Piedmont was also defeated at Novara (23rd March 1849). Following a renewed outbreak of violence in Vienna in March 1849, Charles Albert again marched his troops into Lombardy. The King was heartbroken when his troops were defeated again and abdicated in favour of his son Victor Emmanuel II. This again, shows that Austrian military superiority was a still one of the main obstacles to Unification at this point in time.
Later, when Mazzini arrived in Rome in March 1849 to take part in the new republican government, he was elected as head of the Triumvirante, a group of three men to rule the city. However the Austrians aimed to crush this kingdom and the Pope appealed to France, Spain and Naples. Austrian forces approached Rome from the north, Neapolitans approached from the south and 2,000 French troops under commander Oudinot was sent to destroy the Roman Republic. This implies that Austria was an obstacle to Unification to a large extent but the Pope and French intervention were equally other obstacles as well. The French intervened because Louis Napoleon Bonaparte felt he needed to please Roman Catholic interest back home and consolidate his power base in France. This foreign venture would satisfy Roman Catholicism. As a result, the Pope was restored by foreign intervention. This degraded the revolutions and meant liberal hopes for national unity were shattered. There are various contributing factors to the failure of the uprisings.
While the military superiority of Austria was one of the most important factors in the failure of the revolutions, it is not the main obstacle to Italian Unification. The Austrians were larger and better equipped, they had a better command structure, tactical skills and technology and this did ultimately mean that the old regimes were restored. The Austrians held the famous "Quadrilateral" of Verona, Peschiera, Legnago and Mantua, all places of great strength. This gave their army a link with Austria so that they could receive reinforcements. The discipline of their troops and the military skill of their commander, Radetzky, could not be equalled by the Piedmontese. However there were other obstacles.
There was a lack of external aid. Charles Albert was determined to fight Austria without foreign support, believing in the maxim "Italia fara da se". The Lombards had been anxious to enlist the help of the French, but France was discouraged by Britain from playing any active part in the rebellion. There was a lack of unity and organisation, lack of outstanding statesmen or generals, opposition of the Pope and the intervention of the French in Rome. This tells us that Austria was still a major obstacle, but now there were many more obstacles to Italian Unification as well.
The Italian failures of 1848-9 convinced Cavour that Italy could not achieve unity without foreign help. We cannot take Cavour at face value, he was a Piedmontese patriot at heart and not an Italian patriot. Is Cavour fighting for Unification or the practicalities of Piedmont? From Cavour's domestic measures, he aimed to make Piedmont economically progressive, politically liberal and financially stable. In this way he hoped that Piedmont would be strong enough to assume the leadership of Italy in the event of another war with Austria. He was not really concerned with the south of Italy. If Piedmont was going to lead the Unification process, Cavour could be a potential obstacle, but probably less so than Austria. He believed Britain was sympathetic to the Italian cause, but was not likely to render material assistance. Her diplomats believed that Austrian power in Central Europe was necessary to preserve the balance of power between France and Russia.
Cavour wanted to prevent any chance of Austria consolidating her power in Italian affairs. Napoleon III, the champion of nationality, seemed a likely ally to help Piedmont overturn the status quo. At this point in time, I do not think Austria was the main obstacle to Unification. Instead, Napoleon's interest in the affairs of northern, central and southern Italy would be a major future obstacle for Italian Unification.
Napoleon hoped that French influence would replace that of Austria in northern Italy, and also that France's Alpine frontier might be restored by the acquisition of Nice and Savoy. In Central and southern Italy, Napoleon had no wish to unite Italy as many liberals hoped. He wanted to keep Italy weak and divided, and, except as far as the north was concerned. Napoleon relied on the support of the clericals at home. He therefore supported the Pope's position in central Italy even though this presented an obstacle to Italian unity after 1848. King Ferdinand of the Two Sicilies was supported by the Tsar, with whom Napoleon wanted to remain on good terms. Napoleon therefore opposed any action likely to harm the position of the Bourbon monarch. Again, King Ferdinand was an oppressive ruler who needed to be disposed off. He was an obstacle to Italian Unification but probably to a much lesser extent than Austria and even Napoleon.
Napoleon invited Cavour to a meeting on 20th July 1858 at Plombières. He suggested that a northern Italian state under Victor Emmanuel and a central Italian federation under the presidency of the Pope should be formed.
Victor Emmanuel, like Cavour, was not ambitious to create a unified Italy. He was only interested in north Italy. He could also be another obstacle to Italian Unification. Napoleon began saying that he had decided to support Piedmont with all his power in a war against Austria, provided the war was undertaken for a non-revolutionary end which could be justified in the eyes of diplomatic circles and still more in the eyes of French and European public opinion. France would therefore support Piedmont, go to war on its behalf, only on conditions that it was not for revolutionary purposes and provided the rest of Italy doesn't revolt. This is clear evidence that he believes Italy should not be unified and is evidence that he was as much an obstacle to Unification as Austria was. A northern kingdom would be created, and Papal sovereignty maintained. Piedmont would gain Lombardy and Venetia in the event of the Austrian defeat.
After Austria declared war, thereby appearing the aggressor, and were eventually defeated, tells us that Austrian military strenght was weakened. Austria, originally the main obstacle to Italian Unification, had less influence than it had done previously. Austria was no longer the main obstacle like it had been in the 1830s and 1840s.
Austria was now an obstacle to Unification to a much lesser extent. This is because the military weakness of Austria was soon revealed. Important factors contributing to her defeat included;
Poor commanders, the Emperor Francis Joseph took personal charge of the army. He relied for advice on the courtier-soldier Count Grunne, who had no combat experience. There was also poor strategy. Austria delayed invading Piedmont in force until 29th April. This gave Napoleon time to move troops into Italy, making maximum use of the recently completed railway system. The Austrians were confident of victory, and neglected to organise an adequate supply system (there was no railway between Trieste and Venice) and to acquire accurate knowledge of enemy strength and capabilities. The Austrians had insufficient forces and poor morale as well.
After preliminary skirmishes, two bloody battles were fought at Magenta (4th June) and Solferino (24th June). Losses were heavy on both sides but they were narrow victories for the French and Italians, who then conquered the whole of Lombardy. The Austrians retreated into the Quadrilateral. Even after this defeat, we cannot underestimate the Austrians. Austria was still in quite a dominant position in Italy. She was still militarily strong, controlling the Quadrilateral without having to defend the awkward Plain of Lombardy. After the preliminary peace terms discussed at Villafranca, Austria was to retain Venetia. This state was to form part of the new confederation.
On balance, I do think Austria was an obstacle but not the main obstacle to Italian Unification. There were many obstacles in the Risorgimento. For example, no great demand existed among Italians for unity. They were not encouraged to see Italy as a whole entity, and considerable apathy existed. Some factors accounting for the lack of feeling for unity and which were barriers to Unification also include; Tradition of localism and separatism. The "way of life" differed greatly between southern and northern Italy. Feuds and general dissension seemed more characteristic of Italian life than united activity. There was no national flag. Thus the consciousness of a common nationality was little developed. Metternich wrote: "In Italy provinces are against provinces, towns against towns, families against families, and - men against men."
Examples of the divisions include the numerous sovereign states: there had been little co-operation between Italian states in the past. Often local rulers had sacrificed national aspirations for self-interest and had sought foreign aid to help win their domestic quarrels. The states were used to a separate existence and had differing interests, organisation and loyalties. Geographically, though Italy formed a unity on the map, there were many natural barriers, particularly mountain ranges, and too few roads. This hindered concerted action. In terms of
Administration, there were different customs houses for the various states, and there was no uniformity in the currencies, weights and measures, and other necessary aspects of organisation.
Italy was a backward area and suffered from autocratic rule, especially in the Papal States and the Two Sicilies. No state had a parliament, and there was no semblance of popular participation in government. Restored princes abolished all constitutions and many laws and institutions of French origin.
Local rulers, with the exception of those of Piedmont, opposed any plans for unity since they were likely to result in the loss of their powers and privileges. Even in Piedmont the aristocracy continued to exercise feudal rights over the peasantry.
There were different schools of thought. Italy represented several myths based on past traditions. Italians were aware that Italy represented to some the glories of the Roman Republic or Empire, to others the medieval free city-states or the power of the Pope. In the period 1815-48 there were three main schools of thought on how to achieve unity, but all three groups disliked each other and had no wish to co-operate. There was a diversity of opinion within the three main Nationalist organisations about the form which a united Italy should take caused
widespread confusion that was a major barrier to Italian Unification.
Finally the Pope had temporal power over central Italy. He was supported not only by loyal Catholics in Italy but by France and Austria. He opposed any movement in Italy likely to threaten his authority in the Papal States, and his territory constituted a wedge between the northern and southern parts of Italy. With such obstacles present
it is difficult to believe that Austria was the main obstacle to Italian Unification between 1830-1859. As time progressed, Austrian influence decreased and it gradually became much less of a threat or obstacle to Italian Unification than it had been previously.
