Indeed, the unification process of Italy was heavily mirrored by happenings abroad. In April 1859 Austria ordered that Piedmont demobilise its troops which brought about the Franco-Austrian war. The French victory allowed for Lombardy to be ceded, through France to avoid embarrassment, from Austria to Piedmont. Thus, it was through the influence of France that political gains towards unity were increased. Napoleon III's "participation in the war against Austria…had served Piedmont's cause rather than his own"[7] according to Robert Pearce. This evokes the extent that France aided Italy in political progress, that victory against the Austrians benefited Italy more than France. The Prusso-Austrian war of 1866 and Franco-Prussian war of 1870, both of which Prussia emerged victorious, aided the taking of Venetia and Rome respectively. Thus, it was conflicts abroad that allowed for a weakened Austrian position, Martin Clark highlighting how "war succeeded where diplomacy failed."[8] A weakened Austria allowed the taking of Venetia and the absence of French troops in Rome completed the unification process. Hence, foreign influence was a powerful factor in creating liberal and republican ideologies as well as creating the right situation in order for Italian aspirations of unification to materialise.
Alternatively, the Catholic Church had powerful significance on Italian society and politics. Naturally anti-secular and anti-republic as this threatened the Pope's power both spiritually and physically within the Papal States; the Church had a strong grip on the multitude of Catholics in Italy. However, with the death of Gregory XVI in 1846, a seemingly much more liberal Pope Pius IX emerged. His election horrified Austria, a Catholic country, as a Pope that promoted liberalism could inspire revolutionaries to overthrow Austrian autocracy within Italy. As David Kertzer conveys, "the election of Pius IX had, in particular, been welcomed by those liberal Catholics who sought to reconcile Italian independence with loyalty to the Church,"[9] creating a generation of Neo-Guelfs. Pius gave freedom to the press, created a civil guard and set up a Consulta, a state council which non-churchmen could belong to. These reforms inspired liberals that the Church could work alongside a new Italian state, inspiring the middle classes to engage with their liberal views without fear of condemnation from the papacy.
Contrastingly, after the 1848 revolutions where the pope had been forced out of Rome by Mazzini, the Church became increasingly anti-liberal, the Vatican even being defended by French troops. Pius' metamorphosis from liberal to reactionary conservative crushed any hopes of an Italian state working alongside the papacy. In 1864, the Pope condemned the liberal movements emanating from Piedmont which "shocked many Catholics- although it was loudly applauded by the conservatives in the Church."[10] Liberal politicians would have to totally re-evaluate their strategy with a resistant Pope stirring Catholics across the peninsula to reject any form of Italian independence. After King Victor Emmanuel II had taken Rome and completed unification, Pius refused to recognise the new state as well as rejecting Piedmont's Law of Guarantees. As Kertzer puts it, "the continuing hostility of the pope made consolidation of [the new state's] rule more difficult, for it was an impediment to both gaining allegiance of their own population and winning recognition from foreign governments."[11] Catholics were told not to vote within the new Italian state, a move that reveals the hindrance the papacy caused towards political progress within Italy. Also, foreign catholic powers such as France would be reluctant to support the new state if the papacy was so strongly opposed to Italy. Therefore, as an alternative reason to foreign influence, the Church can be seen as significant on two terms. Before 1848 Pius aided in an explosion of liberalism, revolutionary hopefuls encouraged to act from the policies of the pope. On the other hand, the Church is also important regarding political and social development due to its reactionary conservatism after the 1848 revolutions, making progress considerably slower for Italian liberals.
Just as the role of Pius IX, individuals also had an important role on politics and society. Mazzini was known by Metternich as "the most dangerous man in Europe".[12] He brought revolutionary ideas of a unified Italian republic that involved human rights and democracy. Pearce states that "nationalism, [Mazzini] believed, was a growing force that would one day become unstoppable."[13] Such a renowned figure had a profound impact on the Italian middle classes, spurring political groups to take action. His heading of the Roman Republic gave Italians a taste of what Italy could be like if it wasn't ruled by absolutist foreigners or the pope.
Equally, the Mazzinian 'Young Italy' founded in 1831 would aid in the creation of Italian national heroes such as Garibaldi. Mazzini can be seen as the building blocks, setting the ground for unified nationalism to develop as well as inspiring others to take action. Other secret societies augmented popular pressure for political change such as the Carbonari, which became the “focal point for individuals with grievances against the restored monarchies”[14] during the early nineteenth century. Thus, secret societies also played a role in politics and society, channelling frustrations into unified revolutionary groups.
Cavour was another important individual. He was a skilled political operator, appointed as Prime Minister of a coalition government of Piedmont in 1852, he reorganised the military; paying off the Austrian indemnity through increased taxation; and built railways. In 1855 Cavour led a successful campaign in the Crimea alongside the British and united France and Piedmont against Austria in 1859. Header illustrates that the Franco-Austrian war was a "crisis [that] had largely been of Cavour's making".[15] This reveals Cavour's successful foreign policy, his unity with foreign powers, especially with France as this resulted in Lombardy being joined with Piedmont, causing political progress. This evokes perhaps that it was not foreigners influencing Italians, but rather, mainly in the case of Cavour, Italian politicians manipulating foreign powers to expand Italy.
Garibaldi was another hero of unification and had an impact on both politics and society. In 1860 he took the Kingdom of the two Sicilys with only 1000 men. This expanded Italy, strengthening it politically and acted as propaganda value to increase nationalism and support for the liberals. The fact that Garibaldi acted under the name of Victor Emmanuel II rather than a Mazzinian Republic was vital to ensure unity, dissipating any possibility of him and Cavour clashing. Garibaldi "recommended his countrymen to select the most honest man in Italy and make him a temporary dictator."[16] It was Garibaldi's willingness to cede power to Victor Emmanuel II that stopped provincial conflicts escalating into tension between the different factions of liberals. Cavour also played a role in stopping conflict, sending troops to take Rome before the republican Garibaldini followers could remove the pope and thus cause intervention from Catholic Europe, Pearce calling this Cavour's "greatest contribution to unification."[17] This could be seen as foreign influence as it was the foreshadow of destruction from abroad that influenced the decisions of Italian politicians, such as Cavour.
The new leaders of liberal Italy such as Dupretis and Crispi also had an effect. Dupretis embarked on moderate liberal policies introducing compulsory free primary education and expanding the electorate from 500,000 to 2 million. This involved more Italians within politics as they became more educated and eligible to vote. “School curricula was given a strongly patriotic slant”[18] revealing how the new state’s leaders had an impact on society. They wanted to create ‘Italians’ having made ‘Italy’, individuals taking action to maintain the unified Liberal state. However, Dupretis’s foreign policy was weak, only participating abroad when Italy joined the triple alliance with Germany and Austria in 1882. The new state was trying to keep a low profile after removing Austria and weakening the papacy. Thus, it was foreign influence and the church that continued to manipulate political decisions, even after Italy had been unified.
Crispi, taking office in 1887, headed an attack on Ethiopia in 1895. Italian troops were defeated by the spear-throwing Africans at the battle of Adowa in 1896 which was humiliating for the new state. Italy wanted to be a great power but lacked the military might to accomplish imperial exploits, even within a country as underdeveloped as Ethiopia, it being "the first time that an African army had defeated a European colonial power."[19] Foreign influence was key with this desire; the wealth of other countries stimulating Italy to imperialise other nations and the humiliation from the defeat of these attempts weakening the liberal state politically. Crispi also made economic blunders, an appreciating Italian Lire causing for decreases in exports, stifling growth. The raising of tariffs, up to 50 Lire a tonne for grain in 1887, led to a depression as foreign countries refused to buy Italy's exports. Martin Clark presents how "immediate effects of the [cotton] tariff were pernicious".[20] Foreign influence, again, can be seen as having a social and political presence in liberal Italy as it was closely tied to the economic development of the new state.
In conclusion, a myriad of factors altered Italy during the nineteenth century. From Napoleonic occupation in the early nineteenth century to the unified liberal Italy, foreign influence was at the forefront of politics and society. The role of the papacy and the impact of individuals were other highly significant factors along the peninsula. The pope created an obstacle to liberal aspirations, whilst ambitious Italians strove to accomplish their goals within Italy. However, even within these factions foreigners were involved at the heart. The pope had power due to the backing of European Catholic giants that prevented revolutionaries from taking drastic action against the Vatican. Individuals were trying to make Italy a great power in comparison to the existing European autocrats, whilst feelings for unification or liberation were largely anti-Austrian tendencies. Martin Clark evokes how the Risorgimento was “arguably a ‘European’ venture”[21]. This highlights that, ultimately, foreign influence was the prominent dynamic in Italian politics and society during the time period as it was far reaching and centralised to all factors.
[1] Ed Beavington, 'Nationalism and the Unification of Italy' in Modern History Review February 2004, p. 21
[2] Michael Broers, 'Making Italy 1796-1861, Origins of the Risorgimento' in Modern History Review 1995, p.13
[3] ibid., p. 13
[4] Alan Farmer, 'How was Italy unified?' in History Review March 2006, p. 15-16
[5] Gooch, J, The Unification of Italy, (London Routledge 1986), p._
[6] ibid., p._
[7] Robert Pearce, "France and Italian Unification" in New Perspective (March 2006) p.5
[8] Martin Clark, The Italian Risorgimento, (Pearson Educated Limited 2009) p. 86
[9] David Kertzer, 'Religion and Society, 1789-1892' in John A. Davis' Italy in the Nineteenth Century, p. 188
[10] ibid., p. 191
[11] ibid., p. 191
[12] Robert Pearce, 'Giuseppe Mazzini' in History Review March 2007, p. 36
[13] ibid., p.36
[14] Alan Farmer, 'How was Italy unified?' in History Review March 2006, p.15
[15] H. Header, 'Cavour', in HA Pamphlet, p. 22-23
[16] Denis Mack-Smith, 'Garibaldi', in History Today August 1991, p.50
[17] Robert Pearce and Andrina Stiles, in The Unification of Italy 1815-70, (Hodder Education 2009) p.143
[18] Chrsitopher Duggan, ‘Continuity, Change and Nation building in Italy, 1815-1922’ in New Perspective December 2005, p. 12
[19] Martin Clark, Modern Italy 1871-1995, p.100
[20] ibid., p.96
[21] Martin Clark, The Italian Risorgimento, (Pearson Educated Limited 2009), p. 99
by
sewebb1 (student)
