‘Italy was not united, but conquered’. Discuss this assessment of Italian unification.
The unification of Italy was largely the work of Cavour, prime minister of the Northern Italian state of Piedmont. Were it not for the modernisation of Piedmont, the expulsion of Austria from the Italian peninsula and it’s ultimate unification would have been very unlikely1. In 1796, when Napoleon had overrun Italy, the peninsula simply comprised of a patchwork of states and principalities, with little sense of being a cohesive, single entity. Italy at this time was merely ‘A geographical expression’ as Metternich so poignantly described it in 1814. To a degree therefore, one must argue that Italy was conquered by Piedmont, as it brought all the other states under its control. It is highly unlikely this would have happened organically, through nationalistic movements such as Mazzini’s ‘Young Italy’. However, ‘conquered’ is too sweeping a statement, as nationalism was doubtless a key driver towards Italy’s overall unification. With nationalistic ideas and feelings spread throughout the middle classes with the help of movements such as the Risorgimento and government propaganda from Piedmont, there was a strong willing throughout the educated people that Italy should be unified2.
One cannot therefore dismiss the fact that Italy was partially ‘united’, as there was significant pressure amongst the intelligentsia for a one nation state, modelled on France and Britain for example. During this essay, I will explore to what extent Italy was united and to what extent Italy was conquered, as neither can be taken as the direct answer. Throughout the period of Italian unification, nationalism was gaining momentum amongst the educated classed, with movements such as the Risorgimento spreading ideals of a one nation state headed under a strong, centralised government. This enthusiasm for nationalism was not adopted by the masses however, meaning it was never typically a popular movement. This lack of popular support significantly weakened the nationalist movement, giving it no real power to rise up and defeat the Austrians3. Were revolution was a success, it was short-lived and reactionary forces soon put the expelled governments back in power. Indeed, the forces of reaction that were opposed to Italy unifying as one nation state would have to be overcome before the process could begin. The failure of the revolutions in the early 1830’s in Modena, Parma and the Papal states serve as a perfect example to how popular uprising was not to serve as the vessel by which Italy would be unified. Indeed, the revolutions were mostly local, and separate gaining little popular support. This made the uprisings easily repressible by an overwhelming Austrian force. Indeed, unification was to be a considerable task, as people held loyalty to their state and rivalries between states could be fierce. Moreover, there was no uniform language throughout the peninsula, rather several dialects thus impeding the spread of nationalistic ideas. By far the biggest obstacle to Italian unification however was the Austrian presence in the peninsula4, headed by Metternich, arguably the personification
The Term Paper on Describe The Process Of Italian Unification In The 19th Century
... Italy. The Kingdom of Sicily that occupied the island of Sicily and the entire southern half of the Italian peninsula . Other small states ... a great thing, unification. Giuseppe Mazzini, an Italian patriot spearheaded a national revolutionary movement. Mazzini’s ideology of ... he returned to Italy and participated (again) in the movement for Italian freedom and unification, which became widely ...
1
2
Charles Killinger. 2002. The History of Italy, pp.112 Lucy Riall. 1998. Oxford University Press. Sicily and the Unification of Italy: Liberal Policy and Local Power 1859-1866, pp.110 3 Martin Collier. 2003. Italian Unification, 1820-71, pp.21 4 Lucy Riall. 1994. The Italian Risorgimento: State, Society and National Unification, pp.97
The Term Paper on Analyse The Aims, Motives And Policies Of Cavour Between 1852 And 1861
Cavour was a very important, if not key player in the reunification of Italy in the 1800s. His role in Italian unification is widely debated, as are is aims and underlying motives. Many hold contrasting views as to whether he was an Italian nationalist or merely a Piedmontese expansionist, and the subject is still a controversial one to this day. The existence of many wide-ranging sources which ...
of reaction during this period; being totally opposed to liberalism, nationalism and radicalism. Austrian might was overwhelming to a disunited Italy, and it would have taken a strong centralised government in Piedmont and international allies to overthrow them from the peninsula. Even before Cavour, an attempt was made by Charles Albert to overthrow the Austrians, with the promise that Louis Napoleon would come to his aid. However, this promise did not come to fruition and Charles Albert was heavily defeated. It was clear that outside help was necessary for Italy to gain its independence and unity5. During Cavour’s premiership, Piedmont became a richer and more developed state, with rapidly growing industry and with a trade increase by 300 percent in the 1850’s. No other state at this point could rival Piedmont as the head of what would be the drive to a united Italy. Cavour’s motives throughout this period though are fiercely debated; was he an imperialist or a nationalist? Indeed, whether or not he and Charles Albert wanted to annex northern Italy for nationalistic aims or simply self-aggrandising aims is hazy. Cavour certainly used nationalism as a tool to help strengthen his political agenda.
He knew that he could carry out his imperialistic motives under the guise of nationalism. He even wrote nationalistic speeches for Victor Emmanuel II to bolster nationalistic feeling and his popularity in order for annexation to be made easier, with less opposition. Several anti-nationalistic moves however, lead me to believe that he in fact had little concern for nationalism, and thus the unification of Italy was simply a biproduct of his imperialistic aims. One of which was the agreement made at Plombières in January 1859, to secede Savoy and Nice to France, should they help in ousting the Austrians from the peninsula. Despite this however, Cavour knew Italy was not in a strong enough position to independently overthrow Austria, so he may have viewed this as a necessary evil to get the support of Napoleon. He knew that ‘Italia fara da se’ (Italy would make herself by herself) was an impossible task6. Indeed, Napoleon supplied Piedmont with 120,000 men, which helped defeat the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino in June 1859. Perhaps stronger evidence to support his anti-nationalistic aims was his reluctance to annex Southern Italy; Rome, Venetia, Naples and Sicily. Indeed, he looked upon the South with considerable disdain, and proclaimed it backward and barbaric7.
The Term Paper on Comparison of the Unifications of Italy and Germany
... main reasons for the Unification of Germany. In Italy there were three leaders: Cavour, who was the prime minister of Piedmont and was the ... German States_. Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, United States Department of State, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. ... strong reason for why other German states were keen on joining Prussia for a united German front. Italy did not have any economic ...
Cavour had now united the North through diplomacy and war, and thought that any more territorial expansion may well lead to civil war. Indeed, the South would likely not have been unified with the North had it not been for the exploits of Garibaldi and his ‘onethousand’ redshirts. With this evidence in mind, I’m swayed towards believing that Italy was conquered by Cavour and Piedmont, rather than united. Even votes held in each state for annexation by Piedmont were heavily rigged. After Garibaldi handed over Sicily and Naples to Victor Emmanuel, Cavour set up votes in each state as to whether they were in favour of a united Italy. The voting process however was a difficult one as most of the peasants were illiterate. Two voting slips with either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ were therefore given to overcome this although very little of the population even understood the word ‘Italia’ which suggests further that it was less a ‘uniting’ and more of a diplomatic conquering. Indeed, 99.2% voted ‘yes’ in Naples and 99.8% in Sicily.
5 6
Martin Collier. 2003. Italian Unification, 1820-71, pp.83 Robert Pierce & Andrina Stiles. 2008. The Unification of Italy 1815-70, pp.68 7 Denis Mack Smith.1985. Cavour and Garibaldi 1860: A Study in Political Conflict, pp.179
In conclusion, I believe that Italy was conquered to a much greater extent than it was united. This was achieved through the modernisation of Piedmont, the securing of France as an ally, and finally the clever manipulation of nationalism as a disguise for Cavour’s imperialistic aims. Apart from the small percentage of the educate class that held genuine nationalistic beliefs, the vast majority of the population had little understanding of the idea of Italy as a single nation. Indeed, most gave their loyalty to their state and principality, as was shown during the revolutions were states would not come to their neighbour’s aid thus rendering it weak and ineffective. As little understood the idea of Italy therefore, one can simply not argue that Italy was entirely ‘united’ as there was little demand for a united Italy amongst the masses. Rather, Cavour took advantage of this ignorance and exerted Piedmont’s control over each state with relative ease. As this was the case during its unification, one must argue towards it being conquered. However, the contribution of nationalism to the process of unification must not be underestimated, as without the underlying current unification may not have ever taken place. Indeed, without the growth of national feeling, one could not simply argue that yes, Italian unification had been achieved through it’s conquering. Indeed, after unification had been achieved, the groundwork had to be laid by nationalistic movements such as the Risorgimento. For example, literary works were published in schools to promote the use of one common language to break down the language barriers and to create the idea of a cohesive, single identity.
The Essay on Italian Unification
By 1870, Italy had finally captured Rome and so with it the whole of the Italian Peninsula was now under the control of an Italian state. Previously, the Austrians controlled Venetia and Lombardy and Italy was divided into many different states. However, by 1870, Piedmont had managed to unite all of Italy under one ruler. On the other hand, there were many divisions in this new state leading up to ...
