WI/AHC: Papal States Reemerge

Kibbutznik

During the infamous Italian referendum of 1946, the split was pretty clearly split along geographical between monarchism and republicanism, with a pretty big chance of a split.

Say the Americans delay the referendum, perhaps out of fear of a communist-dominated republic, to allow many pro-Monarchy soldiers to return and register, and then the northern Italian Republic secedes.

If such a division occurs, the question of ownership over Rome will be a point of contention. To prevent such a thing, is there any chance that the entirety of Rome, possibly with the rest of the Lazio region, is returned to Papal authority, perhaps with a constitutional theocratic monarchy (King of the Vatican becomes King of Rome, power is balanced out with an elected legislature and lots of American/UN oversight)?

If there's no chance, how do we make this decision real with a PoD past Operation Overlord?
 

Galba Otho Vitelius

Restoring the Papal States is almost ASB. Not only was the survival of the Papal States until 1860-70 almost ASB itself, but at least post-Lateran Treaty the Popes weren't interested.

I can see two ways to get this. The first is a HUGE Central Powers victory in World War I, starting with a much bigger win against the Italians in 1917, after which they roll through northern Italy to the French border, and this somehow snowballs into a big win in 1918. The Italian monarchy falls apart, with the king being deposed in a revolution. Germany and Austria Hungary post peace treaty occupy the entire peninsula to keep the anarchists from taking over. Karl of Austria and his advisors want to restore the Papal States, and lacking better ideas to reorganize the peninsula, the Germans agree. They wind up bringing back Italy as it existed in 1858, fishing out the heirs to the old minor kingdoms, except for setting up a puppet Kingdom of (Northern) Italy consisting of Lombardy, Piedmont, and part of Emilia, and they give the French Sardinia, the Valley of Aosta, and Italy's colonies in an attempt to make them feel better about losing the war.

OK, that one is pretty unlikely, so try this scenario. The Pope goes anti-Nazi is a big, public way, while at the same time Mussolini's regime is much more hard core fascist and much more hardline than IOTL. Maybe you replace both Pius's with different Popes to get this. The Pope winds up fleeing (or the College of Cardinals assembles on neutral territory and chooses a new Pope after the old one is sent to a concentration camp), and basically the Papacy is clearly on the Allied side. The Papacy doesn't like taking sides in big international conflicts, they even restrained themselves from siding too much with NATO in the Cold War and with the Hapsburgs in the Thirty Years War. The British and later the Americans have a much harder time dealing with the Italians than IOTL, and in fact Italy is only forced out of the war by the Red Army successfully invading Northern Italy. Postwar, Italy is divided into four occupation zones just like Germany, with the Soviets getting Northern Italy except for Piedmont and Genoa (which are in the French zone), plus Tuscany. Rome is divided into four zones as well, so the Soviets get an enclave consisting of part of the old city and some industrial suburbs. After the inevitable organization of the Democratic Republic of Italy in the Soviet Zone, the British, French, and Americans attempt and fail to set up an Italian version of the BRD/ West Germany. They settle for bringing back the old Kingdoms of Sardinia (French Zone) and Sicily (British zone plus Naples) and resurrects the Papal States in the rest of the US zone around Rome. However, the Popes commit themselves with co-operating with the restoration of a united Italy once the Communists lose power, so this may not last long after the Berlin Wall falls.
 
BiteNibbleChomp

BiteNibbleChomp

The Pope's role in the 20th century was very different to what it was in the 10th.

In the middle ages, the Pope was basically boss of everyone in Europe, appointing Emperors, declaring Crusades and being the go-to point if you wanted to form a kingdom. In those days, land was seen as a symbol of power, so obviously the Pope had to have some.

Nowadays, the Pope only deals with the Church, and not even the church of all Europe as before. A religious advisor does not need the land, or really the massive list of titles that he had in the middle ages. He has a small kingdom (or city state?) and everyone gives him the respect he deserves, but it is only what he needs to do his job, nothing excessive.

Restoring the Papal State today (or in 1947) would be far in excess of what the Pope needs to do his job. It looks good, but is really just wasteful and pointless. The City of Rome (save the bit allocated to the Pope) serves Italy much better than it ever could the Pope, so it just makes sense to assign it to Italy.

- BNC
 

Napoleonrules

Banned
ramones1986 said:
Well, the Vatican itself is a remnant of the Papal States, so....
Click to expand...
No it is not. The Papal states ceased to exist over 50 years before the Vatican was established. The Vatican was created as a result of a treaty between Mussolini and the Pope, it was never a continuous extension of the Papal States.
 
ramones1986

ramones1986

Napoleonrules said:
No it is not. The Papal states ceased to exist over 50 years before the Vatican was established. The Vatican was created as a result of a treaty between Mussolini and the Pope, it was never a continuous extension of the Papal States.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected as I thought it was.
 

Kibbutznik

When I meant 'Papal States', I didn't mean a direct resurrection. What I simply proposed was that the Pope, an important figure in Italian society, would be able to take a neutral stance between the Republic and Kingdom, whilst also serving as the bridge between them.

Of course, the real government of the Free City of Rome, or Holy Republic, or whatever, will be controlled by an elected legislature, but the Pope can act as a ceremonial executive power.
 

riggerrob

BiteNibbleChomp,

Land-ownership was not just a "symbol" of power. Before the Industrial Revolution, land-ownership was one of the few ways to accumulate wealth. And since royal households, pomp and circumstance were all expensive to maintain, noble families needed constant infusions of grain, meat, fish, etc. to support their lavish life-styles.
That is why the Roman Catholic Church owned so much land. A significant portion of that land was worked by monks, simply to support their monasteries.

WI Russia invaded Northern Italy and the "Papal States" were revived to provide a buffer zone separating Northern Italian communists from Souther Italian conservatives/Catholics?
Papal States, borders would be re-drawn by a "liberal hand" to create a DMZ across the Italian Penninsula near Rome.
 

Napoleonrules

Banned
riggerrob said:
BiteNibbleChomp,

Land-ownership was not just a "symbol" of power. Before the Industrial Revolution, land-ownership was one of the few ways to accumulate wealth. And since royal households, pomp and circumstance were all expensive to maintain, noble families needed constant infusions of grain, meat, fish, etc. to support their lavish life-styles.
That is why the Roman Catholic Church owned so much land. A significant portion of that land was worked by monks, simply to support their monasteries.

WI Russia invaded Northern Italy and the "Papal States" were revived to provide a buffer zone separating Northern Italian communists from Souther Italian conservatives/Catholics?
Papal States, borders would be re-drawn by a "liberal hand" to create a DMZ across the Italian Penninsula near Rome.
Click to expand...
Do not think Stalin would want a religious buffer state, by default it would be antagonistic towards his puppet and have built in influence over subjucts not only in Northern Italy but also in places like Poland.
 

Urcea

Well...do we consider the Leonine City as a restoration? Perhaps Italy gets completely torched on the field in one of the World Wars (Austria is our best bet here) and it parted out a bit
 

jb3

I don't think the 20th century popes would take more of Rome to "govern" even if just a figurehead if they could. The Lateran Treaty gave them the best of both words - complete independence and no actual non-Catholic citizens to rule over (and thus be criticized for having a theocratic state) Pius XI even said he refused more land in Italy than Mussolini offered. Besides, the Popes have a lot of influence without formal power especially in Rome (where the Church owns a sizable bit of the real estate).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top