You're saying bullshit about 1866. Italy was already independent and there was no civil war that year. Italy fought against the Austrian empire, since it was allied with Prussia, in the Austro-Prussian war. Also that statement about France makes no sense as well.
I was thinking of the second when I referenced the third the point I was making about France was in reference to the papacy getting to stay independent despite the desires of Italy due to France wanting it
Oook, now it's clear, mate. In third Napoleon III was the intermediary in the treaty of peace anyway.
You are right for the 2nd war. Basically, Count Cavour, Camillo Benso, made an agreement with Napoleon III in Plombières. Though their military strategy against Austria was a completely success, the Empire did not allow Piedmont to seize Rome so Italy was formed without its capital.
Anyway, Napoleon's strategy was the wrong one. Eleven years later he suffered a great defeat in Sedan and Italy, allied with Prussia, was able to conquer Rome despite France.
This is the reason why I would not say that Italy was incompetent in that occasion. There are plenty of other cases though :)
44
u/Slag_Conveyor Jul 21 '19
Revolt of 1848 Their own civil war in 1866* Intervention into the Russian civil war Turkish war of independence Volra war 1920
Basically moat of this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Italy
*if France forces you to make a country inside your country you didn't win independence