That’s the papal state, not Vatican city. The papal state ruled over central Italy for centuries until it lost most of its territories leading up to the unification of Italy in 1861. Then lost Rome in 1870 and ceased to exist. The Pope retreated to the Vatican where he assumed the position of “prisoner in the Vatican” while the Italian government tolerated for the most part the Pope ruling over the basilica and its territories.
The modern Vatican State is a new entity created by Mussolini and Pius XI in 1929 with the Patti Lateranensi. With the creation of this state Mussolini gained the approval from the church, which was extremely important to solidify its grip over Italy, while the Church abandoned all claims from the former papal state.
Thank you. I did not realize that the Vatican was only recently made. Since the church abandoned the state, was it considered a good compromise by most Italians? I would imagine most Italians are loyal to the Pope.
Prior to 1870, Italy was several kingdoms, republics and duchies, with a federation of papal states in the middle, and Vatican, then just another cathedral hill in Rome, was not special – the pope mostly lived elsewhere. During the unification of Italy, the pope retreated to Vatican and troops left the palace alone. For almost 60 years, the papal state, now only controlling the Vatican area, was informally tolerated by Italy until Mussolini signed a 1929 treaty, recognizing the territory was independent.
To be honest, I’m not sure what the pope could do if he no longer came to good terms with the fascists but if I were him, I would retreat to an Allied cathedral on a “diplomatic mission” and ring the alarm, not caring if the tiny Vatican was occupied to Italy. Its bad wartime performance was becoming apparent and there would be a chance of reclaiming Vatican after it lost the war.
Wasn’t it created by Charlemagne The Great to support his rule as the “Holy” Roman Emperor?
That’s the papal state, not Vatican city. The papal state ruled over central Italy for centuries until it lost most of its territories leading up to the unification of Italy in 1861. Then lost Rome in 1870 and ceased to exist. The Pope retreated to the Vatican where he assumed the position of “prisoner in the Vatican” while the Italian government tolerated for the most part the Pope ruling over the basilica and its territories.
The modern Vatican State is a new entity created by Mussolini and Pius XI in 1929 with the Patti Lateranensi. With the creation of this state Mussolini gained the approval from the church, which was extremely important to solidify its grip over Italy, while the Church abandoned all claims from the former papal state.
Thank you. I did not realize that the Vatican was only recently made. Since the church abandoned the state, was it considered a good compromise by most Italians? I would imagine most Italians are loyal to the Pope.
Prior to 1870, Italy was several kingdoms, republics and duchies, with a federation of papal states in the middle, and Vatican, then just another cathedral hill in Rome, was not special – the pope mostly lived elsewhere. During the unification of Italy, the pope retreated to Vatican and troops left the palace alone. For almost 60 years, the papal state, now only controlling the Vatican area, was informally tolerated by Italy until Mussolini signed a 1929 treaty, recognizing the territory was independent.
To be honest, I’m not sure what the pope could do if he no longer came to good terms with the fascists but if I were him, I would retreat to an Allied cathedral on a “diplomatic mission” and ring the alarm, not caring if the tiny Vatican was occupied to Italy. Its bad wartime performance was becoming apparent and there would be a chance of reclaiming Vatican after it lost the war.
Would the Pope have really been in danger? Wouldn’t most Italians see him as worth protecting due to Italy’s long relationship with Roman Catholicism?