How far do you agree that the revolutions within the Italian states failed because they were too localised? I acknowledge that to some extent localism played a role in the failure in the 1820’s and 30’s revolutions within the Italian states. However I also recognise that there were other factors that played major if not bigger roles, such as the minimal amount of public support or the lack of involvement from the French. However I do believe it was the involvement of Austria that played the greatest role in the failure of the revolutions. In the context of the question, localism played an irrefutably large role in the failure of the revolutions.
During the twenty-nine year period between 1820 and 1849 there were three widespread attempts for Italian revolutionaries to try and unite the country and to get rid of the foreign influences they had. The three periods were 1820-21, 1831 and 1848; in all three of these uprisings there was a very clear show of Austrian interference to put down and undermine the revolutionists. While there were various other reasons as to why these revolutions failed, such as a lack of national communication and the differences in people wanting different things, we cannot deny that the Austrian interferences was the main reason why all three uprisings failed. The first potential uprising the Italian revolutionists tried was in 1820-21, when the government in Naples collapsed Metternich called a meeting in Troppau, it was called the Congress of Troppau. Metternich aimed to stop the revolution in Naples from spreading to other parts of the country, as it was obvious, as it was the first major uprising that it had the potential to be big enough to damage the Austrian rule in Italy, King Ferdiand had promised a constitution which was not being granted when they wanted and General Pepe was appointed as leader of the revolutionists and he was to be made leader of the new government.
Before 1815, Italy was ruled over by Napoleon and the country had a hugely influenced by France and it’s regimes. Many historians argue that the period of Napoleonic reign was the closest Italy came to recognizing itself as a country, with a nationalist spirit slowly developing. However, this spirit was crushed by Metternich at the Vienna Settlement. His desire was to restore the old pre-1976 order, imposing a Conservative settlement and therefore crushing any hopes of liberal or nationalist reforms across Europe. Some of the key aims of the Vienna Settlement were to restore the ‘legitimate rulers’, to maintain the ‘balance of power’ in Europe and indeed to place Austria in a position of control over Italy.
A war was planned between Austria and a mixture of French and Piedmontese troops, with a hope for victory in favour of Piedmont. If this victory occurred, the Austrian territories in Northern Italy would join with Piedmont to form the Kingdom of Upper Italy. Cavour was successful in provoking a war with Austria in 1859 but things seemed doomed when Piedmont could only produce 20,000 men with Austria having an army of around 110,000. This is where Napoleon kept to his word, producing 200,000 soldiers, forming the majority of the army due to fight Austria. With French intervention, Austria seemed to worry after already being beaten at the battles of Magenta and Solferino.
However, the Prussian army managed to defeat the liberals who were then arrested throughout the whole of Germany. This weakened Austria’s influence in Germany for two reasons. Firstly, the fact that Prussia’s army defeated the liberals and stopped the revolutions showed that they were willing to take action and that they were actually quite powerful – strong enough to stop revolutions and uprisings throughout Germany. Secondly, the revolutions affected Austria’s political dominance in Germany because Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor had resigned and the new Emperor was more focused on revolutions outside of Germany, particularly in Italy. This showed that Austria wasn’t stable and was prepared to do as much as Prussia.
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
It can be suggested that Mazzini’s ideas were a contributing reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy in the years 1815-1848. However, it is clear that Mazzini’s ideas weren’t the main reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy. Mazzini’s appeal may have been very narrow and idealistic because of its revolutionary nature; there are other factors that also need to be examined. The most important factor would be the powerful influence of Austria. Others that can be considered to be the reason for slow progress are the nature of the states at this time with reactionary governments and their leaders, regionalism, lack of mass support and Mazzini’s ideas.
One of the most important reasons as to why the early revolutions did not prove successful when uniting Italy was because each revolutionaries in the different states had different aims. There are many examples of this, e.g. in areas such as Naples, there were many financial difficulties after 1815. The Bourbon Monarchy had to pay for the Austrian occupations as well as reparations to Austria; moreover the treaty of Vienna meant that Ferdinand I had to pay for the compensation to the French viceroy which lead to cutbacks in the government spending. This undoubtedly led to widespread unhappiness in Naples.
When Napoleon came to rule in these areas he realized it was very challenging to rule when their society and politics were so different. So, in each of these places he grouped together some of the kingdoms. Inconspicuously, he introduced Nationalism to both the Italians and Germans. The Italians realized what a great nation they could form if they belonged together. This revelation also occurred to the Confederation of the Rhine, which was the name that Napoleon gave to the newly grouped German states.
How far were the divisions amongst its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist Rule 1881-1905 In the years 1881-1905 the Tsarist regime was faced large amounts of opposition from many people. The lower classes caused uprisings, their aims to remove the Tsar from power, while some educated middle class went on strike in an attempt to reform the regime. Many people were revolting and 3 main political groups emerged. The divides in these political groups were heavily responsible for the survival of the Tsarist rule, however there were other factors responsible such as the repression in Russia, which lead to the eventual removal of all opposition groups, and the loyalty of the Tsars supporters, which meant that his power was still stronger than the opposition he was facing. One of the main reasons the Tsarist rule continued during the tome 1881 until 1905 was due to the splits in the political groups.