@@scrappy9133 because I honestly don’t see the Quebecois rebelling against the British Empire only to then join the United States. Maybe young America annexes the region 🤷🏽♂️
I don't get how this Germany could've still united without an armed conflict with Austria. Austria had been the dominant power in Germany for centuries and in terms of spheres of influence it was Austrias main concern. No unified German State (not led by Austria) could've ever formed without forcefully kicking her out first.
There are some problems with the presented scenario: 1) Prussia intervening in 1860. Prussia in the 1840s-1850s before Bismarck was not the juggernaut of the 18th century, while Napoleon III's France was at his peak; why would they risk a potentially losing war to save Austria's skin? 2)Piedmont was no joke - Cavour was a genius on par with Bismarck (he gets less press because he died fairly young) and he had prepared his resources well; plus, he had tacit British support in his plans and network. 3)Italian, German, Hungarian and Slavic nationalism wouldn't have gone away just because Austria had beaten Piedmont; if anything, It would have only dalayed her problems and made them bigger. 4) Bismarck was an incredible statesman, but he saw war as a major part of diplomacy. He wouldn't see a compromise with Austria with a possible Smaller and less powerful Germany as a good idea, so a war against the Austrian was inevitable. A war with Austria would have probably had the same result as in OTL - Remember that Italy was only a small distraction (a useless one, even) in that war. 5) Moving forward, our WW1 is likely butterflied away, replaced with something different. Austria's chances at keeping her empire remain fairly low.
I absolutely agree with your points, whatever the outcome, the Austro-Prussian would have still happened, the Prussian would have won, and Italian unification wouldn’t simply have melted away, the sentiment of a united italian country was still there, they would have united no matter what. Also Austria defeating the French by attacking through the Alps during this alternate WWI is bullshit, the Austrians weren’t able to invade Italy during WW1 and he thinks they would have invaded France through the Alps, c’mon
That's not properly true that Italians hated French domain. Infact Napoleone Bonaparte felt himself Italian other than French, was king of Italy and recognised Italians a "free" people and aimed to unify all the peninsula. And free italians fron the austrian dominance that was hated by italians more than any other
Ima disagree with you on your opinions on freemasonry. It may be conflicting with the Catholic Church but to say it conflicts with Christianity as a whole seems like a pretty big leap. Overall though the video was still pretty enjoyable.
Woohoo, alternate history is always the best history. How about an interesting suggestion of say, Hideyoshi conquering Korea afterall? I figure he still couldn't push onto China in that scenario but maybe it's enough to keep his son in power or at the very least lead any potential Tokugawa successor away from Isolationism? Colonization of the Pacific like with the Wako against Spain in the Philippines incoming? :D
Based Germanic Brothers. 😎👍 P.S. What if The Western Roman Empire never lost Italy? Aka Invasions into Italy were stopped and Italy remained United. Also, a part 2 to this video please?
Although this is my only criticism about your channel, I do believe this is a major thing that needs to be addressed. Why did it take you around 10 MINS to talk about the IRL history of Italy (up until the Fascist Era), but only around 4 MINS to talk about what viewers came here for, the alternate history scenario. That’s less than a third (33.3%) of the video. You could at least give us chapters/timestamps to let people, like me, skip to the actual scenario. Please fix this in your later videos. Thank you for acknowledging this comment.
Honestly, I think you really did overestimate austria. When you mention WW1 specifically, you ignored 2 main issues regarding austria. First of all, succeeding in keeping italy disunited, while being a very beneficial arrangement for austria, does not at all mean that austria’s army would be more powerful, as they now not only had to fight who they did historically, but they would also definitely have to deal with italian insurrections, plus the fact that the multiethnic army issues would still plague the army, leading to similar underperformance in russia. Second, It is nearly impossible that austrian troop on the franco-italian border would have as much of an effect as you described, as the mountainous alpine borders would be extremely powerful defenses that austria could absolutely never break through, especially if italian resistances in the region bogged their troops down even further
"They said they were going to liberate italy from foreign domination, however in reality they were just throwing out foreign domination from other countries in exchange for foreign domination from theirs." Gee, what two modern countries does that sound like today?
@@Juan-qu4oj factually incorrect the capital was Constantinople. In the region of Thrace… Europe. Anatolia is Asia Minor, opposite side of the Bosporus and Helispont.
I do not agree with you, in 1860 Napoleon III’s France was at its peak while Bismarck’s wasn’t yet the power it was later on, so Prussia going to war to save their rival Austria was very unlikely
What if goerge 1 of Greece survived his Assassination What if capodistrias survived his Assassination What if Austria and Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire in the Greek Revolution What if Italië attacked France in the Franco prusian war What if Greece joined the Entente when Britain offert Cyprus tho them
here's one i wonder what you think about: what if corsica remained in italian hands when napoleon was born? he does ho to a military academy in france but had ideas about uniting italy and eventually succeeds. since there is no connection to the anti-monarchist elements of the french revolution, european powers such as russia and the british empire may be less suspicious of the ascendant italy. in france, without an emperor as a figurehead, the directoire, or national assembly, may confer on it's leader the title of president, or create a constitutional monarchy as something of a compromise vis-a-vis the european monarchies. napoleon as the new roman caesar may wish to free greece from the otomans, and create a neo-hellenistic sphere of influence. he may certainly be interested in the possibility of establishing colonies in india, as in the days of alexander the great, but that may be achieaved more smoothly regarding the british empire. they may even be partners.
I was always interested in what would happen if Italy never United but my knowledge in Italy was always half-baked so I couldn't properly work my way around it
I'm from Rome and i unironically miss the Papal States. I'd rather be under the Pope's rule rather than being "united" with the akward Neapolitans and Milanese.
Iam enjoying these hypothetical "What if's" videos, gives a whole other scenario about how history might have changed completely had some events not happened. Subbed.
Honestly here’s a couple ideas that I think would be really interesting, I never see many people do a lot of steppe migrations but it would be interesting to see one where the cumans replace Hungary or the avars survive
Little correction , southern italy became indipendent after the last spanish-neapolitan king left southern italy and went to spain, dividing the bourbon dynasty into the sicilian bourbons so yeah southern italy was the second indipendent non pape controlled nation however the economy was still developing so piedmont took over
One of the best endinh for our peninsula, despite if Lombardy stayed under Austria we would have been Germanized soo, maybe the federation / confederation is better.
13:20 - I could almost see France convincing Spain to join the war in this timeline in order to allay fears of Austrian domination of the Mediterranean as Austria might have threatened Morocco.
i dont think austria would let prussia unificate germany without a war, war between austria and prussia for domination in germany is inevitable and can maybe even escalate into ww1
Even using the B-word slur is horribly offensive. Claiming that the Romans in Constantinople were a foreign power ruling over Italy takes that attitude to a whole new level
this is an another excellent what if alternative history timeline just like what if germany never existed. if italy never united, it is possible that fascism is never invented.
Reminder that the Republic of Venice was the only self-governed state in Europe, and it makes no sense why Venetia wasn't allowed to govern itself after 1815. Also, Venetians never bought the whole "liberation" thing from the italians. We were free before, and since the unification we have been occupied by a foreign state.
you can literally find everything i've said about the freemasons on wikipedia, it ain't some wild conspiracy theory, it's just true public information lmao
@@KameroonEmperor It's relevant to why Sicily and The Pope were oppositional to Italian Nationalism, this is even said in the video bro our you paying attention.
@@KameroonEmperor It is relevant. Like Patrick Rooney said it explains why the Vatican was opposed to this brand of Italian Nationalism. It’s not the same as what you mentioned.
I noticed that you havent spoke about the glorius kingdom of Two sicilies that was the richest and developed state in italy but unfurtuanaly it was destroyed by the kingdom of savoy and garibaldi who stole all the money and taked millions of innocent civilians and put them in concentration camp destroying a entire country of love respect and unity and freedom , turning it in the land of criminality and poorness (the freedom part started after 1836 like most states in the world) , and the rebellion in sicily was supported by the british because they wanted to conquer it . basicaly North = weak and poor SOUTH = strong and rich (not very organized in the military)
@@NoName-hg6cc Yeah how i said it that way sounds propaganda but its actualy true that two sicilies were much stronger they just had a big actualy very big problem with corruption in the army that led to their fall
@@Herobrineminecraft-return It actually wasn't. It had some interesting industry but nothing the North didn't have, and it had too many problems: no middle class, widespread illiteracy, few investments
@@NoName-hg6cc thats what the italian goverment says, but i have to agree that the kingdom had many probles like all states in Europe in that time, like, savoy had a super high dept of money that led them to invade the south, that the south was the richest in the region , turning it into a colony
@@Herobrineminecraft-return This is what Historic data said. Piedmont Sardinia invested money at debt, the South had a surplus because didn't invest in infrastructure or schooling
