and have dropped any territorial claims over each other will certainly be different and much more serious than revoking some special rights of a single individual.

The relations between the Vatican and Italy, where the Vatican is territorially a micro-state completely surrounded by Italian territory, would never be similar to the relations between 2 larger states. If there is going to be a crisis, which is well possible, it is going to happen because either one is acting through non-conventional soft power.
Propaganda, soft restrictions, things which can be applied subtly but are at the same time effective.

 

[Diego]

The relations between the Vatican and Italy, where the Vatican is territorially a micro-state completely surrounded by Italian territory, would never be similar to the relations between 2 larger states. If there is going to be a crisis, which is well possible, it is going to happen because either one is acting through non-conventional soft power.
Propaganda, soft restrictions, things which can be applied subtly but are at the same time effective.

Yes, I agree with every word you said. But see that this is different from what you said before, what I disagree is that a treaty would "make no difference", what you are describing now is going around a treaty, not disregarding or "terminating" it.

 

[West]

The problem with this is that there isn't any incentive structor for Italy's polititions to keep their word to the church.

If they swear upon their immortal soul and go to heaven then when they die they wont know anyone, but if they break their word and go to hell they will be surrounded by their old friends.