Talk:Second Italian War of Independence

I'm not convinced that this title is the best title for this war. Specifically, the main opponents were Austria and France, not Austria and Piedmont-Sardinia. But I'm not sure if there's any name in common use...any thoughts? john k 22:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Franco-Austrian War seems to have some currency. Choess 02:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The war was declared by Austria agains Sardinia, hence the name. --Panairjdde 07:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It was mostly fought between France and Austria. Calling it the Austro-Sardinian War seems misleading. john k 20:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tell it to the historians.--Panairjdde 09:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am a historian. I do not think this war is customarily referred to as the "Austro-Sardinian War" by historians.  I've seen "War of Italian Independence."  The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History calls it the "War of Austria with Piedmont and France".  What sources call it the "Austro-Sardinian War"? john k 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * john k's concern is a valid one, and for what it's worth, Google leans towards "Franco-Austrian War." I would, for my part, support a move to Franco-Austrian War. If this raises too many objections, how about "Austrian War (1859)," with the introduction reading: The Franco-Austrian War or Austro-Sardinian War of 1859 was..."? Albrecht 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have always heard this war called The Second War of Italian Independence or the Second Italian War of Independence at times. The Italian article calls it that, and so does the Portuguese one. The German article calls it the Sardinian War. I think the Second War of Italian Independence is a much better name, for the other names either leave out the largest combatant on one side or the nation who the war was most important to. I think this probably ought to be moved to (The) Second War of Italian Independence and have the opening paragraph note the other potential names. It's just my opinion, but I've personally never, in three books I've read on the subject, heard of it called Franco-Austrian War or even Austro-Sardinian.-KingPenguin 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd agree; I've read quite a lot of books on the subject, and the name used are those mentioned by KingPenguin.--Aldux 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Second Italian War of Independence seems good to me. Certainly more common than "Austro-Sardinian War."  I would say that normally it is refer to by an informal name like "war of 1859," "war with Austria," "war with France and Sardinia."  But none of those works as a title.  john k 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not hearing any objections, so I believe I may just move the article now. The person who originally created the article is banned for puppetry right now, anyways.-KingPenguin 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree with this decision. My Atlas of World Military History (2000) calls it the "Franco-Austrian War," but this is the most appropriate name, all things considered.UberCryxic 01:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very great mistake and a very bizarre choice of title for a conflict in which France fielded most of the armies, did most of the fighting, caused the greatest sensation (by burying the Congress of Vienna) and reaped most of the benefits. The Italian, Portuguese, and German wiki titles, furthermore, should hardly count for anything in the balance of our decision – unless you attach wholly disproportionate importance to the fact that the Portuguese editors merely based themselves on the Italian title and the Germans on ours. My compromise, while somewhat unwieldy, I'll grant you, at least skirted the problem of promoting a national prejudice. Albrecht 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a fairly clear bias towards Italy, but I still think this is a more politically important subject for Italy than France, despite troop numbers, (a little bit like the Eighty Years' War was more important for the Dutch, despite the larger powers of England and Spain fighting when the Dutch needed English support.) Given that there was already a new French government just ten years after this war, it would seem that they were not the main ones to profit from the war. The war is much more significant in Italian history than it is in French history (or Austrian) for it is the war that made them large enough to almost begin to call themselves Italy, rather than Piedmont-Sardinia. I also personally cannot find a book with any name like Franco-Austrian War or anything like that, though my books don't speak from a French point of view. I think a more neutral or France-biased name is suitable for the French Wikipedia, for its entry is "Campaign of Italy (1859)", but for an English article, with no national point of view to choose, one should pick a name slightly biased towards Italy, for it was most important for Italians, and is more likely to be read by an Italian audience than a French or Austrian one. -KingPenguin 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How in the world did France reap most of the benefits? France reaped no particular benefits from the initial war, and its eventual gains of Nice and Savoy were almost certainly overshadowed by the fact that the unification of the peninsula left much less scope for French influence in the peninsula, and that it made the French position in Rome precarious and ultimately untenable.  I would say, however, that the idea that the article is "more likely to be read" by Italians than French or Austrians is an absurd reason to name the article.  The article is most likely to be read by, er, English-speakers, and as such should use the name most familiar to them.  The problem is that there isn't any such name, as far as anyone has been able to determine.  The current title seems about as well as we can do, but it's not really very well.  My dissertation actually concerns this war (in part), and I run into this problem all the time - I have no idea what to call it, because it doesn't really have any common English name.  I usually call it something like the "1859 war" to people who are familiar with the outlines of the history, or something more complicated and expository to those who are not.  But it's really a complete mess.  I'd say it's the only major European war between the Spanish Succession and the present which doesn't have a well agreed upon name in the English historical literature (the only other examples I can think of would be the individual Napoleonic Wars, which sometimes are known by conflicting titles, and especially the 1813-1814 conflict, but even these are better served, and at least have the general title of "Napoleonic Wars" which can be applied).  The last previous war without a single generally agreed upon name is the War of the League of Augsburg/Grand Alliance/Nine Years War, which suffers rather from a surfeit of commonly used name.  The 1859 war seems to hearken back to the 16th century in its lack of any agreed upon name for the conflict in English.  john k 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest "Italian War of 1859" as more or less neutral and descriptive, if I could actually find a source that uses that name. john k 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the Italian-French-Austrian audience thing, perhaps it would be more accurate to say "those generally interested in Italian history" as compared to those with French and Austrian, but it doesn't much matter. Looking again at my books, I agree that an informal name is very common, especially War of 1859, but I still would suggest that the current title stay, because it is the most commonly found name in my resources that makes for a good article title. -KingPenguin 00:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'd personally be for keeping the present solution; even if it has some considerable ambiguities, linked to the fact that the "Second Italian ecc." tends to be the name involving all the wars that brought to the unification of Italy, including the Garibaldi expedition.--Aldux 15:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts
First, although I agreed to it four years ago, I am increasingly uncomfortable with this title. As far as I can tell, "Second Italian War of Independence" is a term which is generally used to encompass all the struggles of the 1859-1861 period, including Garibaldi's campaigns in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the Sardinian campaigns in the Papal States and the Two Sicilies. I don't think it's normally used to refer exclusively to the conflict with Austria. I think I'd prefer "Franco-Austrian War", which is at least more neutral.

Second, it'd be nice if the map could show the Quadrilateral. None of these fortresses was actually the scene of military action in 1859, but their existence was very important in determining the course of the war, especially after Solferino. Certainly Verona should be shown, at least. john k (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Piedmontese ?
The second section starts with the problems between the "Piedmontese" and the Austrians. Its not very clear who the "Piedmontese" are here. Does this mean the House of Savoy's "Kingdom of Sardinia",   or some other part of the Piedmont region under Austrian rule ?

It would probably be beneficial to use consistent naming throughout. Although calling them "Sardinians" is not very convincing either. Perhaps the answer to to precede this with an explanatory sentence explaining the nature of the Savoyard kingdom at the start of this war.Eregli bob (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It means the House of Savoy's "Kingdom of Sardinia," also known as Piedmont-Sardinia. john k (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)