The 'Risorgimento' seemed as remote to Italian nationalists in 1849 as it did in 1815. Do you agree?

AS and A Level History

Jonathan Fenn 22/11/03

12/1

QUESTION:

The ‘Risorgimento’ seemed as remote to Italian nationalists in 1849 as it did in 1815. Do you agree?

Following the failure of the early 1848 Italian revolutions, historians have indeed considered the proposed ‘Risorgimento’, referring to the movement towards a united Italian state, as being as remote to Italian nationalists in 1849, as it was in 1815.

Firstly, the most apparent evidence supporting this claim, must come from the fact that the Italian map was still identical to the 1815 position; that being, the same profusion of many different states. Indeed, all around Italy the temporary gains made by the revolutionaries in 1848 began to dissolve, so much so, that it resulted in an Italy that echoed the same one Metternich had remarked upon back in 1815, when saying, ‘the word “Italy” is a mere “geographical expression”’. Hence, from a geographical point of view, Italian nationalists would have indeed felt disheartened, as on the surface nothing was different from 1815.

Furthermore, the short lived optimism revolving around the 1848 revolution, also meant that in every Italian state other than Piedmont, reactionary rule was once again resumed as it had been in 1815, after the restoration of monarchs. All traces of the liberal reforms in these states, which saw constitutions placed upon many of the monarchs, were eradicated, in many cases by the return of Austrian troops. Therefore, resounding an Italy no different by 1849, and once more suggesting to Italian nationalists of the time, that the chances of a ‘Risorgimento’ were as remote as they had been in 1815.

In addition, the emerging roles of two key figures by 1849, would have also signified the apparent remoteness of a ‘Risorgimento’ to the Italian nationalists.

The first would have been the absence of Guiseppe Mazzini after 1849, due to his exile to London, which would last 10 years. Since the period, he has been referred to by modern historians, as “the central figure during the early years of the ‘Risorgimento’”, so without his presence the impact of this key political thinker upon nationalists would be very much undermined. Secondly, the nationalists’ hopes of a liberal Pope, in Pius IX, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In addition, the emerging roles of two key figures by 1849, would have also signified the apparent remoteness of a ‘Risorgimento’ to the Italian nationalists.

The first would have been the absence of Guiseppe Mazzini after 1849, due to his exile to London, which would last 10 years. Since the period, he has been referred to by modern historians, as “the central figure during the early years of the ‘Risorgimento’”, so without his presence the impact of this key political thinker upon nationalists would be very much undermined. Secondly, the nationalists’ hopes of a liberal Pope, in Pius IX, were also relatively short lived, as it soon became evident that he was in keeping with a more conservative approach in his old age. In reality he was no better than the reactionary Zealot Popes of 1815, and would therefore not be the Pope to lead the nationalists in their attempts for a unified Italy.

Moreover, the actions taken in the Papal States by 1849, presented an additional element that wasn’t even present for the nationalists in 1815.

This element was French involvement, and came about as a result of the Pope turning his back on the Italian nationalists, only leaving Rome for a republic to be set up in his absence. After appealing for help in 1849, this meant that France, under the rule of the strong Catholic monarch Louis Napoleon, became involved, sending 20,000 troops to restore the Pope to his possessions. Nationalists were now being warned off from any future revolutions such as this, by the use of force. Therefore, the apparent remoteness of a ‘Risorgimento’ ever increasing.

However, on the other hand, it is evident there are some factors that dispute whether nationalist hopes of a ‘Risorgimento’ in 1849 were as remote as they were in 1815. Firstly, by seeing the 1848 revolutions as a failed attempt at a possible ‘Risorgimento’, at least the revolutionaries could learn from their mistakes. In 1815 they had nothing to go by, but now they could contemplate on where they went wrong and what could be corrected for the future. Therefore, disagreeing that the proposed ‘Risorgimento’ still seemed as remote in 1849 to Italian nationalists, as it had previously in 1815.

Indeed, the nationalists could appreciate the need for greater unity between the states as being divided amongst themselves, meant they were not as much of a force to be reckoned with as they could be. Furthermore, they would be able to address their inept characteristic of being far too parochial, in respect to their vague aims and consequent actions.

In fact, one of the major flaws in the revolutionaries attempts of 1848,

i.e. the lack of leadership, could be observed and resolved as a result of the innovative cooperation between Piedmont and Lombardy (in which is sometimes referred to as the ‘1st war of the Risorgimento’.) The King of Piedmont, Charles Albert, sent troops to help Lombardy in their war against Austria, emerging for some nationalists as a possible King to unite the whole of Italy due to this previously unheard of support between states.

Moreover, this optimism of the Piedmontese King (who would later be Victor Emmanuel II due to Charles Alberts abdication) leading a united Italy, would have been boosted by the fact that this Piedmont state was the only one granted to keep its constitution. Piedmont would become a focal point for all nationalists as it was deemed to be the most liberal of the Italian states after 1849. Indeed, during the 1848 revolutions, although they ultimately failed, the Piedmontese had achieved glory when fighting the Austrians. Such glory would attract nationalists and as a result the ‘Risorgimento’ would not have seemed as remote to them in 1849 as it had in 1815.

Therefore, in conclusion, it is evident that there are numerous arguments that both agree and disagree with the statement that “the ‘Risorgimento’ seemed as remote to Italian nationalists in 1849 as it did in 1815”. On the one hand those that agree include; the identical map of Italy, additional French involvement and remaining Austrian control, as well as the emerging roles of both Pius IX and Guiseppe Mazzini. On the other hand, those that oppose the statement include; nationalists having the opportunity to learn from their mistakes up to and including 1848-49, Piedmont retaining its constitution and its King being seen as a possible leader, to thereafter facilitate greater unity.

Personally, I disagree with the statement and therefore feel that Italian nationalists were in fact far closer to the ‘Risorgimento’ in 1849 than 1815. Not only is this supported by the fact that just 12 years later the Kingdom of Italy was to be created in a relatively short space of time, but also that the time Italian nationalists had under constitutional rule between 1848-49, was bound to provide them with a very real experience and taste of rule that they would not want to give up. They would be inspired to fight for it and make it last, so were indeed far closer to the ‘Risorgimento’ in 1849, rather than just as remote to it as the were in1815.