Why Did The Revolutions Of 1820-1831 In The Italian States Fail?

resistance and served consequences to those who had upset the control and army of the state. This included prison sentences, torture and numerous executions. After the interference of Austria, Naples returned to order and the revolution had failed. This was again the case in Sicily, as control returned there also. This constant conciliation was arguably one of the more important factors in the breakdown of these insurrections.     While Austria had caused problems regarding the progression of revolutionists; there were other enigmas that had to be faced. One such reason would be the lack of strength, resources and extremists to help the revolutionist group’s causes. With organizations such as the Carbonari spread out across regions, they were sparse and lacked the power to make the changes they would have wanted. The government had a far less proportionate amount of weaponry and military resource than Austria and due to Austrian influence in the country; it would not have made sense to make the opposition stronger.     This can be linked to the lack of foreign assistance that Italy could call upon in this period. Italy couldn’t directly challenge Austria by themselves as they were divided, and easily controlled – Exactly how Klemens von Metternich wanted. Perhaps because of the magnitude of the task that the revolutionist groups faced, no country was particularly interested in helping them. It was hoped that the French might have provided military assistance after the uprisings of 1831, however this proved not to be the case. Help from abroad was hard to come by because as Austria were a prominent empire at the time, it was extremely unlikely they would end up on the defeated side of a battle. As well as that, Austria would not have looked upon the country that had assisted the Italian states favourably, so for a country such as France, it would only be creating problems that they did not need.     Not only were foreign countries unwilling to contribute to rebellions: Because revolutions were often a local affair to rise against circumstantial and distinctive issues (for example, King Ferdinand I increasing the Church’s power to censor challenging literature in Naples in 1818), it was a concern of that state and that state only – And as other neighbouring states were unaffected by these issues, they saw no reason to intervene. After all, different states had concerns of their own. An example of this would be the revolution of Modena in 1831, where Bologna refused to send help – they were suffering through the Papal restoration during this time. This prevented Modena from having the strength and resources to succeed in their attempt at a revolution.     While revolutionary organizations struggled to attract co-operation between bordering states, the organizations themselves had trouble in concerns to the amount of people involved in rebellions. Less than ten percent of the population were involved in these groups, the most popular of which was the Carbonari. Army officers, lawyers, teachers and doctors (or those in middle-class professions) were intellectuals, and many of these were idealists – they dreamt of unification and did all in their power to try and make it happen. However, approximately 90% of the population were lower class, being peasants and thieves. Some of these groups saw this class as one that would not contribute educated political ideas, so there were few overall that could generally make a difference.   The societies were a well-kept secret and because of this, there was limited mainstream input from others to help, in order to maintain concealment of their activity. This is another reason why all the revolutions typically fell, and why revolutionaries had to back down from the threat of Austrian power. Lack of popular support played a part in hindering many, if not all, the attempts at unification.     Another justification at the lack of self-exposure of these organizations is, as previously mentioned, that the support of the masses would not have helped. The leaders of these revolutionary groups feared that if everyone became involved, crooks might have taken advantage, leading to “Mob Rule” – a very uncomfortable situation. Yet as it was, they may have imposed their ideas but none were prosperous in the end.     It was fortunate for these groups that the crooks did not seize power of them – without a leader, they might sometimes have lacked direction and co-ordination and anything might have happened. Because there was no person at the front to guide, many revolutionaries had different aims that they wanted to achieve within the Italian states. The Adelfi, for example, were fragmented, and even with a leader, which goes to show how difficult it was to organize the people.     Because some had different aims and beliefs to others, this meant that one rebellion might not be met with the full support of a revolutionist. This arguably resulted in a lesser degree of commitment and therefore, not enough effort was made to make some revolutions successful.     After addressing all of the factors in how the revolutions of 1820-1831 were unsuccessful, I can come to a conclusion on what I believe were the most significant. There were minor problems, such as fear of a “Mob Rule” and the lack of leadership, greater problems, such as the co-operation of organizations, the lack of support and absence of foreign assistance, and significant complications, like the government’s insufficient military resources, and Austrian intervention and influence, particularly that of Metternich. In conclusion, I believe that Austria was the clearest reason for the failure of the revolutions. Firstly, they had control over the Italian states. They were states for a reason – to fragment organizations such as the Carbonari and the Adelfi and keep them weak to prevent outbursts of rebellion. Secondly, it did not matter if a revolution was beginning to look like it could end successfully. The monarch of the state (for example Ferdinand I or Victor Emmanuel I) had the authority to allow Austria and Metternich to intervene wherever necessary to quell the threat of an uprising. Finally, the Austrian empire was powerful and the Italian revolutionists had no chance of fighting against this if intervention had been called for.