• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How significant was foreign influence in shaping Italian political and social development in the years c-1800-c1900?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Sam Webb How significant was foreign influence in shaping Italian political and social development in the years c-1800-c1900? 25 marks Foreigners had a considerable role to play within Italy's political and social standing from the years 1800-1900. However, such influence was not the only factor that affected Italy in such a turbulent period of the country's history, Ed Beavington presenting how historians "explain the unification of Italy through reference to a range of factors."[1] Indeed, the papacy played a role in influencing not only the Italian peasantry but even foreign catholic powers. Equally, economic issues, the growth of ideas and popular pressure contributed to politics and social life along the peninsula. The role of individuals also cannot be ignored, certain people having a profound effect on the happenings during the time period. Foreign influence played a major role within Italian politics and society. In 1805 Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself King of Italy and was to have a large impact on Italian affairs. In 1810 Napoleon divided Italy into three parts: the kingdom of Italy, the kingdom of Naples and the last third annexed to the French empire. This unified the various states along the peninsula and as Michael Broers states, "Napoeleon gave Italy a greater degree of unity than at any other time since the Roman empire."[2] Napoleon announced that papal temporal power was at an end, feeding an idea to the middle classes of secular republicanism. Industrially, the French aided the middle classes and bourgeoisie by removing customs barriers, reorganising tax collection and improving infrastructure, thus impressing the middle classes. ...read more.

Middle

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. ...read more.

Conclusion

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 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Contrast The Contribution Made By Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi to Italian Unification

    4 star(s)

    he gained the British sympathy and support for the case and for himself, which was important, for it gave the Unification the recognition on the international arena. During the siege of Rome he became the leader of the government, showing good administrative capabilities.

  2. What had Garibaldi contributed to Italian Unification by 1861

    the ease he took the island and the amount of popular support he got. At this point Cavour was suspicious of Garibaldi but really did nothing to stop his crusade for an Italian nation. By the 7th September 1860, the circumstances had changed.

  1. Assess the effectiveness of Napoleon III's foreign policy. How did his foreign policy affect ...

    His foreign policy was shown ineffective in the Italian Campaign. His aim was still to increase prestige of France. In 1859, Napoleon went to the war with Austria in supporting the efforts of the Italian Kingdom of Sardinia to drive Austria out of Italy.

  2. What were the obstacles to German Unification immediatly before the 1848 Revolutions

    in no way was the Holy Roman Empire Roman because Rome had never been part of it or any of its Emperors Roman and it wasn't an Empire because it did not directly control any of the states in it, but besides this it did benefit the Habsburgs who gained

  1. Napoleon Bonaparte.

    Soldiers would do anything for such a great leader and that is why his army was successful so often. Napoleon's leadership at war was essential for France's victories. Even his enemies have pointed out his greatness, "The Duke of Wellington claimed that Napoleon's presence on the battlefield was worth forty

  2. Why did the Revolutions of 1848 did not lead to a united Germany?

    How could a united Germany work if the citizens were still loyal to their local rulers rather than the central government? Also, many Germans including the aristocracy respected the status quo, they respected Habsburg authority, they had grown up in a Bund controlled by Austria, a Bund that had always been controlled by Austria.

  1. Compare and contrast Cavour and Garibaldi's contributions to Unification.

    Cavour and Garibaldi also had different ideas regarding the form of government that would rule Italy once it had been created. Cavour favoured the rule of King Victor Emmanuel II (because of Cavour's monarchist leanings and the fact that he knew how to manipulate Victor Emmanuel for his own benefit), but Garibaldi suggested a Republican state.

  2. How far do you agree that Cavour made the most significant contribution to Italian ...

    Ultimately Cavour was neither the above, nor anything near this but he was the sole provider of a unique set of catalyst that allowed a unified Italian Nation to become a reality not an idea held dear by a small number of mainly rich upper class radical thinkers.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work