To what extent did the revolutions of 1820-21 and 1831-32 fail due to the role of Austria? Between 1820 to 1831 there were five different revolutions in Italy, in Naples, Sicily, Piedmont, Parma and Modena and the Papal States. Many different factors contributed to the failure of these revolutions including, the role of Austria, the lack of mass support, the weaknesses of the groups themselves and the role of the monarchs. In my opinion it was Austria’s involvement which was the most significant factor in causing the revolutions to fail. The fact that Austria had influenced Italy so much before the revolutions contributed hugely to the failure of the revoltutions.
To what extent had the pressing political problems of the 1800s been solved by 1914? After Italy’s unification in 1870 there were immediate political issues facing the new united Italy that needed to be addressed. The government that was formed was incredibly unorganized and not many people knew who was in charge at times, not only this but many of the politicians in power were incredibly corrupt and would happily take bribes, launder money and other underhanded, dishonest actions which would have been frowned upon had people known. The new united Italy was a liberal state which was actually one of the first of its kind, the Liberals had managed to oust the ruling families of each individual state, the old aristocracy and most importantly the pope. However this “liberal” Italy was actually more conservative at heart, the country was a monarchy and not a republic.
Liberal Italy faced many problems in this period if it was from corruption in the government or catholic hostility. This showed that the government ( king ) was weak as political and religious opponents were ankle to challenge. The king had most of the power and was able to pass whatever law he wanted no matter how ridicules it was, Italy AT this time was meant to be liberated but with a king being able to do what he wanted it sounds very much like a dictatorship. The government also had substantial amounts of power but the problem was that they were elected by the king. This mean that the government mainly consisted of people with similar ideology as the king.
The extent of unity within Italy varied immensely between 1896 and 1914, for example in the late 1890’s the North-South divide was undeniable and acted as the socio-economic and political split that separated the country entirely and questioned any possible solidarity within Italy. Unfortunately Italy’s government was equally unstable during this time which is evident as she had 20 different Prime Ministers leading the country between 1896 and 1914; this suggested that no successful decisions could be made. Although, in 1903 this changed with the introduction of Giovanni Giolitti who brought in many reforms that made the Liberal institutions far more secure through changes such as the introduction of real wages which in turn boosted the economy. Personally, I feel that despite Italy’s political and economic growth between 1896 and 1914 the extent of the unification remained questionable, therefore in the following essay I will be examining the key features of this time period to come to a reliable conclusion. Italy was not a democracy in 1896 so the right to vote was held only by the rich due to the parliament being dominated by wealthy landowners, businessmen and professional classes; this resulted in the masses having no say in the Italian government and suggested a low level of equality which consequently led to mass levels of unrest.
January 2012 Why did Piedmont become, and remain, the driving force towards closer Italian unity in the years 1848–61? To what extent can Italy be described as completely unified by 1870? June 2012 How far do you agree that the failure of Italian revolutionaries in the years 1820–49 was primarily due to a lack of popular support? How far do you agree that Cavour made the most significant individual contribution to the process of Italian unification in the years 1852–70? January 2013 How significant was
To what extent does disappointment of the outcome of the First World War explain growing support for the Italian Fascist Party in the years 1919-22? After the First World War, Italy found itself in a series of crises. Economically and politically the war left the country weak, thus, giving way for a powerful figure to rise into power. However, it is important to note that Mussolini and the Italian Fascist Party did gain support in overwhelming floods and in fact, it was not until 1922, when King Emmanuel III offered the position of Prime Minister to Mussolini was their popularity secured. Long running weaknesses within the original political system aided in developing support for Mussolini, along with his ability to change the party’s policies to accommodate all members of society.
For Italy the most obvious allies would be the Austria-Hungary and Germany as they formed a triple alliance in 1911. However they eventually joined the Triple Entente with Britain, France and Russia as they had little to gain from the tripe alliance but where promised they could expand their empire and so on the 26th April 1915, Italy signed the Secret Treaty of London, committing them to the Triple Entente, but Italy didn't officially enter the war until 20th May 1915 when the Italian Parliament, influenced by the King and the Prime Minister, granted consent. During the next 4 years 5,000,000 conscripted, most of them peasants from the South who resented fighting for northern land which they didn't care about. By the end of the war there were 600,000 dead and a further 1,000,000 injured I think this was mainly to do with lack of experience and poor leadership. One example of this is the Battle of Caporetto in October 1917 where in the first few weeks 10,000 Italian troops were dead 300,000 were wounded and 300,00 captured by the Austrians.
Hence Italy was economically and politically fragmented. Therefore , in the years 1896-1814, Italy was disunited to a great extent, both economically and politically. Italy was clearly disunited politically in the years 1896-1914, which we see from the various different groups/ parties that were formed during the time to oppose Giolitti’s government. During these years, many different groups spread in Italy like the socialists, anarchists and Marxists. All these groups ultimately meant more hard work for Giolitti, as they all opposed the liberal state and the government of Giolliti and hence wanted reform.
By that time the political situation was chaotic, after the Paris conference very little beneficial resolutions were made for Italy. The next five governments were ineffective and couldn’t solve economic problems which were making peoples life poorer. The promise made people start supporting him, and his ideals of anti-communism and trade union power helped him because by that time there were a lot of strikes from this people and they had a lot of opponents. The church, big businesses, middle classes, and army were some of the strongest sectors of the society that supported him. He was seen as an applicator of law and order, which was a very important issue in that moment where strikes and social and politic conflict occurred.
Women were very low key and inferior to men. The Roman Republic started at 509 BCE, with the expulsion of the seventh and last King of Rome; King Tarquin. In the Republic the people have the right to vote and elect officials and it is based on rule of law with constitution. The Republic did not stay for too long it slowly decline as problems arises. The Republic had a lot of failures such as the senates not able to agree with each other, which slowed them to respond and provide the needs of the people.