Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia/Archive 1

map
A map would be useful.
 * Got a public domain one from 1839. --Wetman 20:39, 14 November 2004 (UTC)

Historical innacuracy
'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)

Kingdom of Sardinia
..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)


 * Ehmm… ! I’m sorry, officially, Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont has never  existed, as you can see here:   if you got an official source whit that name, please show it.

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)


 * Ehmm, ehmm... ! First, This statement in the main article is false: "In 1743 the kingdom was combined with Piedmont as the Kingdom of Sardinia." (I will delete it.) The lands controlled by the House of Savoy (Savoy and Piedmont) were merged with the Kingdom of Sardinia when the land swap for Sicily took place in 1720. A simple Google search for images of coinage produced by "Sardinia" or "Savoy" will produce photos of coins with the correct full name of the nation on them. The site www.cgb.fr produced images of a silver 5 sols coin dated "1700" with a bust of Victor-Amadée II that reads in Latin abbreviations: "DUX. SAB." (on the obverse), "RX. CYPRI. PRINC. PEDEM." (on the reverse), i.e. "Duchy of Savoy, Kingdom of Cyprus, Principality of Piedmont." The same site also produced an image of a 5 sols coin dated "1730" with a bust of Charles-Emmanuel III that reads: "REX. SAR. CYP. ET IER." (on obverse), "DUX. SAB. ET MONTISF. PRINC. PEDEM." (on the reverse), i.e. "Kingdom of Sardinia, Cyprus, and Jerusalem, Duchy of Savoy and Montferrat, Principality of Piedmont." (Note: I own a gold 1 doppia from 1786 with essentially the same text.) Obviously, Savoy and Piedmont were one nation in 1700 AND in 1730 when Sardinia was merged into it (BEFORE 1743). (The capital of the House of Savoy was Torino/Turin, and became the capital of the "Kingdom of Sardinia ..." in 1720.) And, obviously, "The official name has allways been Kingdom of Sardinia (Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae)" posted by Shardan is an incorrect statement, too.


 * The name of nation controlled by the House of Savoy was so changeable and complex that most scholars "invent" short names for it in their books that are acceptable in their own contexts, but hardly "official." One of the more interesting solutions to this nation's name - because the name "Kingdom of Sardinia" for historical events after 1720 is so misleading - is used by Christopher Storrs in his excellent book in the Cambridge Studies in Italian History in Culture series, entitled "War, Diplomacy and the Rise of Savoy, 1690-1720" (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999). He discusses this matter at length in the his Intoduction. His decision is to use the name: "the Savoy State" to identify the nation in all of its various guises before and after 1720. (Please forgive my poor written English.) Charvex 09:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Ehmm, ehmm, ehmm!...In 1298, his official name was Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae, (for that reason – entre parenthése  – I wrote Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae). In 1475, the twins islands were separated in the official name and Kingdom of Sardinia was the only name until 1861,.... but not for Papacy... that never recognized that division !  Imho, I was not wrong before. Par contre - imho - you are wrong when you assert: ....the capital of the House of Savoy was Torino/Turin, and became the capital of the "Kingdom of Sardinia" in 1720..... From June 19, 1324 to June 10, 1326, the capitol was Bonaria, a little town (..allora..) near Cagliari. After, from June 10, 1326, Kingdom of Sardinia capital has always been Cagliari until March 17, 1861. There are not historical documents that confirm Torino as official capital of the Kingdom. Torino was the political and economical capital, but not the official one. By --Shardan 20:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingdoms or giudicati ?
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)


 * Could we not speak then with equal correctness of the regno di Monaco or the regno di Liechtenstein? There's no reason to apply "kingdom" in English to an independent state that does not have a king; it does not serve the Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You should cite the sources in the article, too. Not just the talk page. That said, regno should not always be translated "kingdom," but more often "realm" or "sovereign state." There are many sovereignties which are not royal and the giudicati were not royal. In short, I agree with Wetman. Srnec 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Monaco is a Principato (in French: Principautè) and is not a Kingdom; idem for Liechtenstein and Andorra. The ‘’Judike’’ is a King, not a prince.

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)


 * I am agree about realm. Well chosen, Srnec. --Wetman 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to admit to Shardan, at least, that I am aware of usage in both Italian and English of "king"/"re" and "kingdom"/"regno" to describe these identities, but I would not consider that the current or historic scholarly consensus on how best to translate these terms (giudice and giudicato) if the terms are even seen as requiring translation, which is not usual. Thankyou, Wetman. Srnec 05:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean Srnec, and I understand complexity in translation giudice and giudicato, but I’m still not agree about realm: surely you know English better than me, but, IMHO, realm got something about legend (‘’the realm of fancy’’), or something related to a very ancient kingdom that, because of a lack of trustable sources, is more fantasy than history. Anyway,  if you want to use realms to indicate  the four Sardinian Kingdoms, Wikipedia should use the same term to indicate  all the contemporary kingdoms in Europe, starting from X century. However, I don’t really want to create any edit war about, for me is enough to have changed tribal territories, like somebody, few edits ago, has describe the four independents kingdoms.It's OK for all the rest. By --Shardan 22:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia into this page
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.


 * I merged them. The state is really the same thing right down from 1297 to 1861. Srnec 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

always known as 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)


 * Never a need to beg when you feel like differing: the Duchy of Savoy has not yet been raised to a kingdom. You may wish to do so yourself, to satisfy your point-of-view. No reason to mislead the readers by following James Boswell, an eighteenth-century Scot who was neither a genealogist nor a historian, but whose series of journals are an excellent picture of London life. Of course casual usage "rules"! ...but not when you stop to look something up. --Wetman 00:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Disinfobox
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)
 * Then just remove the stupid crap that someone vandalized the infobox with and return the infobox to the page! As of now there is no link on this page between the Kingdom of Sardina (aka Piedmont-Sardinia) to the Kingdom of Italy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the infobox is a complete waste of space. Srnec 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox links the succession of states. Because this infobox has been removed the link has been broken. If the "Kingdom of Sardinia" is too large, it should be broken down into individual articles for the "Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica" and "Piedmont-Sardinia" (for the Savoy led kingdom) as this was the previous arrangement before the two articles were merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.49.90 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't shout, please
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)


 * The kingdom of Sardinia until the "perfect union" of 1847 included officially only the island of Sardinia while Piedmont was part of the Principality of Piedmont. The Island and the mainland territories were separed not only geographically but also from a politically, although both territories were governed by the Savoy (who manteined their previous titles , they were not just Kings of Sardinia but also , Princes of Piedmont , Dukes of Savoy , Kings of Cyprus etc...) . If you want to change the article you must add reliable sources.--Xoil (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What you are saying can be right, but what you wrote in the article is the opposite of your speeches. You say "The kingdom of Sardinia until the "perfect union" of 1847 included officially only the island of Sardinia", but you changed the infobox writing that the Genoan Republic is a predecessor state of the kingdom. Generally speaking then, you must remember that you are on en.wiki here: have you got english sources.--95.244.144.23 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just ridiculous nonsense! What ashame!--93.45.76.26 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag
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)

Consensus is still needed
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)
 * Version C. I think that Version C should be Wikipedia's article, because most of the information in it is appropriately sourced to reliable sources, and because people on both sides can agree that it is accurate. (This is a sample vote.  There is no Version C.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Two separated articles, the Kingdom before the Savoy and then the Savoyard one. distinction made by the date of beginning and ending. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_italy Cunibertus (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Early history of Sardinia
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)

@Srnec
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)


 * I would say you don't understand what I'm saying. You make reference to my "theory" by which a name makes a state, but I have no such theory. There was once an Earldom of Chester ruled by an Earl of Chester. (I don't care if it was a state or not.) Today we have an Earl of Chester and no earldom. I am well aware of this.
 * My problem is that in saying the "House of Savoy reached their desired title in 1713" you imply that all that took place was a change or addition of title. That's not true. I would prefer to say that the House of Savoy attained their desired rank (that of royalty) only in 1713 with the acquisition of (surprise!) a kingdom. The "simple changeover of territories" that occurred in 1720 was an exchange of one kingdom/crown for another. This preserved the Savoyards' rank but altered the territories (i.e. states) they ruled. This is why it is perfectly proper to speak of a Kingdom of Sardinia first in personal union with Aragon (which also made it a part of Spain, I agree, but did not diminish its status as a kingdom or a state) and then later in personal union with the Savoyard state (which could be plural, given the various dominions that it comprised). That the Savoyards were none too happy about the territorial change of 1720 and therefore refused initially to put away their claim on Sicily makes no difference to what actually happened.
 * You also demonstrate that you don't understand my point when you think that a Napoleonic kingdom of Italy means that the next kingdom of Italy is the "same" as it. There was also a Lombard, then Frankish kingdom of Italy in the early Middle Ages and perhaps, in a way, on paper until 1648 (at least Wenceslaus in the fourteenth century was crowned with the Iron Crown). A name does not a state make, but didn't I explicitly deny that in my previous post? Legal continuity means something, and if Piedmont and Sardinia were not "fused" legally until 1847 what were the laws Sardinia observed before that date? Were they invented when the kingdom was "created" by the Savoyards in 1720/3? Or were they the pre-existing laws that had governed Sardinia before then, since it had been a kingdom before then (and was not under Castilian law)? May argument is that the kingdom of Sardinia that existed before 1720 is the same one that existed afterwards. It never ceased to exist and it was not re-created.
 * I never argued that the Savoyard state lost its independence or sovereignty when its rulers acquired Sardinia. No more than Aragon lots its when its ruler acquired Sardinia. I argued precisely that Sardinia and the rest of the Savoy lands were independent of one another. I do not argue against the use of the terms "Kingdom of Sardinia" or "Piedmont–Sardinia" to refer to the whole. I have implied elsewhere, in light of your accusing me of being fooled by Sardinian nationalist propaganda, that you seem to be a Savoyard nationalist of sorts. But no worries. I am no friend of any nationalisms, as my record at this Wikipedia readily will attest.
 * I am well aware that there was no state officially named Kingdom of Naples. It doesn't matter. I have no "theory of states based on names". That historiography labels a certain state the Kingdom of Naples is enough for me. By the way, this debate finally seems to be getting good, so lets see if we can actually resolve our differences for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I have no problem with implementing a solution here like the one on the Italian Wiki (three articles). Srnec (talk) 19:53, 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)


 * I did not say that either version was perfect, but this version is more flawed than the previous one. I do not understand the logic behind your statement that "speaking about a K. of Sardinia which existed from 1297 to 1861 means a sole fact: Savoy was annexed by this ‘kingdom’," It doesn't mean that at all. Why would it? It means that the two came into personal union, i.e. ruled by the same person. Personal union can, in any given instance, come to mean a lot more than just that, but it at least means that. And that is all it needs to mean. Savoy was not annexed by the Kingdom of Sardinia, rather the rulers of the Savoyard state (the House of Savoy) became rulers of the Kingdom of Sardinia of medieval provenance. Whether the kingdom was abolished in 1848 hinges on equivocal terms. 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. This is only to say that the Savoyards could have, if they wanted, abolished the laws of their continental state and replaced them with Sardinian law, but they (for obvious reasons) chose to do the opposite. If they had done that, then we could say that the Duchy of Savoy was abolished, or, since almost certainly the title and provincial name would have stuck around, instead that the Duchy of Savoy was annexed to Sardinia. Though this is all hypothetical, it illustrates why your distinctions are unhelpful.
 * And what kind of dependancy was Sardinia if it was claimed as a Papal fief? This oversight on your part, and your constant references to Spain pre-1720 without any references to Aragon or Catalonia, suggest that you may understand modern politics and international law better than you understand medieval. How could Sardinia have been under Spanish sovereignty if I don't really think there was Spanish sovereignty before 1713? Of what was it a dependancy? I said it was a part of Spain, which is different.
 * Any solution must recognised, however, that the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" as much belongs to the viceroyalty ruled by Catalans, Spaniards and Italians as to the Savoyard state from 1720 to 1861. This is why your position is untenable even given your assumptions. There was a Kingdom of Sardinia from 1297 down to 1861 and I would prefer that be the topic of this page. If you must, create a Kingdom of Piedmont–Sardinia article to cover the Savoyard state after 1720. This is the two-article solution I would support.
 * By the way, I am not Italian and have no interest in Italian nationalist disputes. It is interesting to learn about Charles V, though. Srnec (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * Our differences are, unfortunately, quite deep. But before I get into why that is, let me first cherry pick a few key points of history of yours with which I disagree. "The situation prior than 1713 is clear." No, it is not, or we would not be discussing it. "A sole king means a sole State." Are you suggesting that Canada and the UK are one and the same state under international law? There is a sole queen (or king) ruling both. Sardinia "was no more than a province." Of what? It was originally under a claim of Papal suzerainty. Can your theory of international law really apply to the feudal Middle Ages? If not, when can it begin to be applied? I would suggest much later than you would, I bet. "In 1723, Piedmont decided to change its official name into Kingdom of Sardinia merely for a question of honour." You make this sound as it had nothing to do with an exchange of territory—a territory moreover that had since the Middle Ages the name which Piedmont suddenly in 1723 felt like adopting! Coincidence? And the internal events of 1723 are hardly separate from the not-at-all internal events of 1720 or 1713. "A sovereignty which continuosly derived from ancient Savoy." Savoy had no sovereignty in the Middle Ages (or earlier). In fact, I don't see that it had sovereignty until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, when all imperial pretensions were abandoned. Do you? Whence do you date Savoyard sovereignty?
 * Our differences, however, are much more than disagreements concerning points of fact in history. When you wrote, "It seems more philosophy than law," I couldn't have agreed more heartily. Law, especially international law, is a fiction. A game. International law is a relatively recent game. Not everybody always plays by the rules. We need something beyond law to properly understand what is going on, politically, in history. This is because history is messy. Which in turn is why I don't find it difficult to say that Sardinia was both a sovereign state and a province of an empire at the same time; both an distinct kingdom and a dynastic subunit at the same time. When you ask in what sense the state after 1848 can be called the same one as the medieval regnum Sardiniae, I respond that it can be because the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" expressed a claim. Boniface's bull of 1297 is the point of origin of the Savoyards' royal title. In order to maintain that rank and title, they kept the name ("Kingdom of Sardinia") and thus the claim. Annexing Sardinia and calling the state the "Grand Duchy of Piedmont" (if they had wanted) would not have made it any less independent or sovereign, but it would have reduced the ruling house's rank and, potentially, respect in international affairs. In order to prevent this, the Savoyards' kept the Sardinian name and thus the claim. Do you think it was conceivable in 1713–23 that the House of Savoy would have adopted the royal style without having gotten hold of a kingdom of ancient (read: very old) and legitimate (read: legal) provenance? I concede it is possible they might have, but it is most likely that they did not even think of it: they waited until they had gotten hold of just such a kingdom. This was the justification of their royal title down to the creation of the Kingdom of Italy. And how would Italian unification have played out if there had only been a Duke of Savoy? We'll never know. Srnec (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Srnec. I'm puzzled by the claim that Sardinia was a mere province of Castile (!) before 1713.  Anyone who has read anything on early modern Spain ought to be aware that there was not single "Spain."  The Spanish monarchy was a group of territories unified only by a common ruler.  Castile was the most important of these, but Castile had no authority over the others.  Sardinia was a separate kingdom, with its own laws and estates and it had a viceroy appointed by the king, who used the title of King of Sardinia.  I don't know much about the history of Sardinia, per se, but my guess would be that the administration of the kingdom of Sardinia (the island) in 1730 was not terribly different from the administration of that kingdom thirty years before, except with administrators reporting to Turin instead of Madrid.  Most European states in the early modern period were created by personal unions of this sort; there is no particular reason to view Piedmont-Sardinia any differently.  The situation is, of course, odd, because Sardinia itself was a backwater which happened to be of royal rank, so that when administrative reorganizations led to the centralization of the state ruled by the House of Savoy, the name of the backwater became the name of the whole state.  But that's neither here nor there; this happened considerably later. john k (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi my friends. A brief answer to John K: I agree with you, but your answer is simply off-topic. The problem is not the relation of Sardinia with Spain, which can be largely explained in the page about the Viceroyalty of Sardinia. Here the problem is the legal continuity of the Savoyard State, called Kingdom of Sardinia or simply Piedmont. Spain can be only a background of our speeches, which are dated 18th and 19th century. About Srnec, I start to saying another time that international law is based on effectivity. UK and Canada are two different nations because they have two different governments and Prime Ministers: today the queen is a simple symbol without any authority. The situation was different when kings ruled Europe: Italian history books have many chapters about the Spanish domination over Italy during the 16th and the 17th century: now you create an alternate theory which affirms that Spain was a constellation of states "with their own laws" so that we can't speak of a Spanish-dominated Italy from 1500 to 1700? You put yourself in opposition with all history books? But you have something else to learn about Italian history. Italy was the bithplace of diplomacy. The Italian states began to establish diplomatic relationships during the 15th century and, more, consular relationship during the 13th century. Your affirmation about Savoy as an independent state from the HRE only in 1648 is very reductive. Imperial authority over Italy became purely theoric since the victory of the Lombard League in 1176 and 1214. Italian states started to show the institutions (embassies, diplomatic missions) of actual independent states before all the rest of Europe. If Italy was simply a part of the HRE until 1648 as you say, we don't understand the reason why Emperor Charles V engaged 40 years of wars to submit the key-territories of Italy: a war to conquer his own territory? Let's return to our main topic now. In all our speeches, Srnec, you still forgot to answer me about the key problem: what was, in your opinion, the fate of a free and independent State as the Duchy of Savoy? We know that it was independent at least in the early 18th century: when did it lose its independence, in your opinion?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of points here: 1) all of northern Italy was theoretically part of the Holy Roman Empire, but this gradually ceased to have any meaning; I think the last bona fide attempt to assert imperial authority, per se, in Italy was the War of the Mantuan Succession in the late 1620s, although I believe the Austrians seized Mantua in 1708 partly using this theoretical authority, and that the settlement of the Modenese succession a few decades later might have also involved some theoretical exercise of the imperial prerogative. That being said, Savoy was not in the same boat.  The Duke of Savoy had a voice in the imperial diet, and Savoy was part of the Upper Rhenish Circle.  That means it was really part of the Empire, not only theoretically so like the rest of northern Italy.  I'm not sure why you have a hard time understanding how Charles V could engage in war to conquer "his own territory".  In the first place, he did engage in precisely such wars in Germany, so extending that by analogy to Italy is hardly so wild.  In the second place, even in areas which were clearly part of the Holy Roman Empire, imperial authority was never "his own territory"; it belonged to various princes, counts, prelates, imperial knights, and free cities; the imperial overlordship was extremely limited.  I agree with you that 1648 isn't such an important date; the emphasis placed on Westphalia by political scientists is dubious at best, and the princes of the Holy Roman Empire were effectively independent well before 1648.  But that Savoy was part of the Empire (even after 1648) cannot really be in doubt.  Beyond this, you seem to be insisting on an either/or situation.  Either Spain dominated Italy, and thus Spain was a unitary state in the modern sense, or else Spain was not a unitary state in the modern sense, and thus Spain cannot have dominated Italy.  This is silly.  Obviously, the personal union of the various territories under the Spanish crown did not particularly resemble the Commonwealth today.  But it's certainly true that each kingdom under the Spanish crown had its own separate laws and law-making authorities, and they were tired together pretty loosely until the Bourbons came.  The Kingdom of Sardinia (and Corsica) specifically, as I understand it, continued to have those same separate laws after it came under first Austrian, and then Savoyard rule.  Sardinia was only integrated with the "Piedmont" part of the Savoyard inheritance in 1847/8, which is to say, only a decade or so before the unification of Italy.  There is a clear and direct continuity between Spanish rule of Sardinia and Savoyard rule.  Of course, because "King of Sardinia" was, after 1723, the highest title held by the head of the House of Savoy, the whole Savoyard realm came to be referred to as "Sardinia" or the "Kingdom of Sardinia," but as far as I'm aware, that was not strictly correct, and certainly wasn't correct before 1814.  One can make an analogy to the "Kingdom of Spain," which was certainly referred to in the 17th century, but did not, strictly speaking, exist.  John Elliott's "A Europe of Composite Monarchies," Past and Present 1992 137 (1):48-71, if you can find it somewhere, has a good discussion of this.  Here's part of it: "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 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, "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 &mdash; Aragon, Valencia, the principality of Catalonia, the kingdoms of Sicily and Naples and the different provinces of the Netherlands &mdash; fell more or less square into this second category."  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)
 * Your point about Westphalia is taken. It seems I was wrong. Switzerland did attain independence from the Empire at that juncture, from what I can tell, but Savoy lingered on as a part of the Empire until 1801, when its annexation by France was recognised by the Empire in the Treaty of Lunéville, correct? If that is the case, would you say that Savoy, Piedmont, Aosta, and Nice were indeed annexed to the Kingdom of Sardinia by the congress of Vienna in 1815 (along with Liguria)? At least, that's how you could spin it. I wouldn't. It makes more sense to say that the old Savoyard state was returned to the Savoyard leader, who in the meantime had never lost his Sardinian throne. Although it is interesting that the entire state is called Sardinia. I don't know how that whole French war business slipped my mind in my previous discussion with Jonny. Notice that I reverted the article to the original version that Jonny fought to supplant. It is not in much better condition, but I believe it is less misleading, biased or littered with substandard English. Srnec (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that's right about Savoy. I'm not really sure about whether Aosta, Piedmont, and Nice, though; obviously their ruler had a seat in the diet, but so did the ruler of the Duchy of Milan (or, from 1737-1765, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany); the exact borders of the territory of the King of Sardinia that was within the empire seems, imo, somewhat unclear.  Savoy itself certainly was; Sardinia certainly wasn't; about the rest, I'm not sure.  It was certainly at least theoretically in the empire in the same sense that all of Italy north of the Papal States (save Venice) were; I couldn't say more than that.  I agree with you about the rest.  john k (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * John K and I had a good discussion about this above. Did you read it before reverting the articles to a version you approved? I don't want to repeat myself. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read, and I did not find a single evidence or source about your sentences. Even if I do not completely agree with you about the origins, the Medieval structure, and the subjections of Sardinia, I never fought and I'll never fight with you about these points. There's a page about the Viceroyalty of Sardinia: I'll never revert your edits in that page. Here the problem is one and sole: the completely unreferenced and false legal continuity between the political structure born in 1314, and the political structure dead in 1861. To analyse this problem, you can't speak about Middle Ages, the problem must be discussed speaking about the 18th and the 19 century. I repeat: Sardinia never annexed Piedmont, this is completely false. More, you tried to introduce more pages of alternate history about the period 1713-1720, with a complete inversion of the real relations between Piedmont, Sicily and Sardinia. But, here too, centuries of historic literature say a different version.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is arguing that Sardinia annexed Piedmont, so you're attacking a straw man. I belive you are defining legal continuity in such a way that you are right by definition. Of course, the title "King of Sardinia" was a legal one from 1297 until 1861 and it never changed its meaning significantly between those dates. That's legal continuity. The Carta de Logu was in effect until at least 1847 in some form or other, and it pre-dates 1713. That's legal continuity pre-1713 to 1847/8 at least (possibly 1861). It is as false to say that Piedmont annexed Sardinia as it is to say that Sardinia annexed Piedmont. I don't know what you're talking about "alternate history about the period 1713-1720", but what about the period of the Great French War, when Piedmont was actually the Subalpine Republic (at least initially...) and Savoy was a part of France? There is therefore no legal continuity between Piedmont before and after 1800–15. There is no such interruption in the history of Sardinia. It may have been ruled by viceroys, but so is Canada today. Perhaps Canadians aren't that threatening, but do you care to argue with the Aussies that their country is in fact merely a part of the UK? The final act of the Congress of Vienna, refers only to "the states of his Majesty the King of Sardinia". What does this say about the concept of sovereignty at that time?
 * Why do you insist on fostering the false notion that a Kingdom of Sardinia was created in 1720, and that the lands of the House of Savoy were a unitary state known under the name "Kingdom of Sardinia" from that date? Srnec (talk) 03:36, 2 September 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)
 * That's not a good source at all. When looking at specific historical issues, we ought to look at specialist works, not "histories of the world by year". john k (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, Gabagol-theG. Srnec, I repeat for the tenth time: the State called "Kingdom of Sardinia" was not created in 1720, it existed before that date, and it was called "Duchy of Savoy". In 1720 (better, in 1723) it changed its name only. It took this new name from the medieval Sardinian realm you insistently continue to confuse with the State which is the topic of this page. Why the fact that a nation could have the same name of one of its provinces is so impossible to understand for you? The State of Austria has two provinces which are called "Austria": what is the problem? Where was the Carta de Logu in force? In Piedmont? No. In Savoy? No. In Ligury? No. In Sardinia? Yes, only in Sardinia. So, what does this fact demonstrate? It demonstrates that the Viceroyalty continued until, as you said, 1848. After that date, all Sardinian laws were abolished and the Piedmontese laws became the sole laws of the Savoyard State, including Piedmont, Nice, Savoy, Ligury and Sardinia. So, Piedmont annexed Sardinia.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not historical sources show that Kingdom of Sardinia was not a Kingdom before 1720. Is not serious to write on Wikipedia  nonsense like ‘’viceroyalty of Sardinia’’  instead of  kingdom of Sardinia. Some users are joking and  laughing about Wikipedia. Please stop trolling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.51.172 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Jonny, how ridiculous of me to confuse the Kingdom of Sardinia ("medieval Sardinian realm") with the Kingdom of Sardinia ("the topic of this page")! The Duchy of Savoy never included Aosta, Nice or Piedmont. Yet your Kingdom of Sardinia—which, so you say, is just the Duchy of Savoy after 1723—did. So let me ask you what you keep asking me: When was Piedmont annexed to the Kingdom of Sardinia? Srnec (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonny seems largely ignorant of the idea of personal unions. Like the anon, I'm puzzled by the insistence on "Viceroyalty of Sardinia."  Spain's American territories are referred to as "Viceroyalties," but I've never heard this used to refer to the Mediterranean possessions.  Does Jonny think there was a "Viceroyalty of Naples" and a "Viceroyalty of Sicily" as well?  All those places were kingdoms.  A viceroy is a "Vice-king" - someone who acts for the king in his absence.  These countries were ruled by viceroys because the king himself ruled many territories and resided in a different one.  But the fact that (except from 1802-1814) the King of Sardinia didn't live in Sardinia is really neither here nor there.  As far as I can gather, at least until the nineteenth century the "Kingdom of Sardinia," strictly speaking, referred only to the island of Sardinia.  "Sardinia" or "Kingdom of Sardinia" was just used as a convenient shorthand for all the Savoyard lands.  A useful comparison might be with Prussia.  In both cases, the royal title originally pertained to a distant territory far from the main center of power, but gradually came to apply to the state as a whole.  Did Prussia annex Brandenburg?  Did Brandenburg annex Prussia?  I'm not sure either of these conceptions makes much sense.  In both cases, a wide variety of territories were eventually unified under the name of a peripheral "kingdom" that gave its name informally to the whole, even though, in fact, the various territorial units were never formally unified into a whole.  Jonny seems to be looking for absolutes in a situation that doesn't really give us any absolutes. john k (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You gave yourself the solution of the problem. A ) "Kingdom of Sardinia" was just used as a convenient shorthand for all the Savoyard lands: here we speak about these "all Savoyard lands", this is the topic of this page. B ) "Kingdom of Sardinia," strictly speaking, referred only to the island of Sardinia. As you correctly said, there's a second meaning of the concept of K of Sardinia: the sole island of Sardinia. Two different meanings, as you said, two different pages, as I said. It's very simple. "the various territorial units were never formally unified into a whole", you said about Prussia. I'm not an expert about the Prussian case, so I accept your sentence. However, this is not the case of Piedmont-Sardinia: here we have a date, 1848, when the various units WERE unified into a whole. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that what we have is a "Kingdom of Sardinia" is created in the 14th century. In the early 18th century, the Duke of Savoy is ceded this kingdom by treaty, and takes the title "King of Sardinia."  Nothing else is done to integrate the Kingdom of Sardinia with the other lands of the House of Savoy.  The term "Kingdom of Sardinia" now has two possible meanings: 1) the old Kingdom of Sardinia, consisting of the island proper; and 2) the whole complex of lands of the house of Savoy, which might be better called something like "the states ruled by the King of Sardinia".  In 1847, the states ruled by the King of Sardinia are finally administratively joined together into a single administrative state, still (or also) called the Kingdom of Sardinia.  That kingdom annexes Lombardy in 1859 and most of the rest of the Italian peninsula in 1860, and changes its name in 1861 to the Kingdom of Italy.  The problem I see with multiple articles is that this article ought to explain all the different concepts of what "Kingdom of Sardinia" means.  Before 1848, using "Kingdom of Sardinia" to refer to "the states ruled by the King of Sardinia" is a convenient shorthand, but is arguably wrong; this article should discuss both meanings. john k (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what Jonny bee goo wants to prove. I think that nobody here wants to ignore Duchy of Savoy’ history. Can you be more clear about your idea on Kingdom of Sardinia before 1720?--Shardan (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, JonhK, I'm happy to see I was able to explain you the difference between the two meanings of "K of Sardinia"; now I'll try to explain you why the actual structure of the page is the best. Firstly, I must remind the wikipedian rule of the most common name: as we saw, 99% of English sources about the KofS speak about the first meaning you remembered ("all Savoyard lands"). Secondly, we can see how similar cases on wikipedia are arranged: when you open the page about Austria, you don't find an article explaing the different meanings of the concept of "Austria" (State of Austria, Lower Austria, Upper Austria...), you immediately find an article about the State of Austria because it's an independent State and because it's the most known concept of Austria. The article about the Duchy of Savoy speaks about "all Savoyard lands" subjected to the Duke of Savoy (Savoy, Piedmont, Nice...), not simply to the local Duchy of Savoy which was limited to the actual Savoy. The same solution is used for other duchies, as the Duchy of Milan or the Duchy of Parma. So, if you think a disambiguating page about the two meanings of "KofS" is so necessary, to try to built a consensus I could accept and suggest you a brief page "Kingdom of Sardinia (disambiguation)", even if I think it's not necessary (I think that the disambiguating note at the top of the two pages is sufficient).--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So your argument is "other pages are misleading, so this page can be misleading too"? I have no problem with a page discussing "all the Savoyard lands". I don't mind if, for the period after 1720/3, that page is this one. What I object to is simply excising all information about the Kingdom of Sardinia pre-1720 as if it did not exist and pretending that something new was created in 1720. This is highly misleading. I don't see anything comparable in the cases you cite. Your mention of Austria only shows that you don't understand the problem. If would be as if the article Kingdom of Navarre began with 1076. In that year the ruler of Aragon, who did not call himself a king before that date, became ruler of a rump of Navarre after its nobility elected him king to succeed his cousin. He was crowned in Pamplona after negotiating with Alfonso VI of Castile, who was satisfied to annex only a part of Navarre. Since his power base was in Aragon and he and his sons made names for themselves in the reconquista there, they are usually remembered primarily as Kings of Aragon, a title they did eventually adopt alongside the royal style of Navarre. An Aragonese state certainly pre-existed 1076. You are arguing in precisely the same manner as if I were to argue that the Kingdom of Navarre in 1077 was just the Aragonese state raised to kingly rank. Of course, by accidents of history and historiography—Navarre and Aragon were separated in 1034 and the term "Kingdom of Aragon" came into widespread use, so that later historians can justify neglecting the role of Navarre in the events of 1076–1134—I could never get away with such an argument. Srnec (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just see now : ....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...., and I realize that Jonny Bee Goo knows really a little bit of Sardinia history. Sardinian nationalist they don't care about Kingdom of Sardinia, or better,  they are in a  true  opposition to that kingdom because (....unluckily for them)  K.of S. fought and won against Giudicato of Arborea, the only one between the four autochthonous kingdoms that  fought nationalist wars, and today icon of nationalists.  Perhaps he needs to up to date his knowledge before writing things like that.  That statement is ridiculous! Italian government is giving money to sardinian nationalists.... to celebrate what!!.... the Battle of  Sanluri!!!! --URBIS (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it might not make the most sense to have an article at Kingdom of Sardinia that talks about the Kingdom of Sardinia proper (i.e., the island of Sardinia), while an article at Piedmont-Sardinia discusses the Savoyard lands as a whole between 1720 and 1861. I don't like the fact that the article on the kingdom proper is at Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica, because a) Corsica was never under the effective control of the authorities in Cagliari; and b) that title wasn't used at all by the House of Savoy, which implies a break in 1720 when there was not, in fact, such a break.  Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica implies a notional 14th century entity, when in fact the Kingdom of Sardinia was a real entity that continued to exist until at least 1847 or 1848.  A hat note at Kingdom of Sardinia could direct people to Piedmont-Sardinia which is, I think, the most common name for the Savoyard lands as a whole, anyway.  john k (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * John K, there is another very important aspect that should be well thought-out: was the State born nominally in 1297 and territorially in 1324 the same State that in 1861 was called Kingdom of Italy? Because if the State was truly the same, is correct to have one main page about that Kingdom (that was unique from 1324 to 1861) and after two different pages to describe the periods from 1324 to 1720 and from 1720 to 1861.--URBIS (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is debatable, I think. Saying that it was the same state would imply that the Kingdom of Sardinia proper annexed Piedmont and Savoy in 1848 (or 1720).  I don't think that's really right.  The House of Savoy obtained the kingdom of Sardinia in 1720, and that kingdom was definitely the same one that was born nominally in 1297 and territorially in 1324.  But that kingdom remained just the island of Sardinia.  That island was, for most of the time between 1720 and 1848, in personal union with the other lands of the house of Savoy, but certainly didn't annex them into one giant kingdom of Sardinia.  It's only, I think, in 1848 that you can say that all the lands of the House of Savoy were joined together to form a single unitary state.  That state was generally called the Kingdom of Sardinia, from its king's highest title, but also took up most of the structure and institutions of the mainland territories (which had themselves been heavily modified by the Napoleonic period).  I don't think it makes sense to say that the "Kingdom of Sardinia" of 1858 was the same state as the "Kingdom of Sardinia" of 1658. john k (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Modern historians state this very important concept: historical sources show that the State was the same. Throughout his long life several dynasty of royal family park  themselves  on his throne, but the State was the same State. In other words it was like we had a car and that car was drive, in different periods, from different royal families.  Until it was connected to Crown of Aragon it was a simple Kingdom along a lot of kingdoms more important and powerful, but when it was attached to the others Savoiard States, it was the most important one (as title),  and the former Dukes, now Kings, they started to use their new State  to sign  - as kings -  everything  they were doing, including international treaties: so it's meaning that they were using above all that State called kingdom of Sardinia. There wasn't annexation, but a federation of States until 1847.--URBIS (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is continuity, but that's not the same as two things being identical. For that matter, the modern Italian republic has a continuous history with that of the kingdom (1861–1946), but they are not the same thing. States are formed gradually, and afterwards they continue to evolve. This could be said of every state. The boundary markers can sometime be clear, sometimes murky, and their significance debatable. Where I live we count independence from 1867, but we were self-governing before that and we weren't completely independent until 1982. Each date signifies something real, but the significance made of it is often arbitrary, conventional or politicised, and always debatable. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is continuity. And that is important. The Statuto Albertino (1848), the constitution of the Kingdom of Sardinia, was on until 1948. Talking about the Sardinia State (not about the island), from 1297 (born nominally), trough 1324 (born territorially)  it arrives to 1720 that is able to sign international treaties and  able to enter into relations with other sovereign states. In 1847 all Savoyard states merge themselves maintaining the name and laws of Kingdom of Sardinia.  In 1861 that name was changed into Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946), but just the name was changed because his Constitution (Statuto Albertino) was still going on  until 1948 ( ...of course, States are formed gradually, as Srnec say)--URBIS (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's right in the early modern period to talk about states being able to sign treaties and enter into relations with other states. Until quite recently, it was sovereigns who did this, not states.  In republics, sovereignty rests with the state, but this was not usually the case with monarchies.  The King of Sardinia was able to sign treaties and enter into relations with other states from the moment the kingdom came into existence.  It's just that the King of Sardinia happened to also be King of Aragon (1297-1713), King of Castile (1516-1713), and Holy Roman Emperor (1519-1556, 1713-1720), among other titles.  All that happened in 1720 was that the new King of Sardinia didn't happen to be king of anywhere else (except titular claims to Jerusalem and Cyprus), and so he is normally called King of Sardinia. There's only a few early modern instances I can think of where a monarch conducts international relations solely by virtue of one possession: the Hanoverian kings of Britain did this, acting separately as Elector of Hanover and King of Great Britain, and Emperor Francis I did it, acting separately as Emperor and as Grand Duke of Tuscany.  Even in those cases, though, treaties were being made by the sovereign rather than the state; it's just that the sovereign compartmentalized separate identities in the same way that Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada is not the same legal person as Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom.  john k (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO, when in 1720 Kingdom of Sardinia was given  to Duke of Savoy,  the Sardinian State got something more ... and  the Duchy of Savoy State  had something less.  I mean that  the Crown of Aragon was a gathering of States called Royal Union.  In that Royal Union  an unique sovereign was managing foreign affairs in a common way, or better, a single State was not able to enter into relations with other sovereign States.  For  Kingdom of Sardinia  State, in 1720,  this limit was not existing anymore, gaining  - with House of Savoy - that prerogative and becoming -  ...we can say -  a perfect State. On the other side, Ducky of Savoy  State lose that prerogative. --URBIS (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anything really changed. In 1699, the King of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, Navarre, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, Prince of Catalonia, Duke of Brabant, Milan, Luxemburg, Limburg, Princely Count of Flanders, Hainaut, Namur, etc. etc. managed foreign affairs in a common way for all his states; the single entities within it were not able to enter into relations with other sovereign states.  In 1723 the King of Sardinia, Duke of Savoy, Aosta, Prince of Piedmont, and Count of Nice managed foreign affairs in a common way for all his states; the single entities within it were not able to enter into relations with other sovereign states.  That's the same situation, except that the first ruler is called the "King of Spain" in standard parlance while the second is called the "King of Sardinia."  Sardinia's own position was, however, identical - the king lived somewhere else, conducted foreign affairs as he pleased with little reference to the backwater that gave him his royal title, and the island was governed by a viceroy.  john k (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds right to me. I'd add that the personal element in international relations is even more important when you go further back, i.e. into the Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's only a very few early modern examples of personal unions where the different states conducted separate foreign policies. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are all from the eighteenth century: 1) the personal union between Britain and Hanover from 1714-1837; 2) the personal union between Sweden and Hesse-Cassel from 1730-1751 (in that case, the King of Sweden's younger brother acted as regent in Hesse-Cassel, which his brother only nominally reigned over); 3) the personal union between Saxony and Poland from 1697-1763.  Then there's the slightly distinct case of Tuscany under Francis Stephen from 1740-1765, which certainly conducted a different foreign policy from either the Habsburg Monarchy ruled by his wife or the Holy Roman Empire that he himself reigned over.  There's also the situation of the Holy Roman Emperor acting as head of the Reich and as prince of his own personal domains, and the cases of the Princes of Nassau-Orange who sometimes reigned over various territories within the empire along with being heads of state of the Dutch Republic.  All 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 (i.e. Britain, 18th century Sweden, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Holy Roman Empire, the Dutch Republic), and a small realm in which he is basically absolute ruler (Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Saxony, Tuscany, Nassau-Dillenburg).  This doesn't really apply here. john k (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is an important distinction: 1723 the right to exercise summa potestas was a prerogative belonging entirely to Kingdom of Sardinia. In 1699 surely not, surely didn't have international juridical capability. I'm not talking about the king, but about the kingdom as a state, and in those two different years the state was not really the same.--URBIS (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was a prerogative belonging entirely to the King of Sardinia. john k (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK John, but formally the king is just the highest component of one kingdom-state.--URBIS (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not really true in the early modern period. Would you say that in 1750 the right to exercise summa potestas in the Habsburg Monarchy belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary?  Of course not.  It belonged to Maria Theresa. john k (talk) 04:33, 12 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’m just trying to see things under a different way. If we talk about one juridical entity created  by one or more populations settle down in a specific territory, and unified by a juridical link between centuries, without be anachronistic, that entity can be easily called a State. Kingdom of Sardinia was a state. its own Parliament, called Stamento, was organized following the parliament institution of Catalonia (Corts Catalanes)  and it was structured in three Estates (I tre Bracci ): the military estate, the ecclesiastic estates and the royal estate. It was part in Royal Union of Crown of Aragon, where every single state was governed by the king that was the same person for all the states, but was governing in every single state following the specific and  proper laws of every kingdom, and was keeping for the Crown the control of foreign affairs and defense (exerted by the king). In 1720 Kingdom of Sardinia, according to historians, come into relations with the new  states of House of  Savoy,  becoming a Federal state with the prerogative (exerted by the king) to enter into relation with other foreign states (summa potestas).  In 1847, with the perfect fusion it become unitary.  Reading studies from Institute of  Mediterranean Europe history, ,  we can see history about kingdom of Sardinia with more details.--URBIS (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That the kingdom of Sardinia was a state that had its own laws and parliament is not under dispute. But the Kingdom of Sardinia was not a federal state, nor does it generally make sense to describe a personal union of multiple states as a "federal state".  The Kingdom of Sardinia remained, until 1847, a kingdom that comprised the island of Sardinia.  The "states of the King of Sardinia" were a group of states owned by the King of Sardinia.  It was the King of Sardinia who had the prerogative to enter into relations with other states, just as he had when he was merely Duke of Savoy, not any of his individual states.  john k (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Between 1720 and 1847 was a sort of a federal state: in the book Storia di Sardegna F.C Casula wrote......Dal 1720 in poi, sganciato dalla Corona di Spagna e retto dalla Casata dei Savoia, lo Stato tornò in aggregazione di tipo federativo – chiamata collettivamente Regno di Sardegna – col Principato di Piemonte, il Ducato di Savoia e la Contea di Nizza...ecc. Ok, the state was not in a certain way really  federal, ....its become a combination of several states,…ecc ecc,  but, anyway, everything was done by House of Savoy, was done using the term kingdom of Sardinia; in all the states, (not only in Sardinia island) there was a sardinian army, sardinian magistrates, sardinian navy, sardinian subjects, sardinian ministers ecc,ecc. In french archives, for that epoque,  we just find Royaume de Sardaigne--URBIS (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think in the most formal contexts, "Kingdom of Sardinia" was not used, although I might be wrong on that. The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna refers to the King of Sardinia, not to the Kingdom of Sardinia. My point here is that sovereignty rested with the king, and not with the state, so it doesn't make sense to say that the Kingdom of Sardinia achieved sovereignty it hadn't had previously simply because the king used "King of Sardinia" as his highest title. john k (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it might not make the most sense to have an article at Kingdom of Sardinia that talks about the Kingdom of Sardinia proper (i.e., the island of Sardinia), while an article at Piedmont-Sardinia discusses the Savoyard lands as a whole between 1720 and 1861. I don't like the fact that the article on the kingdom proper is at Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica, because a) Corsica was never under the effective control of the authorities in Cagliari; and b) that title wasn't used at all by the House of Savoy, which implies a break in 1720 when there was not, in fact, such a break. Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica implies a notional 14th century entity, when in fact the Kingdom of Sardinia was a real entity that continued to exist until at least 1847 or 1848. A hat note at Kingdom of Sardinia could direct people to Piedmont-Sardinia which is, I think, the most common name for the Savoyard lands as a whole, anyway. john k (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, JohnK, the problem is one and sole: the wikipedian rule of the most common name. 99% of English sources speaking about the Kingdom of Sardinia refers to Piedmont-Sardinia, not the Kingdom-island proper. By the other hand, me too I don't like the title "Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica" very much. Considering that, as I said, "Kingdom of Sardinia" must be the title of this page according with wikipedia naming conventions, I'd prefer the title "Viceroyalty of Sardinia" for the other page, explaning in the text that this name was used on civil acts but the Papal name was KoS. However, I'm ready to discuss other titles, as "Kingdom of Sardinia (proper)" or others.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) General note: speaking about our page, I must remember that the perfect fusion of 1847/8 unified Sardinia with the mainland, not the mainland itself: Piedmont, Nice, Savoy and Ligury were yet highly integrated, their administrative union dating back very later. Describing the link between those 4 lands in 1815 as a simple "personal union" is very reductive and unacceptable.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't lecture me about Wikipedia's rules. There are better things to be doing.
 * The period for which the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" includes the other possessions of the Savoyard house can be covered separately either at Piedmont–Sardinia or at Kingdom of Sardinia (1720–1861), which will be a subarticle of the main article (this one, about the state from its beginning in 1297/1324 until 1861). The article Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica can cover the period either of Aragonese rule (1297/1324–1516) or that plus the Castilian (1516–1713). This is the proper way at Wikipedia. The main topic is all that the term covers, which is one entity anyway. The reason that 99% of English sources are speaking about Piedmont–Sardinia is that several hundred times as much ink has been spilled discussing it (in English) than in discussion of medieval and early modern Sardinia. But it is irrelevant, since the Kingdom of Sardinia is the same thing throughout the period. There is no reason one article can't cover the Savoyard period as well as the Aragonese, Spanish and Austrian ones. Sardinia was as much a part of the Spanish empire from 1516 to 1713 as it was of the Savoy State (for which we could have a parallel article: I wouldn't oppose that) from 1720 to 1861. Of course, the articles Duchy of Savoy, County of Nice, Duchy of Montferrat, and Principality of Piedmont (among some others) need to cover the entire period of their existence as well. This is what would best serve English readers. Oversimplification won't. Srnec (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the mainland possessions were administratively united; I'm not completely sure of the details on that, but I remember that much of the administrative organization derived directly from the French administrative organization during the Napoleonic period. I'm not sure what that entity is to be called; it doesn't really have a proper name. john k (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What should not redirect here
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)


 * Yes, it's wrong. Its own article should be created.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (December 2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

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)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , 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.


 * Support The formal name of the state was the Kingdom of Sardinia. However its capital was Turin, in practice it was dominated by Piedmont, histories of the Italian Risorgimento often refer to it as Piedmont, in practice it was more of a continuation of Piedmont than Sardinia from before they came under the same ruler.  This title is one I have seen used.  I'm not always one for hybrid titles, but in this case it is helpful for clarity and avoidance of ambiguity. PatGallacher (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose. Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia has never existed. Until his end it was officially called Kingdom of Sardinia or Sardinia but never Piedmont or Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. Here on Gallica the Treaty of Turin :, dated mars 24 1860, were the France State and the Sardinia State, in a formal contest, they were calling themselves France and Sardaigne (Sardinia). --Shardan (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC) ....To be more clear: I support the idea of Srnec to create one main article called Kingdom of Sardinia (1324-1861), and two different subarticles : Kingdom of Sardinia (1297-1720), and the other one Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861). I’m not agree to call it with the name of Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia because Kingdom of Sardinia - officially - has never been called like that. --Shardan (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean that you oppose the move? john k (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry..I was thinking more to the solution of the three articles and not that Kingdom of Sardinia should be renamed and moved. Oppose. I think that Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861) should be the right name.--Shardan (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would potentially support a move to Piedmont-Sardinia, but Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia is a neologism.  –Moreover, "Piedmont-Sardinia" is completely unambiguous, so why do we need a longer title? john k (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The State was named "Regno Di Sardegna" not "Regno di Sardegna-Piemonte" so keep Kingdom of Sardinia User:Lucifero4

Discussion (previous)

 * Any additional comments:
 * Between 1720 and 1861   K.of S. officially  was known everywhere like Kingdom of Sardinia or Sardinia , --Shardan (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.