Europe Assignment
Europe Assignment
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Beales, Derek. and Biagini, Eugenio. (2002). The Risorgimento and the Unification of
Italy. London and New York: Routledge
2. Craig, Gordon. (1964). Europe Since 1815. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
3. Mason, David. (2011). A Concise History of Modern Europe. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
4. Merriman, John. (2010). A History of Modern Europe, Third Edition: From the
Renaissance to the Present. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
5. Perry, Marvin. (2008). Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics and Society, Vol. 2. Boston
and New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company Q) Discuss the dominant
role played by Piedmont in the process of Italian Unification
INTRODUCTION
The 1848 Revolutions, or the Peoples’ Spring set free forces of nationalism and
liberalism, but these were quickly reversed by the reestablishment of autocratic rule.
Nevertheless, a decade after 1848, strong figures in Germany and Italy acted to create
national states from above, using the modern technology of warfare, as said by David
Mason. The leaders of unification according to Marvin Perry, were not liberal idealists or
romantic dreamers of 1848, but shrewd, calculated statesmen, tough-minded
practitioners of realipolitik. Metternich had once called Italy a “geographical
expression”. This was because, politically it was divided into a number of separate
states: A Bourbon king ruled the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies; the pope governed the
Papal States in central Italy; Hapsburg Austria ruled Lombardy and Venetia in the north;
and Hapsburg princes subservient to Austria ruled the duchies of Tuscany, Parma, and
Modena. Economically, Northern Italy has always been considerably more prosperous
than the south. For Italian traditionalists, national unity was undesirable as it would
deprive the pope of his control over central Italy. Whereas, the Italian middle class
believed that expelling foreign rulers and forging national unity would continue the
process of enlightened reform initiated by the French occupation, which would then
promote economic growth. They promoted the ultimate Risorgimento ("Resurgence") of
Italy. It was motivated by nationalist brochures and newspapers, the memory of the
failures of the Revolutions of 1848, and a common hatred of Austria. MAZZINI AND
YOUNG ITALY After the Vienna Congress established Austrian domination in Italy, secret
societies like Carbonari kept alive the hopes for liberty and independence from foreign
rule. Its failure led to the rise of leaders like Giuseppe Mazzini. He was both a romantic
and a liberal, who believed that a newly united Italy, would begin a new age of free
nations, personal liberty, and equality. In 1831 he founded a secret society, Young Italy,
which mobilised masses to rise up for nationalism and democracy. According to Marvin
Perry, Mazzini believed that a successful revolution must come from below—from the
people, motivated by their love for the nation. They must drive out the Austrians and
create a democratic republic. He infused the Risorgimento, with spiritual intensity. His
idealism attracted the youth and kept alive the spirit of national unity. Even after the
failure of 1848, Mazzini remained undaunted. CAVOUR AND PIEDMONT-SARDINIA
Piedmont-Sardinia was by far Italy's most prosperous region, with significant industrial
production, fine sources of water power, and accessible markets. It had inherited from
the French revolutionary and Napoleonic eras a relatively efficient bureaucracy. After
Charles Albert, the throne was succeeded by his son Victor Emmanuel II of the House
of Savoy. According to John Merriman, He wanted to unify Italy by gradually extending
his control over the peninsula. He was poorly educated and uncouth, who preferred
horses and ballet to politics. Nevertheless, he at least had the good sense to appoint
Count Camillo di Cavour as his prime minister, whom he personally detested. Cavour
was a Piedmontese patriot, whose greatest ambition according to Gordon Craig, was to
increase the material and political wealth of the country. With regards to unification, he
considered it as a means to an end, i.e aggrandisement of Piedmont. Cavour initiated
reform measures in Piedmont, to strengthen the economy and bolster its image in
foreign affairs. He reorganized the currency, taxes, and the national debt. He also had
railways and steamships built, fostered improved agricultural methods, and
encouraged new businesses. According to Merriman, his liberalism stopped well short
of republicanism. As said by Derek Beales, Italian unification could not be possible
without driving out Austria from Italy. Thus, Cavour now started a series of diplomatic
moves that he hoped would bring the support of Great Britain and France. He
specifically wanted to form an alliance with France against Austria, to drive out Austria
from Lombardy. In March 1854, France and Great Britain joined the Ottoman Empire in
opposing Russia in the Crimean War. Cavour joined the war against Russia in exchange
for a role in determining new frontiers in Eastern Europe. Mazzini opposed this
intervention as irrelevant to his vision of a united republican Italy. Piedmont-Sardinia
signed the Peace of Paris in 1856, which ended the Crimean War, which Cavour used to
manoeuvre attention to Italy. He also simultaneously supported the ‘National Society’
founded by Daniel Manin, as a means of spreading anti-Austrian propaganda and
Lombardy and Venetia. In 1858, the French Emperor Napoleon III and Cavour devised
an agreement which was signed in July 1858 at Plombieres. According to this, France
would back Piedmont if it found itself at war with Austria. In the event of this victory,
Piedmont would be allowed to annex Lombardy and Venetia, Parma and Modena, and
part of the Papal States. France would in return get Nice and Savoy, and the bargain
would be sealed with the marriage of Victor Emmanuel’s daughter and Napoleon’s
cousin. According to Gordon Craig, Plombieres represented a departure from 19th
century international affairs. It was less concerned with building defensive measures
and more with a deliberate attempt to manufacture a war. But, the British government
pressed for a peaceful solution. Cavour denounced it as a British "conspiracy of peace"
and threatened to resign. Napoleon III also asked Piedmont- Sardinia to demobilize its
troops. Meanwhile, Austria provided an excuse for war by announcing that it would draft
men from Venetia and Lombardy into the imperial army. Piedmont-Sardinia, in turn,
declared that it would accept deserters from Austrian conscription, and it mobilized
troops in March. In another instance, Austria issued an ultimatum to Piedmont in 1859,
hoping to get the support of other German states. With Austria now appearing as the
aggressor, Prussia and the other German states did not come to its aid. After Piedmont-
Sardinia rejected the ultimatum, Austrian troops invaded Piedmont, which brought
France into the war. Austrians were driven out of Lombardy. However, the French feared
that a crushing defeat of Austria might pit Prussia and other German states into the war
against France. Consequently, Napoleon, without consulting Cavour, arranged an
armistice in July at Villafranca with Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria. As a result,
Lombardy was given by Austria to France. Now, since Cavour and Victor Emmanuel
believed that France had betrayed them, France gave Lombardy to Piedmont-Sardinia.
In exchange, Piedmont-Sardinia ceded Savoy and Nice to France. By the Treaty of Turin
of 1860, Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Bologna are also annexed by Piedmont-Sardinia
after a plebiscite. GARIBALDI AND TWO SICILIES Giuseppe Garibaldi had joined
Mazzini's Young Italy movement in 1833. Angered that the Villafranca armistice cut short
full-fledged Italian unification, Garibaldi formed an army of volunteers, hoping to drive
the Austrians from Venetia and the French from Rome. In 1860, a revolt began against
the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, as a protest against the rising taxes and the high price of
bread. Secretly encouraged by Cavour, Garibaldi entered Sicily, which welcomed him as
a liberator, with his army of 1000 Red Shirts. He then assumed dictatorial power in
Sicily, on behalf of Victor Emmanuel II. In September, the Red Shirts took Naples.
Garibaldi’s victories put Piedmont in a difficult position. If he marched against Rome,
France would attack them; and if he moved against Venetia, Austria might retaliate,
perhaps this time with Prussia's support. Hence, Cavour sent Piedmontese troops into
the Papal States the same day that Garibaldi's troops took Naples. According to
Merriman, the goal was to join Garibaldi, however the main intention was to stop his
independent operations. The combined armies finally put an end to papal resistance
and that of the royal Bourbon family of Naples. In March 1861, the partial kingdom of
Italy was proclaimed, without Rome and Venetia. Victor Emmanuel II became the new
king with Florence in Tuscany as the new capital. FINAL UNIFICATION Cavour died in
June 1861. According to Merriman, Italy had lost either the great hero of the
Risorgimento or a scheming Machiavellian, probably something of both. In 1866, when
Austria went into war against Prussia, Italy joined on Prussia’s side. When Prussians
defeated the Austrians in July, Venetia became part of Italy. Now, only Rome was left to
be unified. Here, Pope Pius IX, refused to compromise with the new Italy, protesting
Victor Emmanuel’s proclamation as King of Italy. Rome at this time was still protected
by a French garrison. However, during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, France
withdrew its garrisons from Rome; much to the anger of the pope. Consequently, Italian
troops marched in and occupied Rome, which was declared the capital of Italy. In May
1871, Italian Parliament passed the Law of Papal Guarantees, which reduced the
holdings of the pope to the Vatican. Thus concluded the complete unification of Italy.
WAR AND DIPLOMACY OR RISORGIMENTO? The debate revolving around Italian
nationalism has been of interest to historians. It centres on whether the wars led by
Piedmont-Sardinia or Risorgimento played a bigger role in unification. According to
Derek Beales, in a sense Italian unification can be seen as an affair of war and
diplomacy. However, for most historians it was a result Risorgimento, an ideological and
literary movement to unite Italy into one political and cultural entity. According to
Giorgio Candeloro, there is no straight relationship between Risorgimento and
unification. According to Derek Beales, immediately after unification, party
historiographies were created by: moderate monarchists led by Cavour and radicals
nationalists who looked upto Mazzini and Garibaldi. In the 20th century, Fascism tried
to annex the glory of unification to itself and socialists portrayed themselves as
forerunners in the Risorgimento. Antonio Gramsci stressed the role of the peasantry and
described the Risorgimento in what has become a famous phrase as 'an agrarian
revolution manque’. According to GM Trevelyan war and diplomacy played a greater
role. W.K. Hancock became critical of Italian nationalism in history because of the
revulsion he felt at the manifestations of Fascism which he witnessed. After the Second
World War, in which Italy sided with Nazi Germany, the decay of liberal sympathy with
nationalism can be seen in the writings of Denis Mack Smith, who emphasised the
divisions between the Italian leaders and instability during the critical phase of
unification. He did not see it as a mass movement, but as a movement of elite and
selfish leaders. CONCLUSION With the spirit of 1848 revolution still lingering,
nationalism had proven itself a major force for the unification of Italy. However, the
unification was only one part of the nation-building process. Massimo d’Azeglio
remarked in 1861, “Now that we have created Italy, we must start creating Italians.” In
that period, only a minority spoke the Italian language, and this challenge of creating a
common Italian identity, especially between north and south Italy, has endured till
today.