Sins of the Fathers (Papal States 1836-'78)

[ComradeOm]

Lecture Ten: The Fourth Estate (1867-'70)

"I came into a place void of all light, which bellows like the sea in tempest, when it is combated by warring winds" Dante​

With the defeat of Austria and the reclamation of Tirol it may have been assumed that the outlook for Italy was peaceful. Her most prominant enemy had been vanquished and the country's natural borders restored. Now Italians could return to the business of quietly prospering. Certainly the Church hoped for such a repeat of the tranquil 1850s. Unfortunately for the Vatican this was never likely to be the case. The creation of Italy and the restoration of her lands had never been a Papal goal in itself. Put crudely, these foreign campaigns had served as a means by which the attention of the population could be distracted from liberal reforms. The policy was a victim of its own success and a major component of Rome's popularity had suddenly rendered itself obsolete with the fall of Austria. There was no more land to reclaim and no more foreigners to drive out; now only the question of reform remained*

But the very nature of this question had changed in the intervening decades. It was no longer only liberals who argued for a constitution, Italy and Russia being the only Powers that still lacked such an arrangement, and the red of radical socialism was creeping into the Italian cities. Demands for political reform were beginning to be supplanted by calls for social reform. The Vatican's desires to return to the 1850s seem anachronistic when placed before a vastly more industrialised, and less integrated, nation. More important still was the re-emergence of a radical fringe uncompromisingly opposed to Papal rule. Young Italy was dead but those members that had survived the years had arrived at some rather revolutionary conclusions. Pisacane's work found a new readership and the idea that only class war would suffice increasingly gained ground amongst discontented republicans. These were further influenced by the new foreign ideas that were rapidly being imported from Britain and Germany. Taken together, the Italian radicalism of the 1870s owed far more to Marx than Mazzini.

Delegation of Italians to the First International. From left: (Standing) Loreti, Cipriani, Lama, Pianori, Rossi. (Seated) Pezzi and Marabini​

Of course this is not to suggest that this evolution in radical thought was either particularly surprising or uniform. The path from republicanism to revolution was well trodden and social justice had always been a central tenant of Mazzini's theories. At the same time the absolutism of Papal Italy precluded any political outlet for this unrest and forced dissents towards more revolutionary ideologies. It is no coincidence that this decade also saw the rise of both Narodnik populists and anarchist terrorists in autocratic Russia. In Italy the equivalent vehicle of social agitation took the form of the Association of Italian Craftsmen and Labourers (AICA) which had grown out of the Mutual Aid Associations. While still young, this organisation had deep roots and benefited considerably with its connection with the International Workingmen's Association (the infamous First International) to which it sent a delegation to the Lausanne Congress of 1867. Despite this representation the AICA was far from a unified organ and, like many similar movements developing in Europe at the time, was a convoluted tangle of different local organisations and networks. It encompassed a variety of differing traditions that did not coexist entirely peacefully and there tended to be constant internal friction over the organisation's programmes and policies. Broadly speaking the movement could be divided between liberal republicans influenced by Mazzini and the new influx of self-proclaimed socialists who arrived from the universities and benefit societies. Originally the liberal intellectuals had held sway but, as industrial unrest intensified, the AICA’s members were increasingly drawn from the picket lines and factory floors. This brought with it an influx of communist ideologies – from the increasingly outdated Saint-Simonians and Proudhonists to the angry young anarchists (Bakuninites) and those that would later come to be called Marxists. It is safe to say that, regardless of their slogans, unity was not a notable strength of the AICA.

Arrest of striking labourers in Turin 1869​

The Papacy was unsurprisingly unable to deduce the nuances of the labour movement and characterised it as nothing short of an unholy international communist conspiracy. For Rome it was easier to see circling shadows than blame poor living conditions, high taxes** and political repression for the mounting wave of strikes and riots that plagued the North. From 1866-'70 there was on average no less than four major, if localised, uprisings against Papal rule†. Typically these actions began as illegal strikes and rapidly escalated when, inevitably, armed force was employed to break them. Not even Pius IX could ignore the seething unrest in the industrialised provinces but the Pope maintained his strident language and condemned the radicals in ever stronger terms. Breaking strikes, quashing uprisings and protecting the civil apparatus became the most regular, and demoralising, task of the army. However, for all of the Papacy's paranoia, and the International's hopes, this unrest was not directed by any one body, least of all the AICA. The violence was typically a spontaneous reaction to unpopular officials or taxes and possessed little revolutionary character or agenda. Despite this the cumulative, and seemingly endless, waves of open discontent did have a number of effects on all that could not be ignored. The most obvious impact was the polarisation of Italian society throughout the sixties. The liberal middle classes were increasingly torn between a loathing of the reactionary clergy and a deep rooted fear of the masses below. Those liberals who did not associate with either of those two poles tended to look to some idealised version of the peasantry for support or organised their own, illegal, political clubs that called for a society organised long the lines of France or Britain. Mazzini’s vision of a democratic republic, stripped of many of its social themes, suddenly found new favour amongst the upper echelons of secular Italian society.

It was by no means inevitable that anti-clerical sentiment, admittedly not something arrived at via Mazzini, should gain some favour in liberal circles. Crucially however the Church itself continued to spurn liberalism and its advocates. The campaign against modern thought, begun with Syllabus Errorum, was reinforced by the Vatican Council of 1868-'70 in which the triumph of reactionary ultramontanism was cemented by the ratification of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, much to the dismay of liberals both inside and outside the Church. This ceremony of pomp marked the pinnacle of the Vatican's strength and was an opulent tribute to its victories. In order to secure this position of power, the domestic arrangement of aristocracy, clergy and peasantry was buttressed by foreign alliances with both France. If the unrest in the industrial cities was ignored, as indeed it was by the Church hierarchy, then the bonds forged by the Papacy placed Italy in a position of strength unprecedented since the days of the Roman Empire. It was with typical irony that history records these bonds as chains that broke the power of the Church.

-----​

* This is of course should not be confused with an extremely vulgar interpretation that is lamentably still offered by some academics. The existence of Austria, a supposedly dangerous natural foe, merely served to mask social tensions. Italian workers and liberals did not suddenly return, as if from holiday, to the question of reform. Rather the collapse of Austria served to weaken the, rapidly diminishing, appeal of Papal rule by removing a key external threat. This important distinction is dealt with further in "Cunsolo, R.S., (1990), Italian Nationalism: From Its Origins to World War II"

** The costs of army maintenance, integration programmes, and loan repayments continued to cripple the Italian state throughout the decade. The most obvious answer to this problem was raising taxes, a course of action that the Papacy pursued with relish. By 1870 almost 70% of a labourer's income (and 50% of that of a clerk) was appropriated by the government.

† That is, protests and riots that involved more than a thousand violent demonstrators. The reaction of the army/police often left dozens dead and hundreds imprisoned.

 

[ComradeOm]

There's not much to say this time round. I was slightly concerned about the lack of events (I do like to have something happening in every update) but felt that another scene setting update was required. Given my unhappiness with the handling of the Austro-Prussian War I resisted the temptation to end this update with a cheap bang.

RGB: Well if you can't trust a Junker morphine-addict with an impressive 'tache, then who can you trust?

stnylan: The spoils of victory may not have been exactly what the Papacy was expecting but that's not to detract from the defeat of the Austrians. Vienna has been firmly reduced to the status of a second ranked Power and is in no position to tangle with Rome again.

J. Passepartout:The irredentists won't have been happy with the meagre gains but they are in no position to complain. The Papacy has been good to the conservatives and reactionaries, and the only alternative is siding with the liberal republicans and socialists. They'll grumble but, in all likelihood, that will be the extent of it. I'll see how things work out.

Quirinus308: Thanks, as always, for the compliments. I think its fairly clear from the last post as to the direction of this AAR and Papal reign. My real challenge now is making this as interesting as possible.

 

[unmerged(62170)]

We're entering the Seventies... what is in store for the Papacy? I do hope regardless of the result you'll continue after '78 whether it is with a Liberal Republic or a Socialist Revolution or something else

 

[coz1]

It occurs to me that your Italy could use a man along the lines of a Bismark - someone to placate the masses before they attempt to rise (might be too late.) If anything, someone to put a slightly less clerical face upon the government.

 

[stnylan]

You are setting up some quite turbulent times.

 

[J. Passepartout]

An Italian Bismark would be a very good idea but it seems rather unlikely that he would appear, and there is little time anyway.

The only good thing is that the liberals are fractious, which is only good because it means the revolution isn't happening now.

 

[unmerged(59077)]

unity was not a notable strength of the AICA

Ain't that ever the truth

It was with typical irony that history records these bonds as chains that broke the power of the Church.

History, that cheeky wench.

Interesting times coming much?

 

[LeonTrotsky]

I wonder what effect the Paris Commune, if it occurs, will have on the Italian working class. Interesting update, especially the hijacking of Mazzinian ideals by liberal-conservatives.

 

[unmerged(57402)]

It'll be interesting to see how the rise of Communism views a state based on the power of the Pope- they ain't exactly keen on religion after all!

What's happened in the rest of Europe (and the world) while this has been going on? Has everything gone as it did in real life?

 

[ComradeOm]

Lecture Eleven: Farce (1870-'75)

"The great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" Jim Larkin​

It is an oft heard truism that the history of Europe in the 19th C is a history of France. Certainly the general ebb and flow of European politics during this period largely matches the rise and fall of the various rulers of this historic power. Political unrest in Paris typically meant that maps were to be redrawn and barricades erected throughout the continent. Few nations outside of France itself had felt this influence as strongly as Italy - both French Emperors had directly intervened to shuffle the borders of the peninsula and the great Italian moments and insurrections had traditionally been inspired by those political revolutions in Paris. In 1870 the collapse of the Second French Empire, and the concurrent rise of the German Empire, also served to destroy the temporal power of the Papacy.

Having settled the matter of the leadership amongst the German states, ironically with the aid of Italy, Otto von Bismarck sought to confront the one remaining obstacle to the unification of Germany – the French Empire. To this end he was remarkably successful of manufacturing a war with Napoleon III in early June 1870. In this conflict the French Emperor formally called upon his ally in Rome to assist him and it was expected that the combined might of France and Italy would rapidly overcome the Prussian armies. The weaknesses of Italy, long ignored by European pundits, almost immediately revealed themselves however. With the majority of the army occupied with maintaining order, and fearing Austrian intervention, the Papacy contributed a single army consisting of three divisions to the French campaign. The errors of Napoleon need not be rehashed here, although needless to say declaring war while the majority of the French army was conducting campaigns in Tunisia or Mexico was not wise, but the Prussian advance was startlingly rapid. By the time the token Italian force had arrived at the front German formations were already marching hard on Paris. Facing superior numbers and leadership, the French and Italian forces were systematically isolated and destroyed. The Esercito Lombardy was annihilated at Orleans on July 16 1871 while Paris fell, after a spirited defence, on September 1 of the same year.*

The Paris Commune: The most dramatic and immediate product of the collapse of the Second French Empire​

The fall of Louis Napoleon and establishment of the German Empire was a blow to the Vatican's prestige, and left it dangerously isolated in diplomatic circles, but Italy suffered marginally in material terms from the war itself. Rome was no more challenged by the new order in Europe than, say, London. Bismarck’s peeved response to Italian interference, the kulturkampf, irritated the Papacy but was no actual threat to the Italian state. As such it was not the loss of the war itself, or even Paris, that was so devastating but the social and political upheaval that this produced. As French politicians hurriedly began assembling the Third Republic following the death of Napoleon III, of natural causes, and the collapse of his Second Empire, revolution erupted in the capital and the Paris Commune was declared. The Commune was in effect an attempt by the citizenry of the city at democratic self-governance. Without direction from any central government, ordinary citizens successfully continued the maintenance of the city and, in an amazingly short period of time, enacted a series of highly progressive social and political reforms. Before its death at the hands of the French Army, and the subsequent execution of thousands, the Commune had encapsulated the socialist dream. Unlike previous insurrections in Paris, which were generally suffocated by the conservative countryside, a number of short-lived Communes were declared in other major cities, including Lyon and Grenoble… the latter dangerously close to the Italian borders. Also noticeable was the shift in revolutionary fervour – past barricades had been manned by liberals and romantics but in 1871 it was the craftsman and small artisan who raised the flag of revolt. No wonder that Marx was delighted and Pius IX terrified**

The Pope had good reason to fear events unfolding in France. Despite his stern denunciations, an ironic reversal given his previous praise for the defenders of Paris, the Vatican could not but be aware that the manifesto of the Communards resonated strongly with the disgruntled masses of North Italy. Even though the Commune itself was crushed, after six long months and the deaths of thousands, its sentiments continued to resonate strongly in Italy. Industrial unrest reached new heights during the period following the fall of the Commune and the routing of an Italian army division by rebels in January 1872 was widely applauded throughout the country. Continued agitation forced the Papacy towards ever more repressive measures and revolutionary groups, including both wings of the AICA, began to openly advocate revolution. Public meetings were officially banned in September 1873 as the Papacy struggled to stem the swelling tides of unrest. To prescient European observers the only surprise was that this revolution did not begin in the insurrection-rich North but the supposedly tranquil South.

Contemporary representation of the oppression, in a literal sense, of the peasantry by the alliance of clergy and rural nobility​

During the Second War of Italian Independence, as it was known, the Papacy had been forced to secure the support of the Neapolitan aristocracy to both maintain order and continue the war against Austria. Over time this bond had deepened in the face of liberal and proletarian opposition to Papal rule - in exchange for aristocratic support the Papal government allowed the continued operation of the vast estates of Naples and Sicily. This necessitated turning a blind eye to the horrendous conditions that the peasantry of these regions were forced to endure – conditions that were wretched even when compared to the desperate plight of the Russian and Irish peasants. Any student of the latter two nations will know the danger of ignoring both peasant discontent and famine. Petitions, largely by well meaning local liberals, went unheard in the face of aristocratic opposition and the crisis came to a head when drought struck in 1875 resulting in a dismal harvest. After decades of mistreatment, from both Bourbon Napoli and Papal Rome, and facing imminent starvation, events came to a head in spring when thousands of peasants from the lands surrounding Palermo occupied the personal lands of their callous landowners and began to requisition/loot what they could to feed their families. Perhaps aware that Palermo had been the first scene of the revolutions of 1845, even before Paris, workers within the city downed tools in sympathy with the peasants and mobbed the local garrison when it was tasked with restoring order on October 6 1875. The surprised soldiers were driven back to their barracks where, with his men surrounded and reinforcements from Rome weeks away, the commanding officer made the fateful decision to surrender to the crowds. In doing so he turned a riot into a revolution.

The first question was just who could the soldiers submit to. A committee was quickly and haphazardly assembled from the gathered citizens to accept this surrender. This group reflected the composition of the crowd with only one of its five members (a student) without a working class background and two of them being affiliated with the AICA. Suddenly this small council was in the possession of several thousand prisoners, enough rifles to equip a military division, and, as the local police also melted away, effective control of the town and its surrounding lands. They had stumbled upon a scenario that professional revolutionaries elsewhere had spent their lives planning for. Crucially the people of Palermo were aware of the similarities – in particular the Vatican's stance towards revolutionaries. Following the surrender of the garrison, something that had not even been requested by the populace, it was inconceivable that Rome would fail to punish the town. The aristocracy were similarly unlikely to accept the division of their lands amongst the peasantry and so a return to Roman rule was simply unacceptable. On October 9 1875, after a number of days of deliberation, the Palermo Commune was officially proclaimed with a manifesto remarkably similar to that of the Paris insurrection of '71. A progressive structure of democratic governance was established and a raft of social programmes declared. There are indications that revolutionaries within the city were pushing for even more radical measures regarding property rights but compromise with the peasantry, who had no desire to relinquish their new lands, resulted in a vague declaration that land should be used for the "good of the public". It was these ideals that would echo throughout the peninsula and spark the Italian Revolution†

-----​

* See "Badsey, S., (2003), Franco-Prussian War 1870–1871, London" for a recent study of the causes, actions and legacies of the 1870 War. This particular academic module is concerned only with its impact on Italian affairs but the conflict also had wide ranging ramifications for the balance of power in Europe as a whole.

** "Tombs, R., (1999), The Paris Commune 1871" is recommended for students interested in the fascinating Paris Commune. Its impact on 19th C political thought is dealt with in "Bowle, J., (1954), Politics and Opinion in the Nineteenth Century, London". While of limited impact in the evolution of the socialist movement as a whole, the role of the Commune in Italian politics cannot be emphasised enough.

† For an excellent journalistic account of the events that led to the declaration of the Palermo Commune, see "John Reid's Ten Days That Shook the World". This work also offers an unparalleled glimpse into the fevered revolutionary atmosphere of Palermo 1875

 

[ComradeOm]

And there you have a brief foray into micro-history. Its not exactly in keeping with the tone of the rest of the AAR but I couldn't possibly introduce a new historical event without properly explaining it. This was a custom-made event, designed to compress the unrest into a single revolution, that will bring the AAR into the finishing stretch.

I'm also aware that John Reid's book is actually about the Russian Revolution but I don't want to start simply making up titles for the sake of footnotes. Obviously this becomes a problem as the AAR goes further and further into alt-history territory. Still, I highly recommend Reid's work as a most gripping account of a revolutionary scenario. If anyone is interested, Marx's own writings on the Paris Commune can be found here

-----​

Dr. Gonzo: Well this AAR will almost certainly end in '78, that's just a very convenient milestone, for a variety of reasons. Going past this date would really necessitate a significant change in tone and format - a full step away from the broad macro view that I've taken to date.

I do have a few ideas for a sequel, with a radically different format, but that will depend on whether people, both myself and readers, have the time. Given my track record with ambitious projects, the odds are not good. Certainly my first priority after finishing this AAR (with 3-4 updates remaining) is returning to complete my aborted CK project.

coz1: Its actually pretty amazing how rare such capable statesmen were in this period. For every Bismarck or Witte you had a Rechberg or Goremykin. My personal theory is that autocratic regimes were particularly unsuited to producing such visionaries and that any that did wander along were more happy accident than anything else. For example, the primary lay statesman in the historical Papal States, and I really should have mentioned him at some point in the AAR, was Giacomo Antonelli - one of the most blatantly corrupt officials in Papal history, which is saying a great deal.

stnylan: If the 19th C has taught us anything its that reactionary autocratic regimes can either reform or fall. Its to the credit of Paradox that this is well modelled in Vicky. True, my events are helping the unrest along somewhat, but that I explain away by narrative necessity

J. Passepartout: Well the divisions in the opposition to the Papacy were probably enough to delay revolution for a decade or two. Then France intrudes... again

Its also important to note that these events are taking place on the advent of mass political parties and the corresponding revolution in organisation on the Left. While that means that even the AICA (a name that I'm not really happy with) is relatively disorganised and decentralised, compared to the emerging SPD in Germany, there's a lot less conflict caused by competing ideological "orthodoxies". So both liberal and socialist groups would contain a range of opinions and would lack the real bitter ideological rivalry of later revolutions.

Of course its only when writing things like this out that I realise that I should have mentioned it in the AAR proper

RGB: I wasn't all that happy with producing two "slow" updates, but its safe to say that interesting times are definitely on the cards. Well, interesting despite the dry tone of the AAR.

LeonTrotsky: Smart man. Help yourself to an imaginary cookie

Italian society had been in a state of continued unrest (particularly in the north) but it was the Commune that really raised the temperature to boiling point.

DerKaiser: Well you know Victoria, everything outside Italy has played out pretty historically up to the 1870s. Germany has formed on schedule, Austria retains its historic borders, France has fallen, and the US has reached the Pacific. The Ottoman Empire is somewhat stronger than it was historically with no territorial loss from the Crimean War either. Russia suffered the loss of the odd border province in that conflict when all of Europe ganged up on it. Scandinavia has formed but is too far removed from Italian politics to even warrant a mention.

 

[unmerged(62170)]

Ah excellent stuff, an accidental revolution!


I think I an speak for everyone else when I say a sequal would be more than welcomed wholeheartedly!

PS- You've but 1972 instead of 1872 when talking about the Northern revolts

 

[stnylan]

So it is time for civil war. Italy has been a powderkeg, and someone has just struck a spark.

 

[Hastu Neon]

Wonderful read, really. So sorry this will end in few years!

 

[J. Passepartout]

It seems this will not lead to an instant collapse of the Papal regime, but I can't say whether there will be a drawn out civil war ending in Papal defeat, or a quick civil war ending in a victory so pyrrhic for the Pope that he loses anyway.

 

[unmerged(59077)]

Aha. So yes, the interesting times you were talking about.

Do go on then....

 

[CCA]

Yey communism!

 

[Pirate Z]

A socialist revolution, eh? Well, it couldn't stay out, both with the Papacy's crude policies as well as the writer of this AAR

An Italian GDCU? Even I'd like to see that. As such, moar!

 

[ComradeOm]

Lecture Twelve: Locomotives of History (1875-'76)

"Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
Les aristocrates à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
Les aristocrates on les pendra!"
French Revolutionary Song​

Many students ask just what it was that made the Palermo revolt such a resonating event in history. There had, after all, been dozens of previous rebellions against Papal rule. The answer lies in the question. Palermo differed little, if at all, from the many previous uprisings but it succeeded because of the atmosphere and strain created by years of unrest. The forceful language of the Pope and Cardinals remained unchanged from Gregory's day but the lower echelons of the Church, particularly local administrators and soldiers, had become increasingly demoralised by seemingly endless revolt and strife. Conversely the depth of resentment amongst much of the population only deepened with each act of repression and retribution. Even the Vatican's traditional support base had been significantly alienated by the government's lacklustre response to the agricultural crash of the 1870s as the end of the American Civil War, coupled with vast decreases in the cost of transportation, led to a collapse in the prices commanded by European farmers. Economic woes were not aided by the collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange in 1873 and the continent-wide recession that it triggered*. Without the "safety valve" of parliamentary democracy the discontented and dispossessed had little alternative but violence in their efforts to effect change. There was to be no talk of reform or compromise but only open revolt.

In the South the "turning" of the, supposedly loyal, peasantry on their masters was sudden and, as with most peasant uprisings, especially vicious. Following Palermo, revolution quickly spread amongst the discontented peasants of Sicily and Naples. These impoverished masses were not driven by any real ideological agenda but rather a simple desire to escape the brutal conditions of the estates. In particular they targeted the large villas of the landowners and, shockingly at the time, the clergy who had supported, and become associated with, the latter. Throughout Naples and Sicily unknown hundreds of aristocrats and priests were killed in various horrific manners as the peasantry vented their anger at the Ancien Régime. It must be stressed however that this violence was by no means uniform and those priests that had tended to their flock with sympathy were typically left unharmed. Similarly, even as the churches were burned, few peasants claimed to be anything but good Catholics. Their anti-clericalism was motivated not by disagreement over theological matters and, like Mazzini, they seemingly believed in a simpler form of religion that espoused Catholic/Christian values without the hated bureaucracy of the Papal States. Despite this it was little exaggeration when a contemporary observer exclaimed that one could travel from Napoli to Palermo without seeing a single untouched villa or church. Even the great cathedrals of the cities, too large to burn, were looted or converted into impromptu community shelters.

Revolutionary sentiment, barely suppressed in previous years, exploded in late 1875​

With startling speed news of the uprising spread north to the great industrial cities, where it was the craftsmen and workers that took to the streets in opposition to Rome; and in Ancona, a quarter of a century after Mazzini's execution, the old liberal banner of democratic republicanism was unfurled one last time. Each opposition group could, and did, relate to some facet of the Commune and as such it served as a rallying call for all. These revolutionaries - be they peasants in Naples, workers in Turin, or liberals in Ancona - greeted the news of the revolt in Sicily with risings of their own. Later writers and artists would always remember, despite following disillusionments, the revolutionary atmosphere that swept the peninsula in these weeks and months. To the older generation it was almost a repeat of the Revolutions of '45… but on a much grander scale. As the peasant land requisitions gathered pace the AICA demanded a nationwide general strike both in sympathy with the peasants and as an attempt to bring its members onto the streets. Open revolution was sparked in Turin when the thousands of Beretta workers marched on the city hall while armed with the factory's latest deadly produce. Similar scenes were repeated, on a smaller scale, in cities and towns across the country with near-simultaneous revolts in Napoli, Perugia, Firenze, Bozen, Sassari and Catanzaro, amongst others. Even more worrying for the Vatican was the mass mutiny of a number of army divisions as they balked in the face of the revolting masses. Many of the divisions in the south simply collapsed as peasant soldiers defected to join their families; while in the north the winter of '75 saw the army hierarchy fighting to restore some semblance of control over wavering or openly defiant divisions.

As the domestic situation rapidly deteriorated, and Papal institutions built up over the previous decades began to collapse, Rome began to look to foreign assistance in managing the crisis. Unfortunately, for Pius, the radical nature of the spreading revolution was lost on foreign observers. The absolute rule of the Holy See was highly unpopular, for differing reasons, in both Britain and Germany. The two other Powers with a more direct interest in Italian affairs, France and Austria-Hungary, were similarly no friends of Rome. Wariness of revolution spreading to their own lands was offset by a dislike of the Papacy itself and a certain schadenfreude in seeing a rising star brought to earth with a crash. In France, a traditional ally, the Holy See was associated with the Second Empire and its collapse. The government of Adolphe Thiers understood all too well the dangers posed by Communard sentiment but was unwilling to risk inflaming it at home, again, while the Third Republic was still in its infancy and experiencing a patch of its chronic instability. Direct Austrian intervention was, given its recent ejection from the peninsula and Vienna's permanent fear of setting off its own minorities, of course unthinkable. There are few more damning indictments of Papal rule and policy than the fact that even contemporary governments found it too distasteful to save.

Basic outline of spreading revolts: Green indicates that a province is under Papal control. Black, red and yellow indicates that it is predominately loyal to factions best described as peasant, Marxist, or liberal, respectively​

Without foreign interference the prospects for the Vatican only grew grimmer over the winter months. Revolutionary sentiment rapidly began to spread beyond its initial centres of insurrection. By early 1876 the remnants of the Papal army, those regiments that remained nominally loyal to Rome, were either still fighting mutineers or unable to travel due to transportation strikes and constant harassment by revolutionaries. In the face of a tumultuous countryside these formations tended to forgo heroics and fortify themselves in the local towns rather than marching decisively on the rebels. Effectively the majority of the Papal army thus maintained their positions along the Austrian border. The Esercito Pontificio, with its Irish and Swiss mercenaries, remained the most capable Papal unit but fear of popular revolt closer to home forced the Vatican to confine its operations to policing Rome. With the national army seemingly paralysed in the face of widespread grassroots revolt, the actual fighting across the peninsula continued to be remarkably localised. Outside of the cities, and estates of the south, clashes typically involved isolated bands of rebels or soldiers struggling to control small towns or villages. The collapse of Papal authority produced no broad fronts and few notable battles, and the ideologies of those involved were similarly opaque. Often politics were rendered irrelevant as opportunities to further local feuds were eagerly embraced and given an ideological veneer. Throughout the first year of the revolution only one facet of the conflict was in any way clear - the Vatican's grip of power was slipping fast.

-----​

* For an overview of the various economic troubles of the late 19th C, including both the collapse of European agriculture and, original, Great Depression, see "Hobsbawm, E., (1975), Age of Capital"

 

[ComradeOm]

Again, this is one of those updates that I have nagging doubts about how well I've conveyed my mental picture of the situation. The map should help but basically everything, everywhere, is just collapsing under the weight of years of resentment and alienation resulting from Papal policies.

Dr Gonzo: Personally I believe that all revolutions are, by definition, "accidental". Some are certainly more organised than others but its impossible to actually go out and plan such mass unrest. Of course its rare that one is as chaotic as this.

stnylan: Indeed. Of course some historical regimes have taken a positive delight in storing political gunpowder next to easily ignitable social sources and then acting surprised when it blows up in their face...

Hastu Neon: Thanks. It'll only take a few (read: 2-3) more updates to bring us up to 1878. This is probably for the best as I feel that the tone of the AAR (ie, academic history dealing with broad themes and movements) is ill-suited to dealing with these shorter and more focused episodes.

J. Passepartout: Well the major problem for the Papacy is that its managed to piss off pretty much everybody, save the clergy and country squires, to an amazing degree. One of the reasons that I wanted to expand on the Austro-Prussian war was to indicate how low the army, which should be been a bastion of support, had fallen since the wars of unification.

RGB: In hindsight, maybe "interesting" is the wrong choice of words. As I say above, the dry tone of the AAR is completely unsuited to the excitement of the situation on the ground

BTW thanks for the link to Ulead, which was used in making the map above.

CCA: My feelings exactly

That said, I am trying to maintain a degree of impartiality here (so don't expect a "the red flag rose over Rome and everyone lived happily ever after" ) and the revolutionaries aren't "communists" as we understand the term. Rather this revolution is just an explosion of frustration against an autocratic and incompetent regime.

Pirate Z: Exactly. What did people expect from me?

The Italian GDCU idea is interesting though. Unfortunately this AAR is about Papal Italy; to borrow stnylan's analogy from above, I'm interested in the gunpowder, the spark, and the explosion... but not so much where the debris falls. Maybe in a sequel.