-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Maybe those two weren't considered one then? I really wonder what the number is the William of the Netherlands had in England.
Here in the United States, I have seen him referred to as 'William of Orange', most typically...
I don't know about the two not being considered one...? James I of England was the same individual as James VI of Scotland.
It was the Republic of Genoa that sold Corsica to France, not Sardinia-Piedmont.
Last edited:
William III. The last king of England named William before him had been William II, the son of the Conqueror.
William I may not have changed the numbering, but his successors named Edward sure did. There were two King Edwards before the Norman conquest, but they aren't numberd as such in the traditional English numbering system. Thus the man who should have been really Edward III of England is instead known as Edward I.
BTW, at some point recently, it was declared by the British royal family that they will adopt the higher number for names used by both the kings of both England and Scotland. Thus, the next king of Great Britain named James will be James VIII, not James III...
But England and Scotland weren't united then; they merely shared him as their monarch.
I'm sorry, but I that you are wrong here. Genoa sold it to Savoy, who some years later (for reasons yet unknown to me) allowed the island to vote whether they would stay with Savoy or join France. They chose the latter.
Originally posted by Hive
I'm sorry, but I that you are wrong here. Genoa sold it to Savoy, who some years later (for reasons yet unknown to me) allowed the island to vote whether they would stay with Savoy or join France. They chose the latter.
1637 the heads of state of Genoa assume the style king of Corsica
22 Dec 1730 insurrections begin, under leaders styled generale
30 Jan 1735 independence of Kingdom of Corsica proclaimed
15 Mar 1736 - 10 Jul 1739 adventurer styled king of Corsica (continues in exile, with
renewed attempt in 1743)
7 Jun 1746 independence proclaimed, not recognized by Genoa
1751 Uffizio di San Giorgio resumes control
Feb 1753 independence proclaimed (Corsican Nation)
15 May 1768 (ratified 28 May 1768) Genoa gives France de facto
authority over Corsica
13 Jun 1769 Corsican Nation extinguished
30 Nov 1789 Corsica formally incorporated into France
(From: http://www.rulers.org/rulf.html
To Genoa..........................................1559-1736
Von NEUHOF
Theodore...................................1736, 1738, 1743 d. 1756
To Genoa..........................................1736-1753
Republic..........................................1753-1768
To France.........................................1768-1794
(From: http://www.hostkingdom.net/noritaly.html
Those are just the two sites I could quickly quote from; there are dozens more which will confirm what is said on these two. As will any book on the history of the island during the era.
There was no intermediate Savoy/Sardinian stage in Corsica's history. Genoa claimed the island, the Corsicans tried to set up a state of their own, and were so successful that Genoa cut their losses and sold the island to France, which subsequently squashed the independence movement.
Originally posted by Hive
I'm sorry, but I that you are wrong here. Genoa sold it to Savoy, who some years later (for reasons yet unknown to me) allowed the island to vote whether they would stay with Savoy or join France. They chose the latter.
Cite? i've aways seen it sold to France by genoa in the 1760's. I think you 're thinking of savoy.
I'm confused now.
I swear to God that I just recently read it in a book... I had always thought that they sold it to the French, but when I read the book I thought "oh well, guess I was wrong"...
I swear to God that I just recently read it in a book... I had always thought that they sold it to the French, but when I read the book I thought "oh well, guess I was wrong"...
I visited Corsica's official homepage, and it seems that you were right - and I was wrong...
But it really pisses me of that someone writes such a thing in a book if it's not true!
I wonder what made the author do that.
But it really pisses me of that someone writes such a thing in a book if it's not true!
I wonder what made the author do that.
I hope that they will manage the unification of Italy and Germany the same way they did with Russia. All the "Russian" minors could, when the time was right and certain conditions were met. When talking about Russian minors, I'm talkin about Tver, Pskov, Suzdal and Ryazan, all the one-province nations with Russian as state culture. The condition was to annex majority of the other Russian nations and thereby proclaiming somekind of national supremacy. Something like this shouldbe worked into the unification of Germany and Italy.
Originally posted by Hive
With the exception of Papal States, I hope...
And the Two Sicilies
Btw, in all early 19th century maps I've seen Genoa is part of Piemonte-Sardinia. How did they gain control over that city? I guess this is the best place to ask with all the Italian history buffs present.
Originally posted by M@ni@c
Btw, in all early 19th century maps I've seen Genoa is part of Piemonte-Sardinia. How did they gain control over that city? I guess this is the best place to ask with all the Italian history buffs present.
They were given the city after the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The old and proud merchant republics of Genoa and Venice, who was invaded by Napoleon, never emerged again after the Napoleonic Wars.
The Stuarts (sort of) when they ascended to the English throne as well, for one... I can't think of any others off the top of my head, though
Ok guys,
I made a mistake about Corsica, Genova and Savoy history...
Here the correction:
In 1729 Corsica was under Genova's power. And Savoy didn't control Genova.
But in that years the power of Genova was decreasing.
The revoluzionists of Corsica started varius insurrections that brought the freedom to Corsica for 14 years, until the 1768, when Genova gave Corsica to France, although Genova didn't control the island.
In 1769 France army beat the Corsica ones and France took possession of Corsica island phisically and on the paper. (Until now)
3 months later, 15th August 1769, Napoleon was borning on that island...
In 1797 Genova was an aristocratic republic, when Napoleon invaded the city-state. And in 1805 Genova was declared a part of the France Napoleon Empire, until the 1814 when the Empire fell down (as we all know it).
With the the reconstruction of the monachies Genova was given to the reign of Sardinia (alias Savoy). So Savoy had Piemonte, Sardinia and Liguria (Genova) in 1815.
CIAO!
I made a mistake about Corsica, Genova and Savoy history...
Here the correction:
In 1729 Corsica was under Genova's power. And Savoy didn't control Genova.
But in that years the power of Genova was decreasing.
The revoluzionists of Corsica started varius insurrections that brought the freedom to Corsica for 14 years, until the 1768, when Genova gave Corsica to France, although Genova didn't control the island.
In 1769 France army beat the Corsica ones and France took possession of Corsica island phisically and on the paper. (Until now)
3 months later, 15th August 1769, Napoleon was borning on that island...
In 1797 Genova was an aristocratic republic, when Napoleon invaded the city-state. And in 1805 Genova was declared a part of the France Napoleon Empire, until the 1814 when the Empire fell down (as we all know it).
With the the reconstruction of the monachies Genova was given to the reign of Sardinia (alias Savoy). So Savoy had Piemonte, Sardinia and Liguria (Genova) in 1815.
CIAO!
Last edited:
It's not all the truth here.
After the Kingdom of Sardinia proclaimed itself Kingdom of Italy, he had two options, the first one was to consider Italy a union of all the states that were in Italy, and this choice had as a consequence that the new country would have had to pay all the debts the various state had with the various banks.
The second one was to consider Italy a completely different and new state, and this would have meant deleting all the old debts, but also meant that all those banks would have been closed, and that would have caused a stop of the industralization process that was going on in the North Italy, as all those industries were heavily dependant on bank investment and loans.
Therefore the King decided to consider Italy as a union of the other states, and that's why he kept the name of Vittorio Emanuele II.
The new Kingdom now found himself full of debts, and needed to repay them, therefore needed money, and in order to obtein them they imposed many new taxes. Although those taxes were not balanced, as most of all were agricultural taxes (and the South was relying heavily on agricultural products). Those taxes crippled the southern economy. Once the debts were payed, the government tried to industrialize the country, and in order to achieve that they used the money that were getting from the agricultural south, and invested them in the industries (that were all in the north).
Their big mistake was that all these reforms were too much in favor of the north, they probably should have done some more balanced reforms, while trying to industrialize the south as well.
Saluti
another history perhaps
But how to industrialize south if the new state had his roots in a class alliance between the nothern industrial capitalist and the southern agrarian notables? The ruling class in the south was the same of all time, the same of the "two sicilies reign". This alliance was important for many reasons:
1) put down peasant revolts (peasant in the South wanted the land, an agrarian reform and the end of the large agricultural estate)
2) create a solid power block in an instable situation
3) create a domestic market in the South where sell the nothern industrial product
Perhaps the history could be different, but our bourgeoisie should have been braver and more progressist. Risking an alliance with the nothern working class to break off the power of old reactionary ruling class of the south
But how to industrialize south if the new state had his roots in a class alliance between the nothern industrial capitalist and the southern agrarian notables? The ruling class in the south was the same of all time, the same of the "two sicilies reign". This alliance was important for many reasons:
1) put down peasant revolts (peasant in the South wanted the land, an agrarian reform and the end of the large agricultural estate)
2) create a solid power block in an instable situation
3) create a domestic market in the South where sell the nothern industrial product
Perhaps the history could be different, but our bourgeoisie should have been braver and more progressist. Risking an alliance with the nothern working class to break off the power of old reactionary ruling class of the south