Talk:State of the Presidi

Quote from Pedro Gómez Labrador on the occasion of Aranjuez

Contiguo a la Toscana se halla un pequeño territorio conocido baxo el nombre de Estado de los Presidios, cuya propiedad es del Rey, Nuestro Señor; y en él hubo guarnición española hasta después de mediado del siglo que acaba de pasar. Como entonces no servaba la corona ninguna otra posesión en Italia, pareció conveniente ahorrar los gastos que ocasionaba aquel establecimiento: y así se dió en depósito a S. M. Siciliana, cuyas tropas la guarnecen; pero cedida ahora la Toscana al Señor Infante Duque de Parma, parece de una utilidad evidente que se reúna con el Gran Ducado aquel terreno que hace parte de él y que es importantísimo; pues además de algún otro puerto de comercio comprehende el Golfo llamado de San Estevan que se seguro y capaz para las naves de guerra; por lo qual en manos de una Nación enemiga o neutral compromitirá siempre la seguridad de la Toscana y amunará el floreciente comercio de Liorna.
—Srnec (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Martin 1976, p. 409

The Tuscan ports, Bolingbroke argued, 'had always gone with the Viceroyalty of Naples': since Charles VI, in British eyes, was now the possessor of Naples he was entitled also to the presidios; and Philip V had better make up his mind to evacuate Porto Longone if he wanted peace with Britain. Several of Philip’s advisers feared that Bolingbroke's argument was unassailable. Others, while admitting that the Tuscan ports had always been administered by the Viceroy of Naples, doubted whether they could be held to be an integral part of the Viceroyalty. A search of past records was therefore undertaken. It proved Spain's right to the presidios to be unconnected with the Viceroyalty and, moreover, unearthed a claim to the territory of the former republic of Sienna.

The question of the sovereignty over the Presidi is not clear to me (and probably not to contemporaries or to scholars either). Did they belong to the Holy Roman Empire? The Spanish Crown? The Kingdom of Naples? None of the above? I think we have to be deliberately vague. Srnec (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Treccani and Britannica say that it was a dependency of Naples carved out by Spain at the partition of Siena with Florence. In that sense, Spain's original right could be different from that of Naples as that book claims. The argument put forward by historians is that it was established as a dependency of Naples so that the spanish viceroy could oversee trade to Naples. In most of the maps I see it is also within the borders of the HRE, but it could be lack of detail.

"State that, since its foundation ( 1557), was placed in the immediate dependencies on the Reign of Naples." pg.466

"...Stato dei Presidi ("State of the Garrisons") and were placed under the dependency of the Kingdom of Naples" pg.220

Altough they may be wrong as in other instances so i don't know. As i said I always assumed it was an exclave. So dunno.Barjimoa (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)