I know the basics of Italian unification. It’s a good conversation topic, since most people don’t believe it happened so late. The problem is that I can’t find any good references on what was there before unification. Obviously Rome, under the Pope, but what were the other “countries” called?
In 1861, the Kingdom of Sardinia renamed itself the Kingdom of Italy, after having gobbled up Lombardy, Modena, Parma, the Two Sicilies and Tuscany, as well as most of the Papal States. Venetia joined in 1866, and Rome in 1870.
Oops. Forgot to give the obligatory Wikipedia link.
Thanks. Geez. I thought I did due diligence before posting here. I looked in three other Wikipedia articles with no luck. (Italy, Italian Unification, and History of Italy)
More accurate to say of Rome that it was conquered and forcibly annexed by the (bastard) Garibaldi.
Well, if it comes to that, pretty much all of the states that “joined” Sardinia were not given a choice in the matter. Carlo Emanuele III was somewhat insistent on the matter. 
Worth noting that Piedmont and Sardinia were a nation, and had, IIRC, annexed Genoa long before. It was “the Kingdom of Sardinia” for the same reason that the Elector of Brandenburg was King of Prussia – it was a nation whose monarch was entitled to the title “king” while the heart of the nation’s power was only a territory entitled to a duke or elector.
Some parts: Parma, Modena, Two Sicilies, for example, were small independent states. Others were in loose association with the Dual Monarchy, ruled over quasi-independently by cadet branches of the Habsburgs and for all practical purposes governed from Vienna. Venezia, for example, lost its independence in 1797, and was part of the Austrian Empire from when the dust settled after the Napoleonic Wars until it was annexed, after a war between Italy and Austria. I believe Lombardy was in the same boat.
Why “the bastard”, if I may ask?
It was Vittorio Emanuele II. In any case, in all the Italian states there was significant (but not total, nor absolute) support for the idea of a single, united Italian state, especially among the intellectuals and the military. And I don’t mean the Sardinian military: as an example, many distiguished characters of the Risorgimento studied in the military academy of the southern Kingdom of Naples.
Various ideas were kicked around for some time, including a plan for a federation presided by, of all people, the Pope; this was seriously debated by the intellectuals and the diplomats, but was not actually realized because of two reasons: because the Pope couldn’t be bothered, and because the more liberal factions didn’t have any intention of being ruled by the Pope (and I can’t blame them).
Gradually the Kingdom of Sardinia and its dinasty, the House of Savoy, gained more influence because they were the only state and the only dinasty without strong connections with the Habsburg (there was, in fact, a centuries-long rivalry dating back to when both houses were minor feudal holders in the Alps). All the others, like Polycarp said, were cadet branches of the Habsburg, including Parma, Modena and Naples.
Another reason for the prestige of the Savoys was that in 1848, under pressure from popular protests, they released a Constitution - and then stuck to it, even when the protests calmed down. This might not impress people today, especially if you actually read it, but at the time it was considered a dangerous concession to those terrifying Jacobins that populated the nightmares of the conservatives.
Polycarp is also right on the status of Lombardy and Venetia: after the defeat of Napoleon, the two provinces were joined in a Kingdom of Lombardy and Venetia and its crown was assigned to the Habsburgs, who probably needed it to complete its collection.
yBeayf, Rome was not conquered by Garibaldi, even if he would have sooo much liked to kick some Papal ass, being strongly anti-clerical. And yours are fighting words; this has to be taken outside! Outside, I say!
Conquest of Sicily, conquest of Rome, and all that.
So what would you call it, then?
Bring it on, bitch! 
That’s not an explanation. Conquering somewhere does not make you per se a bastard, or Eisenhower would be one. And please, get this: Garibaldi did not conquer Rome. The Italian government did, and I suspect it was done to avoid Mazzini establishing a republic in Rome.
Rrright… puts on red shirt Glares What’cha were saying then?
Nah, better to stop it here, I wouldn’t want to escalate it to a full-scale flame. Come on, yBeayf, Garibaldi is a hero: you might disagree with him, but disrespecting him is, well, disrespectful.
You are of course correct, and I apologize for my misremembrance. I therefore amend my statement to: More accurate to say of Rome that it was conquered and forcibly annexed by the (bastard) Italians.
True, but conquering Rome does.
Good, so now you have only to…
… to apologize for this. Having my people called bastards is not what I’m going to tolerate. :mad:
Better leave it to the Pope? And we’re not talking about saintly looking John Paul II and the relatively tolerant Catholic Church we have today, we’re talking about dissenter-executing Pius IX, and a governement so ignoring of human rights that it makes Mussolini look like a good guy.
How many dissenters did Pius IX execute? As far as I can tell, by the middle of the 19th century, most of the executions in the Papal States were for things like murder and banditry.
Hey, they’re my people, too. And of course not all of them are bastards, only the anti-clericalist radicals who deposed the Pope.
Just call me Mr. Monarchist. (And yes, I know it was one monarch being conquered by another. Doesn’t mean it was right, especially since the Italians then promptly gave up their monarchy. And the Sicilies should be independent too, dammit!)
Yeah, yeah. Usual trick. I’m one of them, I can insult them as much as I want. Wrong, bub.
What else is it in your up-to-date political program? Returning to feudality? Inviting the Habsburg back? Temporal power to the Pope? Enacting the Donation of Constantine?
Freaky. I didn’t know anyone still had any great affection for the Papal States. I, myself, am rather an admirer of Garibaldi and you probably can assign some blame to him, since it was his pressure and threat advancing from the south that left an opening for Piedmont/Italy to break the Papal army.
Anyway the Papal States never should have been anyway - it only arose because of the weakness of the succesive Roman/Lombard/Byzantine/Holy Roman states. The Patriarch of Constantinople didn’t command armies, why should the Patriarch of Rome ;)? Adds immeasurably to the possibility of secular corruption of the church I’d say.
- Tamerlane
Look closely at my amended statement. I pointed out that Rome was annexed by bastard Italians. If an Italian didn’t annex Rome, then he’s not a bastard. I’m not calling Italians bastards, and if you don’t believe me we can step out into the street and settle this like gentlemen (er, assuming there’s a street suitably close to both of us, which considering your location I kinda doubt).
I don’t specifically advocate the former, but I wouldn’t be much bothered by it, either. I fully support restoring the Hapsburgs to the Austrian throne.
Truth be told, I don’t really hold much affection for the idea of Pope-as-monarch per se, but better the Papal States under a papal monarch than Rome as part of a republican Italy.
While all of this back and forth is interesting, it would be better off in another forum.
samclem GQ moderator
Italy didn’t become a republic until 1946, 76 years after Rome was annexed.