The posts I’ve seen about this mostly revolve around what would happen if Nice and Savoy didn’t become attached to France in 1860, but the question of exactly how is not very explicit. In order for Napoleon III not to receive Nice and Savoy, what would need to change, assuming a POD of 1860? Is it even possible?
How could Nice and Savoy remained Italian (or technically Sardinian)?
- Thread starter LittleFluffyClouds
- Start date
Oh that's simple make Britain support the wars of Italian unification under Savoy instead of France.
Would be interesting seeing how Italian politics would evolve in that direction. Or with an even earlier PoD, avoiding selling Corsica to them, allowing a greater Italy with “intact” western borders may reduce or heighten tensions with its western neighbour, or further deincentivise them from allying with Austria.
Another early, feasible POD: when Napoleon rolls in, he annexes the whole of Italian-speaking Switzerland to his Italian domains, and not just Sondrio and its environs. Less feasible, but not that unlikely, Venice openly resists Napoleon - sure, the mainland would probably be occupied, but the Serenissima's Adriatic possessions would probably endure, under heavy British influence, and Venice might be restored after the war.
Italy would need to unify earlier, most likely in 1848, if it wants to retain Nice and Savoy. Sardinia couldn't keep either territory afterwards because they needed France to militarily defeat Austria, and France only agreed to help them in return for Nice and Savoy. Subsequently, an Italy that keeps Nice and Savoy after 1848 is pretty much completely impossible.
The problem is that Sardinia was not militarily successful on its own in 1848 either, and many of its "allies" (notably the Two Sicilies) backed out. You'd need to either amplify the Hungarian successes so that Austria can't focus fully on Italy, or give the regional Italian princes more of a spine. The second point seems most feasible with Leopold II of Tuscany, who was actually well-liked by his subjects and supported Italian unification. However, after republicans rose up against him anyway, he got paranoid, called in the Austrians and became a reactionary, ruining his reputation.
If you don't mind going back a few decades, you could also let Murat keep his Neapolitan throne and allow him to unify the peninsula. Murat's Italy would likely be a federation that retains the other Italian monarchs (an Italian (con)federation was actually the most popular idea of a united Italy for most of the Risgorimento; it only became a unitary kingdom after Sardinia united the region, and even then, regions like the Two Sicilies were originally planned to be left alone), and since the Kings of Sardinia wouldn't have needed French assistance, they would've kept Nice and Savoy.
That's my best answer. Sardinia is not going to beat Austria without France and France is not going to help them without receiving the territory it wants.
TL;DR Either Italy unifies in or before 1848 and keeps Savoy and Nice, or they unite later but inevitably lose Savoy and Nice.
The problem is that Sardinia was not militarily successful on its own in 1848 either, and many of its "allies" (notably the Two Sicilies) backed out. You'd need to either amplify the Hungarian successes so that Austria can't focus fully on Italy, or give the regional Italian princes more of a spine. The second point seems most feasible with Leopold II of Tuscany, who was actually well-liked by his subjects and supported Italian unification. However, after republicans rose up against him anyway, he got paranoid, called in the Austrians and became a reactionary, ruining his reputation.
If you don't mind going back a few decades, you could also let Murat keep his Neapolitan throne and allow him to unify the peninsula. Murat's Italy would likely be a federation that retains the other Italian monarchs (an Italian (con)federation was actually the most popular idea of a united Italy for most of the Risgorimento; it only became a unitary kingdom after Sardinia united the region, and even then, regions like the Two Sicilies were originally planned to be left alone), and since the Kings of Sardinia wouldn't have needed French assistance, they would've kept Nice and Savoy.
That's my best answer. Sardinia is not going to beat Austria without France and France is not going to help them without receiving the territory it wants.
TL;DR Either Italy unifies in or before 1848 and keeps Savoy and Nice, or they unite later but inevitably lose Savoy and Nice.
Nice can be regained in 1870 with better leadership (that just sends Garibaldi back to reclaim his homeland). Savoy probably is hard, unless as has been proposed, the UK becomes the actual sponsor of Italian unification (but that's gonna play havoc with events at best). Or a wank. The potential was there, but at times, it was entirely wasted.
Been reading the struggle for mastery in Europe and it basically states that any French support would require Nice & Savoy as compensation due to it being seen as lost territories in the 1815 treaty & natural borders. So the likeliest POD is that 1848 would fully disintegrate the Habsburg empire, allowing Sardinia alone to win Lombardy-Venetia in the first Italian war of independence. British support was limited to diplomatic as they preferred Italy to win without French help but also wanted Austria to remain intact to block the Russians in the Balkans.
Was there a possibility of Italy joining the Franco-Prussian War to regain the territories?
Last edited:
Another possibility is that Nice and Savoy are given in the treaties of post Napoleonic Europe to the House of Piedmont Sardinia.
I meant Nice and Savoy are become House of Piedmont ruled lands permanently.
They already were. To be fair, the territories were Savoyard prior to the French Revolution, and then the French occupied both Savoy and Nice in the 1790s. IIRC, the initial Treaty of Paris in 1814 that ended the Napoleonic Wars was pretty lenient on France—France kept her 1792 borders: Saarbrücken, Saarlouis, Landau, Montbéliard, the part of Savoy with Annecy along with Avignon and Comtat-Venaissin. There was no occupation of France, and no indemnity either.
After Elba and Waterloo, the second Treaty of Paris was harsher: return to 1790s borders (except they kept Avignon & Comtat and Montbéliard), loss of Saarlouis and Landau, some communes near Geneva, and of course Savoy. They also had to pay a 700 million franc indemnity—daily payments were something like 380,000 francs or £16,000—and they had to host (and cover the expenses) for a 150,000 men occupational army of coalition troops. Like post-war Germany, France was carved up into various occupation zones.
Exactly.
That's sort of what the post-war treaties did. The reaction against Napoleon and the Revolution attempted to turn back the clock where applicable—the prevailing idea of legitimacy is whatever that country held was restored to it. The main issue is that if that country decides to depose of those lands later on down the line, nothing is stopping them. Many in those provinces believed that the House of Savoy favored Italian speakers for government jobs over French speakers. In 1859, some thirty citizens in Chambéry called to be annexed to France, but it wasn't a popular idea overall: there was opposition in northern Savoy. Alternate suggestions floated the idea of Savoy joining Switzerland instead, favored by Great Britain.
Pretty much as soon as the Treaty of Turin was signed, the deal was done. It was agreed plebiscites should be held in both provinces, since both provinces had to "agree" even though the outcome was already determined. To deal with resistance in northern Savoy, the plebiscite was coupled with the option to create a duty free zone. Given that the treaty was signed and the territories handed over before the plebiscites, there's certainly some doubt about how free and fair they were. The 1850s was the height of the "authoritarian" empire in France, after all...
I suppose one way to prevent it is greater resistance to the idea. I think so long as the provinces are handed over first, the plebiscites will be in France's favor: both Sardinia and France had reason to want their success, since the two territories were Napoleon III's desire to aid Sardinia against Austria. Another idea might be greater British resistance to the idea... it might provide the smoke needed for the Swiss option to be more attractive for northern Savoy. It's not Sardinia keeping it, though...
Super unlikely, especially as Rome was seen as a desirable recovery. But letting Garibaldi go could have worked.
How could this happen? What interest would Britain have in committing ground forces to support Piedmont against Austria?
That might start a European-wide war if Austria then allies with France to attack Italy because, I think, Russia had pledged to defend Germany against Austria and this might fall into that pledge as a Prussian allied belligerent. Bismarck may have desired to have that war solely on Germany's own to showcase Prussia's power.
Charming username.
To pit them against France tbh, honestly Britain doesn't have as strong of a reason to it but if lets say Britain backs Sardinia as a counterbalance to France. Let's say Cavour is just +100% better at diplomacy he could play Britain's anxiety over the balance of Europe and refuse a Franco-Italian alliance and force Britain to back Sardinia just to deny France that powerful Franco-Italian alliance.
Galaxy-brained play - that was pushed forward, to no avail, by some actual inhabitants of Nice IRL: have Garibaldi, who spoke French natively, represent Nice in the French Parliament and push for a new plebiscite to re-annex Nice to Italy. Even more galaxy-brained play, perhaps it becomes an autonomous province a whole century before Alcide De Gasperi secured such a status for his home province of Trento, simply to make the French swallow the pill more easily, maybe while having Italy recognize France's aims on Tunisia as well.
There is also the pod option of Italy obtaining Rome, Corsica, Nice and/ or Savoy in exchange for neutrality during the Franco-Prussian War to reduce butterflies during that war and before. Since the option would strengthen Italy and Prussia without benefitting France, the effect would be the same as Italy siding and fighting with Prussia against France during the Franco-Prussian War.