with a pod after the end of the War of Spanish Succession, is it possible to have a scenario in which Spain retains the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily? Perhaps either Carlos III or the IV are lone children, meaning there’s no one to hand Naples and Sicily once Carlos III ascends to the Spanish throne? Though that is bound to lead to some resentment among European rulers.
PC: southern Italy remains part of the Spanish empire
- Thread starter Orko
- Start date
As a matter of fact, Spain did effecitvely annex the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily between the conquest operation of 1735 and the Treaty ov Vienna of 1738, with southern Italy being trated as a kingdom within a Personal Union with Spain. During the Treaty of Vienna, Charles, Bourbon Duke of Parma and Piacenza, renounced to his ducal title in favour of the Hasburgs, as well as renouncing to any claims on the Tuscan throne, both of which were given to the Hasburgs. In the previous treaty of 1725 (also in Vienna), it was stipulated that the thrones of Parma, Piacenza, and Tuscany would be given to the sons of the Queen of Spain should the male line for their thrones be vacant; while Philip V of Spain renounced the right for the Kingdom of Sicily (don't know about Naples) to revert to the Spanish (meaning even if it was conquered, it would not be governed by the same monarch as Spain).
In a nutshell, it is pretty complex, Isabel Farnese wanted to have more of his sons in Italian thrones, while Philip V was not that interested in acquiring back Southern Italy, that being more of a trait of Spanish PMs such as Ripperdá or Alberoni. I don't think preventing Charles being granted a throne he could exchange for Naples and Sicily (for example during an alternate 1731 Parma Crisis) would work, as he would still be given southern Italy while delinking it from the main Spanish line. I feel the best way for this to occur would be changing Isabel Farnese, either having her have less kids, for them to die at young age, or for her not to be so focused on giving all of them a throne, then maybe we could have Spain take back Southern Italy durng the middle of the 18th Century, albeit that would change pretty much everything regarding the Spanish succession from the 1710's onward.
In a nutshell, it is pretty complex, Isabel Farnese wanted to have more of his sons in Italian thrones, while Philip V was not that interested in acquiring back Southern Italy, that being more of a trait of Spanish PMs such as Ripperdá or Alberoni. I don't think preventing Charles being granted a throne he could exchange for Naples and Sicily (for example during an alternate 1731 Parma Crisis) would work, as he would still be given southern Italy while delinking it from the main Spanish line. I feel the best way for this to occur would be changing Isabel Farnese, either having her have less kids, for them to die at young age, or for her not to be so focused on giving all of them a throne, then maybe we could have Spain take back Southern Italy durng the middle of the 18th Century, albeit that would change pretty much everything regarding the Spanish succession from the 1710's onward.
Even if, without a war like in 1718, Spain is able to annex Sicily and Naples, how long can retain them?
Spain is a backward declining power, which will suffer all the 19th century conflicts and civil wars.
We can kill Napoleon in his cradle, but without a meteorite, the destiny of Europe is sealed...enlightenment, revolutions, industry, nationalism.
You can't stop all of them by small little changes like killing a single man or annexing a territory to a certain State.
And you can't make sicilians and neapolitans spanish, without killing all of them and colonising with castilians..
Well, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia are as much Spanish as they are Italian historically.
Naples, Sicily and Sardinia were linked to the Kingdom of Aragon for a long time.
The true Italy always went from Rome upwards.
Naples and Sicily had their own culture due to the Byzantine and Aragonese influence.
Also, Spanish and the "Italian dialects" are not very different. And among Italian dialects, there is a big difference between Northern Italian and Southern Italian dialects, the latter more similar to the Balkan Romance dialects. Ethnically there is also a difference between North and South Italy.
I consider that Naples (to a lesser extent), Sicily and Sardinia could have been united in an alternative Spain in the same way that Portugal could have been part of Spain.
The same with Catalonia and Navarra, they could alternatively be French instead of Spanish.
It could also be the other way around, a Kingdom of Aragon based in Naples unifying "Italy", and causing Catalonia, Aragon, Valencia and the Balearic Islands to be Italian.
Spain does not have to kill to make Neapolitans and Sicilians, Spaniards. Well, maybe something like Sardinia - Piedmont did with the Genoese and with southern Italy.
Until Caesar and the Lex Roscia, true Italy was from Rome downward..
The idea Italy was only northern Italy until 1860 is a beautiful legend , really loved on this site, unfortunately without any kind of proof
I suppose it's a banal misconception from the borders of the Charlemagne's kingdom of Lombardy: notoriusly he stopped his direct conquest north of Rome (and the Pope), accepting an act of submission from the lombard nobles of the Longobardia Minor (the south of Italy)
But we are talking of a high midlle ages kingdom, soon disappeared and remembered only by juridical pretensions of later holy roman emperors.
I challenge you to prove your statement, but I'm sure you'll not able to find anything. On the contrary, Dante in his "De vulgary eloquentia" claerly states the borders of Italy from the North until Sicily
Spain is not even able to hold Catalunia today, it will be really difficult hold southern italy through austrian succession war, american indipendence, french revolution, spanish liberal revolutions, carlist wars...
Integrate their elites into the government?
Last edited: