|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jul 21, 2024 21:41:14 GMT
What if all the Italian peninsular states from February 1, 1848, to February 1748.
I am talking about Habsburg Lombardy-Venezia and Piedmont in the north, down to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the south, and everything in between.
They are on the edge of their 1848 revolutions.
And when they go back in time, they lose all their 1848 neighbors and enemies.
And arriving in the February 1, 1748 world, in the final year of the war of Austrian Succession, about when British Russian troops were starting to arrive on the Rhine, and about three months before the opening of great power peace talks at Aix-La-Chappelle/Aachen on April 30th, where the powers would eventually agree on terms in late October 1748.
Italian revolutionary and patriotic sentiment for Risorgimento, groups like the Carbonari, and the ambitions of Piedmont and men like Mazzini and Garibaldi would certainly put a wrench in European affairs and throw out the ability for Spain, France and Austria to trade Italian territories like baubles as part of the settlement.
What does this 1 century ISOT do to European and world affairs in the short term and long term?
Here are some thoughts:
1. Italian revolutionaries, and the armies of Italian states, which will function responsively to one degree or another in accordance with the will of the resident peoples, will outclass downtime foreign players tactically and technologically
2. Rulers will only keep their crowns or heads or palaces going along with a degree of Italian patriotism and federalism.
3. Italy will have scientific, tactical and industrial knowledge of practical application ahead of its time, and plenty of foreign tourists, expats and churchmen, who will have an interest in their downtime "home" countries.
4. Italy will have "news from the future" horrifying to political and religious elite people everywhere, but also inspiring of demand for reform or revolution among others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jul 21, 2024 23:52:14 GMT
The French might react to the news of the French Revolution either by reforming or by becoming more oppressive. The king of France at the time is Louis XV who I doubt is capable of enacting any meaningful reforms.
As for actual military superiority of uptime Italy, I'm not sure. By 1848 armies were still armed with smoothbore muskets. There might be a slight advantage in artillery but certainly not infantry.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jul 22, 2024 1:18:49 GMT
The French might react to the news of the French Revolution either by reforming or by becoming more oppressive. Sure - The king of France at the time is Louis XV who I doubt is capable of enacting any meaningful reforms. But, "orthogonal" to the question of reform or reaction, Louis XV gets to reconsider whether he will give up the occupied Austrian Netherlands in the peace treaty in this timeline, or not. That is rather important. As for actual military superiority of uptime Italy, I'm not sure. By 1848 armies were still armed with smoothbore muskets. There might be a slight advantage in artillery but certainly not infantry. So maybe not a notable difference in small arms quantity, but there are other tactical and coalitional advantages. Italians are familiar with larger, more robust formations living off the last, independent of magazines, attacking more aggressively, and doing levees en masse. And, the major continental powers are at the end of a 6-8 year war, and the Italians are fresh. The Austrians are decidedly not fresh, and this time won't have to deal with Radetzky, at least not Radetzky who can have any reinforcements trained and equipped up to the standards he knows. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,495 
Likes: 12,915
|
Post by stevep on Jul 22, 2024 11:12:30 GMT
The French might react to the news of the French Revolution either by reforming or by becoming more oppressive. Sure - The king of France at the time is Louis XV who I doubt is capable of enacting any meaningful reforms. But, "orthogonal" to the question of reform or reaction, Louis XV gets to reconsider whether he will give up the occupied Austrian Netherlands in the peace treaty in this timeline, or not. That is rather important. As for actual military superiority of uptime Italy, I'm not sure. By 1848 armies were still armed with smoothbore muskets. There might be a slight advantage in artillery but certainly not infantry. So maybe not a notable difference in small arms quantity, but there are other tactical and coalitional advantages. Italians are familiar with larger, more robust formations living off the last, independent of magazines, attacking more aggressively, and doing levees en masse. And, the major continental powers are at the end of a 6-8 year war, and the Italians are fresh. The Austrians are decidedly not fresh, and this time won't have to deal with Radetzky, at least not Radetzky who can have any reinforcements trained and equipped up to the standards he knows.
That's an interesting question but is he willing to continue it? Because that will be a casus belli to Britain, the Netherlands and Austria, as well as most of the rest of Germany. Its too much of a threat to too many nations. Which is likely at the very least to extend the war and mean more French colonies being mopped up by Britain and less likely to have them returned.
Also would such a reaction, even if after further fighting he's driven out of it, prevent the OTL diplomatic revolution with France and Austria allying - including the marriage of Maria Antoinette to the future Louis XVI - and the resulting realignment of Britain with Prussia.
During the Austria-Sardinia war the early stages seem to show the Austrians withstanding the Savoy forces and assorted generally poorly co-ordinated groups and they had a decently trained army under Radetzky and also some powerful fortifications. Since the date of the event is shortly before unrest hit Italy its unclear how things will be affected, although probably not by much. One complication that will confuse a lot of people is that the 1748 world now has a totally different pope!
The down side for the Austrians is that with technology a century behind and a major war with France any reinforcements will be restricted and distinctly less well equipped. However Austria will not have the internal disputes and revolts so some reinforcements should be available. Also of course they won't be able to supply their up-time forces with new guns, bullets and the like.
The other thing of course is how the 1748 world reacts to the news of all the events to come. Information about the early stages of the 1848 revolutions will be far less significant than the other changes. Especially the revolutions in the British American colonies and then in France, the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars that shattered much of the old regimes, the collapse of the Spanish empire in the Americas and much else. Let alone scientific and technological changes, the large scale social revolution against slavery and the slave trade and many others.
Its going to throw the world into confusion and with nationalistic fevour will buffer Italy for a while its going to cause some impact there. They will be better off with their greater knowledge but also might have issues with the down-timers over the desire for an Italian state. After all Naples/Sicily, which is having its own problems is under a Bourbon monarch - albeit a different one to what the 1748 Bourbon's know - and there could well be a desire to make peace to support the dynasties interest in Italy and also seek to stamp down on revolutionary ideas - or at least try it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,495
Likes: 12,915
|
Post by stevep on Jul 22, 2024 13:05:47 GMT
One other point that occurred to me. Your going to have a very confused Corsica.
a) If its treated as Italian, i.e. brought back from 1848 its going to see itself as French for nearly a century, albeit a France that doesn't exist with the more moderate Orleans dynasty about to be overthrown with disorder that would lead to Napoleon III gaining power.
b) If its treated as non-Italian - which is probably more likely - its from 1748 and at that time was still a colony of the republic of Genoa, which no longer exists but probably many think of themselves as Italian.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jul 23, 2024 2:10:47 GMT
That's an interesting question but is he willing to continue it? Maybe on balance he is. He might learn that in French histories, he was ridiculed for giving it up at the peace table, seemingly "for honor" alone. If he does trade it back, he certainly won't use such a highfalutin' justification for doing it, but explain exactly what he is getting ransomed back in return that gave him no choice. Because that will be a casus belli to Britain, the Netherlands and Austria, as well as most of the rest of Germany. It's htoo much of a threat to too many nations. Which is likely at the very least to extend the war and mean more French colonies being mopped up by Britain and less likely to have them returned. It's not a fresh casus belli for a new war, since at this point France is still in the war, which is not over yet. I guess you're saying it is a recipe for a war Britain and Austria would just never quit. But could both keep going forever? Would they indeed keep capturing more colonies? Would they capture ultimately any more colonies that French did not lose by 1763 anyway? What's with the certainty that they would eventually claw Austrian Netherlands from French hands at some point? And in the long run, the taxable value of Austrian Netherlands might be higher than any colony. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jul 23, 2024 2:17:31 GMT
Also would such a reaction, even if after further fighting he's driven out of it, prevent the OTL diplomatic revolution with France and Austria allying - including the marriage of Maria Antoinette to the future Louis XVI - and the resulting realignment of Britain with Prussia. It could disrupt that realignment. But that might not be cause for regret, if Louis XV catches wind of enough future history to learn how unpopular the Franco-Austrian alliance, and Marie-Antoinette were with the French public and elites, and the ultimate decapitated fate of his son and daughter-in-law. Maybe he'd see sticking with Freddy as best bet, despite how tricky and inconstant he could be. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,495
Likes: 12,915
|
Post by stevep on Jul 23, 2024 17:24:26 GMT
That's an interesting question but is he willing to continue it? Maybe on balance he is. He might learn that in French histories, he was ridiculed for giving it up at the peace table, seemingly "for honor" alone. If he does trade it back, he certainly won't use such a highfalutin' justification for doing it, but explain exactly what he is getting ransomed back in return that gave him no choice. Because that will be a casus belli to Britain, the Netherlands and Austria, as well as most of the rest of Germany. It's htoo much of a threat to too many nations. Which is likely at the very least to extend the war and mean more French colonies being mopped up by Britain and less likely to have them returned. It's not a fresh casus belli for a new war, since at this point France is still in the war, which is not over yet. I guess you're saying it is a recipe for a war Britain and Austria would just never quit. But could both keep going forever? Would they indeed keep capturing more colonies? Would they capture ultimately any more colonies that French did not lose by 1763 anyway? What's with the certainty that they would eventually claw Austrian Netherlands from French hands at some point? And in the long run, the taxable value of Austrian Netherlands might be higher than any colony.
To clarify I'm not saying they will win but all three powers have a strong interest in keeping the region outside French hands so I'm confident they will fight at least at 1st. Possibly some disruption due to the Italians might force Austria to back down.
If France does cling on to it then the British especially will in turn keep their gains, which included the fortress of Louisbourg and was seen as an important position in regards to the approaches to French Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jul 24, 2024 2:02:28 GMT
ng the region outside French hands so I'm confident they will fight at least at 1st. Possibly some disruption due to the Italians might force Austria to back down.
If France does cling on to it then the British especially will in turn keep their gains, which included the fortress of Louisbourg and was seen as an important position in regards to the approaches to French Canada.
I thought I had heard the British traded back Louisbourg to the recover French-captured Madras in India. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,495
Likes: 12,915
|
Post by stevep on Jul 24, 2024 16:43:51 GMT
ng the region outside French hands so I'm confident they will fight at least at 1st. Possibly some disruption due to the Italians might force Austria to back down.
If France does cling on to it then the British especially will in turn keep their gains, which included the fortress of Louisbourg and was seen as an important position in regards to the approaches to French Canada.
I thought I had heard the British traded back Louisbourg to the recover French-captured Madras in India.
Ah the version I heard was Louisbourg was part of the compensation for Louis withdrawing from the Austrian Netherlands. Albeit that the 18thC was a favourite period of history for the young me as, apart from the 1770/80s it was a very successful time so a long while since I've read it in detail and could either have remembered it wrongly or been reading somewhat unbalanced sources.
Also didn't help my initial thoughts were crossed with the other TL about Spain not joining the 7YW so had to stop and think a minute to realise I was thinking of the wrong TL!
In a longer War of the Austrian Succession its difficult to say what happens but generally in wars in this period Britain did better as time goes on. Because as a constitutional monarchy - albeit one in which the monarch has far more power than OTL states of that time - with a fairly broad franchise and also decent social mobility hence Parliament often spent less on the military in times of peace. For the navy many ships were laid up and officers removed from service on half pay. As such autocratic states like France generally had a military more prepared for war but Britain's greater social and intellectual knowledge tended to come into their own as the war goes on. As such in a colonial war especially I would expect Britain to gain more success in later stages of a conflict and this is likely to see more territory gained which might include more territory to exchange in return for Madras or the forces operating there for the EIC being able with support from Britain to regain it from the French.
Of course the wild card in this scenario is the presence of 1848 Italy. Both in the people and forces present in it and also the knowledge that will spread and the shocks that will bring. How this affects so many thinks is a big unknown.
|
|
