Why Did the Italian Revolts of 1820/21 and 1830-32 Achieve so Little?

985 Words4 Pages
Italy hasn’t always been one unified country, and before 1861 the country was several states: Modena, Parma, Papal States, Venetia, Tuscany, Naples and Piedmont. However, when Napoleon invaded in 1804, he united the states and this was an idea that many people liked- which eventually lead to revolts to bring all of Italy together as one collective state. There was many issues with these revolts that made them achieve so little but what where they? For most states once Napoleon was exiled, the old rulers that were reinstated decided to go back in time and forget the French invasion even happened; only Tuscany and Parma were progressive and adapted Napoleon’s changes to their own styles. In Piedmont, King Victor Emmanuel I returned and took on a reactionary policy; he even went as far as destroying roads and gaslights that Napoleon had put in place- he was very much regressive. This was similar to the situation in Naples and Sicily, as King Ferdinand restricted his people and slowly made the state more and more under developed as public work was stopped. In 1820, news of the Spanish revolution encouraged the people to take action in Naples. King Victor fled the country when some of the army took sides with the rebels such as General Pepe. A new government was then appointed and it seemed that the revolution was a success Over in Sicily, prisoners were released and offices were burned as there was a demand for constitution- finally the revolutionaries sent the Neapolitan governor home and took over the city. Unfortunately, King Ferdinand was called to a meeting, at Laibach where Metternich offered him his power back and help to crush the rebels. It was accepted and unfortunately the revolution in both Naples and Sicily was over. The equivalent happened in Piedmont as the opposition to King Victor were destroyed by the Austrian army. Each revolution in 1820/1 and
Open Document