![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
A map would be useful.
'Napoleon III didn't keep his promises to Cavour. Napoleon seized Lombardy. In 1860, however, Sardinia gained Lombardy from France in exchange for Savoie and Nice.'
This is nonsense, Louis-Napoleon didn't keep his promise to fight the Austrians until all of the Kingdom of Lombardia-Veneto was in their hands, but this is not made clear. After the bloody battles of Magenta and Solferino he got anxious about dragging the war out and made peace. Austria refused outright to cede any territory to the Savoyards. The French agreed with Cavour that they would accept the cession of Lombardia to France from Austria and then immediately cede it again to Piemonte-Sardigna. Which they then did, in 1859, not 1860, Napoleon never 'seised' anything they merely used France as a go between in the peace deal to 'save face' for Austria.
Because the had reneged on his deal with Cavour (in which they had secretely agreed that Napoleon could have Nissa and Savoie, territories the French had long lusted after in return for getting all of Lombardia-Veneto) he allowed Vittorio-Emmanuelle II to keep Savoie and Nissa aswell as Lombardia. But in the following months (early 1860) most of north-central Italy revolted against their rulers, Firenze, Modena, Parma and the Romagna all held plebiscites which were overwhelmingly pro-Savoyard.
Whether these were real or not didn't matter but they all joined Piemonte-Sardigna. This allarmed Louis-Napoleon as he didn't want a strong Savoy on his border and so demanded that if they wanted to keep the new lands they would have to cede Savoie and Nissa. Cavour then agreed to cede them after (most likely fake) plebiscites showed around 90% wanted to join France.
I don't have an account or know anything about editing articels but this point about Napoleon really needs changing. - SeeK100
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.215.16 ( talk) 09:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
..In the 19th century the alternative name Sardinia-Piedmont came in use.... That's not true: until 1861 was always called, officially, Kingdom of Sardinia. -- Shardan 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The official name has allways been Kingdom of Sardinia (Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae) and the crown that kings of Sardinia - (later kings of Italy) - had on their head, it was the same crown that pope Boniface VIII put on the head of James II of Aragon in 1297. Please shows official sources if you wont change the name.-- Shardan 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
According Mr Francesco Cesar Casula, one of the most important italian experts about Sardinia mediaeval history, in his book La Storia di Sardegna and after in the other Breve storia di Sardegna ( ISBN 88-7138-065-7), at page 85, writing about Kingdom (or giuducato) of Calari, says: come gli altri tre giudicati, il regno di Calari era anch’ esso uno Stato sovrano e perfetto, perchè aveva la facoltà di stipulare accordi internazionali ...(...) ( in en.... like the other three giudicati, the kingdom (it: Regno) of Calari was a sovereign and perfect State because he was able to stipulate international treaties...(…). I think that in Wikipedia , according to Mr Casula studies , we can affirm that the giudicati they were real kingdoms. -- Shardan 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
To know more (if you know Italian language), on it.Wiki you find:
and on en.Wiki:
Anyway, I'm not agree about realm, Kingdom is the right word -- Shardan 23:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Kingdom of Sardinia Regno di Sardegna | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1324–1861 | |||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||
Capital | officially Cagliari, later Turin as political and economical capital | ||||||||||||||||||
Common languages |
Italian,
French Spoken languages: Piedmontese in Piedmont, Sardinian in Sardinia, Occitan in Nice and southwestern Piedmontese Alps, Francoprovençal in Savoy and Aosta Valley) | ||||||||||||||||||
Religion | Roman Catholic Church, Waldensians in some piedmontese alpine valley, nombrous jude community (Turin, Nice, Alessandria, Vercelli, Ivrea, Casale Monferrato) | ||||||||||||||||||
Government | Constitutional monarchy | ||||||||||||||||||
James II of Aragon | |||||||||||||||||||
Victor Emmanuel II | |||||||||||||||||||
Legislature | Parliament | ||||||||||||||||||
Senate | |||||||||||||||||||
Chamber of Deputies | |||||||||||||||||||
History | |||||||||||||||||||
June 19 1324 | |||||||||||||||||||
1718 | |||||||||||||||||||
1796 | |||||||||||||||||||
June 9, 1815 | |||||||||||||||||||
March 4, 1848 | |||||||||||||||||||
• Treaty of Zurich | November 10, 1859 | ||||||||||||||||||
• Italian unification | March 17 1861 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
When Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia is searched, the official name of the country is shown as Kingdom of Sardinia and discusses the same information as on this page. The two topics are almost exactly the same, and there is no need for two pages. Information on Piedmont-Sardinia should be part of this article.
I was incorrect, Piedmont-Sardinia IS a different state. This page should focus on the true Kingdom of Sardinia then, not the formal one which was ruled by Piedmont. I have already begun converting the page to concentrating on the pre-Piedmont-control Kingdom of Sardinia.
Numerous reliable English-language sources would beg to differ. It was at the time almost always called the Kingdom of Savoy, not Sardinia, in English. This may be because British writers were most familiar with the area around the Riviera, but to say that it was always called the Kingdom of Sardinia sounds like an overly patriotic POV. I have seven books in front of me, including Greene's History and Boswell's Life of Johnson, and they only call it the Kingdom of Savoy. Sardinia is not mentioned; not once, not ever. ONLY Savoy. -- Charlene 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A proposed disinfobox is reproduced at right. Just because someone has worked it up doesn't mean we are obliged to cram the text into a ribbon down one side. Look at the wasted space in this bloated object, which informs the reader of the existence of "nombrous jude community", though the article itself doesn't begin to discuss the Jews of Piedmont. I see no reason we have to have this junk foisted on us. WQhat do others think? -- Wetman 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This article confuses two countries with the name of kingdom of Sardinia; it needs to be corrected. We need to distinguish the two entities of this kingdom: the state until 1720 is correctly the kingdom of the island of Sardinia, without continental territories in north-western Italy, but from 1720, after the Congress of Vienna, Sardinia island was unified with the Duchy of Savoy, which was based in Piedmont, with capital Turin, under Savoy dinasty. From that moment the island of Sardinia ended to be the fulcrum of the former Kingdom of Sardinia and became part of the Duchy of Savoy, who so took (just) the name of "Kingdom of Sardinia". So after the Congress of Vienna this was not the former kingdom of the island of Sardinia, but the a completely new State, based in Piedmont, heir of Duchy of Savoy, where Sardinia was classified just as a region and wich of "Kingdom of Sardinia" brang just the name. The important thing is understand that the new Kingdom has nothing in common with the old one, apart the name given to elevate the Savoy from a duchy to a royal family, because it effectly (and officially) was the kindom of Piedmont; moreover the first was a filo-spanish kingdom, while the second was a completely different State. It's the same difference that there is from napoleonic Kingdom of Italy to the Kingdom of unified Italy since 1861.
For this and for cultural reasons I suggest it should be better to divide the first and the second kingdom of sardinia in two different pages of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.216.161 ( talk) 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, it's sensless to merge the history of the kindom of Sardinia under Savoy dinasty (1718-1861) with Aragonese kingdom of Aragon and Sardinia...I tried to make two separate articles.
--
Conte di Cavour (
talk)
15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with the flag inside the template: it's not displayed in correct way. The correct visualization is the one in the template of the italian page. I tried to insert here that image (Flag of the Kingdom of Sardinia.svg), but there is the same problem. -- Daviboz ( talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Why two flags of France in infobox?-- Grifter72 ( talk) 09:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is for attempting to form consensus on which version of this article is neutrally worded and appropriately sourced, and thus should be Wikipedia's article on the subject: Version A or Version B. To weigh in, please use the form I'll demonstrate below. Keep your comments brief and to the point, and only vote once. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
reading this poor article looks like that history in sardinia began in middle ages and not thousand-years before. moreover kingdom of sardinia existed from centuries ago of the house of savoy's occupation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.242.94 ( talk) 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You have a page about Sardinia if you want to write about Sardinian history of "thousand-years" ago.-- Jonny Bee Goo ( talk) 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
the existence of an article about the history of sardinia doesn't justify a wrong paragraph's title here! "early history of sardinia": 1297 AD is not the start of sardinia's history 94.39.117.13 ( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You forget, Srnec, that one thing was a title, another one was a State. The House of Savoy did not need a State (they still had one), they need a title. In English history we had many Dukes of Buckingham, but this title was not connected with a non-existing "State of Buckingham". The House of Savoy reached their desired title in 1713, and after that year they couldn't be demoted. In 1720 a simple changeover of territories between Savoy and Austria happened: and this is proved by the fact that the title of King of Sicily was not changed into king of Sardinia until 1723 (if your theory would be valid, it would mean that no Kingdom of Sardinia existed between 1720 and 1723). And your theory is wrong about another fact: two Kingdoms of Italy with an effective territory existed both before 1814 and after 1861, but this would mean that they were the same State?
I never said, Srnec, that a Kingdom of Sardinia (according to Papal sources) or Virreinato de Cerdenya (according to Spanish sources) did not existed before 1720. I said that that Kingdom/Virreinato you are speaking about, is not the topic of this page. I think that we can agree that a Duchy of Savoy existed before 1713 as a free, sovereign and independent State. Then, when this State (Savoy) did lose this independence and sovereignty according to you?
Post scriptum. Did you speak about a kingdom of Naples? Considering that you give such a big relevance to names, what would you say if I say to you that a realm officially called "Kingdom of Naples" never existed in history?--
Jonny Bee Goo (
talk)
12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Srnec. I came back from some days of vacation.
Let's put parsecs between us and Italian wikipedia. Italian wikipedia reflects all problems of Italian nation, being the kingdom of the burocracy and of a compromise whose goal is not the public behaviour but the agreement of private interests. (Vai a farti fottere, stronzo! perchè non vieni sulla Wikipedia italiana a raccontare le tue stronzate?)
Snrec, if a revamped the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica, it means that I know that a Kingdom/Virreinato/Luogotenenza under Spanish (before 1713) and Savoyard (after 1720) sovereignty existed, and that it had its own laws. But I reject the idea that this Virreinato is the topic of this page. You said "I argued precisely that Sardinia and the rest of the Savoy lands were independent of one another", but this is not what is reflected in our Sardinian-nationalist friends' version. Speaking about a K. of Sardinia which existed from 1297 to 1861 means a sole fact: Savoy was annexed by this "kingdom", but this is historically completely false. The Kingdom/Virreinato/Luogotenenza you are speaking about, which always corresponded to the island of Sardinia (and no more), was abolished by the Savoyards with all its laws in 1848. The Kingdom I'm speaking about, which is the object of the 99% of the historic literature, was the Duchy of Savoy which changed name in 1713 (into K of Sicily) and in 1723 (into K of Sardinia). Duchy of Savoy and Kingdom of Sardinia are the names of the same State (the Savoyard State, or Piedmont) in different centuries, as Kingdom of Italy and Italian Republic are the names of the same State (the Italian State, or Italy) in different ages, and the Kingdom of France and the French Republic are the names of the same State (the French State, or France) in different centuries.
So, we need two pages (not three). One (this one) about the State called Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861, another (the other one) about the Dependency called Kingdom/Virreinato of Sardinia 1297(or 1324:effectivity)-1848. Sardinian nationalists will be unhappy, their strange theory about a Sardinian origin of actual Italian State being so denied, but we'll not care. We'll have problems with them until the end of 2011, their goal being simply to receive public funds during the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of the Italian State in 2011. --
Jonny Bee Goo (
talk)
23:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(by the way, last Emperor crowned as king of Italy was Charles V, not Wenceslaus)
A classic case of personal union was the link between England and Scotland under the Stuart dinasty and the Republic. In that case, both States maintained their army, their flags, their administration. In this sense, I'm not sure that the structure of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia between 1720 and 1848 could be simply described as a case of personal union: Sardinia was (hugely) not so "separate" from Piedmont as Scotland from England.
However, this is not the central problem. I think you have a confused idea of the concept of
sovereignty in international law (but, not be unhappy, you are not alone at all: about this topic, I could find dozens of pages in wikipedia which would be banned in all universities of international law of the world). In international law, sovereignty is an absolute concept: sovereignty over a territory is sole and unique, and it's independet from any form of government system. Actually, Mexico is very angry cause the new law on immigration passed by Arizona. But, even if the United States are a federal system and the US government has a limited possibility to abolish Arizona law, on international plan Mexico protested against the United States, not against Arizona, because the US government has the sovereignty over Phoenix under international law. Internal organization is irrilevant under international law. Another case: Alderney is not part of the United Kingdom according to British law, but according to international law Alderney is a British territory as London is. In our case, even if Sardinia and the mainland had both their own laws between 1720 and 1848, sovereignty was unique and belonged to Savoy, for the simple fact that the Duchy of Savoy was previously a sovereign state, while Sardinia was not. Generally, there are only two way to estinguish a sovereign State: a military annexation in war or a fusion in a NEW united State, and in this second case all sovereign States entering in the union cease to exist. This explained, your sentence seems very confused and unexplicable: "It was, in the sense that there ceased to be a separate realm composed of the island of Sardinia. It was not in the sense that the unified (fused?) state that resulted from this "abolition" continued to use the name of the old kingdom and thus was, in some sense, the kingdom." What "sense"? It seems more philosophy than law. We can't create wikipages based on abstract "senses". The situation prior than 1713 is clear: we have a sovereign State called Duchy of Savoy (or, simply, Piedmont) and a sovereign State called Kingdom of Spain or simply Spain. The fact that Spain was composed by many provincial kingdoms, is irrilevant under international law: a sole king means a sole State; ok, one of these provincial states was called Kingdom/Virreinato of Sardinia, but it was no more than a province. After an Austrian parenthesis, this province is ceded to Piedmont, and continues to exist as a province until 1848. In 1723, Piedmont decided to change its official name into Kingdom of Sardinia merely for a question of honour, but this fact being an internal fact, is irrilevant under internation law. More, mainly, Piedmont was Piedmont even when it was officially called Duchy of Savoy and when it was called Kingdom of Sardinia. The Kingdom of Sardinia (the Savoyard State) had a province with its same name, but this fact does not allow to make a undistinguished confusion between a State and a province. Well, in 1848 Piedmont decided to change its internal organization, passing from a quasi-federal system to a French-styled centralized system. Well, how can this fact affect a sovereignty which continuosly derived from ancient Savoy? This is the weakest point of your vision (and the vision of Sardinian nationalists). Piedmont was Piedmont both before and after 1848. The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia was a sovereign State in 1850: well, sovereignty being unique and sole, if we say that the Kingdom of Sardinia of 1850 has a legal continuity with the Spanish Virreinato and not with the Duchy of Savoy (remember! legal continuity of sovereignty is single or completely new, but never dual!), we would say that the Savoyard sovereignty, the Savoyard State ceased to exist in 1848 for annexation to Sardinia. But this is evidently false.--
Jonny Bee Goo (
talk)
22:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Elliott goes on to discuss why Koenigsberger's categorizing scheme might not be adequate. Elliott suggests a different typology, deriving from the seventeenth century Spanish writer Juan de Solórzano Pereira, with two different kinds of unions. The first are "accessory unions," like those between England and Wales, or Spanish America and Castile, "whereby a kingdom or province, on union with another, was regarded juridically as part and parcel of it, with its inhabitants possessing the same rights and subject to the same laws." The second of Solórzano's categories is the aeque principaliter,Of these alternative forms of political organization [alternatives to the unitary nation state, that is], one that has aroused particular interest in recent years has been the "composite state". This interest certainly owes something to Europe's current preoccupation with federal or confederal union, as submerged nationalities resurface to claim their share of the sunlight. But it also reflects a growing historical appreciation of the truth behind H. G. Koenigsberger's assertion that "most states in the early modern period were composite states, including more than one country under the sovereignty of one ruler". He divides these into two categories: first, composite states separated from each other by other states, or by the sea, like the Spanish Habsburg monarchy, the Hohenzollern monarchy of Brandenburg-Prussia, and England and Ireland; and secondly, contiguous composite states, like England and Wales, Piedmont and Savoy, and Poland and Lithuania.
Elliott doesn't specifically mention Sardinia here, but obviously Sardinia fell more into this category than the other. Elliott doesn't have anything to say about the House of Savoy in the eighteenth century, but the article gives a really good sense of the multitude of ways that personal unions could work in early modern Europe. The basic point is that we shouldn't be imposing modern categories on early modern polities. john k ( talk) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)under which constituent kingdoms continued after their union to be treated as distinct entities, preserving their own laws, fueros and privileges. "These kingdoms", wrote Solórzano, "must be ruled and governed as if the king who holds them all together were king only of each one of them". Most of the kingdoms and provinces of the Spanish monarchy — Aragon, Valencia, the principality of Catalonia, the kingdoms of Sicily and Naples and the different provinces of the Netherlands — fell more or less square into this second category.
I'm unhappy to see that someone used my little holiday to restore the unreferenced version.
About our problem, the perfect union of 1847/48 caused the end of the autonomous laws of the island of Sardinia, and the full expansion of the Piedmontese legal system to the island. This fact is sufficient to reject any idea of legal continuity between the medieval Viceroyalty which started in 1314, and the Kingdom (called) of Sardinia which ended in 1861. Sardinia was subject to the Spanish sovereignty before 1713 as it was to the Savoyard (better: Piedmontese) sovereignty after 1720. Names don't make States. Kings, laws, armies, governments do. I never saw a single source which says: Sardinia annexed Piedmont (more:when???). Have you got anyone?--
Jonny Bee Goo (
talk)
19:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In my book, Verdens historie i årstall ("History of the world by year"), by Nils Petter Thiesen, it says under 1720; "Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, relenquish the throne of Sicily and becomes King of Sardinia. Thus, the Kingdom of Sardinia is established, which soon become the strongest military force of Italy." In accordance with Wikipedia policy, this specific article should use the sourced version with 1720 as the start date. - TheG ( talk) 09:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
"These cases basically come down to a situation where there's a large realm over which a monarch has very limited authority due to a constitution ... and a small realm in which he is basically absolute ruler." Good observation. To URBIS: The point is that trying to make early modern realities fit late modern theories is anachronistic. Of course, Jonny's position is also anachronistic. He sees the unified state of the mid-nineteenth century as pre-dating 1720, as the Duchy of Savoy. But there was no unified state before 1847 at the earliest. — Srnec ( talk) 05:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I just discovered that Principality of Piedmont redirects here. That seems clearly wrong; it should have its own article. john k ( talk) 05:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 00:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Kingdom of Sardinia →
Kingdom of Piedmont–Sardinia — This article has been the subject of major disputes and confusion. The current article is about the Kingdom of Sardinia while it was ruled by the House of Savoy after 1720 and before it became the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. But the kingdom the Savoyards got was not the kingdom they gave: it was what we are calling the
Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica when they got it, although I don't think the "of Corsica" bit was still in use then, and it was not synonymous with their entire domain. I am therefore proposing that we move this article to the perfectly acceptable title
Kingdom of Piedmont–Sardinia, highlighting that it was a union between the crown's mainland territories centred on Piedmont and the island of Sardinia. Then we can right a new main article about the Kingdom of Sardinia that would cover its entire history mainly in order to disambiguate between the two uses and direct readers to the two main subarticles. I began work on one at
User:Srnec/Kingdom of Sardinia. This is a three-article solution to an ongoing debate about how to treat the Kingdom of Sardinia. Be aware that this article for a long time was about the kingdom from its origins in 1297 down to 1861, but has recently seen its scope zealously restricted.
Srnec (
talk)
23:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
A map would be useful.
'Napoleon III didn't keep his promises to Cavour. Napoleon seized Lombardy. In 1860, however, Sardinia gained Lombardy from France in exchange for Savoie and Nice.'
This is nonsense, Louis-Napoleon didn't keep his promise to fight the Austrians until all of the Kingdom of Lombardia-Veneto was in their hands, but this is not made clear. After the bloody battles of Magenta and Solferino he got anxious about dragging the war out and made peace. Austria refused outright to cede any territory to the Savoyards. The French agreed with Cavour that they would accept the cession of Lombardia to France from Austria and then immediately cede it again to Piemonte-Sardigna. Which they then did, in 1859, not 1860, Napoleon never 'seised' anything they merely used France as a go between in the peace deal to 'save face' for Austria.
Because the had reneged on his deal with Cavour (in which they had secretely agreed that Napoleon could have Nissa and Savoie, territories the French had long lusted after in return for getting all of Lombardia-Veneto) he allowed Vittorio-Emmanuelle II to keep Savoie and Nissa aswell as Lombardia. But in the following months (early 1860) most of north-central Italy revolted against their rulers, Firenze, Modena, Parma and the Romagna all held plebiscites which were overwhelmingly pro-Savoyard.
Whether these were real or not didn't matter but they all joined Piemonte-Sardigna. This allarmed Louis-Napoleon as he didn't want a strong Savoy on his border and so demanded that if they wanted to keep the new lands they would have to cede Savoie and Nissa. Cavour then agreed to cede them after (most likely fake) plebiscites showed around 90% wanted to join France.
I don't have an account or know anything about editing articels but this point about Napoleon really needs changing. - SeeK100
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.215.16 ( talk) 09:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
..In the 19th century the alternative name Sardinia-Piedmont came in use.... That's not true: until 1861 was always called, officially, Kingdom of Sardinia. -- Shardan 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The official name has allways been Kingdom of Sardinia (Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae) and the crown that kings of Sardinia - (later kings of Italy) - had on their head, it was the same crown that pope Boniface VIII put on the head of James II of Aragon in 1297. Please shows official sources if you wont change the name.-- Shardan 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
According Mr Francesco Cesar Casula, one of the most important italian experts about Sardinia mediaeval history, in his book La Storia di Sardegna and after in the other Breve storia di Sardegna ( ISBN 88-7138-065-7), at page 85, writing about Kingdom (or giuducato) of Calari, says: come gli altri tre giudicati, il regno di Calari era anch’ esso uno Stato sovrano e perfetto, perchè aveva la facoltà di stipulare accordi internazionali ...(...) ( in en.... like the other three giudicati, the kingdom (it: Regno) of Calari was a sovereign and perfect State because he was able to stipulate international treaties...(…). I think that in Wikipedia , according to Mr Casula studies , we can affirm that the giudicati they were real kingdoms. -- Shardan 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
To know more (if you know Italian language), on it.Wiki you find:
and on en.Wiki:
Anyway, I'm not agree about realm, Kingdom is the right word -- Shardan 23:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Kingdom of Sardinia Regno di Sardegna | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1324–1861 | |||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||
Capital | officially Cagliari, later Turin as political and economical capital | ||||||||||||||||||
Common languages |
Italian,
French Spoken languages: Piedmontese in Piedmont, Sardinian in Sardinia, Occitan in Nice and southwestern Piedmontese Alps, Francoprovençal in Savoy and Aosta Valley) | ||||||||||||||||||
Religion | Roman Catholic Church, Waldensians in some piedmontese alpine valley, nombrous jude community (Turin, Nice, Alessandria, Vercelli, Ivrea, Casale Monferrato) | ||||||||||||||||||
Government | Constitutional monarchy | ||||||||||||||||||
James II of Aragon | |||||||||||||||||||
Victor Emmanuel II | |||||||||||||||||||
Legislature | Parliament | ||||||||||||||||||
Senate | |||||||||||||||||||
Chamber of Deputies | |||||||||||||||||||
History | |||||||||||||||||||
June 19 1324 | |||||||||||||||||||
1718 | |||||||||||||||||||
1796 | |||||||||||||||||||
June 9, 1815 | |||||||||||||||||||
March 4, 1848 | |||||||||||||||||||
• Treaty of Zurich | November 10, 1859 | ||||||||||||||||||
• Italian unification | March 17 1861 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
When Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia is searched, the official name of the country is shown as Kingdom of Sardinia and discusses the same information as on this page. The two topics are almost exactly the same, and there is no need for two pages. Information on Piedmont-Sardinia should be part of this article.
I was incorrect, Piedmont-Sardinia IS a different state. This page should focus on the true Kingdom of Sardinia then, not the formal one which was ruled by Piedmont. I have already begun converting the page to concentrating on the pre-Piedmont-control Kingdom of Sardinia.
Numerous reliable English-language sources would beg to differ. It was at the time almost always called the Kingdom of Savoy, not Sardinia, in English. This may be because British writers were most familiar with the area around the Riviera, but to say that it was always called the Kingdom of Sardinia sounds like an overly patriotic POV. I have seven books in front of me, including Greene's History and Boswell's Life of Johnson, and they only call it the Kingdom of Savoy. Sardinia is not mentioned; not once, not ever. ONLY Savoy. -- Charlene 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A proposed disinfobox is reproduced at right. Just because someone has worked it up doesn't mean we are obliged to cram the text into a ribbon down one side. Look at the wasted space in this bloated object, which informs the reader of the existence of "nombrous jude community", though the article itself doesn't begin to discuss the Jews of Piedmont. I see no reason we have to have this junk foisted on us. WQhat do others think? -- Wetman 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This article confuses two countries with the name of kingdom of Sardinia; it needs to be corrected. We need to distinguish the two entities of this kingdom: the state until 1720 is correctly the kingdom of the island of Sardinia, without continental territories in north-western Italy, but from 1720, after the Congress of Vienna, Sardinia island was unified with the Duchy of Savoy, which was based in Piedmont, with capital Turin, under Savoy dinasty. From that moment the island of Sardinia ended to be the fulcrum of the former Kingdom of Sardinia and became part of the Duchy of Savoy, who so took (just) the name of "Kingdom of Sardinia". So after the Congress of Vienna this was not the former kingdom of the island of Sardinia, but the a completely new State, based in Piedmont, heir of Duchy of Savoy, where Sardinia was classified just as a region and wich of "Kingdom of Sardinia" brang just the name. The important thing is understand that the new Kingdom has nothing in common with the old one, apart the name given to elevate the Savoy from a duchy to a royal family, because it effectly (and officially) was the kindom of Piedmont; moreover the first was a filo-spanish kingdom, while the second was a completely different State. It's the same difference that there is from napoleonic Kingdom of Italy to the Kingdom of unified Italy since 1861.
For this and for cultural reasons I suggest it should be better to divide the first and the second kingdom of sardinia in two different pages of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.216.161 ( talk) 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, it's sensless to merge the history of the kindom of Sardinia under Savoy dinasty (1718-1861) with Aragonese kingdom of Aragon and Sardinia...I tried to make two separate articles.
--
Conte di Cavour (
talk)
15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with the flag inside the template: it's not displayed in correct way. The correct visualization is the one in the template of the italian page. I tried to insert here that image (Flag of the Kingdom of Sardinia.svg), but there is the same problem. -- Daviboz ( talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Why two flags of France in infobox?-- Grifter72 ( talk) 09:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is for attempting to form consensus on which version of this article is neutrally worded and appropriately sourced, and thus should be Wikipedia's article on the subject: Version A or Version B. To weigh in, please use the form I'll demonstrate below. Keep your comments brief and to the point, and only vote once. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
reading this poor article looks like that history in sardinia began in middle ages and not thousand-years before. moreover kingdom of sardinia existed from centuries ago of the house of savoy's occupation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.242.94 ( talk) 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You have a page about Sardinia if you want to write about Sardinian history of "thousand-years" ago.-- Jonny Bee Goo ( talk) 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
the existence of an article about the history of sardinia doesn't justify a wrong paragraph's title here! "early history of sardinia": 1297 AD is not the start of sardinia's history 94.39.117.13 ( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You forget, Srnec, that one thing was a title, another one was a State. The House of Savoy did not need a State (they still had one), they need a title. In English history we had many Dukes of Buckingham, but this title was not connected with a non-existing "State of Buckingham". The House of Savoy reached their desired title in 1713, and after that year they couldn't be demoted. In 1720 a simple changeover of territories between Savoy and Austria happened: and this is proved by the fact that the title of King of Sicily was not changed into king of Sardinia until 1723 (if your theory would be valid, it would mean that no Kingdom of Sardinia existed between 1720 and 1723). And your theory is wrong about another fact: two Kingdoms of Italy with an effective territory existed both before 1814 and after 1861, but this would mean that they were the same State?
I never said, Srnec, that a Kingdom of Sardinia (according to Papal sources) or Virreinato de Cerdenya (according to Spanish sources) did not existed before 1720. I said that that Kingdom/Virreinato you are speaking about, is not the topic of this page. I think that we can agree that a Duchy of Savoy existed before 1713 as a free, sovereign and independent State. Then, when this State (Savoy) did lose this independence and sovereignty according to you?
Post scriptum. Did you speak about a kingdom of Naples? Considering that you give such a big relevance to names, what would you say if I say to you that a realm officially called "Kingdom of Naples" never existed in history?--
Jonny Bee Goo (
talk)
12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Srnec. I came back from some days of vacation.
Let's put parsecs between us and Italian wikipedia. Italian wikipedia reflects all problems of Italian nation, being the kingdom of the burocracy and of a compromise whose goal is not the public behaviour but the agreement of private interests. (Vai a farti fottere, stronzo! perchè non vieni sulla Wikipedia italiana a raccontare le tue stronzate?)
Snrec, if a revamped the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica, it means that I know that a Kingdom/Virreinato/Luogotenenza under Spanish (before 1713) and Savoyard (after 1720) sovereignty existed, and that it had its own laws. But I reject the idea that this Virreinato is the topic of this page. You said "I argued precisely that Sardinia and the rest of the Savoy lands were independent of one another", but this is not what is reflected in our Sardinian-nationalist friends' version. Speaking about a K. of Sardinia which existed from 1297 to 1861 means a sole fact: Savoy was annexed by this "kingdom", but this is historically completely false. The Kingdom/Virreinato/Luogotenenza you are speaking about, which always corresponded to the island of Sardinia (and no more), was abolished by the Savoyards with all its laws in 1848. The Kingdom I'm speaking about, which is the object of the 99% of the historic literature, was the Duchy of Savoy which changed name in 1713 (into K of Sicily) and in 1723 (into K of Sardinia). Duchy of Savoy and Kingdom of Sardinia are the names of the same State (the Savoyard State, or Piedmont) in different centuries, as Kingdom of Italy and Italian Republic are the names of the same State (the Italian State, or Italy) in different ages, and the Kingdom of France and the French Republic are the names of the same State (the French State, or France) in different centuries.
So, we need two pages (not three). One (this one) about the State called Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861, another (the other one) about the Dependency called Kingdom/Virreinato of Sardinia 1297(or 1324:effectivity)-1848. Sardinian nationalists will be unhappy, their strange theory about a Sardinian origin of actual Italian State being so denied, but we'll not care. We'll have problems with them until the end of 2011, their goal being simply to receive public funds during the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of the Italian State in 2011. --
Jonny Bee Goo (
talk)
23:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(by the way, last Emperor crowned as king of Italy was Charles V, not Wenceslaus)
A classic case of personal union was the link between England and Scotland under the Stuart dinasty and the Republic. In that case, both States maintained their army, their flags, their administration. In this sense, I'm not sure that the structure of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia between 1720 and 1848 could be simply described as a case of personal union: Sardinia was (hugely) not so "separate" from Piedmont as Scotland from England.
However, this is not the central problem. I think you have a confused idea of the concept of
sovereignty in international law (but, not be unhappy, you are not alone at all: about this topic, I could find dozens of pages in wikipedia which would be banned in all universities of international law of the world). In international law, sovereignty is an absolute concept: sovereignty over a territory is sole and unique, and it's independet from any form of government system. Actually, Mexico is very angry cause the new law on immigration passed by Arizona. But, even if the United States are a federal system and the US government has a limited possibility to abolish Arizona law, on international plan Mexico protested against the United States, not against Arizona, because the US government has the sovereignty over Phoenix under international law. Internal organization is irrilevant under international law. Another case: Alderney is not part of the United Kingdom according to British law, but according to international law Alderney is a British territory as London is. In our case, even if Sardinia and the mainland had both their own laws between 1720 and 1848, sovereignty was unique and belonged to Savoy, for the simple fact that the Duchy of Savoy was previously a sovereign state, while Sardinia was not. Generally, there are only two way to estinguish a sovereign State: a military annexation in war or a fusion in a NEW united State, and in this second case all sovereign States entering in the union cease to exist. This explained, your sentence seems very confused and unexplicable: "It was, in the sense that there ceased to be a separate realm composed of the island of Sardinia. It was not in the sense that the unified (fused?) state that resulted from this "abolition" continued to use the name of the old kingdom and thus was, in some sense, the kingdom." What "sense"? It seems more philosophy than law. We can't create wikipages based on abstract "senses". The situation prior than 1713 is clear: we have a sovereign State called Duchy of Savoy (or, simply, Piedmont) and a sovereign State called Kingdom of Spain or simply Spain. The fact that Spain was composed by many provincial kingdoms, is irrilevant under international law: a sole king means a sole State; ok, one of these provincial states was called Kingdom/Virreinato of Sardinia, but it was no more than a province. After an Austrian parenthesis, this province is ceded to Piedmont, and continues to exist as a province until 1848. In 1723, Piedmont decided to change its official name into Kingdom of Sardinia merely for a question of honour, but this fact being an internal fact, is irrilevant under internation law. More, mainly, Piedmont was Piedmont even when it was officially called Duchy of Savoy and when it was called Kingdom of Sardinia. The Kingdom of Sardinia (the Savoyard State) had a province with its same name, but this fact does not allow to make a undistinguished confusion between a State and a province. Well, in 1848 Piedmont decided to change its internal organization, passing from a quasi-federal system to a French-styled centralized system. Well, how can this fact affect a sovereignty which continuosly derived from ancient Savoy? This is the weakest point of your vision (and the vision of Sardinian nationalists). Piedmont was Piedmont both before and after 1848. The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia was a sovereign State in 1850: well, sovereignty being unique and sole, if we say that the Kingdom of Sardinia of 1850 has a legal continuity with the Spanish Virreinato and not with the Duchy of Savoy (remember! legal continuity of sovereignty is single or completely new, but never dual!), we would say that the Savoyard sovereignty, the Savoyard State ceased to exist in 1848 for annexation to Sardinia. But this is evidently false.--
Jonny Bee Goo (
talk)
22:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Elliott goes on to discuss why Koenigsberger's categorizing scheme might not be adequate. Elliott suggests a different typology, deriving from the seventeenth century Spanish writer Juan de Solórzano Pereira, with two different kinds of unions. The first are "accessory unions," like those between England and Wales, or Spanish America and Castile, "whereby a kingdom or province, on union with another, was regarded juridically as part and parcel of it, with its inhabitants possessing the same rights and subject to the same laws." The second of Solórzano's categories is the aeque principaliter,Of these alternative forms of political organization [alternatives to the unitary nation state, that is], one that has aroused particular interest in recent years has been the "composite state". This interest certainly owes something to Europe's current preoccupation with federal or confederal union, as submerged nationalities resurface to claim their share of the sunlight. But it also reflects a growing historical appreciation of the truth behind H. G. Koenigsberger's assertion that "most states in the early modern period were composite states, including more than one country under the sovereignty of one ruler". He divides these into two categories: first, composite states separated from each other by other states, or by the sea, like the Spanish Habsburg monarchy, the Hohenzollern monarchy of Brandenburg-Prussia, and England and Ireland; and secondly, contiguous composite states, like England and Wales, Piedmont and Savoy, and Poland and Lithuania.
Elliott doesn't specifically mention Sardinia here, but obviously Sardinia fell more into this category than the other. Elliott doesn't have anything to say about the House of Savoy in the eighteenth century, but the article gives a really good sense of the multitude of ways that personal unions could work in early modern Europe. The basic point is that we shouldn't be imposing modern categories on early modern polities. john k ( talk) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)under which constituent kingdoms continued after their union to be treated as distinct entities, preserving their own laws, fueros and privileges. "These kingdoms", wrote Solórzano, "must be ruled and governed as if the king who holds them all together were king only of each one of them". Most of the kingdoms and provinces of the Spanish monarchy — Aragon, Valencia, the principality of Catalonia, the kingdoms of Sicily and Naples and the different provinces of the Netherlands — fell more or less square into this second category.
I'm unhappy to see that someone used my little holiday to restore the unreferenced version.
About our problem, the perfect union of 1847/48 caused the end of the autonomous laws of the island of Sardinia, and the full expansion of the Piedmontese legal system to the island. This fact is sufficient to reject any idea of legal continuity between the medieval Viceroyalty which started in 1314, and the Kingdom (called) of Sardinia which ended in 1861. Sardinia was subject to the Spanish sovereignty before 1713 as it was to the Savoyard (better: Piedmontese) sovereignty after 1720. Names don't make States. Kings, laws, armies, governments do. I never saw a single source which says: Sardinia annexed Piedmont (more:when???). Have you got anyone?--
Jonny Bee Goo (
talk)
19:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In my book, Verdens historie i årstall ("History of the world by year"), by Nils Petter Thiesen, it says under 1720; "Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, relenquish the throne of Sicily and becomes King of Sardinia. Thus, the Kingdom of Sardinia is established, which soon become the strongest military force of Italy." In accordance with Wikipedia policy, this specific article should use the sourced version with 1720 as the start date. - TheG ( talk) 09:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
"These cases basically come down to a situation where there's a large realm over which a monarch has very limited authority due to a constitution ... and a small realm in which he is basically absolute ruler." Good observation. To URBIS: The point is that trying to make early modern realities fit late modern theories is anachronistic. Of course, Jonny's position is also anachronistic. He sees the unified state of the mid-nineteenth century as pre-dating 1720, as the Duchy of Savoy. But there was no unified state before 1847 at the earliest. — Srnec ( talk) 05:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I just discovered that Principality of Piedmont redirects here. That seems clearly wrong; it should have its own article. john k ( talk) 05:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 00:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Kingdom of Sardinia →
Kingdom of Piedmont–Sardinia — This article has been the subject of major disputes and confusion. The current article is about the Kingdom of Sardinia while it was ruled by the House of Savoy after 1720 and before it became the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. But the kingdom the Savoyards got was not the kingdom they gave: it was what we are calling the
Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica when they got it, although I don't think the "of Corsica" bit was still in use then, and it was not synonymous with their entire domain. I am therefore proposing that we move this article to the perfectly acceptable title
Kingdom of Piedmont–Sardinia, highlighting that it was a union between the crown's mainland territories centred on Piedmont and the island of Sardinia. Then we can right a new main article about the Kingdom of Sardinia that would cover its entire history mainly in order to disambiguate between the two uses and direct readers to the two main subarticles. I began work on one at
User:Srnec/Kingdom of Sardinia. This is a three-article solution to an ongoing debate about how to treat the Kingdom of Sardinia. Be aware that this article for a long time was about the kingdom from its origins in 1297 down to 1861, but has recently seen its scope zealously restricted.
Srnec (
talk)
23:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.