As we can see there was a huge diversity in these ideas and the peasants who on the whole were illiterate were in no greater position to know what method they wanted. This was to lead to the eventual downfall, each figure had their own number of supporters however throughout Italy there was not one prominent figure who everybody knew about and was willing to follow. Saying this though some of the figures did have some limited success, Mazzini in the 1848 revolutions was successful in taking Rome and it was only until Pope Pius IX decided to get French help that he was defeated.
Most of these figures were Liberal and so were wanting a “middle class led unification” the peasants had been left out of the picture and by doing this they did not have the sheer numbers to oust their rulers. It was not helped by many of these leaders being in exile; Mazzini was in exile in France till just before the 1848 revolutions. This meant co-ordination of events was even worse. The people of Italy had no figurehead that they could see just someone who occasionally published their ideas.
There were no common aims between the states and the people. The cause, which people were trying to fight for, was not well known. In 1848 the revolutions had been so spontaneous that some historians point out that many people did not know about them. 1848 was the “Year of revolutions” right across the globe spanning from France and Germany to Mexico there were revolutions. Wealthy Italians for fear of missing the opportunity just jumped on the bandwagon without actually thinking or planning about it. The feeling of diversity was well summed up Cowie and Wolfson.
“People from North and South from town and countryside, might be foreigners to each other when they meet. There was, no strong communal feeling throughout the peninsula.” [Cowie and Wolfson Years of Nationalism]
Charles Albert while not a leading promoter of the unification was the king of Piedmont and with this came the responsibility that many people were expecting Piedmont to take a key role in the unification by leading the way. The reason for this is clear in that Piedmont was by far the richest and most advanced in terms of infrastructure than any of the other states. Albert started to introduce Liberal reforms and in doing so gave the people of Italy hope in the unification and set the way forward for the other states. Albert stated in 1848 “Italia Fera Dese” meaning Italy will make herself. In doing this he was turning down the French support, which he had been offered by Napoleon.
This common theme of believing that Italy should make herself was a weak one. The “thinkers” of this period were too ignorant in their “romantic” idea of unification that they did not overcome the reality that they were not strong enough too overcome the far superior armies of the foreign rulers, not to mention their idea that the peasants (making up over 80% of the population) should not take part. This was a key difference in why the early revolutions failed and why the later ones in 1848 plus were successful. Characters such as Cavour and Garibaldi realised that this was necessary for success, the feeling later on was summed up by Garibaldi.
“We should not forget the gratitude that we owe Napoleon and the French army for so many of their sons have been killed or maimed in the name of Italy.”
Between the numerous leaders there was no talking of how maybe to go about unification let about co-operation in trying to do it during the revolutions.
“The revolutions were concerned with being limited affairs in limited areas. There was little communications between the revolutionary’s in the different states and even less cooperation ” [Andrina Stile]
This was a common theme between the states and Stiles argues that the failure to take unified action was the reason for the ultimate downfall in the early revolutions. Such was the case when in 1830 Modena who was revolting against the foreign occupiers requested help from her neighbouring state Bologna who had been successful, the help never came and ultimately both states were suppressed with savage reprisals. Even worse was the case whereby in 1848 Naples after having a successful unification sent her own troops to suppress the revolution in Sicily, this was attacking the very same cause which they had fought for and in doing so left Naples unprotected. In doing so it gave the foreign powers more of an excuse to intervene and reclaim both states for fear of a domino effect in the whole region. However saying this there was some limited co-operation, in 1848 Naples, he Papal States and Lombardy Venetia came to the help of the Piedmontese in fighting Austria in 2 major battles. This was not enough and the later revolutions would prove that if there was cooperation there would have been more success.
The infrastructure of Italy was in very primitive stages compared to the rest of the world at the time and leaders at the time failed to realise that for unification to happen a good infrastructure was needed to help this process along. Aspects such as transport and communications were needed so that revolutions could be coordinated. Later leaders such as Cavour were prepared to put their dignity and pride down by highlighting the need for reforms and this is a contributing factor to why the revolutions later on were successful.
In the end it came down to Italy been to diverse a country in all aspects. The numerous leaders such as Mazzini and Gioberti were too ignorant in the self-beliefs that they were prepared to sit down and work out the way in which Italy could be best unified. It is interesting to note that note one of the thinkers during that time envisioned what method would be eventually successful in that the whole of Italy would be unified under a Piedmontese monarchy. The states were to diverse from each other and there was not a common goal for unification to happen yet. The states were to primitive to support a complicated unification process against foreign powers, which were far superior.
