Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Isaac

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #1 

Hey everyone. I was rather bored so I drew a rough map of Italy (de-unified) as how it might look in 2014. I haven't actually started to illustrate it yet as I wonder what adjustments you think I should make, so here it is, (apologies for the low quality and my bad writing):

(IMPORTANT: explained below)

WP_20140626_003.jpg 

So, Naples and Sicily are separate Kingdoms. But they have a similar status to England and Scotland in GB and both Royal Houses have joint sovereignty, making them 'The United Kingdoms of the Two Sicilies'. 

Sardinia and Corsica are Bonapartist. Many monarchists might not like this, but I feel giving him Elba would be a bit of an insult (and we can't give him France!)

The Papal states are reduced to Rome and a few surrounding miles

The Northern part of the Kingdom of Sardinia is now back to the Duchy of Savoy

Other changes to the traditional maps include, Genoa being relatively smaller, Modena having a lot more land, GD of Tuscany taking up much of what were formally the Papal states, north of that being the Folerentine Republic & the Duchy of Parma, then finally Venice. 

Do tell me what you think. It's highly subjective at the moment so perhaps it needs balancing out! 


royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,813
Reply with quote  #2 
Unfortunately the map is a little too faint to read. Can you make it darker?
Isaac

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #3 
Well, I've left it in pencil so I can make adjustments before I add ink. That's why I've annotated it at the bottom
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 398
Reply with quote  #4 
Thanks for the hypothetical map of Italy, although it's too faint to make out most of the names and boundaries. However, one element that caught my eye was your "Duchy of Savoy", in the northwest. Actually, my own preference for this area would be to partition it between a small "Duchy of Aosta" and a larger "Duchy of Piedmont". The territory of the actual historical Duchy of Savoy is now a district in the French province of Rhone-Alpes. It is split into 2 counties, Savoie (county-seat: Chambery) and Haute Savoie (county-seat: Annecy). This was the original homeland of the house of Savoy, and I'd be loathe to create a "Duchy of Savoy" which excluded it. However, later on the dukes of Savoy acquired Aosta and Piedmont, and these areas are indeed ancient territories of the house of Savoy.

I also like the idea of making Sardinia a Savoy possession (though I'd make it a separate duchy), and making Corsica a Bonapartist duchy.

I'd dispense with the Florentine Republic, though, and put Florence back into the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. I wonder if somehow a Medici descent could be deduced for Archduke Sigismund ?

__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #5 
I think my ideal disposition of Italy would be a Kingdom of Italy, hereditary in the House of Savoy and with its capital in Rome. The Vatican City State would continue as it is, and San Marino's independence would also of course continue. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Duke of Ferrara, Modena and Reggio and Duke of Parma and Piacenza would have a similar relationship to the King of Italy as the other monarchs of Germany had with the German Emperor. Directly-ruled territory of the kingdom would include the old Kingdom of Sardinia, Lombardy and Venetia and the Papal States, with two further exceptions besides the territory of the Vatican City State.

The first of these is Ferrara, returned to the heirs, by law if not by line, of the Estensi from whom Clement VIII stole it. The second is Benevento, which would go to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, a separate sovereign state from the Kingdom of Italy. Trentino and possibly a few other bits and pieces along the fringes would be returned to the reestablished Austrian Empire where they belong. Or since this is a fantasy, we can say that this was how things fell out in the 1860s and how they have been ever since, and the continuing Austrian Empire never lost more territory to the Savoys after Lombardy and Venetia.

In essence, this is the old Kingdom of Italy claimed and sometimes even ruled by the Holy Roman Emperors, with the Donation of Pepin revoked, and the old Kingdom of Sicily that was contemporary with it. As fantasies go I think it's quite a nice one. To Windemere, Archduke Sigismund has very many Medici descents, as do all members of major Catholic lines. The actual heiress of line of the last Medici was Elizabeth Farnese, second wife of Felipe V of Spain (who himself had Medici blood through Marie de Medicis, second wife of Henri IV, not to mention from Catherine de Medici, wife of Henri II) and mother of Carlos III.

The latter was nominated heir to the Grand Duchy at a time when he was not expected to succeed to Spain, but then gave it up for the greater prize of the Sicilies, eventually passing that on to a younger son and travelling to Spain to take up rule there. Grand Duke Sigismund is descended over and over from both Carlos III and his full brother Filippo, Duke of Parma. His male-line descent is from Franz I, Holy Roman Emperor, who was named heir of Tuscany after the future Carlos III gave up its succession. He also had Medici blood through both father and mother, and Archduke Sigismund is descended from him a good deal more times than just through the male line.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,992
Reply with quote  #6 
Given my research (in the Anscarids thread recently) and what I've been posting on Facebook about Italian history, I think it's worthwhile for me to touch on a number of themes in Italian history.

Firstly, regional and linguistic differences. Standard Italian is based on the speech of Tuscany, and of Central Italy generally. The northern languages include Venetian, Genoese, Milanese, Piedmontese and Emilian-Romagnol. Sicilian and Neapolitan in the South are closer to Italian than any of those, but very distinct languages. Sardinian is one of the most conservative Romance languages, whereas in the North, Friulian and Ladin are a distinct Romance subgroup. Corsican is very closely related to Italian.

The development of Italian states to 1861 can be explained by the Fall of Rome in 476. The north and south developed radically different patterns politically. After Odoacer conquered Italy, the peninsula came under the rule of the Ostrogoths before the Byzantine Empire under Justinian succeeded in reconquering the entirety of Italy. But the reconquest of Italy proved short-lived for the Lombards succeeded in taking the north, and gaining a separate foothold in the south.

[Italy_1000_AD] 

In the second half of the 1st Millennium AD, there was the emergence of the Papal States and the Venetian Republic as sovereign entities, the rise of Islam and its appearance in Europe, conquering Sicily. The Lombards lost control of northern Italy to the Franks, and under Charlemagne the north was part of his empire. But the empire broke up into what would become France and the Holy Roman Empire, the latter having two royal titles: King of Germany and King of Italy, the latter being symbolised by the Iron Crown of Lombardy.

In the North, the Kingdom of Italy was divided into a number of feudal domains as can be shown in the map above - Tuscany and Verona being two of the more important ones. As a result, the North developed a state system closer to that of Germany - namely a patchwork of feudal domains and cities which were ultimately self-governing. In the 10th Century, a number of Frankish noble houses held the kingship, including the Anscarids of Ivrea, before the forces of Otto I invaded Italy and he would be crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 962. In 1002, Arduin of Ivrea was crowned King of Italy in a bid to re-establish Italian independence, but was defeated by Emperor Henry II. It was a prefiguration of what was to follow, a certain tension between the Empire and its Italian subjects.

[Kingdom_of_Sicily_1154] 

In the South, Lombard principalities and Byzantine fiefs competed for power, and established a thriving commerce. Benevento and Capua were Lombard entities, Amalfi and Naples were Byzantine entities. This balance of power continued until the 11th and 12th Centuries, when a new force that was also conquering England found its way to southern Italy and, as with England, dramatically reshape the entire region: the Normans.

The Norman conquest of Southern Italy took place over many decades, ultimately displacing the Arabs from Sicily and the Lombards and Byzantines from the mainland. By 1130, Roger II of Sicily united all of the territories to form the Kingdom of Sicily, which remained a single entity until the Sicilian Vespers conflict resulted in a division between Naples and Sicily which remained until 1816. However, both realms combined a feudal nobility with a more centralised state structure, more reminiscent of England, France, Spain and Portugal than of the situation to the north. Through dynastic changes the basic structure of state and society remained the same.

[2078495809_c6026aede1] 

A very different and vastly more complicated picture prevailed north of Rome. For such a vast empire as the Holy Roman Empire was, it was inevitable that central authority would be weaker, in favour of considerable local autonomy. The fundamentals of local government in Europe and beyond were established in this period. In Italy, the original feudal order began broke down in the 12th Century in favour of self-governing communes and hereditary fiefs. The self-governing cities were essentially aristocratic republics, fiercely guarding their local autonomy. At the same time, the maritime republics of Genoa and Venice became formidable economic powers. San Marino had long been in existence as a republic.

This era of Italian city-states featured fractious internal politics with rival aristocratic families ultimately coalescing in two camps: Guelphs and Ghibellines. The Guelphs were supporters of the Pope, the Ghibellines supporters of the Holy Roman Emperor. In Tuscany, the disintegration of the feudal domain gave way to a period of domination by republics in Florence, Siena, Pisa and Lucca, which attained considerable economic and cultural prowess. As time went on, the pseudo-democratic order gave way to signoria or hereditary lordship. The city-states are somewhat analogous to the Free Cities of Germany which were subject only to the Emperor.

[svg] 
[svg] 
Map 1: Italy in 1494
Map 2: Italy in 1796

Similar to the trend in Germany over centuries, there was a progressive consolidation of Italian states by virtue of wars and sales or exchange of possessions. The breakdown of the city-state system gave rise to powerful noble families, who subsequently became princes and dukes. By the 15th Century, the Counts of Savoy became Dukes of Savoy.

In Milan, the Della Torre was the first of three families to rule the city, being overthrown in 1277 by the Visconti, who by the mid-15th Century were displaced by the Sforza family who ruled until the main line died out, and Milan would become a Habsburg possession until 1797 (and again from 1815 to 1859). However, the Della Torre family is still around today, and branches of the Visconti and I believe Sforza families are still extant - whether any would have a plausible claim to the Duchy of Milan today is a matter of debate.

Apart from these, the Este of Modena (related to the Welfs of Brunswick and Hanover), Gonzaga of Mantova, Farnese of Parma and Medici of Tuscany all established duchies that reflected the re-consolidation of northern Italy. For instance, the Medici succeeded in reunifying Tuscany save for the Republic of Lucca and the Principality of Piombino, both of which remained sovereign until the Revolutionary/Napoleonic era. The Habsburgs would pick up Tuscany, Mantova and Modena in the 18th Century, and the Bourbons would pick up Parma.

Elevating rulers to a certain title is a development that arises from circumstances. The authority of the Holy Roman Emperor over the empire not only weakened, but was also effectively gone after 1648. The eventual promotion of Prussia, Bavaria, W├╝rttemberg and Hanover to kingdoms only confirmed that. The Savoys, on the other hand, picked up a kingship through their acquisition of Sardinia. In this respect, a parallel can be drawn with the "Game of Thrones" periods of Chinese history - the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods where the Zhou kings lost authority, and the states elevated themselves from feudal lords to full-fledged kings.

[413px-Italy_c_1810] 

The attempts by Jacobins to impose a New Order onto the peninsula was unsuccessful and unpopular with the Italian people, which inspired a nationalist sentiment in reaction to it just as it did elsewhere in Europe. While there was a feeling that Italy was long "dominated" by foreign powers (despite the fact they were all in fact fully sovereign states), the attempt by Jacobins to export the French Revolution was clearly seen by Italians as an attempt to impose a foreign model.

Napoleon, on the other hand, had more success. All of Italy save for Sardinia and Sicily would find itself under direct or indirect Napoleonic control. Lombardy and Venice became the Kingdom of Italy, Napoleon would be crowned with the Iron Crown of Lombardy, (significantly, Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria would be the last person to be so in 1838). This state provided Napoleon with some of his best and most loyal troops. The Murats would be invested in Naples. Meanwhile, the legitimate Savoy and Bourbon dynasties were on Sardinia and Sicily respectively, the first time they had actually ruled from there, while their lands were being occupied by Napoleon.

[svg] 

Throughout 19th Century Italy, there were competing political movements: progressives who sought to unify the entire Italian peninsula at one end, and reactionaries who defended the Old Order on the other. In the middle were more moderate unionists like Cavour, and federalists like Gioberti who wanted to unite Italy into a federation under the Pope. This was a neo-Guelph idea, thus drawing upon history.

Were at least some of those agitating for unification in Germany and Italy attempting to draw on the historical fact that there were once kingdoms of Germany and Italy which gradually dissolved into lordships and city-states? The appropriation and misappropriation of history is an ongoing thing with both reactionaries and progressives doing so to advance their respective causes. Regionalism in Italy thus has a rich body of history that it can appropriate or misappropriate.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #7 
The Sforza family is technically extant, but all current members of the family descend agnatically from Lorenzo Sforza-Cesarini, a 19th-century duke in the Papal nobility who was the biological son not of his mother's husband but of a Russian officer. As I understand it his legal father declined to acknowledge him but a Roman court awarded him the family title and inheritance anyway, as he had been born in the Sforza-Cesarini palace and in Roman law any child born in the marital home was deemed a legitimate child of the marriage. So the name survives but not, it would appear, the bloodline.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,992
Reply with quote  #8 
One key aspect of this decentralisation was economic. North and Central Italy had a lot in common with the Low Countries which were then still part of the Holy Roman Empire. Their economic structures based on trade and commerce was considered a prefiguration of capitalism and the mercantile economy. This was typified by Milan, Genoa, Venice, Florence, Amalfi, Siena and Pisa. As with Germany, a consolidation of smaller entities into larger ones (in Germany this was only really achieved with the end of the Holy Roman Empire and the mediatisations that followed) was perhaps an inevitable trend.

The first to rule as Duke of Milan, Gian Galeazzo Visconti, had his own ambitions to unite northern Italy under his hegemony, as this 1400 map evidences:
[Massima_espansione_Viscontea] 

Note that much of the Veneto region would only become part of the Venetian Republic in the 15th Century. The Italian communes had such positions as capitano del popolo ("captains of the people"), podesta and, ultimately, signorio. If they were really republican at all, it was a very sloppy kind of republicanism (!) - even if they subscribed to pseudo-democratic ideas - given their ultimate fealty to either the Pope or the Emperor. And there is how you had Tuscany, Milan, Mantova, Parma, Modena, Massa and Carrara, Ferrara and Savoy become the main monarchical states in the North - and how Genoa, Venice and Lucca alone remained as republics.

A decent map overview: http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/The%20Papal%20States.html

So there you have it. The Savoy, Gonzaga, Medici, Visconti, Este, Farnese, et al transformed from "mere" city or feudal lords into rulers of independent states, with the Venetian Republic and the Papal States picking up territories for good measure.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,992
Reply with quote  #9 
[1499515_234774410023756_1629378086_n] 
On the right is Maurizio, the de jure Duke of Mantova. On the left is Luis di San Martino-Lorenzato di Ivrea, the head of the Lorenzato line descended from Arduin (Arduino).

And while we're at it, a Piombino website:http://italianprinces.com/bio.html
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.