Why in the name of god would Austria-Hungary want Lombardy-Venetia again? Austria knew it was a ramshackle mess - admittedly, the leadership hoped to fix the Empire - but they sure as hell didn't need even *more* restive minorities than they were already getting from the Serbian annexations. What does Lombardy-Venetia actually *get* them apart from a bunch of angry and resentful Italians that will cost more to keep down than they'll get.

This is 1919, not 1815, and even in 1815 Lombardy-Venetia was a bad take for Austria, Metternich was just a fool.
 
This is 1919, not 1815, and even in 1815 Lombardy-Venetia was a bad take for Austria, Metternich was just a fool.
Eh, in 1815, the inland venetians were supportive of the incoming Austrian army, whilst the islander Venetians weren't. It was more of a mixed deal rather than a sour deal for Austria in 1815. In 1919 it would have definitely been a sour deal however. If Venice is required so badly, then a puppet state is the way to go. Luzzatti and other Venetians had been warning Rome that the negligence of regionalism had led to large upsurge to venetian nationalism at the time. Said nationalism only went away due to Mussolini killing every regionalist nationalist he could find.
 
Eh, in 1815, the inland venetians were supportive of the incoming Austrian army, whilst the islander Venetians weren't. It was more of a mixed deal rather than a sour deal for Austria in 1815. In 1919 it would have definitely been a sour deal however. If Venice is required so badly, then a puppet state is the way to go. Luzzatti and other Venetians had been warning Rome that the negligence of regionalism had led to large upsurge to venetian nationalism at the time. Said nationalism only went away due to Mussolini killing every regionalist nationalist he could find.
Venetia was divided, but Lombardy was a mistake in 1815, and melding them together wasn't any better, and in 1815 Austria was better off puppeting Venetia anyway.

But yes, puppeting in 1919 would be the only way to go.
 
Why didn't Austria-Hungary demand Lombardy-Venetia back from Italy during the 1919-1920 Copenhagen Conference negotiating an end to the Great War? It used to be an Austrian Crown Land after the Congress of Vienna.

Simple. A-H had already enough of its own problems without more land.
 
Demanding an independent Venetian Republic be restored as a buffer state might fly (and actually be useful in the future to put space between Vienna and the Italian communists), but the place's antipathy towards Austrian despotism was well established over the course of the previous century. Moreover, taking that kind of concession in continental Europe is even more political capital that could be put towards securing the Balkans or eastern Europe, both decidedly targets of interest.
 
You know I would actually laugh if Zulfurium made Venice secede and restore the Serene Republic under a Doge...
The Shiba Inu dog from the doge meme turns 16, celebration post goes viral  | Trending - Hindustan Times
 
Why didn't Austria-Hungary demand Lombardy-Venetia back from Italy during the 1919-1920 Copenhagen Conference negotiating an end to the Great War? It used to be an Austrian Crown Land after the Congress of Vienna.

Also, I've read that the borders of Germany were moved up to Warta and the Narew to further secure its Eastern frontiers and avoid a repeat of the 1914 East Prussian campaign. I wonder why Austria didn't follow suit and move the Venetian border to the Adige, the Piave or the Livenza to secure their Southern borders in the event of another war.

How is the legacy of the final failure of Giolitti's Liberal State and Grand Trasformismo regarded both within Italy and Sicily-Sardinia? What reasons would academic historians give ITTL about why Risorgimento was eventually unable to reconcile legal and real Italy to each other and solve the deeply integral issues of Campanilismo and the Roman Question, whilst German unification was able to overcome Kleinstaaterei within the HRE as well as successfully reconcile the alienation between the Church and the State, as well as that of the two Germanies? How would they go on to justify the resolution of German dualism with the final unification of Germany and Austria during the 1920s, whilst on the other hand, Italy's grand designs in the form of the Mare Nostrum project completely failed?

As many of the others (as can be read below) have stated, the geopolitical realities of 1919 make an A-H demand for L-V very unlikely. The Austrians were much more firmly fixated on the Balkans than Italy, with their diplomatic emphasis in that region. On top of that, while A-H maintained its imperial ambitions, Italy wasn't really part of that any longer at this point - they dreamed of a Balkan empire more than anything else. As for a border adjustment, the border between A-H and Italy was already pretty damn tough to deal with as it stood, adjusting to the Adige/Piave/Livenza would just further aggravate the Italians. Remember that this TL effectively kicks off the breakup of A-H with an Italian terrorist attack on the Habsburgs.

As for your other questions, the thing to bear in mind is that the Italian People's Republic actually does seek to address many of the questions of the Risorgiomento, and at least within Red Italy it is seen as an ongoing struggle for integration - one of a social, economic and political nature. While not quite successful at this point, the progress in Italy is very clearly felt.

On the other hand Royal Italy is basically at a point where it has given up on any such thoughts and ambitions, its only focus on reconquest. The geopolitical realities once again disrupted any potential success of Giolitti's plans. Quite simply, the argument becomes that Italy and Germany were in far different places when it came to their integration, and that the surface similarities served to blind their predecessors to the sheer magnitude of the challenge. When this is paired with the Socialist outlook of mainland academics, it creates a new spin on the old theories. At the same time the unifying impetus of Risorgiomento is seen as having been broken by the Civil War.

Hope that answers your questions.

Why in the name of god would Austria-Hungary want Lombardy-Venetia again? Austria knew it was a ramshackle mess - admittedly, the leadership hoped to fix the Empire - but they sure as hell didn't need even *more* restive minorities than they were already getting from the Serbian annexations. What does Lombardy-Venetia actually *get* them apart from a bunch of angry and resentful Italians that will cost more to keep down than they'll get.

This is 1919, not 1815, and even in 1815 Lombardy-Venetia was a bad take for Austria, Metternich was just a fool.
Eh, in 1815, the inland venetians were supportive of the incoming Austrian army, whilst the islander Venetians weren't. It was more of a mixed deal rather than a sour deal for Austria in 1815. In 1919 it would have definitely been a sour deal however. If Venice is required so badly, then a puppet state is the way to go. Luzzatti and other Venetians had been warning Rome that the negligence of regionalism had led to large upsurge to venetian nationalism at the time. Said nationalism only went away due to Mussolini killing every regionalist nationalist he could find.
Venetia was divided, but Lombardy was a mistake in 1815, and melding them together wasn't any better, and in 1815 Austria was better off puppeting Venetia anyway.

But yes, puppeting in 1919 would be the only way to go.
Simple. A-H had already enough of its own problems without more land.
Demanding an independent Venetian Republic be restored as a buffer state might fly (and actually be useful in the future to put space between Vienna and the Italian communists), but the place's antipathy towards Austrian despotism was well established over the course of the previous century. Moreover, taking that kind of concession in continental Europe is even more political capital that could be put towards securing the Balkans or eastern Europe, both decidedly targets of interest.

Venetia-Lombardy was an utter abomination of a state and anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Italian history should be able to see that. The Lombards and Venetians had literally been fighting each other non-stop since the end of the Roman Empire, and someone thought it would be a good idea to force them into close proximity with each other.

Establishing a puppet Venetian state might have been possible theoretically, but it would have been so far beyond Italy's red line that they would throw anything and everything into stopping it. Hell, remember that the Austro-Hungarians were pushed out of Italy by the violence early in the Italian Civil War, it wasn't entirely voluntary. This discussion is a bit of a moot point for that exact reason, regardless of the settlement agreed at Copenhagen, the situation in Italy was already well on its way towards collapse. Hell, IOTL they were among the victors and still nearly collapsed into civil war.

You know I would actually laugh if Zulfurium made Venice secede and restore the Serene Republic under a Doge...

I just need to figure out how it would work within an Anarcho-Syndicalist framework and I will be good to go. ;)

I mean, I was able to pull off what I think is a decently convincing Communist Shogunate, so a Doge should be simple by comparison.

On the other hand.... What if... We have them create a Dog Senate with a Dog Doge, the Doge to rule all Dogs you might say. 🤯
 
As many of the others (as can be read below) have stated, the geopolitical realities of 1919 make an A-H demand for L-V very unlikely. The Austrians were much more firmly fixated on the Balkans than Italy, with their diplomatic emphasis in that region. On top of that, while A-H maintained its imperial ambitions, Italy wasn't really part of that any longer at this point - they dreamed of a Balkan empire more than anything else. As for a border adjustment, the border between A-H and Italy was already pretty damn tough to deal with as it stood, adjusting to the Adige/Piave/Livenza would just further aggravate the Italians. Remember that this TL effectively kicks off the breakup of A-H with an Italian terrorist attack on the Habsburgs.

As for your other questions, the thing to bear in mind is that the Italian People's Republic actually does seek to address many of the questions of the Risorgiomento, and at least within Red Italy it is seen as an ongoing struggle for integration - one of a social, economic and political nature. While not quite successful at this point, the progress in Italy is very clearly felt.

On the other hand Royal Italy is basically at a point where it has given up on any such thoughts and ambitions, its only focus on reconquest. The geopolitical realities once again disrupted any potential success of Giolitti's plans. Quite simply, the argument becomes that Italy and Germany were in far different places when it came to their integration, and that the surface similarities served to blind their predecessors to the sheer magnitude of the challenge. When this is paired with the Socialist outlook of mainland academics, it creates a new spin on the old theories. At the same time the unifying impetus of Risorgiomento is seen as having been broken by the Civil War.

Hope that answers your questions.







Venetia-Lombardy was an utter abomination of a state and anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Italian history should be able to see that. The Lombards and Venetians had literally been fighting each other non-stop since the end of the Roman Empire, and someone thought it would be a good idea to force them into close proximity with each other.

Establishing a puppet Venetian state might have been possible theoretically, but it would have been so far beyond Italy's red line that they would throw anything and everything into stopping it. Hell, remember that the Austro-Hungarians were pushed out of Italy by the violence early in the Italian Civil War, it wasn't entirely voluntary. This discussion is a bit of a moot point for that exact reason, regardless of the settlement agreed at Copenhagen, the situation in Italy was already well on its way towards collapse. Hell, IOTL they were among the victors and still nearly collapsed into civil war.




I just need to figure out how it would work within an Anarcho-Syndicalist framework and I will be good to go. ;)

I mean, I was able to pull off what I think is a decently convincing Communist Shogunate, so a Doge should be simple by comparison.

On the other hand.... What if... We have them create a Dog Senate with a Dog Doge, the Doge to rule all Dogs you might say. 🤯
I'll do you one better: how about restoring Milan, Naples/Sicily/Sardinia and Flanders to the Spain?
 
Last edited:
I'll do you one better: how about restoring Milan, Naples/Sicily/Sardinia and Flanders to the Spain?

Hmmm, Charles V's Empire reborn, who says no? :p

That is nearly impossible in the 20th century.
Well Dog Senates and Dog Doges to rule all Dogs have already crossed this Rubicon of frivolousness...

Never doubt the Doge of Doges - the Dog of Dogs. All hail the Doge Throne.

Okay. I think that overdid it. :p

Well, Royal Italy is basically an appendage of Spain at this point anyway.

It is a parallel I hadn't actually considered much, but now you mention it, there are certainly similarities. It isn't anything close to the official vassalage of the past, but the comparison does hold at least a small measure of merit.
 
What exactly would the 16th century Protestant Reformers have thought of this new Revolutionary Catholic Church, especially the different Lutheran and Calvininist factions? What about the earlier Protestants, e.g. the Bohemian Hussites?

How would Marx and Engels respond to TTL's ideological/political interpretation of left-wing socialism and communism in general ? How would that compare to his replies to the orthodox Soviet line of Marxism-Leninism in TTL?
 
What exactly would the 16th century Protestant Reformers have thought of this new Revolutionary Catholic Church, especially the different Lutheran and Calvininist factions? What about the earlier Protestants, e.g. the Bohemian Hussites?
It does seem a lot closer to some of the radical Hussite factions, i.e. Taborites and Orebites, than to Lutheranism or Calvinism. Among the 1520s Protestants, I would say Müntzer and/or the early anabaptists might be closer.
How would Marx and Engels respond to TTL's ideological/political interpretation of left-wing socialism and communism in general ? How would that compare to his replies to the orthodox Soviet line of Marxism-Leninism in TTL?
This question begs a long answer. I'll leave all the systemic economic and theoretical issues for others to answer, especially @Zulfurium.
As for the religious aspects: Engels's views on religion were biographically motivated: he had grown up in a Pietist environment which he experienced as very narrow-minded and bigot. Marx's views, on the other hand, were academically motivated, and condensed his entire experiences with the Hegelian crowd at the university, whom he deemed too lazy and elitist to think their philosophy through, which is why he thought Feuerbach was such an interesting person. That is to say: Marxist views on religion, while not entirely without logic, were historically circumstantial. Marx and Engels were astute observers of their time; had they been transported into this 20th century, I am sure they would see so many things changed so radically from their own time that they might not focus their criticism on what appears ideologically obvious to us.
 
What exactly would the 16th century Protestant Reformers have thought of this new Revolutionary Catholic Church, especially the different Lutheran and Calvininist factions? What about the earlier Protestants, e.g. the Bohemian Hussites?

How would Marx and Engels respond to TTL's ideological/political interpretation of left-wing socialism and communism in general ? How would that compare to his replies to the orthodox Soviet line of Marxism-Leninism in TTL?
It does seem a lot closer to some of the radical Hussite factions, i.e. Taborites and Orebites, than to Lutheranism or Calvinism. Among the 1520s Protestants, I would say Müntzer and/or the early anabaptists might be closer.

This question begs a long answer. I'll leave all the systemic economic and theoretical issues for others to answer, especially @Zulfurium.
As for the religious aspects: Engels's views on religion were biographically motivated: he had grown up in a Pietist environment which he experienced as very narrow-minded and bigot. Marx's views, on the other hand, were academically motivated, and condensed his entire experiences with the Hegelian crowd at the university, whom he deemed too lazy and elitist to think their philosophy through, which is why he thought Feuerbach was such an interesting person. That is to say: Marxist views on religion, while not entirely without logic, were historically circumstantial. Marx and Engels were astute observers of their time; had they been transported into this 20th century, I am sure they would see so many things changed so radically from their own time that they might not focus their criticism on what appears ideologically obvious to us.

@Salvador79 is pretty right on the money about them being more in line with the radical Hussites than the 16th century reformers, but really none of them are particularly good examples. The RCR builds off the centuries of post-Reformation reforms for a starting point and then takes absolutely massive departures from there, drawing in salvationist elements, Neo-Scholasticism and Catholic Social Teachings with socialist principles. There are also similarities to some of the more out-there anabaptist movements with their emphasis on equality and and equal distribution of resources.

As for how the reformers would have reacted, they likely would have decried the entire thing as heresy and looked for the nearest pitchfork - but then again, that was their default response to a difference of opinion, so who knows :p On a more serious note I think the you should look to how some of the 17th century religious movements, particularly the Levellers, were greeted to get an idea of how they would be seen.

As for Marx and Engels, I have always found it a rather pointless exercise - ideology evolves entirely independent of its progenitors, but if we are to compare just OTL Communism to TTL, I think both would view TTL Soviet Communism rather positively, at least so long as they know how wrong it could have gone. They would be exceptionally critical of the Shogunate and intrigued but uncertain about Italian Socialism. And finally, I completely agree with @Salvador79's last sentence, that they likely would have focused on something completely different than what seems logical to us.
 
Will the Curse of Tippecanoe strike down Long in an untimely manner in TTL? Potential spoilers into the future of TTL are welcome, as always.

I have a rough idea of where I want to go with Long, but it isn't particularly detailed or set in stone, so I can't say for certain whether he will go down in an untimely manner or not. I will say I plan for him to be around a good while, whether as president or not, as I find him a particularly fascinating character. How and when precisely he passes is not something I have settled on.
 
Is the gradual decline of the global influence of the British Empire ITTL comparable in size and scale etc. to the decline and eventual downfall/dissolution of the Spanish Empire in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries?

Furthermore, are the Victorian and Edwardian eras in Britain looked back on fondly as some sort of a Golden Age domestically?
 
Last edited:
Top