ITALIAN UNIFICATION

Akashneel

INTRO

In Italian history, as in Italian politics, the Risorgimento has played a central role. Like the experience of the French Revolution or German
unification, the Risorgimento is considered to be a defining moment in Italy’s history, the period when Italy becomes a ‘nation’ and enters the
‘modern’ world. For many centuries, the formation of an Italian nation-state tied nationalism in Italy forever to a heroic sense of collective
revival and resurrection (‘Risorgimento’). Thereafter, the story of Italy’s national revival became a foundation myth for the new state designed
to give Italians the sense of a common past and present identity. However such an interpretation glorifying the achievements of ‘Risorgimento’
has some come under severe criticism after the emergence during the 1950s and 1960s of a Marxist (or Gramscian) interpretation of the
Risorgimento, and again with the rise of the new social and ‘revisionist’ history in subsequent decades; that historians began to construct an
alternative narrative of Italian unification. They came to associate the Risorgimento and national unification with a process of flawed modernization
and, as historical revisionism gathered pace, with a series of destabilizing, structural transformations which owed little or nothing to the appeal of
nationalism or the work of nationalist movements. In the following paragraphs we will critically evaluate the social political and economic
circumstances leading to the process of unification and discuss the historiographical debates revolving around it.

(LUCY RIALL SUMMARY)

PROBLEMS IN THE WAY OF ITALIAN UNIFICATION

The idea of an Italian state wasn’t very easy to legitimize due to the sheer diversity of the region. The ideas of a common culture, a common
language, a shared past or geography couldn’t be applied in the case of Italy. It was a difficult task for the Italians to view themselves as a part of
a homogenous, ethnic community. A majority of the people weren’t averse to the possibility of an Italian race but struggled to define it clearly
which would have been crucial to attract masses of people.

Ideas of a common culture and geography were also hard to defend even as notions that the Alps and the sea set apart Italy from the
barbarians outside were common amongst 15th century humanists like Cicero. Andre Vieusseux in 1821 blamed the internal local identities and
town based identities for undermining national sentiment. The distinctiveness amongst people from different regions led to the failure of uniting
against foreign threats as Tuscans and Neapolitans were as distinct from each other as a German from a Dutch. The concept of a national language
was also non- existent as different dialects were incomprehensible to one another. Banti points out that even if a quarter of the population
understood Italian, much lesser would have been able to understand the work of Dante, Machiavelli which meant that the scope of a shared literary
tradition was limited. Even people averse with Italian didn’t think it was necessary or important to speak Italian. The First Prime Minister and the
first King of the new Italian state were more accustomed to communicating in French. Similarly, Florentine, Milanese was used by influential
people as even the definition of what constituted Italian wasn’t clearly defined. Debates continued whether Italian was a composite tongue of
regional variations or contemporary Florentine. The diversity in Italy was centrifugal in character.
Italy was in a politically fragmented condition. Any attempt to change was strongly opposed by the big powers.
Foreign domination over Italy was another important challenge.
There was serious economic difference between North and South Italy. Slight industrialisation had taken place in North Italy whereas
Southern Italy was primarily agrarian. A large entrepreneurial and professional class was lacking which had been so instrumental in other areas to
forward the sentiment of nationalism.
Ideological differences amongst the leaders involved in the process of Italian Unification was also creating difficulties:
1. Cavour was in the favour of establishing a liberal constitutional monarchy in Italy.
2. Mazzini and Garibaldi were strong supporters of the Republican system.
3. Geoberti was in the favour of creating an Italian federation under the leadership of the pope.
The feudal lords and nobles were very powerful in Italy. The safety of their interest favoured the political fragmentation of Italy because
a united Italy was expected to be against their interest.
The identification of a unified Italy along religious lines and close association with the papacy also is riddled with problems. Even
though most Italians were Catholics, there was no way through which non- Catholic Italians could be distinguished within the universal church.
Dante and Machiavelli believed that Italian patriotism was weak because of the papacy and the medieval clashes between Guelph and Ghibelline.
Even though the idea of claiming Italy to be a centre of Catholicism as propagated by V. Gioberti did gain a certain amount of popularity, the
failure of Pope Pius IX as a liberal leader showed the unfeasibility of drawing on Christianity to evoke nationalist sentiments. After the acquisition
of Rome in 1870, Pius IX’s call to not recognise the newly formed Italy and his decision to reject the Law of Guarantees in 1871 made matters
worse. Only in 1929, after Mussolini’s Lateran Pact did the Vatican recognise the Italian state.
The role of myths and creation of legends also needs to be addressed to understand the basis of the Italian state. There was a great deal
of romantic interest in the medieval period due to continuity with the modern period. Simonde de Sismondi’s work on Italy’s republics was
translated into Italian and was used to emphasize the important role played by the city republics in the growth of political liberty and the cultural
revival of the west. Examples were traced to the Lombard League in 1167 which was successful in blocking the assertive German emperor F.
Barbarossa. It’s important to note that those who advocated the formation of a centralized Italy couldn’t draw upon the middle ages as it was prone
to civil strife and was very fragmented at the time. Another issue was the fact that Italy didn’t have any national heroes as most of the legends
emphasized the loyalty towards their region or cities and many stories depicted heroes fighting against another city with the help of a foreign
power. Only in literature, did some kind of semblance for nationalism emerge but it’s advantage was minimal as majority of the people were
illiterate. The lack of legends and tales of inspiration meant that The Risorgimento became a foundation myth. Figures like Mazzini, Carlo Alberto,
Garibaldi and events like the 1820 revolution in Naples, Garibaldi’s defense of and retreat from the Roman republic became celebrated events.
The five glorious days in March 1848 when the people of Milan drove out Habsburg forces of Marshal Radetzky from the Lombard Capital came
to be associated with national pride even though they might have had aspects which showed municipal loyalties rather than national identities or
the betrayal by the aristocrats and the king against republicanism.

PROCESS OF ITALIAN UNIFICATION/RISORGIMENTO:

Risorgimento, (“Rising Again”), 19th-century movement for Italian unification that culminated in the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy in
1861. The Risorgimento was an ideological and literary movement that helped to arouse the national consciousness of the Italian people, and it
led to a series of political events that freed the Italian states from foreign domination and united them politically.

The main impetus to the Risorgimento came from reforms introduced by the French when they dominated Italy during the period of the French
Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars (1796–1815). A number of Italian states were briefly consolidated, first as republics and then as satellite states
of the French empire, and, even more importantly, the Italian middle class grew in numbers and was allowed to participate in government. In 1796,
the re-organisation of the administration and political organisation of Italy as stated earlier by Napoleon was seen by many as an introduction of a
modern state. The opportunity to dismantle the privileges of the aristocrats and the old order, and the prospects of opportunities based on merit
and a modern state fuelled the imagination of the people. The lack of unification was presented to be the root of all problems in the region. The
social difficulty of the south was portrayed due to the result of Bourbon misrule. Later developments showed that de-fragmentation ultimately
weakened the nationalist spirit in Italy.

After Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, the Italian states were restored to their former rulers. Under the domination of Austria, these states took on a
conservative character. The restrictions on political opposition led to the formation of secret societies like F. Buonarroti’s ‘Sublime Perfect
Masters’ which aimed at creating a republic based on egalitarian ideas through the dictatorship of revolutionary elite. In the south, these
revolutionary sects were loosely organised and the Carboneria was an important secret organisation which focused on the overthrow of the rule of
Ferdinand I after 1815. Even though the various groups of the Carboneria had different goals, the ultimate objective was to create a secular,
constitutionally based regime. These political developments left Italy in a fragmented state. The Habsburg state had taken over Lombardy, Venice
and other duchies like Tuscany, Parma through dynastic alliances. Piedmont was the only state which was politically independent even as Central
and Southern Italy were in chaos as the papacy and Bourbons looked to take back control. In the 1840’s Piedmont showed very little characteristics
of leadership which it would ultimately do for the formation of a new Italian state.

The first avowedly republican and national group was Young Italy, founded by Giuseppe Mazzini in 1831. This society, which represented the
democratic aspect of the Risorgimento, hoped to educate the Italian people to a sense of their nationhood and to encourage the masses to rise
against the existing reactionary regimes. G. Mazzini propagated the idea of a unitary Italian state to the public. He believed that real change in
politics would happen only through the support of the masses and thus, he adopted a broad based revolutionary strategy which had a lot to do with
elaborate propaganda exercise. He played an important hand to the formation of a new movement, La giovine Italia (Young Italy) which focused
on educating people politically and organising popular insurrections for an Italian state. Italian activists were encouraged to think in terms of a
national political structure rather than the traditional, regional and city based loyalty. Some of the insurrections were successful in Turin and
Naples in 1820-21 even as many of them failed to draw attention of the masses. Other groups, such as the Neo-Guelfs, envisioned an Italian
confederation headed by the pope; still others favoured unification under the house of Savoy, monarchs of the liberal northern Italian state of
Piedmont-Sardinia. Monarchists-Savoyards and moderate nationalists who wanted union of Italian states under independent and French-backed
Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia led by King Charles Albert to usher in Italy’s cultural-linguistic Risorgimento (Resurgence) from Northern Tuscan
region which was dominant in Renaissance era too and had prosperous proto-industrialization, considered spiritual successor to process of Italian
Rinascimento (Renaissance) vide LUCY RIALL; mainly Savoyard Piedmontese monarchists dominated Italian nationalism post-1848 with four
figures declared Fathers of the Fatherland upon Italian unification in 1871 viz. Mazzini, Cavour, Garibaldi and King Victor Emmanuel II, all
worked for Piedmont.

After the failure of liberal and republican revolutions in 1848, leadership passed to Piedmont.

Cavour played an important role in the process of Italian Unification.

a) Consolidation of Piedmont-Sardinia-Prime Minister Cavour helped new King Victor Emmanuel II retain Albertine republican
constitution despite Austrian opposition, helped shift Piedmont to more favourable international position with risks against Austria backed by
support of France, shifted issue of nationalism from popular uprising to extra burden on Kingdom of Piedmont’s own treasury and army at cost of
economic crisis despite Cavour’s reforms to make Piedmont-Sardinia more constitutionally and economically capable of being nucleus of Italian
unification by 1860s, so Cavour truly brain behind Italian Unification vide DAVID THOMSON.
b) Use of Crimean War for International Support-Cavour’s greatest masterstroke was internationalization of Italian issue through alliance
with Napoleon III in France, assistance to Anglo-French Great Powers against Russia in Crimean War and radical isolation of Austria through
literary propaganda, pealed with Pact of Plombieres (1858) to assure French support in war against Austria in return for French receiving territories
of Nice and Savoy by 1860, erstwhile Provence and Burgundy territories where the royal family hailed from.
 c) Second Italian War of Independence (1859)-In 1859, Austria declared war against Franco-Piedmont alliance in Austro-Sardinian War,
with major Austrian defeat at Battle of Solferino (1859) allowing Piedmont to annex Lombardy and Milan, with Central Italian client states of
Austria also rallied by masses to join Piedmont, but Napoleon III’s betrayal through alliance with Austria at Treaty of Villafranca (1859) to oppose
growing power of united Italy forced King Victor to end beneficial war through settlement with Austrians in Treaty of Zurich (1859).

d) Reforms and Realpolitik-

Administrative Reforms- initiated major constitutional and economic reforms to boost aristocratic, liberal and capitalist currents of Italian
nationalism and allow enhancement of Piedmont-Sardinia as strong unifying power like Prussia.
Diplomatic Realpolitik-Cavour’s foreign policy was pragmatic, marked by intervention even in distant conflicts like Crimean War to gain French
support to isolate rival Austria, though backfired due to imperialist designs of Emperor Napoleon III.
Unique Nation-Building-Unlike Bismarck’s reactionary autocratic government, Cavour ensured strong parliamentary governance to ensure strong
constitutional monarchy for Italy to cajole liberal groups; even supported republican militarists like Garibaldi to bring majority of Italy except
Venice and Rome under Piedmontese rule as Kingdom of Italy by 1861.

Giuseppe Garibaldi and Italian Unification, the sword of Italian nationalism;

a) The Mille Expedition of the Thousand (1860)-With start of mass popular upsurge in Kingdom of Two Sicilies in Southern Italy against
reactionary Bourbon policies, local rebels appealed to Red Shirts revolutionaries of republican Garibaldi, battle-hardened from guerilla warfare in
Latin America, to lead expedition of thousand men in voluntary army across Peninsula but stopped before Rome to avoid war with Papal States
and France, gained many supporters due to growing revolutionary cult assisted by international press to create powerful new Italian identity
through conquest vide LUCY RIALL; after plebiscite, Garibaldi handed over conquests of over entire Mezzogiorno (Southern Italy) region to
Piedmont Kingdom of Victor Emmanuel for legitimacy, with Victor declared ruler of new Kingdom of Italy shaped by Cavour’s policies and
Garibaldi’s campaigns, with all areas except Austrian Venice and Papal Rome guarded by French leading to burning Roman Question eased by
King Victor’s strategic September Convention (1864) with Napoleon III to ensure withdrawal of French troops from region of Lazio-Rome.
b) Third Italian War of Independence (1866)-King Victor allied with Bismarck of unified Germany for common aim of fighting Austria
in the Austro-Prussian War (1866), allowed Italy to win province of Venice from French allies through Treaty of Vienna (1866) despite poor
military performance except by some units like Garibaldi’s Hunters of the Alps due to Austrian debacle against advanced Prussians at Battle of
Sadowa (1866) that unsettled European balance of power.
c) The Italian Conquest of Rome (1870)-King Victor’s isolation from France and growing alliance with Bismarck led to profitable final
French withdrawal of troops for Franco-Prussian War that allowed Garibaldi’s troops to finally conquer Rome; with final collapse of Second
French Empire with Catholic Napoleon III’s defeat at Battle of Sedan (1870) that ended old European balance of power, Pope Pius IX forced to
abandon all temporal offices and limited to domain of Vatican City.
d) The Final Transfer of Power (1871)-Sardinian capital had been shifted from Turin to Florence in 1860s and then to Rome in 1871 to
mark final formation of great Kingdom of Italy under King Victor Emmanuel II, considered final end of thousand-year old temporal Papacy that
had survived through Napoleon III’s clergy-backed Second French Empire vide DEREK BEALES.

HISTORIOGRAPHY OF RISORGIMENTO
(This is from Lucy Riall Chapter -1 )

INTRODUCTION

The concept of Risorgimento has played a crucial role in understanding Italian history. Risorgimento literally translated refers to ‘resurgence’ and
was the political and social movement that consolidated different states of the Italian peninsula into the single state of the Kingdom of Italy in the
19th century. The process began in 1815 with the Congress of Vienna and was completed in 1871 when Rome became the capital of the Kingdom
of Italy.

The experiences of fascism and the world war have divided historians into two mutually hostile camps who judged and viewed the Italian
unification in the said background.

POLITICAL ASPECT

LIBERALS - CROCEAN
- Bendetto Croce’s primary aim was to defend the achievements of Italian liberalism. According to Croce, Liberal Italy’s
shortcomings could be attributed to the decisions made by the successors of the Historic Right (Destra Stroica). These men were
presented of noble and self-sacrificing nature.
- According to Croce the Great War destroyed the existing political system eventually leading to the rise of fascism.
- He denied any direct or causal link between Italian liberalism and Italian fascism

MARXISTS - GRAMSCIAN
- Antonio Gramsci saw a direct series of links between fascism and liberalism, and he traced both these experiences to the
tensions generated by class struggle in the Risorgimento.
 - He referred to Risorgimento as a ‘passive revolution’ – wherein the conservative liberals were suppressing the revolutionary
liberals, and they finally arrived at a compromise of settling with the existing feudal order.
- This compromise according to him was characterized by severe political instability and social disorder since there was a
division between the Italian state and Italian civil society. Fascism was seen to be a product of this situation.

The Crocean depiction of political harmony was challenged by Gramsci who highlighted notions of class conflict. Further, Gramsci criticized
Croce for excluding the memories and experiences of conflict in order to formulate a peaceful and progressive yet distorted image of 19th century
Italy.

Marxists – stressed on the potential for revolutionary change in the Risorgimento and talked for differences between the moderates and democrats.
Franco della Peruta who is critical of both moderates and democrats argues against them for their inability to establish a basis for mass mobilization
among the peasantry.

Liberals – on the contrary focus on the barriers to political and economic progress in Risorgimento. According to them, given the internal disunity,
Italy’s dependence on foreign powers and their economic backwardness, the scale of Italian liberal achievement is truly commendable.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ASPECT OF RISORGIMENTO

Gino Luzzato argued that lack of industrial development before the 1860s had inhibited the development of the bourgeoisie.

Rosario Romeo suggested that he found it highly implausible that the bourgeoisie could lead an agrarian revolution in Southern Italy during the
Risorgimento, since had such a revolution taken place it would’ve halted agricultural commercialization and retarded industrialization in Northern
Italy.
(didn’t understand their criticism)

The Marxist and liberal approaches to the Risorgimento shared a common need to explain the significance of the moderate liberal victory in 1860
in terms of the subsequent disappointments of liberal Italy.
Relations between social classes were also viewed in light of them being either ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’ in nature wherein progressives were
viewed as those in favour of a liberal ideology or an urban commercial bourgeoisie

AMERICAN AND BRITISH HISTORIANS

- Their contributions haven’t been very strongly argumentative as compared to those of the Italians however they too reflect a
conceptual distinction between progress and reaction.
- Dennis Mack Smith argued and criticized the Risorgimento figures and discredited Liberal Italy’s achievements. He viewed
Cavour as an inconsistent politician and to him the unification signified only mistakes and wasteful usage of resources. He only viewed
Garibaldi as a committed popular leader.
- To him the Risorgimento was a failure, this view was endorsed by several British and American historians.
- To them the Risorgimento represented economic backwardness, a distorted social transformation and political corruption,
which led to eventual failure of liberalism in Italy.

REVISIONST HISTORIANS

- These historians treat the Marxist ideology of political and economic revolution leading to eventual progress with suspicion.
- There is an increasing reliance on alternative historical models and methodologies by this school of historians. They thus argue
that the Risorgimento had a declining ‘hegemony’ over Italian politics.
- Franco Rizzi criticized the Risorgimento for holding 19th century ‘hostage’ by blocking avenues of enquiry and dominating
the period with a sole political agenda.
- They focus more on social change, history of family life, gender, cultural change rather than Risorgimento politics.
- Rather than focusing on the nationalist specificities of Italian unification, the revisionists paid attention to regions and localities
rather than nations. This led to the development of a new form of plurality wherein the Italian nation state and Risorgimento weren’t the
sole standards of comparison.
- This led to newer forms of questioning and formation of innovative linkages between different realms of society in order to
understand the changes occurring in the collective. For instance, family structure was viewed vis a vis economic developments and
political activities.
- Further, the traditional interpretations of the Italian ‘Southern Question’ are challenged by the likes of Piero Bevilacqua who
are questioning the images of backwardness, economic immobility and political corruption associated with the South. According to him,
these expectations invoke unrealistic comparisons with Northern Italy and Europe by extension.
- 19th century revisionist historiography in such context challenged the periodization, methodologies and interpretations of the
previous historiographies.
 - Revisionists reject the use of categories of ‘class’ and ‘nation’ which is a departure from the Marxist and Liberal writings.
- Italy’s ‘deviation’ according these scholars has been invented by its historians and influenced by the deterministic economic
and politics of the period along with the effects of the war and fascism.
Critique
- Absence of information on the significance of Church. The church played a crucial role in the Risorgimento. By neglecting
the Church, the revisionists link themselves to Liberal and Marxist scholars alike.
- Exclusive reliance on structural explanation, which is a feature of Marxist writings. The revisionist emphasis on state, economy
and cultural in a structural sense is highly borrowed by Marxist writings and seems to miss out the importance played by ideology in
national unification.
- Even though the revisionists challenged ideas of class and nation the alternative means to understand the period haven’t been
developed enough and are seen to be extremely one-sided in their approach
- According to David Lavan, several Risorgimento historians tend to overemphasize crisis and conflict even in periods of
peaceful change. Nationalism is ignored rather explained.

NATIONALIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

- Tendency to highlight the positives of restoration government and the development of the extent of local variation
- Marco Merrigi suggests that the relative responsiveness of the centre to the local demands played an important role in the
changes in the Italian peninsula. According to him the role played by the government in overseeing rapid economic development is
essential and significant.
- Narcisso Nada refers to the role played by King Carlo Alberto of Piedmont in bringing about economic, political and
consequentially liberal transformation in the region.
- These nationalist scholars view the crisis of restoration government and Italian unification in a larger and wider European
context and as an outcome of formation of modern states. The formation of these independent states results in unique socio-politico
changes inside the state. The Italian unification is seen as a product of these state formations.
- This idea of state formation challenges the established equation between industrial capitalism and rise of parliamentary
democracy
- The problem with recent literature on state formation is that it doesn’t have any detailed critique.

PROBLEMS OF RISORGIMENTO AND RISE OF FASICSM

Modern Italy became a nation-state belatedly, following centuries of existence as a collection of smaller kingdoms and city-
states; on March 17, 1861, when most of the states of the peninsula were united under king Victor Emmanuel II of the Savoy dynasty,
which ruled over Piedmont. The architects of Italian unification were Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, the Chief Minister of Victor
Emmanuel, Giuseppe Garibaldi, a general and national hero, and Giuseppe Mazzini, a political visionary and leader of the radical
democratic faction in the movement for Italian unificatication (Risorgimento).With the annexation of Venetia (1866) and Rome (1870),
the Italian unification was complete. However, the crucial role played by French and Prussian armies had resulted in a sense of national
shame. The unification of Italy symbolised the realisation of Cavour's programme of the expansion of Piedmontese power which was
accompanied by jubilation along with a sense of betrayal.
Many people felt that unification didn't live up to the hopes of Risorgimento.
Moreover, the making of Italy was not followed by the making of Italians. Many inhabitants were indifferent to the unification
or alienated by the new state. Italy was also beset by deep seated regionalism and provincialism born out of centuries of division and
subordination.
North-south divide was the hallmark of unified Italy. The myth of the fertile south had weakened national feeling. Once reality
was observed, it was assumed that South would take north downhill along with it. The south, with its poverty stricken, illiterate agrarian
population, deep sense of parochialism, had a tradition of peasant insurrection and deep antagonism towards all forms of centralising
authority or state, which was manifested in the tradition of private justice (mafia, camorra). South felt north was favoured. The
southerners had a deep sense of hostility and often felt a sense of exploitation by the north, which was industrialised and had relatively
flourishing agrarian society because of favourable climate. The imposition of Piedmontese administration on south was detested and as
a result many revolts had also broken out in 1860s. The liberal government because of financial constraints and political reasons was
apathetic to bridge the north-south divide and thus was unable to integrate the masses with the state.
The church did not acknowledge the newly created state. The pope had issued a ban on participation in polities. Many Italians,
particularly the peasants, for whom religion was an integral part of their life, often suffered form conflict of consciousness as far as
participation in polities and political activities, was concerned.
Unification was a result of the efforts of a minority (elites) and hence the political system that emerged was essentially elitist
in nature; based on an alliance between the northern industrialist and the southern landowners.
As late as the 19th century, Italian society was agrarian. Italy lagged far behind the advanced nations in terms of railway
networks, coal production, industries and had a weak financial structure. It lacked even the necessary mineral sources for
industrialiSation. Conjoined with a backward economy which was a major cause of extreme poverty was the scandalous level of
 illiteracy. There was a continued lack of a widely diffused culture. In science, letters, industry, commerce and education Italy was lagging
behind other civilised powers but still thought she was better than them. This was another fundamental problem - that of gaining respect
among the nations.

LUCY RIALL POV

Riall argues that the attempts at economic and social reforms on the part of Italian monarchies during the last decades of the eighteenth century
were often opposed by the Church and the nobility. Nevertheless, the revolutionary groups that had formed after Napoleon's invasion of Italy had
fundamentally altered the political landscape of the peninsula, leading to the opposition to the old monarchies exemplified by the events of 1820-
21, 1831, and 1848-1849. Riall also focuses on the case of Piedmont, a monarchy where the government took a more liberal direction, allowing
freedom of press, association, and especially the right of parliament. As a result, Piedmont emerged as a beacon of moderation, attracting exiles
from all over Italy and becoming the major player in the Unification of the peninsula. Yet, as Riall correctly recalls, the intent of Piedmont (and
of its minister Cavour) was to secure the broad presence of the Savoy monarchy in Lombardy at the expense of Austria. Piedmont's political design
was far removed from that of the nationalists, Mazzini, Garibaldi, and the democratic movement in general. Unification then, Riall concludes,
exposed rather than mended the deep divisions that characterize the history of the Italian peninsula.

Riall discusses Piedmont, Modena, and the Papal States before turning to the policy of "amalgamation" practiced in the Austrian Kingdom of
Lombardy-Venetia. Here, experiments in governance combined the enlightened reformism of the eighteenth century with the modernization
enabled by the Napoleonic period. Riall also devotes additional attention to Piedmont which, under the leadership of King Carlo Alberto, was
transformed from a reactionary monarchy into a much more progressive one, even after the revolutions of 1848-1849, when the vast majority of
governments embraced reactionary policies. However, Riall points out that all Italian Restoration governments fell, thereby suggesting that neither
reform nor despotism were enough to stop the opposition movement. In her interpretation, the survival of monarchies depended on the ability to
navigate between tradition and innovation, to seek a political compromise between the old and the new such as the one achieved by Piedmont, the
only Restoration state to survive.

Riall points out that popular discontent and unrest was by no means an Italian phenomenon but was typical of European states where degraded
economic conditions, demographic growth and so on led to the rise of a "dangerous class". Flocking to the cities, destitute peasants, peddlers,
domestic servants, vagrants, and women led to an accelerated growth in many European urban centers. In Italy, the cities of Milan, Turin, and
Naples experienced a huge swell in population but, by and large, the unrest and discontent of destitute classes remained tied to local, rather than
national conditions, and lacked a political ideology. By contrast, craft workers and artisans had a corporate organizational structure and therefore
became instrumental in the uprisings of cities such as Palermo, Milan, Venice, Livorno, and Rome. Riall's discussion of the system of order and
control to regulate pauperism and crime in both cities and the countryside. According to Riall, efforts to enforce order and control were only
partially effective and might have contributed to eroding the legitimacy of Restoration governments even further.

She also maps an international public opinion and network favorable to the creation of an autonomous Italian nation. Riall makes a strong argument
for the importance of Giuseppe Mazzini who combined what was essentially a Romantic idea of the nation with political activism. The link,
according to Riall, between cultural identity and political agency, Mazzini used printed works, including images, to create a sense of a community.
He did so not just to spread his own program, but also to popularize the myth of Garibaldi. Yet, as Riall writes in "Italian Unification," the transition
from culture to politics was not an easy one. Once achieved, Unification did not embody national unity as the nation-building challenges faced by
post-Unification governments illustrate. Riall concludes her study by providing some general remarks on the Italian Risorgimento which, in her
view, encountered the same difficulties as did other European nation-building projects, even if the Italian case was aggravated by the country's
weak international position, the opposition of the Church, and the resistance of local and regional elites to a centralized administration.