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

"Italy Unified Itself". To what extent is this statement true?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Bianca Nardi History HL - Mr Nash "Italy Unified Itself". To what extent is this statement true? The end of Napoleonic Italy and the Risorgimento movements demonstrated that the dream of Italian Unity could be a reality. The unification can be seen as the inevitable end to any means which the Italian states could have undertaken politically. Victor Emmanuel's predecessor, Charles Albert, claimed in 1849 that "Italia far� da s�" (Italy will do itself)). To what extent was his prediction accurate? The Risorgimento movements in the Nineteenth Century are characterized by being a national revival which led to the creation of the Italian Kingdom. Revolutionary outbursts against the absolutist rule of restored monarchs were undertaken by different revolutionary groups who had little common aims and lacked organization. Thus, the sole means by which the Italian people could share their ideas was through the secret societies. Of these, the one which stood out was the Carbonari, who had their base in Naples. The secret societies had unclear aims and hadn't the competence to work towards and united Italy. The revolutionaries' main flaw was that they consisted almost entirely of the educated middle class and did not gain popular support which would have been crucial for their success. However, they should be given credit for having triggered the ideas which led to unification - and for showing that the Italian middle class was willing to liberate Italy from the grip of Austria. ...read more.

Middle

Cavour played a crucial role in the unification - by following in the footsteps of previous revolutionaries and taking drastic and immediate actions towards the creation of a nation. Cavour sent the Sardinian army to the aid of France and England in the Crimea, which raised Italy's prestige from the point of view of the western powers. In the Congress of Paris, Cavour attacked Austria diplomatically and broke the Alliance between Austria and Britain, gaining British support for the unification. He was responsible for Napoleon III's entry into Italy, which broke the power of Austria and kept Italy free from interference while Garibaldi won the kingdom of Naples for Italy. According to the historian AJ Whyte, Cavour remained "uninfluenced by the squabbles and jealousies of the various Italian states, and viewed Italy and the Italian question as a single problem". Additionally, he broke Italy free of Austrian interference which had been a great barrier to unification. Italy undoubtedly benefited from Cavour's exceptional leadership skills. Although it may be claimed that Cavour acted solely on the pretext of expanding Piedmont's territory, his intentions seem insignificant as by chance or by destiny, they led to the unification of Italy - confirming the statement that Italy united itself. Giuseppe Garibaldi had made appearances during the Risorgimento, and in 1860 he seized southern Italy from the Bourbons and in a gesture of pure patriotism made it a gift to King Victor Emmanuel in order to create the united kingdom of Italy. ...read more.

Conclusion

Catholics" and yet to support "the national susceptibilities of the Italian revolutionists -- a double aim which explains many an inconsistency" in his policy. Regardless of his inconsistencies, Napoleon III was of great influence in the unification of Italy - especially as he was responsible for the elimination of the greatest obstacle for Cavour: Austrian influence on the Italian states and Piedmont. Prussia's wars with Austria in 1866 and with France in 1870-71 helped with the unification of Rome and Venetia to Italy. During the Franco-Prussian war, Bismark is able to get Napoleon III to remain neutral and in turn gives Venetia to Italy. The war forces Napoleon III to remove troops from Rome, which in turn made the unification of Rome to the rest of Italy possible. In virtue of the facts mentioned above, it becomes evident that foreign support did influence the creation of Italy. However, Charles Albert's affirmation that Italy would unite itself isn't entirely incorrect. Cavour worked on the assumption that Austria was the main obstacle in the expansion of Piedmont and thus sought foreign help to expel the foreigner. It was Garibaldi, however, who extended the process of unification well beyond Cavour's original projection of an enlarged Piedmont, and in this sense it can be argued that Italy completed itself. The foreign interventions were side effects of other Wars or events and had no specific intention to unite Italy for the sake of patriotism. ...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)

    What is interesting, Mazzini had in mind a certain image of a republican Italy and when he realised that his vision is unlikely to come true, he gave up ? for example in Milan in 1848.

  2. Assess the view that the failures of the Congress of Vienna outweighed the successes.

    This is supported by Henry Kissinger, who argues that 'in international affairs, there is an inescapable priority to pursue order and stability over justice of any other consideration.'14 Furthermore, the case for success of the settlement is based on the appreciation that neither liberalism nor nationalism was particularly widespread in 1815.

  1. Who was more responsible for the success of Italian Unification up to 1861? Cavour, ...

    Early on he met Mazzini and so became a republican fighting in the early revolutions for them. Garibaldi learnt to fight and this is what he did best. His impact in the unification process was one of "Doing" rather than "Thinking."

  2. How successful was Napoleon III?

    promise of getting Venetia and Luxembourg and when Luxembourg was not delivered to France Napoleon felt cheated and France was humiliated. This although they were big failures they merely weakened France, however it did show Napoleon in a very bad way as he had been guilty of hubris (which means an arrogant pride inviting disaster)

  1. Mussolini(TM)s rise to power up to 1922 owes more to the failures of others ...

    we are allowed to govern, or we will seize power by marching on Rome [to] take by the throat the miserable political class that govern us"10. This shows that he was constantly aware of the thoughts and feelings both within his party and the politicians and influential figures holding the power in Italy.

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

    Cavour understood that war was essential to drive away Austrian influence in Italy, but he wanted to use intelligent diplomacy in order to isolate Austria and receive help from France. Garibaldi, with help from his guerrilla training in South America, used and manipulated naval forces to fight against the state rulers in Naples and Sicily.

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

    Another contributing factor to the unification was Mazzini who had been the political idealist able to catalyse the national spirit of the Italian people into a viable force, being one of the first to introduce the practical possibility of unification.

  2. "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" How valid is this assessment ...

    The German diplomat died of his wounds on 9th November 1938. Grynszpan's action was immediately denounced by the Nazi propaganda machine as a ?declaration of war? and part of the world-wide Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy. It would unleash an unprecedented orgy of ferocious anti-Jewish violence and terror across Germany.

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