What did nationalism mean to the revolutionaries in Italian and German lands in 1848

        The revolutionary events that rocked the political foundations of Germany and Italy in 1848 were not seen as a direct result of nationalist groups because at the time no such groups existed. Instead the “nationalist goals…were articulated and furthered by the liberal and radical movements of political opposition”. The fact that nationalism was divided between these two contrasting groups can help explain the reasoning behind why the revolutionary demands, at least immediately after 1848, failed to show any progress. For example the liberals in Germany wanted national unity to be accomplished gradually and without the use of violence. Their argument was established on the progression of the “development of existing institutions” such as the Zollverein (to which most German states belonged), and the German Confederation. Radicals (as the majority often did in the 19th century) instead chose to instigate violence in order to promote their views, resulting often in loosing much support from the general population due to their violent acts of aggression.

        The essence of Italian nationalism was rooted in the establishment of the cultural renaissance known as the Risorgimento, which provided “the intellectual springs of…nationalism…directed at the Hasburgs”. Yet the revolutionaries failed to develop a united effort to unify Italy. This was partially due to the inherent differences and divisions between the nationalists, e.g. between the liberals and the radicals, and also their aims of unification.

        It is here perhaps that an examination of how important nationalism was to the revolutionaries in 1848 is required, in order to understand why the unification of the Italian and German states did not emerge until at least a decade after the revolutions. Certainly in Italy nationalism had been the ideal of many intellectuals and liberals since the early 19th century, and it was as much present in Germany where the general population held a similar culture and language for decades.  However by the mid 1840’s it was clear that the economic condition of Europe was deteriorating, causing strain on the political control of the governments. The extensive agricultural crisis, accompanied by the financial and industrial decline, saw rapid price increases in grain and bread, which drastically affected the living conditions of the urban and rural population, and a rise in unemployment caused by a lack of confidence in investment. While these events alone did not start the revolution, they held an indirect effect and served to cause paralysis to the governing establishments.

        It can be argued that since the concept of nationalism and identity had originated at the beginning of the 19th century, and the economic deterioration of Europe began in the 1840’s, nationalism thus was a long term factor in the 1848 revolutions, and the economic-cum-social factor became the trigger cause. Nevertheless national identity for the revolutionaries did play an influential role; the majority of the armed uprisings were led by the radical nationalists (such as Mazzini and the Bandiera brothers in Italy), and the idea of liberal nationalism influenced much of the urban population during the mid 18th century.

        Although both the Italian and German revolutions of 1848 failed (at least in terms of unifying the disparate states), the legacy of nationalism lived on. This became evident with the unification of Italy in 1861 and later in Germany in 1871. However, when analysing the dates of unification of Italy and Germany, and comparing them with the extent of nationalistic activity and the levels of nationalism in each country beforehand, it would seem that Germany should have been united much earlier than Italy, as it already held many of the pre-requisites for a ‘nation’. This raises the question as to why Italy unified earlier than Germany. One possible answer is that the Italian nationalists were more radical in their approaches and views, thus being able to lead an insurgency earlier than its relatively more peaceful counterpart. Thus it is possible to suggest that perhaps nationalism was a vital part to the political programme of the radical revolutionaries, which also helps explain why the close link between nationalism and liberalism subsided once the 1848 revolutions came to an end.

        In conclusion therefore it can be argued that whilst nationalism meant a great deal to the liberal and radical revolutionaries during the events of 1848, it appeared to play a background role to the revolutions, which seemed to be foreshadowed by the economic depression of Europe, and the decline of political influence of its rulers. However, post-1848 saw nationalism split from liberalism and instead forged together with, in the case of Italy, radical approaches (highlighted in the earlier unification of Italy than Germany); and in the case of Germany, essentially racial and anti-democratic characteristics. Somewhat ironically nationalism, instead of being a tool used by the liberals to promote national identity and assemble the population, became an instrument of conservative politicians to “justify the continuation of monarchical power and to promote war”.