National Unity in Italy

In 1815, Italy had just emerged from Napoleonic rule and was completely divided into nine separate states; with different rulers and different cultures. By 1848, these states had progressed towards, albeit merely to a limited extent, some kind of national unity – national unity meaning the feeling of being united and together as one country.It could be argued that the lack of success in the reception of Giuseppe Mazzini’s ideas was the most substantial reason explaining this slow progress; though some would say that it was mostly down to factors such as the power and influence of Austria, poor communication within Italy, or its weak military. Through analysing the evidence, it would appear that the main reason for the slow progress of national unity within this time frame was poor communication.The limited appeal of Mazzini’s ideas was a moderate reason for why progress of national unity was slow.

His ideology had a heavily religious side, which was therefore unattractive to the atheists or agnostics born under Napoleon’s Church-and-Pope-free rule. As well as this, it caused clashes with other patriots who felt it was in the nationalist cause’s better interest to bend their ideologies towards economic benefits, in order for the movement to appeal to peasants.Additionally, Mazzini made it clear that he desired a democratic system for a single Italy – an idea that would have horrified and been shunned by the aristocrats and those who held positions of power in individual states, as this high status would be lost to those who were voted in. Another section of Mazzini’s ideology which was not well-received by aristocrats and wealthier members of society was his egalitarianism; his desire to end poverty, redistribute wealth through taxation, and establish free and compulsory education.

These policies were obviously unpopular amongst such social groups; as well as resulting in their personal financial loss, it would cause a reformation in the social class norm – being educated would lead to new opportunities for peasants, along with their increase in wealth due to taxation. This limited ideological appeal and therefore lack of support from non-theists, other patriots and higher social classes would indeed have meant that progress towards national unification was not totally accelerated.However, as these ideas would have also gained membership to the nationalist cause from other fractions of people, it is unlikely to be the main reason. The limited appeal of Mazzini’s ideas (to some groups of people) merely contributed somewhat as to why progress was slow; and therefore can be seen to be a conditional factor, rather than a contingent one. Mazzini’s nationalist ideas were not only unpopular with members of the Italian states – Austria too opposed such ideology of national unity for Italy. Austria was a significant factor in the slow progress of national unity following the Congress of Vienna, 1815.

At this congress, it was decided that the states of Lombardy, Tuscany, Parma and Modena would be ruled directly by members of the Austrian Habsburg Royal family, and Venice too would be occupied by Austria. This meant that these states were heavily influenced by Austria and its culture, causing obvious differences and divides between these and the other non-Austrian led states of Piedmont etc. These variations in regional identity, language and influence along Italy decreased the likelihood of any imminent ‘coming-togetherness’ i. e.

unification in Italy.Additionally, Austria played a massive role in the failed revolutions of 1820-21 and 1831-32. These revolutions were mainly with the intention of introducing new leaders (in Modena and Parma removing the Austrian ones implemented) and reforming constitutions within the states. The intervention of Metternich and the Austrian army squashed the first wave of revolutions in Naples and Piedmont, and then a decade later in Modena, Parma and The Papal State also. This both quelled the movements towards a reformed, internally led and therefore more nationalist Italy, and established the power and control Austria held over it.

Austria was as a result dominating and dividing Italy; physically preventing it from uniting, meaning that there was a lack of a popular ‘Italian’ culture and sentiment. As a result, it is evident that the presence of Austria was a significant reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy. Austria’s domination through use of its powerful and violent army highlights another of the factors which contributed to slow unification: Italy’s weak military. This was a considerably significant reason for why progress was limited in this time period.

The revolutions of 1820-21 and 1831-32 were crushed failures largely because the Italian revolutionaries had barely anything to put up against the ruthlessly strong Austrians. In the Piedmont revolution of 1821, Charles Albert (the illegitimate monarch supporting the revolution) fled Turin; the liberals of the revolution were alone in having to fight to defend their new constitution against the Austrians. Needless to say, due to the lack of substantial numbers and military-trained individuals they were defeated instantly, and Piedmont was occupied by some of the Austrian army until 1823.In the 1831 revolutions of Modena and Parma, the two states actually made an effort to unite for the purpose of the revolution; as they made contact and appointed a joint army commander.

However, they had little time to organise and within a month the Austrian army had arrived and again quickly defeated the revolutionaries. Evidently the Italian military was limited and weak; due to the lack of numbers of men who were actually trained, solid unity of state armies and good organisation.It is arguable that had the Italian military been stronger and more powerful, the battles against Austria and therefore the revolutions could have been more successful, meaning Italy could have progressed towards national unification quicker. Consequentially, the Italian military played an important part in why national unification did not happen faster. The absence of unification and organisation in the Italian army bears resemblance to the various nationalist groups of the time.

These possessed extremely poor communication; a final and most vital component as to why national unity took so long to come about. The three major groups who desired a united Italy were the Carbonari, Adelfi and Neo-Guelphs. There were communication problems within these individual societies; such as the divisions in the Carbonari and their lack of clearly set-out policies - in the case of Naples in 1820, the lack of discussed and decided-on policies for the new constitution contributed to the breakdown and failure of the revolution.Had this revolution been successful, it would have been a precedent and breakthrough towards a reformed and independent Italy; making unification a more imminent possibility - proving that poor communication hindered this unification. More impactful, though, was the fact that these nationalist groups failed to communicate and unite with each other; and were instead sporadic and fragmented.

They remained independent due to differences in political agendas, despite sharing the ultimate aim of unifying the states of Italy into one nation.It seems most likely that had these societies worked together as one strong nationalist movement, the effect they would have had on progress towards national unification would have been much more powerful; as the revolutions, campaigns and general raising of awareness would have had greater organisation and chance of success. This therefore would have quickened the process, rather than the fragmentation making it slow and disconnected; indicating that poor communication was a crucial and main reason for the slow progress of national unification, as it can explain reasons for others such as why the Italian military was weak.Overall, it is evident that although Mazzini’s limited ideological appeal did contribute to a moderate extent, poor communication in and among nationalist groups was most significant in explaining why the progress of national unification was slow from 1815-48.

The revolutions which, if successful, would have been a major stepping-stone towards unification failed because of a lack of communication and organisation between these groups. Poor communication can also partially explain why the Italian military was in such a bad condition; states did not bring together their individual armies to fight Austria during the revolutions.Both of these factors are larger explanations for why the unification progress was stunted than the limited appeal of Mazzini’s ideas, because they can explain why the revolutions moving towards national unity were failures. Austria’s influence through its rulers of separate states, leading therefore to regional identity differences and divisions, too was a more substantial reason for the weak progress than Mazzini’s ideas; as Austrian influence physically divided Italy which therefore made national unity impossible.

Mazzini’s broadcasted ideology may not have appealed to all but unlike the other three components it did nothing to physically prevent the progress of unification; it did indeed attract some groups of people to the nationalist cause and therefore did quite the reverse. This proves that it is impossible for the limited appeal of Mazzini’s ideas to be the main reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy in the years 1815-48.