Download 2.2 The process of unification

The 1848 revolutions
and
its aftermath:
the clue
to German and Italian unifications?
A comparative study
Maureen Sluiter
0026905
Supervisors:
Dr. mr. Lantink
Prof. dr. Prak
0
Contents
INTRODUCTION
Argument
Method
The Italian peninsual before 1848
The German territory before the 1848 revolutions
The middle classes
2
5
7
9
11
CHAPTER I
Italy and Germany: what happened in the revolutionary years?
1.1
The Italian states and 1848/1849
1.2
The 1848/1849 revolutions and the German question
13
23
CHAPTER II
Italian preparation towards unification
2.1
The 1850s: Piedmont is taking the initiative
2.2
The process of unification
32
37
CHAPTER III
The solution of the German question and unification
3.1
The 1850s and 1860s: the battle for supremacy
3.2
The process of unification
43
48
CHAPTER IV
Germany and Italy compared:
The processes from 1848 until unification
54
CHAPTER V
Conclusion
65
EPILOGUE
77
LITERATURE
1
Introduction
Argument
The 1848 revolutions and its aftermath: the clue to the German and Italian unifications? A
comparative study. The title immediately demonstrates the focus of the thesis but it also
demands some explanation. I have chosen to focus on the 1848 revolutions if they could and
would explain the processes of unification in the following decade(s). One of the problems
with this argument immediately emerges: the so-called failure of the 1848 revolutions and as
such the impossibility of the German and Italian populations to form a nation-state from
below. However, the first remark needs to be made because the idea of the impossibility of
the formation of a nation-state from below, occurs more often in German literature1 than in
Italian literature where with the idea of Risorgimento the necessity of constructing a nationstate has been widely accepted.2 But to return to the revolutions; I will exactly focus on the
role of 1848 within the process of unification; what had been the contribution of the 1848
revolutions to the unifications of Germany and Italy? Should the revolutions be considered a
failure or could they perhaps be called a success because both the Italian and the German
unification followed upon the revolutions within two decades. The next question to be
answered in this thesis will than be: had the unifications of both Germany and Italy been
accomplished from above or had they been stimulated by events or elements from below?
With the focus on the revolutions of 1848 I will test whether 1848 had been the necessary step
for the German and Italian states in their process of unification.
The 1848 revolutions have also been called and emphasized as bourgeois revolutions with a
large influence of the liberal and national thought.3 Therefore my point of view on both 1848
and the processes of unification will have the middle classes, liberalism and nationalism as
guidelines but moreover as possible explanations for the central issues mentioned above.
What had actually been the role and importance of the bourgeoisie, liberalism and nationalism
in 1848 as well as in the processes of unification? The central point of the thesis will be
formed by these three elements that had been so interdependent, although with the following
research we will have to establish how much exactly. Had it been the strong state or the three
elements to form the basis for unification? Put in another way: had it been unification from
above or had it been accomplished from below? And what had been the role of the 1848
revolutions in this process?
To be able to give a good answer to the questions mentioned above (the strong state or the
three elements as decisive for the process of unification) the strong state as such should also
be taken in consideration. Therefore I will use the theory of Charles Tilly. 4 This theory will be
used as a theoretical background and the possibility to put the research and the focus on the
middle classes, liberalism and nationalism in another perspective. Although Tilly does not
discuss the formation of nation-states, it still serves as a background because it does discuss
the state processes and interactions in Europe considering the strong states.
1
See: Wehler, Hans-Ulrich Deutsche gesellschaftsgeschichte München: Beck, 1989
For example: Beales, Derek Il Risorgimento e l’unificazione dell’Italia Bologna: il Mulino, 2005
3
Langewiesche, Dieter Liberalism and the middle classes in Europe in: Kocka, Jürgen Mitchell, Alan
Bourgeois society in nineteenth century Europe Oxford: Berg, 1993 p. 40-70
4
Tilly, Charles Coercion, Capital, and European states, AD 990-1992 Cambridge: Blackwell, 1993
2
2
The argument of Tilly mainly focuses on war as the driving spirit of a state, based on capital
and coercion. My interest is whether this argument could also be applied to nineteenth century
Germany and Italy. Had it not been economic development, liberalism, nationalism and the
bourgeoisie rather than the strong state as the driving forces in the state formation of Germany
and Italy? Or had it, exactly as Tilly discusses, been the expansive politics of a few states to
lead to nation-states? What had than been the influence of liberalism, nationalism and the
middle classes? Does the necessity or presence of a strong state explain the failure or perhaps
success of the 1848 revolutions? These questions and the aspect of a strong state will provide
the possibility to come to a balanced answer on the importance of the three elements and the
importance of the revolutions of 1848. These questions and the theory of Tilly will be taken in
consideration in the conclusion.
A specific focus on the importance and necessity of the 1848 revolutions for the processes of
unification as well as a comparison between Germany and Italy on this matter has not been
done many times before and therefore I would like to try it. Nevertheless, there are some
general theses that need to be taken in consideration. In both Germany and Italy the
importance of the statesmen (Bismarck of Prussia and Cavour of Piedmont) has often been
emphasized, especially in literature about Italy5 but to avoid this emphasis and focus on the
processes, I have chosen to not use any biographies in this thesis. The personalities of this
period will therefore not have any specific consideration, unless necessary. Besides the
personalities, I will also try to avoid a focus on the international environment. The
international events though, can most certainly not be left out, but I will focus on the internal
processes of the unifications.
Furthermore there are some other problems that need to be mentioned; the German
Sonderweg theory and the idea of the Italian Risorgimento. Although they seem different, in
basis they derive from the same idea: the peculiarity of either German or Italian history, not
comparable to any other state. By comparing the two processes and the states to each other,
the question of either German or Italian special position within the European history can and
will be taken in consideration. Nevertheless, there is a very important difference in the two
theories because in the literature about Italy there has been many discussion about the
Risorgimento, especially the starting date of the Risorgimento but almost all historians agree
on the fact that Italy had experienced a long period of revival and reconstruction of its nation,
whether or not successful in the sense of belonging to the Italian nation-state, being an Italian
citizen. The Risorgimento is considered the process and resurgence of the Italian states into
the Italian national state, a process that has often been considered to be endangered by the
international environment and peculiar because of the long history of different Italian states.6
Important is that in this process of Risorgimento many revolutionary events had taken place
of which the 1848 revolutions have been considered one of the many revolutionary events. 7
5
For example: MackSmith, Denis Victor Emanuel, Cavour and the Risorgimento London: Oxford University
Press, 1971
6
Riall, Lucy The Italian Risorgimento. State, society, and national unification London: Routledge, 1994,
Woolf, Stuart A history of Italy 1700-1860. The social constraints of political change London: Methuen and
Co ltd, 1979, Hearder, Harry Italy in the age of the Risorgimento 1790-1870 New York: Longman Inc, 1986
7
Soldani, Simonetta Annäherung an Europa im Namen der Nation. Die Italienische Revolution 1846-1849 in:
Dowe, Dieter Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard Langewiesche, Dieter Europa 1848. Revolution und Reform Bonn:
Dietz, 1998 p. 125-126
3
In Germany though, there have been some important theories about the peculiarity of German
history; explaining the differing position of Germany from the processes of unification.
Especially in the second half of the twentieth century (from the 1860s) there has started a
discussion resulting in the theory of the German Sonderweg, of which Hans-Ulrich Wehler is
one of the important representatives.8 As an explanation for the failed German development
Wehler focuses on the process of unification and the failed revolutions of 1848 that had made
unity established from above, by the Prussian state, a necessity. This theory of the Sonderweg
has been criticized by for example David Blackbourn,9 who argued that German history in
comparison to other histories and developments had perhaps only been somewhat more
peculiar. German history had been special, but necessarily failed and he emphasizes in his
theory the German development of the 1850s, considering the 1848 revolutions not a failure.10
Besides Wehler and Blackbourn there is also the theory of Thomas Nipperdey,11 who argues
that German history had not been a Sonderweg but that it could have developed in another
way and therefore also the process of unification could have been different.
Although these theoretical discussions among the German historians have hardly taken place
in Italy, the central issues of the thesis for both Italy and Germany considering the importance
of 1848 and the processes of unification will be regarded against these theories. Especially
because both Germany and Italy had been states that became unified on a later date and not by
‘natural’ development, as for example Britain or France. Another issue therefore is the
question whether German and Italian unification had been coincidental unifications or if it had
been structural unifications, a process that could not be avoided. The German theories about
this structural or possible unification have been mentioned above, but in Italian literature the
idea of the Risorgimento often implies the idea of a unification that had been contructed by
the following of events, which coincidentally in this period led to unification.12 This research
will be a comparative study and as such will also supply several answers or perhaps
confirmations of the existing problems.
The focus of the thesis will be, as stated above, the importance of the middle classes,
liberalism, nationalism or the strong state in the revolutions of 1848 and the process of
unification, as basis for the comparative study between Italy and Germany. The comparison
will be divided in two different periods in order to be able to give an answer to the importance
of the 1848 revolutions and to see whether certain elements had changed in the processes of
unification. To achieve a thorough comparison, within case studies will be made of the Italian
and German states. In the first chapter the revolutionary events of the German and Italian
territory will be discussed followed by the processes of German and Italian unification in the
second and third chapter. In the fourth chapter the first comparisons between Germany and
Italy will be made as well as a discussion about the different processes that had been active on
both countries. This fourth chapter will supply the possibility to consider the similarities and
differences between the two countries, as well as it will provide the possibility to come to
terms with the importance of the processes and elements. Finally in the last chapter, the
8
Wehler Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte
Blackbourn, David Eley, Geoffrey The pecularities of German history: bourgeois society and politics in
nineteenth century Germany Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985
10
Blackbourn, David History of Germany 1780-1918. The long nineteenth century Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing ltd, 2003
11
Nipperdey, Thomas Deutsche Geschichte München: Beck, 1983
12
MackSmith Victor Emanuel p. 2
9
4
comparison between Germany and Italy will be completed by considering the different
elements of importance in a methodological way, which will be discussed below.
The method
To arrive at a thorough comparison between Germany and Italy, a methodological comparison
between both countries will be necessary of both 1848 and the processes of unification. In
order to establish this comparison the data extracted from the within case studies in the first
three chapters, has to be simplified and clarified. Besides the simplification of the data, the
method will need to test different elements next to each other as well as the method will have
to supply the possibility to make a comparison between Germany and Italy in the two
different periods. There is a method to would provide all these factors and possibilities for a
thorough comparison of the German and Italian cases; Boolean analysis.13 Boolean analysis
will provide the possibility to put the different elements in one comparison and will make it
possible to apply the same elements in the second analysis to see which elements have
changed and were necessary to establish a nation-state. The Boolean analysis will demonstrate
the outcomes of the elements in the different German and Italian states and therefore will
provide an outlook of the similarities and differences between the states. The intention of the
method will of course be that it confirms the findings of the fourth chapter. The presence or
absence of the outcome variable will be explained and will serve as an explanation for the
importance of 1848 in the processes of unification as well as an explanation to the issue of the
importance of liberalism, nationalism and the bourgeoisie, or the strong state.
The different elements that will emerge in Boolean analysis will have the main focus in the
case studies and therefore a short introduction on the elements will be made here. The
elements of liberalism, nationalism and the middle classes have already been mentioned.
Because these three elements are the focus of the research, they will be discussed in the last
part of the introduction, to have a clear idea about especially the middle classes before
discussing the 1848 revolutions. One of the other elements that will have a special focus for
the final conclusion will be economic development; how important has the economic growth
and progress of the different states been? And what had been the economic progress of the
states in comparison between Germany and Italy? What had been the influence of the
economic development or stagnation on the revolutionary events and the processes of
unification? This element of course coincides with the argument of Tilly14 and the economic
development and importance will therefore also be taken in consideration with his focus on
the importance of capital for a state.
Based on the theory of Tilly that warfare was the only means and interest for a state15, also the
army will be taken in consideration as a separate element. The army will demonstrate whether
a strong military had perhaps determined the unification of Germany and Italy. Finally, the
last element that needs to be taken in consideration here will be the strong state, for the
reasons explained above (page 1 and 2). Boolean analysis of course needs an outcome
variable but this outcome variable can only be determined after the case studies and will be
discussed in the fourth chapter.
13
See: Ragin, Charles The comparative method. Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies
California: University of California Press, 1989 p. 85-124
14
Tilly Coercion p. 16-20
15
Tilly Coercion p. 8, 14, 22-23
5
It has been mentioned several times; the different states of Germany and Italy. In order to
maintain the focus on the elements and the question of the necessity of either the three
elements or the strong state for the processes of unification, I have chosen to focus on a few
states of both Italy and Germany. Besides, including all the states would demand a much
larger, but most certainly interesting research. The emphasis on these states will provide the
possibility to explain the similarities and differences within the German and Italian territory.
The focus on the selected states will demonstrate the presence or absence of general processes
and will also avoid the focus in the research on just one state. Since the argument of the thesis
is the importance of the revolutions of 1848 for the processes of unification, I have based the
selection of states on their revolutionary events. Despite divergent developments, the selected
states also have to represent the general events of the German and Italian territory and
therefore those states with peculiar developments will only be mentioned where necessary but
will not be taken as an example or exception for the entire territory. Therefore the Papal states
in Italy as well as Bavaria in Germany have been left out, but in an extended research it would
be very interesting to involve also these states.
Considering the focus of the research I have thus selected those states that would represent the
diversity of the revolutionary events as well as those states that have been important in the
development of the revolutions. At the Italian peninsula the kingdom of Sardinia (also
referred to as Piedmont) will be discussed because it had been the only state at the peninsula
with significant territory that had been independent. Furthermore the state Lombardy-Veneto
will be discussed because of the Austrian domination over these provinces as well as their
revolutionary events of 1848 that had had an important influence on the other parts of the
peninsula. As third state the kingdom of the two Sicilies will be discussed, again because of
its special position considering the revolutionary events of 1848, but the southern kingdom
had also had a different development in general in comparison to the other Italian states.
For the German case study I will focus on Prussia, Baden, Frankfurt and Austria, of which
Prussia and Austria had been the largest states within the German confederation. Both states
need specific consideration because they had been very important in the German
confederation. Besides, Austria and Prussia have to be taken in consideration because of the
importance of Berlin and Vienna in the revolutionary events of 1848 as two of the largest
capital cities at the time. Austria will also be discussed because it was a member of the
German confederation but at the same had its Habsburg Empire and as such also dominated
over the Italian provinces, Lombardy-Veneto. Furthermore Austria in the end did not
anticipate in the German national state; how come? Could that be traced back to the 1848
revolutionary events? Since Austria had been of importance for both Germany and Italy, two
other German states will be discussed. The duchy of Baden, which in the revolutionary events
of 1848 had had an important position and because as a southern state it only in the ‘second
round’ became part of the German unity. The last state with specific consideration will be
Frankfurt, which need to be discussed separately because the national parliament of the
German confederation had been at Frankfurt and as such it experienced the revolutionary
events of 1848 in a different way. Therefore Frankfurt will be taken in consideration in its
function as the national parliament of the German confederation.
All the different elements and main focuses of this research have now been explained, but in
order to understand the revolutionary events of 1848 and the importance (or not) of the middle
classes in 1848 and the processes afterwards, a short introduction on the Italian and German
territory as well as the middle classes will be necessary.
6
The Italian peninsula before 1848
For centuries the Italian peninsula had been divided in many different and differing states,
often characterized by foreign domination, but also by internal divisions. The Italian states
over the centuries had had many forms and rulers, from independent republics (Venice), small
duchies or large city-states (for example Florence which then became the duchy of Tuscany)
to foreign dominated areas (such as Habsburg rule in Lombardy, the latter also consistent of
diverse duchies). After the Spanish domination of almost two centuries, the Italian peninsula
in the first half of the eighteenth century was terrorized by warfare. The peace treaties of mid
eighteenth century were to settle the Italian question, with Austrian domination over
Lombardy and Bourbon rule in the south and the several other states, such as Tuscany, often
closely tied to the Habsburg dynasty. Furthermore there were various smaller states, duchies
and two republics (Genoa and Venice). The two largest states on the peninsula had been the
Papal states, which included various states dominated by the Papacy, and the only real
independent state at the peninsula; the kingdom of Sardinia (at the time mainly formed by
Piedmont). The Italian peninsula was to experience, at least until the arrival of Napoleon, a
period of relative peace and stability, with especially in the Habsburg dominated and
influenced areas, room for progress and reforms.16
This period of enlightened reform had influenced the entire peninsula but especially
Lombardy and Tuscany, those areas closely connected to Habsburg rule, were to experience
many reforms in far-going but often also successful manner. Nevertheless, in the second half
of the eighteenth century the entire peninsula experienced liberal, enlightened reforms, 17 but
to a lesser extent than the Habsburg areas.18 It had been the radicalization of the Josephinist
reforms, which often had been applied too fast and increasingly influenced the traditional
ways of life, to cause much opposition among the population. 19 The threat of the French
revolution, however, as well as the popular opposition against the Habsburg liberal reform
policies had caused an increase of conservative policies in the other Italian states whereas the
French events stimulated and increased the unrests and revolts in their call for change.20
Throughout the peninsula there had already been some sense of nationalism and liberalism,
enforced by the establishment of secret societies, but they were to increase even more with the
arrival of Napoleon in 1796, not always directed against Napoleon but at times also stimulated
by Napoleon. The French domination included high tax burdens for the population as well as
many reforms (actually often completing the reform policies of the eighteenth century). Under
Napoleonic rule, for the first time, large parts of the peninsula had been centralized, which
stimulated the national consciousness. Nevertheless, the effects of the same reforms though,
differed between the south and north, because of their different development in the previous
centuries, despite the reform policies of the Bourbon family mid eighteenth century.
Nevertheless, especially in the south many revolts took place against the French domination.21
16
Woolf, Stuart A history of Italy 1700-1860. The social constraints of political change London: Methuen
and Co ltd, 1979 p. 29-42
17
General information on the reform policies in the Italian states in the eighteenth century:
Di Simone, Maria Rosa Antico regime e le riforme del Settecento Torino: G.Giappichelli, 2005
18
Woolf A history of Italy p. 95-111
19
More information on the Habsburg reform policies and their effects on the Italian peninsula:
Capra, Carlo La Lombardia austriaca nell’età delle riforme, 1706-1796 Torino: UTET libreria, 1987
20
Grab, Alexander From the French revolution to Napoleon in: Davis, John A. Italy in the nineteenth
century 1796-1900 New York: Oxford University Press, 2000 p. 25-27
21
Grab From the French revolution to Napoleon in: Davis Italy in the nineteenth century p. 28-46
7
The Napoleonic period had brought many administrative, political, legal and economic
reforms of which the latter sometimes had been positive but increasingly negative for the
economy of the Italian states. These reforms had often caused an increase of the middle
classes, but moreover the restorative regimes of the Italian states after the Napoleonic period
did try to combine the Napoleonic reforms (as well as the experiences of the eighteenth
century) with their conservative policies.22 In the north the French domination had ended in
1814 where generally the Habsburg domination had been restored and for the south it ended
in 1815, with the restoration of Bourbon rule,23 all established by the congress of Vienna. The
latter for the Italian peninsula generally meant a restoration of the situation before the arrival
of Napoleon, although some states had gained some territory (the kingdom of Sardinia had
been gained the former republic of Genoa, the Bourbon kingdom now included also Sicily and
the Habsburg now dominated Lombardy-Veneto). The period after the Vienna settlement had
been characterized by many revolts at the Italian peninsula, not only against the restorative
regimes,24 but often caused by local rivalries.
As mentioned above, the states after the congress of Vienna tried to combine their traditional
policies with some of the Napoleonic reforms. These conservative reforms policies could not
diminish the revolutionary spirit throughout the Italian states though, which caused an
increase in restorative measures of the regimes, with even the re-installment of some of the
privileges of the aristocracy and church. The situation at the Italian peninsula after 1815 had
been characterized by unrest and revolts and remained unstable. Remarkable was that where
most of the states applied ever more protectionist measures, the kingdom of Sardinia (with the
arrival of a new king; Charles Albert) that in the beginning had one of the most conservative
policies, towards the 1840s applied an ever more moderate conservative reform policy.25
The revolts of 1820-1821, 1830 all had been successfully put down, often with help of the
European powers (especially Austria and France), but they could not prevent a rise of the
liberal and national sentiments, although still not very widespread. The increasingly
conservative politics as well as the many changes of rulers in the 1830s contributed to an ever
more explosive situation, continuing in the 1840s and eventually resulting in the revolutions
of 1848.26
22
Riall, Lucy The Italian Risorgimento. State, society, and national unification London: Routledge, 1994 p.
11-12
23
Grab From the French revolution to Napoleon in: Davis Italy in the nineteenth century p. 48-49
24
Laven, David The age of restoration in: Davis Italy in the nineteenth century p. 51-53
25
Riall, Lucy The Italian Risorgimento p. 16-25
26
Laven The age of restoration in: Davis Italy in the nineteenth century p. 59-64
8
The German territory before the 1848 revolutions
Unlike the Italian states, the German states throughout history had already been somewhat
more connected to each other, by means of the Holy Roman Empire, which was followed by
the German confederation. These two state-systems represented the various German states
and Austria (not the entire Habsburg empire though), but at the same time had been nothing
more than the collection of states. The Holy Roman Empire as well as the German
confederation had not been nation-states but rather balancing systems between the various
German states and its major powers; Austria and Prussia. The states within the Holy Roman
Empire had been independent states and the Empire actually only served as the preservation
of the German status quo. This was not only to protect the Empire from Prussian and Austrian
ambitions but also to prevent the third Germany (the states of Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden
and Saxony) becoming too strong. Many rivalries and power play occurred over the centuries
in this ‘Reich’, but in the end the international world as also the German states did want to
maintain the existing system.27 Nevertheless, the Holy Roman Empire did have some central
institutions, which enabled especially the smaller states to maintain their independence.28
As in large parts of the Italian territory, also the German states in the second half of the
eighteenth century had been characterized by reforms (for example the Josephinist reform era
in Austria, which had also been more focused though on the centralization of the entire
Habsburg empire, and the Prussian reform policy of Frederick II, often to counterbalance the
Josephinist ambitions with regard to the German states). The reform policies as well as
expansionist politics often led to clashes within the Holy Roman Empire, especially between
the larger powers. The reforms had as main goal to diminish the feudal character of society
and diminish the aristocratic and clerical privileges. Although several feudal characteristics
had been abolished, the aristocracy maintained its strong position in society because they
were closely connected to the rulers and state institutions, besides their still important
economic position in society, which still was mainly based on agriculture.29
The French revolution of 1789 had stimulated the unrest and revolts among the German
peasantry and urban population, although the Empire did apply severe measures to avoid a
total collapse of the state-systems. In 1792 war broke out between France and the German
states, which was to result in a French victory.30 At the beginning of the nineteenth century
the confrontation had turned out in French expansion at the cost of German territory. France
had actually established a reinforcement and aggrandizement of the smaller and middle-sized
German states (especially in the west and south), whereas Austria and Prussia, for the time
being, lost their diplomatic and political power over the states. Besides these effects, the
Napoleonic period also implied important reforms for the German states. As for the Italian
states though, also at the German territory the period of French rule had put a heavy (tax)
burden on large parts of the population.31
27
Simms, Brendan Political and diplomatic movements, 1800-1830: Napoleon, national uprising, restoration
in: Sperber, Jonathan Germany 1800-1870 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004 p. 26-27
28
Blackbourn, David History of Germany 1780-1918. The long nineteenth century Oxford: Blackwell
publishing ltd, 2003 p. 10-15
29
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 15-20
30
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 37-49
31
Simms Political and diplomatic movements in: Sperber Germany p. 27-37
9
On the long term important features of Napoleonic rule remained, such as the liberal and
national ideas as well as the administrative reforms that had enabled a further rise of the
middle classes. The influence of these reforms had of course been best noticeable in those
areas that had been under French rule, such as Bavaria, Baden and the Rhineland,32 which
gave these states also a different, more liberal, background.
The French military victories had resulted in the end of the Holy Roman Empire, but the
congress of Vienna in 1815 (after Napoleon had been defeated in 1814) resulted in a new
German states-system; the German confederation. Nevertheless, the confederation, with a
national parliament at Frankfurt and the Austrian ruler as president, had formed no larger
unity than the Holy Roman Empire.33 Besides, the German confederation was also to have the
same goal as the Holy Roman Empire: to keep the major powers of the confederation in
control. But the Vienna settlement for the German states had by no means been a restoration
of the old situation. The German confederation still incorporated a large number of states,
albeit less numerous than before, which could be ascribed to the preservation of the
acquisitions the southern and western states had made under Napoleon (for example Baden
and Bavaria). After 1815 precisely these southern and western states had focused on
modernization and liberalization of their internal affairs.34 In general the focus of the states
had been on the internal state affairs, considering the bureaucracy, the establishment and
security of the new boundaries.35
The Napoleonic period had not only brought modernizing reforms to various parts of the
German territory, but it had also stimulated liberal and national ideas. The increase of liberal
and national ideas had been further stimulated by the enormous population growth, the new
exigencies of society and the slow response of the states to these exigencies, which had all
contributed to the revolutionary spirit of the Vormärz-period (the period after the Vienna
settlement and before the 1848 revolutions). Throughout the German states, in order to
prevent revolutionary activities, restorative regimes were imposed. 36 The increase in
revolutionary activities at the German territory after the French revolution of 1830, made the
states apply more restorative and repressive policies in order to maintain in control of the
internal situation.
The Vormärz-period had been a period of change, not only considering economic
development but also political and social change had been very important. The Vormärzperiod already demonstrated the necessity of solutions to new problems whereas the
traditional forces, such as the bureaucracy and the monarch, did not provide them. The lack of
sufficient response by the old forces caused an increase in the social unrest, which was than
aggravated by a worsening economic situation. After years of pressure from the liberals,
nationalists and the middle classes, this period ended with the 1848 revolutions.37
32
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 50-58
Simms Political and diplomatic movements in: Sperber Germany p. 37-38
34
Breuilly, John The formation of the first German nation-state, 1800-1871 Hampshire: Palgrave, 1996 p.
29-32
35
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 69-75
36
Simms Political and diplomatic movements in: Sperber Germany p. 38-45
37
Barclay, David E. Political trends and movements, 1830-1850. The Vormärz and the revolutions of 18481849 in: Sperber Germany p. 46-55
33
10
The middle classes
The main focus of the research has already been mentioned several times; the liberal and
national forces. What had actually been the forces of the 1848 revolutions? My focus will be
on the liberal and national oriented middle classes, but who were they?
The period of reforms at the end of the eighteenth century, in both Italy and Germany
(generally speaking), followed by the Napoleonic era, had contributed to the independency
and increase of the middle classes. This rise of the bourgeoisie had also been stimulated by
the economic development and progress, which continued in the nineteenth century. This
enabled the middle classes to acquire an ever more powerful position in society, in both
Germany and Italy, focusing on liberal and national reforms.38
The middle classes had been divided in many ways, but generally they could be divided in the
lower and the higher middle classes. Belonging to the middle classes in the nineteenth century
implied a status of independency; a working group that could spend without owing the
privileges of the nobility. The middle classes were often involved in so-called salary-paid jobs
but, in contrast to the lower classes (and sometimes even the lower middle classes) did have a
certain life style. Nevertheless, it were especially the higher middle classes that besides their
work also had the time, possibility and interest for cultural activities, with the emphasis on
education and often close relations to the aristocracy (especially in Italy). Although this would
not mean that the two groups cooperated; often it had been work related connections.39
The two groups of the middle classes could also be divided in democrats and moderates, since
it were especially the lower middle classes to stand for democratic principles and further
liberalization of society, often in a republican and far-going manner, whereas the higher
middle classes were more focused on slow, gradual changes of society, attached to the old
systems as monarchy or bureaucracy and liberalization without a revolutionary overthrow of
the old forces.
Generally the middle classes supported the idea of universal manhood suffrage and
independence, but they differed largely in how to achieve the establishment of liberal reforms.
One of the origins of the differences had been the young existence of the middle classes; it
was a new group within society representing people out of different areas but with the same
economic, social and political demands. The ideas how to achieve that goal at the time of the
1848 revolutions though, differed and was to further develop in the years afterwards to
eventually come to a full development of liberalism and nationalism. The differences within
the middle classes had also been caused by the difference in age; generally the younger
generation supported the democrats and the revolutionary events whereas the moderates were
more conservative in their attitude, with in their minds also still the memories and experiences
of earlier revolutions.40
38
Kocka, Jürgen The European pattern and the German case in: Kocka, Jürgen Mitchell, Alan Bourgeois
society in nineteenth century Europe Oxford: Berg, 1993 p. 15-17
39
Kocka The European pattern in: Kocka Mitchell Bourgeois society p. 3-8
40
Hachtmann, Rüdiger ‘Berlin’ in: Dipper, Christoph Speck, Ulrich 1848 Revolution in Deutschland
Frankfuhrt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1998 p. 93-94
11
In both Italy and Germany in the beginning the liberal ideas of the bourgeoisie mainly focused
on reforming, modernizing their own societies, without direct interest in the national question.
The revolutions of 1848/1849 could have actually been the turning point in the direction of
liberalism because the (higher) middle classes came to realize ever more that to make
liberalism more effective national unity would be helpful or even necessary (also based on the
Napoleonic experience).41 The question is whether these ideas had actually experienced a
turning point with the 1848 revolutions and what their influence on the processes of
unification had been. Of course the question is also whether these processes had actually
occurred in both Germany and Italy.
But before focusing on the processes of unification, first the revolutions of 1848 need to be
taken in consideration. The revolutions happened in a relatively short period and at april 1848
almost all absolutist regimes in Germany and Italy had collapsed. The revolutionaries had
several things in common; the social unrest and discontent that accompanied the revolutions
and the speed of the dispersion of the revolutionary spirit, caused by new means of
communication and transport. The strong popular support for the revolutions offered the
possibility for the liberals, in most states, to put their reforms through, concerning
parliamentary government, political and civil liberties. The moderate liberals of both
Germany and Italy believed that the formation of a federation would be the only way to unify
their countries. As in Italy, also in Germany they looked upon the king of the strongest state to
become the king of the future country; Italian moderates focused on Charles Albert of
Piedmont and the German liberals focused on Frederick William of Prussia.42 But where did
this focus come from and what had been their role and the role of the other states in the 1848
revolutions?
41
Langewiesche, Dieter Liberalism and the middle classes in Europe in: Kocka Mitchell Bourgeois society
p. 40-47
42
Woolf, Stuart A history of Italy 1790-1860 London: Methuen and Co Ltd, 1979 p. 363-369
12
Chapter I
Italy and Germany: what happened in the revolutionary years 1848-1849?
1.1
The Italian states and 1848/1849
The outburst of nationalism and liberalism at the Italian peninsula in 1848 had not been a new
experience for the Italian states, but in 1848 they were to get a new and full meaning. There
had existed different national groups, albeit mainly secret associations, differing in their ideas
mainly about constructing a federal state, a national monarchy or a republic and differing in
their ideas about the autonomy of the Italian states within a new Italian state. The different
national representatives were mainly discussing their ideas in journals and political
associations which involved especially the upper classes and the higher middle classes. This
dvelopment in literature contributed to a general cultural development based on liberal and
national ideas.43 It was from the 1840s that nationalism and liberalism developed into a
moderate nationalism as well as an ever clearer concept of liberalism; liberal reforms of
politics and society. In this same period the political tensions and unrest increased, which was
further stimulated by the election of a liberal pope in 1846, having its effect on all Italian
states and culminating in the 1848 revolutions.44
It has often been stated that throughout Europe the economic crisis before 1848 had been the
actual starting point for revolution, but in Italy to this economic downturn another point has to
be added, namely the above mentioned election of a new pope; pope Pio IX. With his
moderate conservative reform policy the pope, in his first years, had been an important
symbol for both liberal and national ideas. The pope, in order to diminish the unrest and
protests within the Papal states, had initiated the formation of an Italian customs league, to
stimulate cooperation between the states. This customs league had remained without success
though, because the Piedmontese king had doubts about the positive effect for his own
kingdom. This was not only caused by economic doubts, but moreover influenced by the
expansionist politics of Charles Albert, convinced that first of all Austria had to be defeated. It
had been the revolutionary events of the last years and the increasing Austrian provocation,
with intervention in the Papal states, to stimulate the liberal and national ideas among both
population and the Italian rulers.45 Nevertheless, it had been the economic crisis to aggravate
the situation and to create a broader basis for liberalism and nationalism.46
The first revolutionary events of 1848 had started in the south, with the revolt of Palermo in
january, which had been a city revolt but was soon supported by the peasantry and also spread
to the mainland of the southern kingdom.47 The revolt of Palermo more than a revolution with
the intention of national unification or liberalism stimulated by the middle classes, was
actually a rising characterized by social demands and the intention to separate itself from the
southern mainland. The sense of separatism was very strong at Sicily and the economic crisis
of 1847 and revolutionary unrests gave the right incentive for a revolt against Bourbon
oppressive rule. In order to not entirely loose control of the situation the king agreed to a
constitution at the end of january, beginning of february.
43
Mack Smith Victor Emanuel p. 2-3
Hearder, Harry Italy in the age of the Risorgimento 1790-1870 New York: Longman Inc., 1986 p. 193-200
45
Mack Smith Victor Emanuel p. 14-15
46
Ginsborg, Paul Daniele Manin e la rivoluzione veneziana del 1848-1849 Milano: Feltrinelli, 1978 p. 78-81
47
Woolf, Stuart A history of Italy 1790-1860 London: Methuen and Co Ltd, 1979 p. 372
44
13
The Bourbon king was not the only leader to decide to this kind of liberal appeasement, to
avoid a collapse of the revolutionary tensions; at the beginning of february the Tuscan duke
granted a constitution, followed by the Piedmontese king and the pope at march. All these
constitutions were quite moderate in their intentions and were followed by new governments
in the states, all formed by moderates. They wanted to achieve liberal reforms first of all by
compromise and calm the situation, but it were the revolutionary events in the north of Italy to
further stimulate popular protest as well as support for the liberal and national cause in other
Italian states.48 Despite their preference for compromise and gradual liberal reforms, the
moderates had to act faster because of the pressure of the democratic associations as well as
the social unrest and economic crisis. The moderates wanted to avoid revolution at any cost
and therefore had to go along with the democratic initiative.
In the south of Italy the situation was somewhat different because the southern liberals, either
democrat or moderate, had not been able to put an important influence on society (because of
their lowe presence). In the south the upper and the higher middle classes formed new local
governments and representatives whereas the lower classes (merely peasantry) continued their
revolts both towards Bourbon rule as well as against the local institutions. There was a large
difference though between the revolutionary events at Sicily and those on the southern
mainland, because the former had mainly been influenced by the sense of separatism. In
Naples at the 27th of January a demonstration had taken place (merely supported by the
middle classes) with the demand for a constitution and the king several days later announced a
constitution, a national guard and free press. Movements against government and Bourbon
rule continued also on the mainland though, and it had gained more strength with the support
of the peasantry. Finally the insurrections in the kingdom of the two Sicilies found a new
incentive with the war of independence in northern Italy (march 1848), on which more below.
People came to Naples to sign up for voluntary participation in the war and after their arrival
in Naples, they supported the insurrections there, with the succusseful barricades of the
‘cinque giornate’ of Milan still in their minds. Very widespread popular support for these
insurrections at Naples, however, did not come because it were only the army volunteers
present in the city to support the revolutionary events.49
The unrest in Naples had to be put down by royal army forces, which happened at the
fifteenth of may. Already the same day the army dissolved the assembly and the king
immediately abolished the few liberal demands he had agreed to, as well as the announcement
of an official retreat of his troops at the north of Italy. This recapture of authoritarian rule by
Ferdinand II caused a further diminishment of the already relative low number of middle
classes in the south, because most of them now fled to the liberal kingdom of Sardinia.50
Laven, David ‘The age of restoration’ in: Davis, John A. Italy in the nineteenth century 1796-1900 New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000 p. 65-66
49
Scirocco, Alfonso Napoli nel 1848: i luoghi della rivoluzione in: Varni, Angelo Il 1848, la rivoluzione in
città: atti del convegno di studi, Bologna, 7 dicembre 1998 Bologna: Costa, 2000 p. 58-69
50
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 144-147
48
14
As mentioned above the revolutionary events at the north of Italy had been of great influence
and importance for the entire peninsula. These risings in the Austrian provinces LombardyVeneto had started with urban risings and quickly spread to the peasant population,
nevertheless, strongly connected to the collapse of Vienna in march 1848 (which will be
discussed with the German revolutionary events), which had made Austrian rule weak and
vulnerable.51 But also the revolutionary events in France were to stimulate the events in the
north of Italy because for many democrats it was an example, not only because of its history
but especially because of the republican aspirations.
The fall of Metternich, which had created an insecure situation in Austria but also increased
hope and possibilities in Lombardy-Veneto, caused an increase of demonstrations and risings
throughout the provinces, but especially in the towns like Milan and Venice. At Venice the
Austrian governor, in an attempt to appease the Venetian population had released Daniele
Manin (the symbol for revolution and independency at and of Venice). The demonstrations at
Venice, however, were to reach their highest level when at the twenty-second of march the
Italians among the Austrian troops openly rebelled and Manin was able to chase the Austrians
out of the city. It was only after the proclamation of the Venetian republic (and the ‘cinque
giornate’ of Milan) that the dukes of Modena and Parma, closely tied to the Habsburg empire,
fled.52
The march revolutions in the north of Italy had caused a serious setback for the Habsburg
empire and had given a strong impulse to the Italian national question, but the Austrians had
not really been beaten since they had just ‘simply’ withdrawn from the battlefields. The
Habsburg empire would not that easily give these provinces their independence and to
actually establish an independent northern Italian state, the Austrians had to be defeated. The
internal Italian divisions and different objectives though, were to complicate the Italian
national question and also at international level there was no widespread support for this
Italian ambition.53
As we have already seen with the southern revolutionary events, but as we will also see with
the German 1848 revolutions, also in the northern Italian provinces of Austria the same three
general demands emerged: a representative assembly, a national civic guard, freedom of the
press.54 Other than the southern revolutions, the northern revolutionary events were to have its
effect on the entire peninsula and especially on the kingdom of Sardinia. Also there risings
and insurrections (very small though, and especially in Genoa, on which later more) took
place but were all successfully suppressed by the king. Nevertheless, out of fear of a
revolutionary outbreak, as well as under pressure of the press and public opinion as also his
own expansionist politics, at the end of march the king decided to participate in the Lombard
rising against Austrian domination and to support the war of liberation.
51
Woolf A history of Italy p. 372-375
Laven ‘The age of restoration’ in: Davis Italy p. 66
53
Laven ‘The age of restoration’ in: Davis Italy p. 67
54
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 200-201
52
15
The peasantry in Lombardy though, had not been that supportive of the support of Piedmont
in their war of liberation, but their general opposition towards the landowning nobility of
Lombardy and the kingdom of Sardinia (also feared as a new domination) was smaller than
the resentment against the Austrian domination with their increasing taxes and therefore a
general (temporary) opposition together with the middle classes and upper classes emerged
against the Habsburg empire.55 This general opposition demonstrated to be temporary because
after the successful ‘cinque giornate’ of Milan (the revolutionary events at Lombardy that
were to successfully abandon the Austrians out of the city and became the symbol of the
revolutions and of national opposition), the indecisiveness and inability of the liberals to
govern, caused a shift in the support of the lower classes, preferring stability and peace.
In every state throughout the peninsula, the 1848 revolutions were to take a different course
and also in the Austrian provinces, especially in Milan and Venice, there were some
remarkable differences. The most important difference had been the division in liberal
support, originating in the divergent economic backgrounds (Milan a city with many
connections to the lands, whereas Venice was more a commercial city). But there were also
historical backgrounds; Venice had had a long tradition as an independent republic and Milan
was used to monarch rule. In Milan the moderates, consistent of the noblemen and higher
middle classes (the absentee landlords and renters) had a stronger position than in Venice
where the middle classes were merely formed by the democratic lower middle classes
(artigians, merchants etc). The connection of Milan with the province had created more
familiarity among the diverse regions of Lombardy with the national and liberal feeling.
Furthermore, the Venetian experience of an independent republic explained their aversion of
the support of the kingdom of Sardinia. Finally, the support of the Venetian aristocracy for
Austrian rule was completely lacking in Lombardy, as well as in the provinces of the Veneto
where both upper and middle classes were quite opposed to Austrian domination.56 These
differences became of special importance in the 1848 revolutions in which the ‘cinque
giornate’ of Milan caused general Italian opposition against foreign occupation and the other
Italian states, under revival of popular pressure, decided to participate in the war of liberation.
Complete support of the Italian states, though, proved to be of short term.
The Milanese insurrection had started as a spontaneous but most of all popular insurrection;
massive protests of the lower classes, which were followed by a severe battle in the city for
five days (the ‘cinque giornate’) with many deaths but also with a victory over the Austrian
army. Also in Milan unrests and revolts had already taken place before the actual march
revolution but the harsh measures and army force of the Habsburg empire to control these
insurrections, had only increased the anti-Austrian feeling in the provinces. The democrats,
profiting of this increasing opposition towards Austria, called off a tobacco strike (on which
the Habsburg empire had the monopoly) that was to be put down by army force and bloody
battles, at january of 1848. More severe measures by the Austrian government followed,
whereas unrest and discontent did not disappear anymore and at the same time the democrats
tried to better organize the popular insurrections.57
55
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 201-204
Ginsborg Daniele Manin p. 141-142
57
Della Peruta, Franco ‘Le cinque giornate di Milano’ in: Varni
56
Il 1848 p. 32-36
16
At the 18th of march new popular revolts took place and this time the insurrections and rising
were to introduce the beginning of the 1848 revolution. Already the next day the peasants of
surrounding villages and lands urged to Milan to support the urban masses, but as at Sicily
also in Lombardy local rivalries impeded a successful general Lombard revolution and
opposition against Austria. This widespread and uncontrolled popular support created among
both the moderates as well as the democrats the fear of a social revolution, which they wanted
to avoid. This fear of a social revolution was a strange ambiguity of the Lombard democrats
because they believed that the only way to liberalize Lombardy of Austrian domination would
be by a popular insurrection, in contrast to the moderates that believed more in gradual
reforms and support of the kingdom of Sardinia. On the other hand the democrats were quite
diffident towards the lower classes, not only because of their social revolutionary demands
but also because they feared the support of the peasantry for Piedmont.58
Only at the second day of the fighting the democrats entered the battlefield, aupporting the
lower classes. Large part of the Austrian military troops circondated Milan in order to isoltae
the city whereas the population successfully barricaded the centre, making it quite impossible
for those Austrian troops still in the centre to remain and when the news arrived of revolts in
other Lombard cities, the Austrian troops had to leave the city. The withdrawal of the
Austrian troops could not be solely ascribed to the widespread revolutionary activity or the
bloody battles at Milan, but the troops also withdrew in attendance of the Piedmontese
decision to participate in the war. Strangely enough, despite the cooperation of the democrats
and the success of the revolution, it had not been followed by the proclamation of a Milanese
republic.The Milanese democrats did not have any desire to act against the moderates
because of their strong social and economic position. Besides, forming a republic at this point
would have only increased opposition instead of unity.59
After the first revolutionary days, it had been the moderates to install a provisionary
government at the twenty-second of march, immediately directing also the war of
independence towards the participation and support of Piedmont, to be able to definitely
defeat the Austrian army and liberate the provinces of Habsburg rule. At the same day of
installment the moderates also declared all further political decisions to be delayed until after
the definite victory over the Austrians.60
The revolution of Milan had an important effect throughout the peninsula, involving the
kingdom of Sardinia, but the revolutionary events of Milan also had an important effect on
Venice. Despite revolts and risings in this city after the fall of Metternich, a real revolutionary
movement only started after, on the 21st of march, the news arrived of the revolutionary
success of Milan. A success that was remarkable and exemplary because it had been the first
time in decades that such a revolution against the foreign domination seemed to succeed.
Although the Venetian democrats did rely more on the support of the lower classes, they also
wanted to avoid a social revolution. Especially since these lower classes had already since the
seventeenth been involved in demonstrations and were difficult to control.
Della Peruta ‘Le cinque giornate’ in: Varni Il 1848 p. 31-32
Della Peruta ‘Le cinque giornate’ in: Varni Il 1848 p. 38-46
60
Ginsborg Daniele Manin p. 142-157
58
59
17
In these days of Venetian risings and demonstrations, which were than stimulated by the
events at Milan, the cooperation of the democrats with the lower classes had already increased
but when the Austrian military force increased, also the moderates entered the Venetian
revolutionary events. The democrats though, never lost the initiative in the revolution at
Venice, because after the dissertation of the Italian soldiers the Austrian government tried to
impose a provisionary moderate government but at the twenty-third of march the democrats
immediately came with the proclamation of the Venetian republic.61
The situation of Lombardy-Veneto under Austrian domination had of course already been
quite different to the southern situation, nevertheless in both regions in the 1848 revolutions
internal divisions had played an important role. The southern 1848 revolutionary events
though, had been more characterized by the social demands and the internal clashes between
lower classes and liberals as well as upper classes. Furthermore, the northern revolutions had
been more influenced by the presence and guidance of the liberals, either democrat or
moderate, preventing also total chaos by maintaining in control. Besides, the northern
revolutionaries had been more concerned with the national question, in the sense of
independence. The northern 1848 revolutions were not only a demand for liberal reforms but
moreover a demand for liberation of the Austrian domination. In the south there had also been
opposition against Bourbon rule, but this was not a foreign domination and at Sicily the
national question was mainly the issue of separatism rather than national Italian unity.
Although it should not be forgotten that to my opinion neither in the north of Italy a
unification of the entire peninsula was considered at this time, independence had been the
main goal. But what about the kingdom of Sardinia that also took a special position within
the revolutionary events at the peninsula and was clearly influenced by liberal ideas? What
about the national ideas and the expansionist politics, that were so much distrusted also by the
other Italian states?
The strong connection between the provisionary government of Milan and the kingdom of
Sardinia has already been mentioned, but this was also to influence the events in Venice. The
democratic initiative in Venice had been suppressed and all discussions about the political
future were delayed until after the war with Austria. It was a decision based on the strength of
the Piedmontese army, the support of the provinces for Piedmont, but also based on a
widespread Piedmontese moderate liberal campaign. The counter-offensive of the Habsburg
empire had made democratic opposition somewhat stronger but the support of the provinces
for Piedmont and the moderates was stronger, especially because the Venetian democrats had
focused too much on the city instead of also taking in consideration the supplies and support
of the provinces.62 Fear of a republican victory as well as to keep control of the democratic
initiatives not only in Lombardy-Veneto but also in his own country, made the king of
Piedmont decide in favor of the war of liberation. The instructions of Charles Albert, who
personally did not favor a war of independence because it went against his own expansionist
politics, to fight mainly in defense led to indecisiveness of the army and made a successful
counter-offensive of the army possible.63 This counter-offensive of the Austrian army had also
been successful because the Piedmontese king with his expansionist politics had not wanted to
enforce the Lombard opposition, an opposition that in itself had remained very divided.64
61
Ginsborg Daniele Manin p. 103-116
Laven ‘The age of restoration’ in: Davis Italy
63
Woolf A history of Italy p. 376-382
64
Mack Smith Victor Emanuel p. 16-19
62
p. 68-69
18
However, it had not only been the foreign policy of Piedmont or the instruction to fight in
defense to cause this defeat of the Piedmontese army. Already before the 1848 revolutions in
Piedmont military reforms were made under absolutist rule and control of the Piedmontese
king. These reforms, however, were mainly focused on agreements of 1830-1831 and
therefore focused on cooperation with Austria against France. The royal strategy changed
with the arrival in the Papal states of a more liberal pope in 1846, stimulating reforms, also
influencing the liberal demands in other states and a general growing feeling at the entire
peninsula of support for the national cause. Although the Piedmontese king then decided to
change his strategy in an anti-Austrian position, he did not reorganize his army. So besides the
unwillingness of the king to enter the war with its many revolutionary elements, the army was
simply just not well enough prepared for its new task, also causing the failure of the 1848
initiative of the war of liberation.
Despite the failure of the king to better prepare his army, he did pay attention to the
(moderate) liberal demands that arose also in Piedmont, just before the 1848 revolutions
captured the whole peninsula, which resulted in the constitution of march 1848. As the
Prussian constitutional concept, on which later more, the Piedmontese constitution found its
basis in constitutions of only several decades before (the constitutions of France in 1814 and
Belgium 1830) 65 and was therefore not that revolutionary because it did not contain the
revolutionary demands of 1848, but as one of the few, it was to remain after the 1848
revolutions.
In the kingdom of Sardinia there had not been a real 1848 revolution, however, there were
revolutionary elements active, strongly connected to a historical division within the kingdom.
The northern part of the kingdom (especially Turin) was more conservative and catholic
whereas Genoa was a region where the revolutionary spirit was much more alive since its
population had largely opposed to the annexation of the free republic of Genoa to the
Piedmontese state as a part of the kingdom of Sardinia in 1814. Since Genoa had always stood
in close contact with the Lombard cities, especially Milan that preferred the port of Genoa
over the Venetian harbor (historical rivalries), the revolutionary elements in Genoa were
further stimulated by the events in Lombardy, but on the other hand also easily controlled by
the Piedmontese government, which already had had a somewhat more liberal change before
1848. Revolutionary demands as in Genoa were not to be found in Turin though, where
political change eventually was not demanded by revolution but by the implementation of a
constitution.
The king did not want to install a constitution, but after the revolutionary events in the south
and the increasing unrest in its neighboring country Lombardy, he decided to grant a
constitution before he would be forced to and at the beginning of march the constitution had
been completed.66
Having discussed this position of the kingdom of Sardinia in this revolutionary year and its
rather liberal intentions, despite (controlled) revolutionary elements, a further consideration of
the national war of independence is necessary as well as the significant outcome and the role
of Piedmont in this.
McGaw Smyth, Howard ‘Piedmont and Prussia: the influence of the campaigns of 1848-1849 on the
constitutional development of Italy’ In: American Historical Review vol. 55 no. 3 p. 483-485
66
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 59-60
65
19
This consideration of the war is not only of importance in the general consideration of the
1848 revolutionary events but also to point to several problems in the determination and belief
in the national cause, especially from the states. The first bursts in fighting for the national
cause came with the official statement of the pope at the end of april that he would withdraw
his troops and even though some of his troops disobbeyed him, the pope had officially
distanced himself of the national question whereas at his arrival in 1846 he had been seen as a
possible leader of nationalism and liberalism. This first diappointment was followed by a
second one coming from the south where Ferdinand II, after having re-established his
authoritarian powers (at least at the mainland), suspicious, as other Italian rulers, of
Piedmontese aspirations and fearing a Piedmontese domination, the king delayed the sending
of his troops.
The fear of Piedmontese expansionist politics made also other Italian rulers send only a small
amount of troops and than only because of the internal pressure to fight for the Italian cause.
Only the papal states had another reason to not participate anymore since it did not want to
put the papacy in disregard fighting against another catholic power as Austria. Piedmont
continued its politics of expansion and thanks to its propaganda, Lombardy in may, also out of
fear of the increasing pressure and presence of the Austrian troops, voted in favor of
annexation with the Sardinian kingdom, as also the Venetian mainland67 and after democratic
protests but again under pressure of the increasing Austrian military force that had almost
completely isolated the city, also Venice in the summer voted for annexation with Piedmont.68
The Piedmontese king by this time did not have to fear the proclamation of a republic in
Lombardy anymore, but he now had the trouble of some of the unguided papal and southern
troops, which refused to go home and were difficult to lead. At the same time Britain and
France put pressure on the Habsburg empire to abandon the Italian provinces and in the end
Austria did agree to the independence of the Lombard provinces. The Piedmontese king at
this stage though, was not willing to let the Venetian provinces get under Austrian rule again
and, although from above decided differently, neither Radetzky wanted to withdraw from the
battle in Lombardy. Therefore, the war of independence continued, leading eventually to the
defeat of the Piedmontese army. The Veneto quickly restored the republic, whereas
Lombardy, as stipulated in the armistice that had been signed between Piedmont and Austria,
remained under Austrian domination. However, the armistice did not last very long since
under guidance of a liberal government with much resentment towards the lost of this national
cause, as well as the public opinion in the kingdom, the decision had been made to renew the
war with Austria.69
Ministers and parliament in the kingdom of Sardinia had taken more over control the army
and foreign politics out of resentment of the first defeat and the quick armistice. After a
several months though, the king did succeed in regaining some of its prestige and position
over the army and politics, but parliamentary government was to remain in Piedmont.70
67
Woolf A history of Italy p. 382-386
Ginsborg Daniele Manin p. 236-267
69
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 203-204
70
McGaw Smyth ‘Piedmont and Prussia’ p. 488-493
68
20
The Piedmontese government and king had decided to continue the war of independence out
of two reasons, namely the expansionist politics of the king himself and in general the internal
support within the kingdom for the Italian national cause accompanied by a general
radicalization of the liberal idea at the Italian peninsula. Again there was a victory for the
Austrian troops, at the end of april 1849, and the Piedmontese king left the throne in favor of
his son. Nevertheless, the Italian nationalists who had looked upon Piedmont to liberate Italy
were disappointed by this new defeat which was also shown by new insurrections in the
kingdom itself where risings took place at the originally already revolutionary city of Genoa.
The only region to resist Austrian recapture of control, was Venice, but also Venice, in the
end worn out by food shortages, diseases and Austrian attacks, had to finally surrender itself
in august 1849.71
In the meantime Sicily had been fighting its own battle. It had established its own government
in march 1848, but it faced many internal difficulties and once Ferdinand II, the Bourbon
king, had re-installed his power at the southern mainland (may 1848) he also wanted to reestablish his power over Sicily. From september 1848 harsh and bloody battles took place
between the Sicilian revolutionaries and the royal army, with new fightings in the spring of
1849 that did result in a defeat of the Sicilian popular army and a restoration of Bourbon
rule.72
Events soon after the revolutions, like the return of absolutist rule in the south and reluctant
royal support for the war, made the democrats and even some of the more nationalistic
moderates doubt the effectiveness of monarchic rule,73 often turning in favor of the republic.
The possibility was offered by the flight of the pope, after the murder on one of his ministers,
which made him opposed to the liberal and national ideas.74 The flight of pope Pio IX had
also made the moderate government in the papal states very weak, creating strong popular
pressure and here with the elections by universal suffrage in january 1849 the democrats got
more influence leading to the proclamation of the Roman republic on 8 february 1849.
Laven ‘The age of restoration’ in: Davis Italy p. 69-70
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 147-148
73
Woolf A history of Italy p. 396-398
74
Mack Smith Victor Emanuel p. 20
71
72
21
The defeat of the Piedmontese army had caused a revival of the democratic spirit since the
moderates were partly seen as the cause of the failure of the war of national liberation. In
several provinces the democrats now got in power, however, it should not be forgotten that
they mainly differed from the moderates in their focus on the national question and the
constitutional questions (monarchical rule versus republic) and that also the democrats feared
a social revolution. The democratic initiative was put to an end by the French intervention in
Rome, in order to counterbalance Austrian influence in Italy.75 In august 1849 Austria
occupied Venice, ending also there the republican aspirations and after the summer of 1849
there was an almost complete restoration of the Italian peninsula as it was before 1848,76 with
not only the restoration of the Habsurg influence at the peninsula, the French troops at Rome
but also restorative regimes throughout the peninsula and the devastating effect that was to
have, or maybe the right incentive for liberalism and nationalism, will be considered in the
next chapter about the process towards unification, with special focus on the one Italian state
that did maintain liberal influence in politics; the kingdom of Sardinia.
The revolutions of 1848 therefore had not succeeded in independence for the northern part of
Italy, neither in independence for Sicily. But does that mean that they had completely failed?
It had been the first time that massive protests had taken place throughout the peninsula, the
only independent state at the peninsula had come to support the war of liberation in the north,
supported also by smaller military entities of the other states. The middle classes, although
very divided and not always successful in maintaining control, did succeed in spreading the
liberal and national ideas. But most of all the middle classes had demonstrated capable of,
temporarily, overthrowing the established rulers. The effects this was to have though for the
process of unification shall be regarded in the next chapter. How did the middle classes
pursue their liberal and national ideas and had the experiences of 1848 supported them in this
process?
75
76
Hobsbawm Il trionfo della borghesia p. 21
Woolf A history of Italy p. 399-405
22
1.2
The 1848/1849 revolutions and the German question
More than in Italy, the revolutions of 1848 in the German states followed upon the economic
crises of the years 1845-1847. The economic crisis caused food shortages, high prices and
large disoccupation numbers in the several German states, creating also much social unrest
but especially creating a call for change that became ever louder. The German revolutions
started in the more radical southwest spreading from there to the north and east of Germany.
The focus of the march revolutionaries had been the capital cities but, in contrast to many
Italian states, the preparedness of the new rulers to make concessions quickly filled the
political gap, reinforced with some of the new forces.
Significantly, in the year before the revolutionary outbreak the king of Prussia, Frederick
William IV, opposed to the constitutional development of the Prussian state as the liberal
middle classes present in parliament had wanted. The constitutional struggle between
parliament and the king became a sign for the other German states of the necessity of
liberalism,77 but as we will see in the next chapter the liberal constitutional struggles were to
remain of importance in Prussia also in the process of unification.
Throughout the German states, as in Italy, the 1848 revolutions had been preceded by unrests
but the news of the French revolution was to form the beginning of the actual 1848
revolutionary events. These revolutions had started in the southern and western parts of
Germany, where there had been more widespread support of the peasantry. It had been the
social demands of the peasantry and their revolts on which the liberals anticipated with
petitions. The revolutionary demands of the lower classes had made it possible for the
bourgeoisie to pursue their own liberal and national ideas. Nevertheless, the middle classes
(especially the moderates) had not been supporters of revolution to achieve liberalization of
society. Besides, once the social demands of the lower classes had been fulfilled their support
diminished, but the liberal and national ideas could not be stopped anymore.78
Germany was not only influenced by the internal crisis and opposition to the old system, but
had also been influenced by the international surroundings where revolutions took place with
the idea of a national unity accompanied by action against Austria, like in Hungary and Italy.
The revolutionary activities accompanied by the national and liberal idea, enforced the
German bourgeoisie, which (in comparison to the Italian bourgeoisie) had a strong position,
that liberal revolutionary change with national elements would be necessary to further
modernize society and to enable a solution for the national question. The international
situation (revolutionary events in France), accompanied by the revolutionary elements that
were already present in the German confederation as well as the widespread liberal idea,
together with the economic depression showed that the time was right to overthrow the old
system of politics and society.79
77
Lutz Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen p. 300-301
Wehler Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte Zweiter Band p. 706-717
79
Lutz Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen p. 314-315
78
23
The old forces had remained very important in the revolutionary events of 1848 and 1849.
Most of all they anticipated on the new liberal views, in order to avoid further revolutionary
events, and appointed new liberal (moderate) ministers who, in contrast to many Italian states,
before 1848 had already been important figures in the opposition. Appointing these men
showed the efforts of the princes to control the revolution by placing its political forces in
legal constitutional politics. However, this could not stop the radicalization of the revolution,
which took off in the summer of 1848. But during the revolutions the social demands became
better organized by the formation of interest groups. The growing number of interest groups
did not only create a better organization but also stimulated the growth of associations
increasing political interest and involvement. 80
The insecure situation of Austria with many currents of unrest and revolutionary (nationalist)
activity within its empire had already before 1848 stimulated the increase of unrest throughout
the German confederation, but also the revolutionary forces in France created an insecure
situation for many of the smaller German states, fearing a violation of the international
treaties considering for example the Rhineland. The smaller German states therefore looked
upon Prussia as a strong, stabile power to protect the status quo. This secure position of
Prussia though, was quickly to change with the outburst of revolution at Berlin.81
However, the revolutionary events within the German confederation had started in Baden with
the so-called März-forderungen; liberal demands that quickly spread to the other German
states. The revolutionary unrest in this state had a somewhat different background though,
because the duchy of Baden (as also other southern states) had been more familiar with the
liberal tradition. Nevertheless, towards 1848 the bureaucracy became ever more conservative
which caused a clash with the increasing liberalization of society. Therefore the liberal middle
classes of Baden had actually wanted to preserve its liberalized society, preventing it from
conservatism. Furthermore, the Baden revolutionaries immediately with the announcement of
their liberal demands, had also mentioned the necessity of reforming the German
confederation, based on the same demands. Thus already in the very beginning of the
revolutionary events, the national question had been an issue. Throughout the third Germany
(Bavaria, Württemberg, Saxony) the revolutionary demands of Baden had been repeated,
resulting everywhere in new liberal governments, placed by the ‘old’ monarch though.82 It
had especially been the higher middle classes of Baden, but the other states of the third
Germany, an area that at this time had not yet experienced the industrial development other
German states did have, who had demanded the establishment and recognition of their social
position and status.83
80
Blackbourn, David History of Germany 1780-1918. The long nineteenth century. Oxford: Blackwell
publishing Ltd, 2003 p. 104-111
81
Holborn, Hajo Storia della Germania moderna 1840-1945 Milano: Rizzoli editore, 1973 p. 62-63
82
Nipperdey, Thomas Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866 München: Beck, 1983 p. 595-596
83
Nolte, Paul ‘Baden’ in: Dipper, Christoph Speck, Ulrich 1848 Revolution in Deutschland Frankfuhrt am
Main: Insel Verlag, 1998 p. 64-65
24
Although the revolutionary events of Baden had been accompanied by the demands for
reforms of the German confederation, at the end of march, beginning of april the question also
involved the republican aspirations of some of the revolutionaries. But as in almost every
other state, once most of the demands had been fulfilled, the future form of the state became
less important because massive popular interest for the issues faded. In april 1848 it was
decided that the decision about the future form of the state, whether it was to be a
constitutional monarchy or a republic, should be achieved by gradual reforms. Nevertheless,
attempts to establish small republics from below to eventually form one central republic
continued, but these initiatives had been ended by military force.84
In Austria and Prussia the unrests and protests had also increased at the beginning of march
with the same liberal, political demands. But in both states the revolutionary events actually
started mid march after the increasing presence and clashes of the military. Just as in the other
German states the old forces, especially the monarchy, anticipated on the liberal demands.
Nevertheless, the position of Austria had been rather different though, since Austria besides a
German state also represented the Habsburg Empire. From the very beginning the revolutions
in the Habsburg Empire, besides the liberal demands, alos represented national demands.
Whereas the German states were concerned with reforms of the German confederation or
actually the formation of a German national state, Austria was more concerned with
maintaining its empire and repressing the nationalist revolutions. These revolutionary events
in for example Hungary and northern Italy, could not be controlled by cooperation and this
was also not the intention of the Habsburg Empire. The main concern for Austria had been the
preservation of its Empire, whereas the national demands of the also the German
revolutionaries were concerned with a solution to the national question. The different
revolutionary events within the Habsburg Empire, focused on independency, had weakened
the position of Austria because its powerful position as an Empire seemed to fall apart.85
But what about the revolutionary events in Austria and its capital city Vienna? As Berlin, also
Vienna was a fast growing city with also an increasing number of disemployed and poor
creating unrest in society. The modernization of Austrian society had been stimulated by the
ever growing middle classes that also had a strong influence on reforms and innovation of the
bureaucracy. As in every other society though, also the Austrian bourgeoisie, despite a
general interest in modernization of society, had been divided. The revolution at Vienna had
started with petitions of the middle classes in which they stated their demand of participation
within the higher political areas.86 The actual risings had developed into revolution with the
support and protests of the lower middle classes and the lower classes (workers and peasants)
that started in Vienna at the thirteenth of march. However, as we have seen before in both
Milan and Venice, it had been military intervention that made the protests develop into
revolution. Nevertheless, the march revolution at Vienna did result in the dismissal of
Metternich.
Langewiesche, Dieter ‘Revolution in Deutschland. Verfassungsstaat-Nationalstaat-Gesellschaftsreform’ in:
Dowe, Dieter Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard Langewiesche, Dieter Europa 1848. Revolution und Reform Bonn:
Dietz, 1998 p. 171
85
Nipperdey Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866 p. 596-603
86
Häusler, Wolfgang ‘Wien’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 100-102
84
25
Risings and new revolts remained though; barricades were to be found throughout the city.
The social problems of society had been sharpened by the revolts of the lower classes and at
the end of the summer the revolts had been bloodily suppressed by organizations of the
(higher) middle classes, showing the ambiguity of the revolution. It had started as a general
protest against the old forces but in the end resulted in clashes between the different
revolutionary groups, which had been rather typical for the 1848 revolutions. But when
feudalism got abolished, the revolutionaries lost their most important group, the peasantry.
The counterrevolution of the Habsburg empire started with the first victories the Austrian
troops had over the national revolutionaries (for example in Italy) and liberal achievements
were being reversed. It had been the conflict with Hungary to cause a final revival but also the
definitive end to revolution at Vienna since at the end of october it had been put down by
military force.87
The insurrections in several German states but also abroad had caused many unrest in the
Prussian state. The king had anticipated on these unrests though, already at the beginning of
march, by announcing unification of Germany under Prussian lead and he even sent a
representative to Vienna to discuss possible reforms of the German confederation, but these
ideas did not have any chance because Austria, still largely supported by the southern German
states, did not want to reform the confederation at all.88 Tension in Berlin increased especially
after the news had arrived of the revolution at Vienna and even though the Prussian king had
refused constitutional reforms in 1847, the population of the various regions of the Prussian
state, still remained confident that eventually the king would pursue the necessary
liberalization. Nevertheless, in various towns there had been risings calling for liberal reforms
and support of the national cause with a Prussian lead in German unification, but these risings
had been successfully suppressed.
Around the eighteenth of march the unrest at Berlin became rather explosive and the Prussian
king made various promises to avoid an escalation of the situation. Although the popular
masses had their doubts, it was actually the presence of royal military force to aggravate the
situation and the masses turned their diffidence and insurrections against the army. At the
eighteenth of march, the king decided that the army could suppress the revolution by force,89
followed by a bloody confrontation between the military and the revolutionaries. This
confrontation actually increased the support of the higher classes, who joined the
revolutionaries. Nevertheless, the clash had resulted already the same day in a victory of the
Prussian army. It had not been a complete victory though, since in the north and east of Berlin
barricades had been built. When the news came that revolutionaries from surrounding towns
were heading for Berlin to support the revolution, it was decided that the army had to
retreat.90
After the fall of Metternich the Prussian king agreed to liberal reforms with the demand for
the united parliament to focus on a constitutional program for Germany. When the army had
retreated from the battlefield in Berlin it seemed as if the revolutionaries had won, especially
with the proclamation of the king in favor of liberty and unity.91
Häusler ‘Wien’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 103-108
Crankshaw, Edward Otto von Bismarck e la nascita della Germania moderna Milano: Mursia, 1988 p. 5354
89
Holborn, Hajo Storia della Germania moderna 1840-1945 Milano: Rizzoli editore, 1973 p. 64-65
90
Hachtmann ‘Berlin’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 85-89
91
Lutz Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen p. 318-331
87
88
26
The fulfillment of the liberal demands had caused an increase of political, mainly democratic,
associations. These associations at first had been locally, regional oriented, until in the
summer of 1848 most of the democratic associations were united in a central organization.
The associations had made a better organization of both the liberal and national demands
possible, but these liberal associations had also stimulated other groups in society, such as the
conservatives, the lower classes and the catholics to better organize themselves. To a certain
extent also these associations had been influenced by the liberal ideas, but moreover they
were to represent their own goals as well as to secure support for their ideas. Remarkable is
that the protestants had not reached the same level of political organization as the catholics.92
The Berlin revolution, just as in the other cities discussed above (Milan, Vienna), had been a
revolution with enormous popular support, with bloody and heavy fighting which in all cities
had caused fear among the middle classes (both democrats and moderates) of a social
revolution. The revival of the revolutionary activities as well as radicalization in june and
october in Berlin ended in clashes between the civil guard (formed by the middle classes) and
the lower classes.93 The associations had made the lower classes better organized and more
politically involved but at the same time they now caused fear among the middle classes with
their revolutionary activities.
Despite the formation of associations the democratic revolutionary movement was to loose its
strong, social position in the second half of 1848 and support for the moderates increased. At
the end of 1848 when from above most (democratic) liberal reforms were reversed, this
support for the moderates increased even more because the democratic initiative had
demonstrated incapable of maintaining influence. The Prussian army also re-entered Berlin
and dismissed the civic guard, and most democratic organizations and press were prohibited
or severely controlled. It was than at the fifth of december that an apparently liberal
constitution was installed but refused by the king which was to cause new risings and fights
between the army and the population.94
Throughout 1848 many elections had been held in the various states of the German
confederation, with in may some of the most important elections; for the Prussian national
parliament as well as for the Frankfurt national parliament of the confederation, on which
later more. In Prussia the may elections had had a somewhat different outcome than the
elections for the national parliament and also different than in many other states because the
Prussian parliament enjoyed more members of the lower classes and was more centre-left
oriented. According to the general liberal development in other German states, also the centreleft parliament of Prussia was prepared to make concessions to stimulate economic
development and solve the large unemployment number, but political questions were hardly
possible to discuss.95 After the march-revolutions counter-revolutionary elements became
active, which had been possible exactly because the traditional forces had not been
overthrown and Prussia soon changed from a democratic-liberal state into a more
conservative state.96 This case of Prussia clearly demonstrates that liberalism had gained
influence during 1848, but was not quite to its full development and had not yet won the
influence it needed to continue on the highest political level.
92
Wehler Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte Zweiter Band p. 725-735
Hachtmann ‘Berlin’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 90-96
94
Hachtmann ‘Berlin’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 96-97
95
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 112-120
96
Lutz Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen p. 366-367
93
27
As mentioned earlier, in Prussia the demand for constitutional government had already been
made in 1847 but a Prussian constitution was not installed until 1850. The constitution
preserved the strong authority of the king, included also some moderate liberal elements as
well as the maintenance of the traditional forces (such as bureaucracy and army). The strong
position of the king after the constitution was also demonstrated by the fact that the ministers
had a direct responsibility towards the king, instead of parliament and the king maintained the
final responsibility in most cases, except for the budget of the army,97 an exception that was to
become very important a decade later.
Despite a large support for order, the revolutionary spirit had not disappeared, the political
situation was not stabile and the German states waited for the outcomes of the national
parliament to settle the German question.
The national question of course had strong connections to the national parliament of the
confederation and therefore some short notions have to be made about the position of
Frankfurt in this revolutionary year. Frankfurt in 1848 had quite a different position than the
other cities or states discussed above, since it was a free state with actually no agrarian
community but most of all because of the presence of the national parliament. In Frankfurt, as
in Turin, there had not really been a march revolution as in other German states, but also at
Frankfurt the März-forderungen had taken place. The liberal demands had been quickly
fulfilled, enabling the Frankfurt liberals of the national parliament to focus more on the
revision of the constitution and the national question.98
In the southern and western parts of Germany already after the first revolutionary events a
liberal ‘Vorparlament’ had been formed. It had been this ‘Vorparlament’ that called for
elections for a national parliament to find a solution for the national question. The elections
had been conducted by the individual states and therefore the rights and possibilities to vote
differed. Nevertheless, these may elections resulted in a general liberal national parliament at
Frankfurt, also called the ‘Paulskirche’. This new national parliament first of all had to deal
with two problems: the formation of a nation-state and the constitution. The latter would be
the first problem delt within order to give the ‘Paulskirche’ also the legal rights and status to
execute their power over the individual states. However, such a constitution in which the
national parliament would exert power over the individual states, caused opposition among
the larger German states (Austria, Prussia, Bavaria). Although eventually a constitution had
been accepted, the ‘Paulskirche’ did not have the overall (executive) power over the
individual states,99 but the national parliament could now focus on a solution for the national
question.
McGaw Smyth ‘Piedmont and Prussia’ p. 481
Wettengel, Michael ‘Frankfuhrt’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 130-134
99
Nipperdey Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866 p. 606-615
97
98
28
But before a real focus on the national issue had been possible, the question SchleswigHolstein had to solved. The province of Holstein had already been member of the German
confederation and the majority of the population of Schleswig (German speaking but
constitutionally connected to Denmark) favored annexation with Holstein, within the German
confederation. The German states, especially because of the national and constitutional
character, supported this request. The Danish king refused the entrance of Schleswig in the
German confederation and made Schleswig officially part of the Danish state, but, supported
by Prussian military troops, the confederation intervened in the question, preserving the
German state of Schleswig-Holstein,100 at least for the time being because at september
Prussia had signed an armistice with Denmark. The national parliament at Frankfurt had
agreed to this armistice, whereas the democrats considered this armistice a betrayal to the
German national cause, followed by democratic protests. The civil guard proved unable to
deal with the revolutionaries and military support from other, surrounding, states had to put
down the revolution. The necessity of the military intervention from outside weakened not
only the position of the democrats but also of the moderates which created also at Frankfurt
the beginning of a reactionary regime.101
Besides the Schleswig-Holstein question, there were other national problems the
confederation had to deal with, such as Posen and Boemia. With the revolutions of 1848 both
had been characterized by the rise and emphasis on nationalism, autonomy. Even though all
three areas had been characterized by long historical ties to the German states, large parts of
their population did not speak the German language.102 Although the nationalists did support
these revolutionaries, in the end the Paulskirche (also called Professorenparlament) refused to
accept the autonomous position of these states. Despite the fact that the idea of a large
German national state remained the main objective, the national parliament merely wanted to
preserve the territory of the German confederation, which led to the discussion about a
‘grossdeutsch’ or a ‘kleindeutsch’ solution.103
The question Schlweswig-Holstein had also demonstrated another problem with regard to the
power of the national parliament since it had been overruled by the Prussian king with the
armistice and the national assembly at Frankfurt simply had to agree. This issue had shown
the power of the ‘old’ forces, which at the same time also made progress and reforms in the
national question quite difficult, because the ‘old’ forces first of all wanted to restore peace in
society, instead of forming a nation-state.104
Furthermore the national question had to diminish the importance of the local connection and
local relations of the people. Besides, reforms for the nation-state were not only proposed by
the national parliament but also on local levels in diverse German cities and states. The local
liberal reforms prevented also the formation of a German state, in this period, since there had
not been a central reform policy. 105 As pointed out earlier, the revolutions of 1848 had been a
political revolution in every sense, even though with support of the lower classes also social
demands came forward but the very intention had been political reforms within society.
100
Lutz Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen p. 321-322
Wettengel ‘Frankfuhrt’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 138-142
102
Nipperdey Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866 p. 624-629
103
Wehler Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte Zweiter Band p. 743-745
104
Langewiesche ‘Revolution in Deutschland’ in: Dowe Europa 1848 p. 181-183
105
Langewiesche ‘Revolution in Deutschland’ in: Dowe Europa 1848 p. 167-171
101
29
It had been from october 1848 that the national parliament focused on a solution for the
national question. There had to be decided over the territorial question, the formation of a
nation without touching the existing states-system and the question of sovereignty. At the end
of october the national parliament voted in favor of a German nation including the German
parts of the Habsburg empire and excluding the non-German parts (like northern Italy). It was
after the refusal of Austria that internal divisions about the executive power of the central
state emerged and discussions within the national parliament started about the question of a
‘Grossdeutsch’ or a ‘Kleindeutsch’ state.106
In the first revolutionary events of 1848 Austria had been weakened by the divergent national
revolutions within its Empire. But after the summer, after several military successes, Austria
had regained control of its Empire. This enabled Austria also to exercise more influence on
the German national question.107 The re-entrance of Austria as one of the major powers
actually made a solution for the national question more difficult because Austria did want to
participate in the confederation, with the necessary power and influence, whereas it also
wanted to maintain its Habsburg Empire. Austria had wanted to pursue its foreign policy as
had been set up under Metternich, demanding a leading role within and preservation of the
confederation as decided in 1815. On the other hand it was Prussia that wanted to avoid this
type of confederation at any cost since it would mean too large a role for Austria with its
many nationalities present in its Empire and as well as a very large confederation with vague
rules and regulations. However, this question of Prussian or Austrian guidance over or within
the German state(s) became ever more important, also in the foreign policies of the states.108
Austria remained determined to the complete unity of its Empire and instead of a German
nation-state wanted to stick to the old confederation form. In order to maintain its power, the
national parliament thus had to accept a Germany dominated by Prussia. At the end of march
1849 the national parliament voted over the establishment of a constitutional monarchy being
a federation with unitary features but preserving the existence of the individual states.109
The throne had been offered to the Prussian king who refused, not only out of personal
reasons but also because he feared Austria would not agree with such a leading role for
Prussia. Especially not after the ‘national’ military victories Austria had achieved within its
empire, enforcing at the same time its position within the German confederation.110
Nevertheless, twenty-nine states did accept the new constitution but none of the larger
German states (including also Prussia, Austria and some of the larger southern states). Popular
support for the constitution increased though, supported by the national parliament until the
latter was dissolved by the Prussian army in june 1849.
The popular support for the constitution had created a last revival of the revolutionary spirit at
Frankfurt and the revival of republican activities at Baden. At Baden tensions had been built
up with an increasing call for a republic. Contrary to the other German states, this had not
been caused by an increase in political associations or organizations, since they had already
been present in Baden before 1848. It was caused by the attempts of the government to slow
down reforms to prevent revolution, which made the diffidence and unrest increase.
106
Lutz Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen p. 380-382
Nipperdey Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866 p. 636-647
108
Austensen, Roy A. ‘Austria and the ‘Struggle for supremacy in Germany’, 1848-1864’ In: Journal of
Modern History Vol. 52 no. 2 p. 207-208
109
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 122
110
Crankshaw Otto von Bismarck p. 64-66
107
30
The may revolutionary events had started with a revolt of the soldiers, immediately followed
by the popular masses. The grand duke of Baden and his government immediately fled, which
gave the central popular association, the driving force of this third revolution, the opportunity
to form a provisionary government. The new republic was widely supported but the
provisionary government found itself confronted with difficulties, which increased with the
arrival of the Prussian troops and at the end of july the republic had been defeated by the
Prussian army.111
The refusal of the larger states as well as the revolutionary events at Baden had made the
moderates at Frankfurt more prudent or even anxious to continue working on the national
constitution. Divisions among the liberals increased, but that had not been the only reason for
the easily controlled revolutionary events at Frankfurt. The military troops (among which
Prussia troops) could also easily control the situation because there had been no widespread
popular support.112
In 1849, with the end of the revolutionary events, the question of German nation-state had not
been solved. Austria in the beginning of 1849 was caught up in the last revolutionary events
and wars within its Empire, whereas Prussia made an attempt to proceed with the
‘kleindeutsch’ solution. The Prussian military power had increased the support of the smaller
states for Prussia, but the opposition of the southern states, especially Bavaria, created a shift
in this support. When Austria had solved its problems within the Habsburg Empire, it actively
pursued its politics focused on reforming the confederation, with support of the southern
states. The discussion about Schleswig-Holstein also revived, which was used by Austria to
put Prussia in an isolated position and at the same time Austria tried to enlarge and strengthen
its own position within the confederation at the cost of Prussia.113 Both Prussia and Austria
had continued their national politics until it almost resulted in a military clash. However,
Austria in this period had a stronger position, diplomatically, than Prussia (especially caused
by the support of the southern states and Russia) and at the end of 1850 an agreement
between the two powers had been signed,114 to which Prussia agreed in order to not loose its
position within the confederation and the question of political domination and strength was
postponed.115 This agreement of Olmütz was also to make an end, for the moment, to the
formation of a nation-state.
Although some liberal achievements had been made, the national question had still not been
resolved and the middle classes had achieved the liberal reforms mainly by cooperation with
the old forces. How was this to procede in the next decades? What elements changed and how
did the states operate and act on the liberal and national demands of the middle classes?
Nolte ‘Baden’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 60-68
Wettengel ‘Frankfuhrt’ in: Dipper 1848 p. 149-150
113
Langewiesche ‘Revolution in Deutschland’ in: Dowe Europa 1848 p. 184-186
114
Nipperdey Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866 p. 670-673
115
McGaw Smyth ‘Piedmont and Prussia’ p. 481
111
112
31
Chapter II Italian preparation towards unification
2.1
The 1850s: Piedmont is taking the initiative
Despite the not always successful or long-lasting initiatives of both the democrats and the
moderates in the 1848 revolutions, generally their position and influence in society had been
reinforced by the revolutions. More than the moderates, who had closer ties with the upper
classes and less contact with the lower classes, the democrats had established a new position
in society, as did liberalism and nationalism in general, and the democrats established
networks and working-class associations throughout Italy. It were the democrats to also
pursue the revolutionary spirit in the north of Italy, with new insurrections in LombardyVeneto. The insurrections at Milan in 1853 (an initiative of Mazzini) failed though, because in
the end there was not enough popular support and general support of the higher middle classes
was almost completely lacking. This failure of a new, controlled, revolution created a major
setback in the democratic republican aspirations and actually caused a shift in the democratic
group in which many democrats now turned towards cooperation with the moderates.
Alongside this diminishing opposition between moderates and democrats, there was an
increase in support for the kingdom of Sardinia that seemed to develop into a liberal state. The
support of the liberal middle classes of other Italian states for Piedmont increased even more
after the rather promising outcome of the Crimean war in which Piedmont had fought together
with French and British troops.116
But before taking a closer look at the increase of liberalism in Piedmont, first some
considerations on the economic development of the peninsula after the 1848 revolutions. At
the time of the unification large parts of the Italian peninsula still depended largely on
agriculture but in the north an intensive agricultural system had developed creating a protoindustrial society. This proto-industrial society though, had existed already before the 1848
revolutions. In the north it was only Piedmont to experience this development in the 1850s
but before 1848 it had lacked behind the economic development of Lombardy-Veneto. In
contrast to the south the northern provinces had a more preferable climate for agriculture and
(before 1848) also more state stimulation and investment in agriculture as well as the means
to improve certain aspects of agriculture (more technological knowledge). This stimulation
was completely lacking in the kingdom of the two Sicilies, already before 1848 but also
afterwards.
As stated above the Italian states generally depended on agriculture, but also very much on
trade, especially since it generally lacked raw materials. In many other states it were these raw
materials to form the basis for further industrialization, but in Italy only to a small extent in
Piedmont and to an even lesser extent in Lombardy, raw materials were to be found,
complicating the process of industrialization.117 However, this was not the only reason for the
late and slow process of industrialization, as will be discussed below.
116
117
Woolf A history of Italy p. 422-435
MackSmith Modern Italy p. 4-6
32
Despite the great emphasis on agriculture and despite the fact that the majority of the
population lived of agriculture, they had not been able to make it self-sufficient, which was
caused by the lack of and wrong investment. The landowners or those involved in the
agricultural process, had no special interest in improvements and did not focus on the longterm surplus. Besides, the Italian states had also neglected to invest in facilitating transport (as
had happened in Lombardy-Veneto before 1848 and did happen in Piedmont after 1848) or
the sale of agricultural products. There had been some industrial investment, but merely from
foreign investors (Britain or France) in which the industry still remained closely tightened to
agriculture but moreover the very explosive, instable situation within the Italian states did not
attract any further foreign investment and at the same time the protectionist policies of almost
all Italian states, in which the kingdom of Sardinia was the exception in the 1850s with a more
stimulating and liberal policy, had enabled bad functioning industries or businesses to
continue.118
The problem was the diversity and different development in the Italian states but the lack of
development of the south was to become the largest problem. In the kingdom of the two
Sicilies there was almost no difference between the economic development before or after the
1848 revolutions, except that the restoration rule of Ferdinand II became only more severe
after 1848. As a consequence of the very feudal character of the southern society, the middle
classes in this kingdom had been almost entirely based on professional activities (lawyers etc)
whereas in other Italian states also commercial activities had been very important, but more
significant the feudal character of society impeded also liberalism to increase and gain a
certain influence in society. Furthermore, in the south there was no cooperation between the
middle classes and the upper classes.119 Nevertheless, the experience of 1848, stimulated by
the experiences of the north of Italy, had established liberalism somewhat more also in the
south and during the 1850s the secret societies increased in the south, because the social
problems and opposition towards Bourbon rule, had not faded and liberalism could provide a
solution to the existing situation.
In the 1850s, despite the restorative regimes, in the north and centre of Italy there had been an
intensification of trade with countries outside the peninsula. Nevertheless, this economic
development still took place in small family enterprises; there was no large scale industry and
it remained mainly based on manufactory work,120 which did not change until after the
unification. On the other hand this development and increase in trade, also demonstrates that
the economic development in the centre-north, in contrast to the south, did not completely
stand still.
As mentioned above trade was also very important for the northern states and the construction
of the railways, that had started in the 1840s, had been a very important development and
stimulation for trade, but also for communications, internal connections and it stimulated
further economic progress. Austria, in Lombardy-Veneto, had stimulated the construction of
the railways exactly for economic purposes but after the 1848 revolutions, Austrian rule
became more restorative and the railway network only expanded slowly in its provinces
whereas in Piedmont in the 1850s the railway network expanded enormously.
118
MackSmith Modern Italy p. 41-45
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 148-151
120
Castronovo, Valerio Storia economica d’Italia: dall’Ottocento ai giorni nostri Torino: Einaudi, 1995 p. 38
119
33
Other than to stimulate trade, the railway system also stimulated and expanded the already
existing connections between northern Italy and the European market, which than again was
to further stimulate modernization.121
The restoration rule of Austria in the Italian provinces could be best emphasized as a harsh
military regime under general Radetzky, until 1857 when a more liberal governor was placed
in these provinces. Nevertheless, in the 1850s in both Lombardy and Veneto the Austrian
policy showed quite an ambiguous picture with on the one hand official military restoration
rule to avoid an escalation of the still present nationalist and revolutionary elements and on
the other hand the attempt of liberalization of society. There were many discussions on local
level between Austrian representatives and the Italian representatives about liberalization and
modernization of society. However, although after Radetzky the debates about liberal reforms
increased, neither in this period (1857-1859) neither under Radetzky, important or farreaching liberal reforms were made; it remained all at the level of debate and discussion.122
But where Lombardy-Veneto had been caught up in political problems and social unrest, the
kingdom of Sardinia experienced a quite different development. In the 1840s but especially in
the 1850s the kingdom of Sardinia started to develop and change, mostly stimulated by
investors from abroad.123
The arrival of the liberals in Piedmontese politics, which had begun before 1848 but had been
established by the revolutionary events of 1848, had reinforced a general liberal reform
process, among which the expansion of the railway network, the improvement of the banking
system and state support and stimulation. This was all an enormous input for both economic
and social progress of the kingdom of Sardinia to, in the end, enable also the lead in Italian
unification already within a decade. The very importance and significance of the Piedmontese
liberal transformation could be found, however, not only in the liberal reform policy but
moreover besides this liberalization and modernization, the basis of its power in a strong state
with its strong military and representative liberal government, a development that could also
be found in Prussia.
The liberal development of the kingdom of Sardinia in the 1850s can be called very
remarkable because it had been a very fast development that could be ascribed to the liberals
in parliament but also to the weakening position of Austria as well as the arrival of Louis
Napoleon in France in 1851. The latter at first had caused fear among the liberals for an
increase of conservatism in Piedmont, but with the ‘connubio’ (1852) that fear had been taken
away somewhat124 and in the end it had been this same Louis Napoleon that also enabled
Piedmont to take the lead in the Italian unification.
Castronovo Storia economica d’Italia p. 17-20
Meriggi, Marco ‘La riorganizzazione del potere asburgico nel Lombardo-Veneto dopo il 1848-1849: da
Radetzky a Massimiliano’ in: Verso Belfiore: società, politica, cultura del decennio di preparazione nel
Lombardo-Veneto: atti del convegno di studi, Mantova-Brescia, 25-26-27 novembre 1993 Brescia: F.lli
Geroldi, 1995 p. 29-41
123
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 61-62
124
Banti, Alberto Il Risorgimento italiano Roma: Gius. Laterza e figli Spa, 2004 p. 97-99
121
122
34
As in all the other Italian states also in Piedmont after the 1848 revolutions the reactionary
movement tried to regain power and to abolish many of the liberal reforms of the
revolutionary period. It was this strong presence of the reactionary forces in the Piedmontese
politics that almost automatically created the necessity for the liberals to a closer cooperation
with the moderate conservatives, which eventually led to the ‘connubio’. It had been an
agreement that formed the Piedmontese politics into centre politics; based on compromise
between either the left liberals and the right liberals but also more general, especially in the
second half of the 1850s, between the moderates and the conservatives.125 In comparison
though to the other Italian states where the liberals, either democrat or moderate, quickly lost
control of the situation (besides oppressive restorative rule), the Piedmontese liberals had
been the only ones to be effective enough during the revolutionary period to continue,
supported by many exiles of other parts of Italy with liberal as well as nationalistic intentions
that had come to the Piedmontese state. 126
Piedmont had been the only Italian state to maintain its constitution of the revolutionary year
and as we have seen earlier it was also the Piedmontese state to become a kind of refugee for
the liberal minded, having a strong influence on liberalizing Piedmontese politics. The change
of the Piedmontese politics and economics is perhaps best shown by the introduction of the
Siccardi laws; the liberals were in favor of abolishing the clerical privileges (that in Lombardy
for example had already been abolished) and already in 1850 the proposals were made to
establish a change in the relations between state and church. The Siccardi laws were to
diminish the influence of the church on politics, economy and society, enabling the economic
and political growth that made Piedmont the most liberal and modern state of the peninsula in
the 1850s.127
The investment and stimulation of the railway system, discussed above, made part of larger
liberal, economic reform policy in the kingdom of Sardinia of which the policy of free trade
was a very important element. It did not only abolish the protectionist system of the earlier
years and stimulate certain industries, but it was especially important because it diminished
the internal doganal taxes as well as the external doganal taxes, with for example Lombardy
(look for example at the agreement established with Austria to transport goods to Lombardy
for a lower price128). To make the Piedmontese economy more efficient and prosperous the
state made large investments in the construction of railways.
All the liberal reforms of the Piedmontese state in the 1850s were to have far going
consequences for the entire peninsula because in the process of unification it were the
Piedmontese constitution, legislature, its entire state-system to become the new Italian statesystem, with the maintenance of the church-state separation, creating also the necessary
problems for the later attempts to annex Rome within the new Italian kingdom.
125
Mack Smith Victor Emanuel p. 24
Cavicchioli, Silvia Cerato, Sabina Montaldo, Silvano Fare l’Italia. I dieci anni che prepararono
l’unificazione p. 12-17
127
Beales, Derek Il Risorgimento e l’unificazione dell’Italia Bologna: il Mulino, 2005 p. 149-153
128
Hearder Italy in the age of the Risorgimento p. 213-215
126
35
Despite the idea of an immediate successful reform policy, many of the reforms needed time
to show their effect on society, especially the economic reforms. Although many economic
reforms had been proposed already at the very beginning of the 1850s it was only mid 1850s
that the reforms enabled Piedmontese politics to overcome its financial difficulties (caused by
economic crisis mainly by international tensions cutting Piedmont short of some primary
goods) as well as to focus besides further internal modernization, also on its foreign policy. In
both domestic as well as foreign politics, the construction of the railways had been very
important because it stimulated economic progress, industrialization and modernization.129
Another very profitable aspect of the construction of the railways that often tends to be
overlooked, has been the effect the railways had on the development of the machine
industry.130 It may seem an aspect almost too logical to mention, which in the case of the
German states is most certainly true where there had been much more industry building and
development, but at the Italian peninsula this development of a proper machine industry
(albeit often with foreign investment) was quite rare, offering therefore at the same time only
more possibilities to Piedmont and making it a state really on its way to industrialization.
The economic prosperity of Piedmont in the 1850s was not the only important factor in the
process of unification, though. It was an important factor concerning the Italian support for
Piedmont and monarchical rule, but just as important, as the Piedmontese government did
realize, was the international situation (which throughout Italian history has played an
important role) and most of all the international position of Piedmont. With its economic
growth and the international treaties that had been made, the international position of the
kingdom of Sardinia had already been improving. The 1850s therefore meant also an
improvement in the political and diplomatic position of Piedmont among the European
powers, which was made possible especially by its liberal reform policy.
Cavicchioli, Silvia Cerato, Sabina Montaldo, Silvano Fare l’Italia. I dieci anni che prepararono
l’unificazione p. 22-28
130
Cardoza, Anthony ‘Cavour and Piedmont’ in: Davis, John A. Italy in the nineteenth century p. 117
129
36
2.2
The process of unification
The Crimean war mid 1850s enabled Piedmont to achieve general European recognition of its
leading position at the Italian peninsula. The Crimean war had started in 1854 and Piedmont
entered in the beginning of 1855, albeit that many Piedmontese politicians had their doubts
about participation. Austrian participation on the side of the western powers made the
government decide in favor of participation because if the western powers would win the war,
Piedmont would be surrounded by two large victorious powers and most probably would
loose its increasing position at the Italian peninsula,131 but more importantly it would be
surrounded by two victorious powers that would than be able (possibly) to attempt to increase
their influence on the Italian peninsula, either on own initiatives or in cooperation but in either
way Piedmont would not take any part anymore in the process.
Despite the minor importance of the Piedmontese participation in the Crimean war
(confronted to the number of troops sent by Britain and France), it could be considered a
successful participation, not only on the international field but also domestically because it
had shown the strength of the Piedmontese army (giving ever more confidence to the other
Italian states for the Piedmontese supremacy) and enforced the support for the liberal
government that had been fading somewhat with the several economic, financial difficulties it
had faced. The most important aspect of the Paris conference at 1856, for Piedmont, had been
the discussion of the Italian question and the kingdom of Sardinia got the recognition as well
as appreciation of the great powers for its liberal reform policy.132
The peace conference at Paris was to become the starting point of a further increasing and
direct involvement of the kingdom of Sardinia in the Italian national question. The ties with
France had gotten stronger, especially when already in 1856 the Habsburg empire tried to
reinforce its position at the peninsula, creating not only French opposition but more
importantly creating an increase in the support of the population of Lombardy-Venetia as also
of the population of Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna, for unification with Piedmont. The
international recognition also caused a revival of the economy of the kingdom of Sardinia.
The peace conference had also confirmed the revival of nationalism, which was even more
stimulated by the Italian National Society.133 Even though all these processes had been
enabled by the international recognition of the new status of the kingdom of Sardinia, it
should not be forgotten that it would have never been possible in the first place if the state of
Piedmont had not pursued a policy of liberal reforms throughout the years, already before the
Crimean war.
Beales, Derek Il Risorgimento e l’unificazione dell’Italia Bologna: il Mulino, 2005 p. 156-158
Banti Il Risorgimento p. 101-102
133
Cavicchioli, Silvia Cerato, Sabina Montaldo, Silvano Fare l’Italia. I dieci anni che prepararono
l’unificazione p. 54-63
131
132
37
The many exiles that after 1848 had come to Piedmont were now united by the Piedmontese
state. This Italian National Society, had been created in 1857 (by Daniele Manin) to be able to
centralize liberal and national thought. At the end of the 1850s several new democratic,
republican, risings had taken place but without large popular support and once again
characterized by internal divisions. The democratic insurrectionary failures of these years,
strengthened the new initiative of the Italian National Society and strengthened their choice
for Piedmont, which generally speaking was already increasing.134
The continuing unrest at the Italian peninsula caused an increase in international attention for
Italy and especially French attention after the attack, by Italian democrats, at Louis Napoleon
in 1858, but most of all it had been stimulated by the own interests of Louis Napoleon to
enforce the position of France and enlarge his own powers and prestige. These arguments,
however, were also in the very interest of the kingdom of Sardinia.
The moderates initiated an immense propaganda campaign in cooperation with Louis
Napoleon III, emphasizing and stimulating the anti-Austrian feeling. Besides stimulating antiAustrian feeling, the propaganda created the image of a French-Piedmontese alliance.135 The
moment of the propaganda was chosen perfectly, not only with regard to respond to the
attempt of murder at the French leader, but moreover considering the fact that just at that time
in Lombardy the new, more liberal governor had arrived to whom the population looked up
with great expectations. Expectations though that were to fade very soon when liberal reforms
that were to effect the entire societal system did not occur.
In may 1858 Louis Napoleon and Cavour had a meeting at Plombières where they discussed
the Italian question; the possibility of French intervention and support against Austria, the
future of the Italian peninsula. The definitive agreement was signed almost a year later with
the confirmation of French intervention if Austria was to declare war as well as the
confirmation of the annexation of the regions of Savoy and Nice. Interestingly enough in the
final agreement there was signed nothing about the future formation of the Italian peninsula,
only the formation of an upper Italy under Piedmontese rule was agreed.136 The agreement
clearly showed the intention of both sides to chase away the Habsburg influence out of the
Italian peninsula but without the intention of a complete unification process.
Immediately after the accordance of Plombières the Italian National Society had started a
propaganda campaign in the central Italian states to ensure their support in the battle against
Austria as well as to ensure their support for annexation with Piedmont, emphasizing its
liberal-national character and emphasizing the willingness of the kingdom of Sardinia to put
the necessary reforms through,137 which was welcomed by these states that had suffered the
severe restoration regimes.
134
Banti Il Risorgimento p. 102-104
Cavicchioli, Silvia Cerato, Sabina Montaldo, Silvano Fare l’Italia. I dieci anni che prepararono
l’unificazione p. 70-75
136
Banti Il Risorgimento p. 104-105
137
Cavicchioli, Silvia Cerato, Sabina Montaldo, Silvano Fare l’Italia. I dieci anni che prepararono
l’unificazione p. 76-77
135
38
To start the war Piedmont had to wait for an ultimatum of Austria, which arrived at the end of
april 1859 after several (military) provocations of Piedmont. The Piedmontese parliament
announced itself in favor of the war and together with the French troops, despite many bloody
fights, but supported by many volunteers (of especially the lower and middle classes) in
Lombardy-Veneto, the Piedmontese troops had already made several victories over the
Austrian troops towards the summer. Still on the winning side and entering ever more into the
Lombard-Veneto provinces, Louis Napoleon suddenly signed an armistice with Austria, at
july of 1859, resulting in the peace of Villafranca.138
Austria and Piedmont, however, both showed their persistence in their demands; the
Habsburg empire showed no preparedness whatsoever to let any of its control over (some
parts of) the Italian peninsula go. Neither was Piedmont willing to abandon the national
question now in this stage and therefore when the Habsurg empire sent an ultimatum, short
after the proposal for a congress, demanding the disarmament of the Piedmontese troops, the
war did start. The second war of independence did also start with support of France, since in
the end, albeit not everyone in the same active way, all the great powers agreed on the fact
that they could not back down on Piedmont, as it was the only liberal power at the
peninsula.139
This second war of independence was supported by risings of the liberals in the centre of the
Italian peninsula and their call for annexation with Piedmont. When the grand dukes and
governors of these states and regions (also the northern part of the papal states were involved)
fled, the call for annexation increased. The Piedmontese government immediately sent some
of their own representatives to these regions and in the summer elections were being
organized in these states for the formation of assemblies. Already at the beginning of june
Lombardy had been officially annexed by the kingdom of Sardinia, an annexation that was
based on the elections and result of 1848. Nevertheless, the central states could not officially
be annexed, yet, since in the armistice of Villafranca, between Austria and France, was
stipulated that the former rulers of these states should return in their old positions as well as
that the regions belonging to the papal states should be restored under papal rule. 140 However,
the national spirit could not be stopped anymore.
In the summer Austrian troops slowly withdrew from the central states and the constitutional
assemblies (headed by liberal Piedmontese representatives) in the central states one by one
called themselves in favor of annexation, but the king of Piedmont delayed official
annexation. Official annexation had also been impossible until the peace negotiations
considering the armistice of Villafranca had been concluded which happened in november
1859, postponing the question of official annexation. With the conclusion then of the peace of
Zurich of november, in march 1860, when Cavour had returned to the political centre of the
kingdom of Sardinia, finally there were held plebiscites to officially annex the several states
and an overwhelming majority in all the involved states voted in favor of annexation. To
avoid problems with France already a month later plebiscites were held in Nice and Savoy,
with again an overwhelming majority in favor of annexation, but this time annexation with
France. 141
138
Banti Il Risorgimento p. 107-109
Cavicchioli, Silvia Cerato, Sabina Montaldo, Silvano Fare l’Italia. I dieci anni che prepararono
l’unificazione p. 81-85
140
Banti Il Risorgimento p. 109-111
141
Cardoza, Anthony ‘Cavour and Piedmont’ in: Davis, John A. Italy in the nineteenth century p. 127-128
139
39
The democrats, however, who had continued their liberal and national activity and
propaganda in the period that the Piedmontese government had laid low (from november until
march 1860), wanted more; they wanted to achieve a complete overthrow of all the old
regimes at the Italian peninsula and therefore also unify Rome and the south of Italy. In may
Garibaldi and his ‘Mille’ took off to head for the south.142
As discussed in the first paragraph of this chapter, the situation in the south of the peninsula
during the 1850s had almost been very conservative. But besides the economic decline and
the increasing revolts, the position of the Bourbon monarchy got even worse. First of all the
southern monarchy in the Crimean war remained faithful to its traditional ally Russia and the
other traditional ally of the Bourbon monarchy, the Habsburg empire, came in a diplomatic
isolation after the Crimean war. Furthermore, the southern king refused in 1859 to join the
Piedmontese-French alliance. Nevertheless, it should also be taken in consideration that the
impossibility of the liberal opposition to form one bloc against the king made a continuation
of the restoration and conservative rule possible.
Even with the death of king Ferdinand in 1859, the southern situation did not change since his
son instead of anticipating on the liberal ideas throughout Italy continued his father’s
conservative policy. The risings and insurrections in 1860 though, could not be stopped
anymore but even now, just as in 1848 the southern liberals could not agree on what the future
without the Bourbon royal rule should be like, loosing the possibility to seize the control of
the south instead of leaving it in the hands of revolutionary troops which got ever better
organized with the arrival of the troops of Garibaldi.143
In the spring of 1860 new risings had broken out in the south, again, as in 1848, mostly at
Sicily and the democratic revolutionaries at the north wanted to use these insurrections to
establish a complete Italian unification. Garibaldi was the revolutionary and military leader to
take the lead in this expedition, although the question is whether he acted under pressure of
the democratic society or entirely out of own interest. Nevertheless, Garibaldi prepared a
group of volunteers (the ‘Mille’ of Garibaldi) which was sustained by the Italian national
society (providing arms etc.). Garibaldi arrived at Sicily at the beginning of may and quickly
made the first successes over the Bourbon army, in which the ‘Mille’ were supported by the
Sicilian population. Among the Sicilian population, now fighting on the side of the ‘Mille’,
there were also many bandits and other armed groups that were mainly fighting for social
reasons causing a genuine revolt against authority (although Garibaldi emphasized his purely
political goal). The ‘Mille’ were not only supported by the Sicilian population but also by
volunteers from other parts of the peninsula whereas at the same time the Bourbon troops
showed ever more unwilling to fight against the popular troops of Garibaldi, facilitating the
latter’s march at Naples.
142
143
Beales L’unificazione p. 162-164
Riall, Lucy ‘Garibaldi and the south’
in: Davis, John A. Italy in the nineteenth century p. 137-146
40
In the meantime Cavour had put pressure on Garibaldi to call out plebiscites in order to
officially annex the liberated regions and to keep the situation in control, which Garibaldi
only agreed to in october, in a period when the Piedmontese troops were about to reach
Naples, where the national guard had already expressed its favor for annexation. As a strong
believer in the dynasty, although Garibaldi preferred a constitutional assembly and the
annexation of Rome, he agreed with the Piedmontese government and at the end of october
plebiscites were held and again turned out in favor for annexation.144
The southern annexation to the Italian kingdom had been a rather ambiguous process though;
on the one hand Garibaldi had used the discontents and revolts of the Sicilian population
whereas he also imposed Piedmontese rule to control the situation (a political unification
without attention for the social necessities). 145 Another ambiguity was the own position of the
south since neither at Sicily nor at the southern mainland was widespread support for
unification, on the other hand there was neither a widespread support for Bourbon rule,
especially not after the latter had shown incapable of controlling the situation at Sicily. The
Sicilian revolutionaries mostly accompanied Garibaldi at his march to Naples where the town
was successfully captured. Nevertheless, it had been the Piedmontese military troops to in the
end settle the new rule in Naples.146
Nevertheless, Garibaldi had to face a very difficult and most of all chaotic situation in the
south, which had enabled Cavour only more to regain control of the situation. The chaotic
situation not only had to do with the risings that had broken out at Sicily or the fighting when
Garibaldi and his ‘Mille’ arrived, but the chaos was mainly caused by the lack of proper, good
functioning institutions, not only at Sicily but also on the southern mainland, which was the
heritage of the Bourbon restoration rule. At the same time this negative heritage facilitated the
success of the Piedmontese troops and created also here the overwhelming support for
annexation with liberal and promising Piedmont.147 In the end the southern population
decided in favor of annexation with Piedmont because it was the most promising and likely to
end the social and economic problems, instead of another period under Bourbon rule.
At the end the unification was completed by the annexation of Venice at 1866 and Rome in
1870, albeit not on their own initiative this time but created by a favorable international
situation; tensions between Austria and Prussia had reached a high level, whereas at the same
time the Austrian government refused any diplomatic solution for the question of Venice. It
was in 1865 that discussion started between the Italian kingdom and Prussia, first about a
commercial treaty which was established at the end of 1865 between Italy and the German
Zollverein and than followed in 1866 by an anti-Austrian military alliance.
The war between Austria and Prussia of 1866, resulting in a victory for Prussia, than enabled
Italy to annex the Veneto, in the same way as the annexation of Lombardy. First the Veneto
was conceded to Louis Napoleon who immediately conceded the territory to the Italian
kingdom for which the Venetian annexation became a fact in 1866, confirmed by the
plebiscite held in the Veneto favoring annexation at the end of october 1866,148 in which
again the Piedmontese propaganda should not be underestimated.
144
Banti Il Risorgimento p. 112-116
Cardoza, Anthony ‘Cavour and Piedmont’ in: Davis, John A. Italy in the nineteenth century p. 128-129
146
Beales L’unificazione p. 167
147
Riall, Lucy ‘Garibaldi and the south’ in: Davis, John A. Italy in the nineteenth century p. 146-147
148
Beales L’unificazione p. 201-203
145
41
In the first decade of the kingdom of Italy, and for many years after, it had to deal with many
different problems. The national parliament ever since Cavour died or actually ever since the
first successes in unification of the Italian states, had been divided and confronted with many
difficulties, especially in reforming the states to make the unification complete. Furthermore,
the pope had refused to recognize the new Italian state and strongly resisted to annexation of
Rome. Other than that there were also severe problems to deal with in the south where many
risings, insurrections and fightings (better known as ‘brigantaggio’) took place, which in 1866
had to be put down by military force.149
The ‘brigantaggio’ had actually started already with the first risings in 1860 and were to
continue also after the official unification in 1861, also despite the large majority that had
voted in favor for annexation.150 The ‘brigantaggio’ almost resulted in a civil war and
continued for several years after the unification.
The national parliament in these years had also been concerned with maintaining in
discussion, or better yet, in negotiation with the papal government in order to be able to
finally conclude the process of Italian unification. The annexation of Rome, which finally
occurred in 1870, had been at the centre of Italian politics ever since the first successful
annexations in the unification process a decade earlier. The negotiations though, had not been
successful at all, which could not only be ascribed to the resistant and negative attitude of the
pope but was also caused by the continuing proposals for clerical reforms by the new national
parliament. Besides diplomatic attempts there had also been various revolutionary attempts
(on initiative of Garibaldi), but the French troops present in Rome successfully suppressed
these popular risings.151
More and more it became obvious that a voluntary annexation of Rome would not be possible
and therefore with the possibility given by the withdrawal of the French troops, occupied in
the French-Prussian war, the national parliament did not hesitate to vote in favor of military
action to annex Rome in order to finally complete the Italian unification. The annexation of
Rome then finally completed the process of Italian unification and in 1871 Rome was made
capital of the new kingdom of Italy.152 The idea of unification with the presence of the
universal power of the pope as it had emerged in 1846 but also had lost much support with the
1848 revolutions, had finally been achieved, albeit without papal consent.
Cirelli, Renato La questione romana. Il compimento dell’unificazione che ha diviso l’Italia p. 53-55
it has been this kind of consequences or effects that were (and are) to put an enormous doubt on the legality
of the plebiscites. But at the same time it is a consideration that would need an entire research on its own, not
only with regard to the southern plebiscites as well as considering the other Italian plebiscites of this period. For
this research only matters the result which in one way or another had ended in unification
151
Mack Smith Victor Emanuel p. 37
152
Cirelli, Renato La questione romana. Il compimento dell’unificazione che ha diviso l’Italia p. 91-100
149
150
42
Chapter III
3.1
The solution of the German question and unification
The 1850s and 1860s: the battle for supremacy
With the agreement of Olmütz, which became official in 1851 with the agreement of Dresden,
the making of a nation-state seemed to have failed. It eventually had been the Crimean war to
give a new perspective to the German question when Prussia maintained its neutral position
and strengthened its position over the other German states whereas the position of Austria
weakened.153 Nevertheless, the Crimean war as well as economic progress were not to solve
the problem of supremacy immediately because many states still looked with diffidence upon
Prussian ambitions and support for Austria had not diminished. Therefore first of all, the
developments and certain events in the 1850s and 1860s have to be taken in consideration.
The politics in the German states after the revolutionary years of 1848/1849, had mostly been
characterized by reactionary politics. Throughout the revolutionary years the old conservative
forces had maintained their powers, but the influence and importance of the liberal demands
was to remain and could also be noticed in the reactionary regimes. The 1850s in Germany
were marked by reactionary politics because the conservative forces of the states combined a
more realistic approach to politics, society and economy with the agreement to some of the
liberal demands, whereas at the same time they tried to prevent a new revolutionary outbreak.
This combination made the reactionary regimes of the 1850s also somewhat ambiguous as can
be demonstrated by an example of Prussia where on the one hand economic growth and
industrialization were stimulated but at the same time guilds and manufactorial works were
protected.154 It were measures like these, as other conservative counter-balances to relatively
small grantings of liberal demands (generally those that were to contribute to a modernization
of society), that marked the 1850s in Germany as a period of reaction.
Throughout the German confederation measures had been taken to prevent a new
revolutionary outbreak, but also to incorporate the moderate liberals within the system. The
reactionary regimes were indeed repressive, extending their control on politics, society and
economy, which could be demonstrated by the example of Prussia. Here the parliamentary
system was changed in a three chamber system (based on class) and the constitution became
more conservative over the years. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that the reactionary
regimes did leave some room for opposition. State influence and control had increased but the
liberal ideas had not been entirely abandoned. In the 1850s the liberals tried to anticipate on
the reactionary regimes by influencing society, politics and economy with a realistic
approach; anticipation on the situation by means of ‘Realpolitik’.155 This possibility was also
given to them by the German states, keeping in control of the situation and profiting of the
liberal ideas and efforts.
153
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 179-180
Brose, Eric Dorn German history 1789-1871. From the holy Roman empire to the Bismarckian Reich
Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1997 p. 264-267
155
Wehler, Hans-Ulrich Deutsche Gesellschafstgeschichte 1849-1914 Dritter Band München: Beck, 1989 p.
196-216
154
43
Before the 1848 revolutions the economy of the German states had mainly been based on
agriculture, although from the 1840s this started to change with the arrival of the railways, but
the real industrial boom was to take place from the 1850s onward. With the construction and
growth of the railways, primary means as coal and iron became more widespread stimulating
(regional) specialization, but also the arrival of larger companies, a growth and necessity of
(new) technology and urbanization.156
The expansion of the railway system had been a very important incentive for the expansion
and development of industrialization throughout the German states. It had been in the 1850s
that the influence of the railway industry became noticeable in other industries. Not only did
the railway industry stimulate the development of other industries, but it also stimulated the
increase and expansion of other economic sectors, such as the banking system. The banks
expanded, profesionalized and made further investment and stimulation possible.157
Industrialization and economic growth were not only stimulated by the expansion of the
railway-system but were also stimulated by the German states, favoring industrial and
commercial development in which the liberal influence of the 1848 revolutions is well
noticeable. Next to stimulation by the states there were also the extra impulses given by the
existence of the Zollverein, increasingly stimulating free trade. Especially when with the
expansion of the union, in the 1850s the Zollverein was also occupied with international tariff
negotiations.158
The Zollverein, although it did not primary serve as the basis for unification, did enable
Prussia to strengthen its position in both economic and diplomatic sense. On the short term
this had purely economic effects but on the long term it did establish a broader basis for
Prussia to extend its position from a strong position within the Zollverein to an important
position for the German states involved in other areas. The latter, though, had been made
possible, as we will see later on, especially by foreign events, such as the Crimean war. The
importance of the Zollverein and the extension of its ties with Hanover had been that Prussia
pushed the Zollverein in the direction of a liberal tariff policy. At the same time also Austria
had tried to establish something of a customs league, but the economic development of
Austria lacked behind many other German states and Austria, in contrast to Prussia, had
adopted a protectionist policy,159 exactly in this period in which economic expansion,
dispersion and communication became so important. This was moreover stimulated by the
expansion of the railway network in these years by especially the northern and western
German states which connected the German states, with all economic advantages involved.160
The expansion in railway construction had especially profitable consequences for the
members of the Zollverein who saw their trade almost double in the 1850s with an increase in
commercial activity as well as in economic prosperity (as happened in Piedmont). The
railways other than stimulating economic development, also stimulated technological
development and industrialization, but also increased the competition between the German
states.161
156
Breuilly, John The formation of the first German nation-state, 1800-1871 Hampshire: palgrave, 1996 p. 22
Wehler, Hans-Ulrich Deutsche Gesellschafstgeschichte 1849-1914 Dritter Band München: Beck, 1989 p.
82-91
158
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 135-143
159
Green, Abigail ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber, Jonathan Germany 1800-1870 New
York: Oxford University Press, 2004 p. 74-75
160
Lenger, Friedrich ‘Economy and society’ in: Sperber Germany p. 106-108
161
Brose German history 1789-1871 p. 269-272
157
44
Germany had not only experienced a growth in economic development. As in Italy, the 1848
revolutions had been accompanied by an enormous growth in journals and newspapers. It was
almost impossible to continue this growth, but as the economic progress of the 1850s, also on
cultural level an important development took place with the arrival of more specific journals,
at first mainly political oriented but towards the 1860s also more scientific and cultural
journals came into existence.162
The second part of the nineteenth century in Germany also demonstrated a development in
education and associations. The presence of one general German language could perfectly
stimulate national feeling and identity but the associations themselves, although stimulating
nationalism, were quite divided on what that nationalist feeling exactly should be.163
At the end of the 1850s there was a revival of liberalism in the German states, which was very
much influenced by the new king of Prussia. The liberal expectations with the arrival of king
William I regained strength. Nevertheless, the divisions among the liberals had remained the
same as around the time of the revolutions. The liberal revival went very much hand in hand
with the economic growth and possibility that now coincided with a more urgent demand for
liberalization and modernization of society. Remarkable enough, this renewed liberalism went
along with a strong sense of anti-catholicism since the reactionary regimes of the 1850s had
closely cooperated with the catholic church.164 Moreover this anti-catholicism could be
explained by the fact that the largest catholic power within the German confederation,
Austria, pursued a conservative, protectionist economic policy.
A different point of view on the revival of liberalism has been the view of Wehler, who, in
contrast to Blackbourn, regards the 1850s as a period dominated by state intervention without
the presence of the liberals on the background. One of his arguments has been that liberalism
revived after the economic depression of 1857-1859, which followed upon some years of
repressive measures, increasing the call for liberal reforms. Nevertheless, despite the
increasing influence of the reactionary regimes, the liberal ideas had remained important,
especially in the enormous economic growth of the 1850s. But the liberal ideas had also been
stimulated by the events at the Italian peninsula. For both Italy and Germany the liberal
influence had been stimulated by the Crimean war that had caused the breakdown of the
system of 1815 (the Metternich system). This breakdown did not only increased possibilities
for Piedmont, as we have seen, it also released the pressure of the German states, caused by
the weakened position of Russia. The Crimean war had stimulated the liberals, together with
the Italian situation and the economic downfall, to create new possibilities and renew also the
issue of the national question.165 Certainly these three factors contributed to the revival of
liberalism, but the liberal and national ideas had been and remained present throughout the
German states ever since the 1848 revolutions.
162
Lutz Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen p. 422-428
Breuilly The formation of the first German nation-state p. 26-29
164
Blackbourn, David History of Germany 1780-1918. The long nineteenth century
publishing Ltd, 2003 p. 177-179
165
Wehler Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte p. 92-96, 221-224
163
Oxford: Blackwell
45
The Crimean war had been an important turning point in the changing relations between
Austria and Prussia. The Crimean war meant a disruption of the agreement of Olmütz, which
had been signed by Austria, Prussia and Russia. Austria not only fought against its former ally
Russia, the war had also demonstrated that Austria was not prepared to let his territories go.166
Once again the Habsburg empire had shown to prefer its own interests above those of the
German confederation.
The Crimean war had not only isolated Austria in the sense that it had lost its historic ally,
Russia, Austria now had to increase taxes and apply other economic repressive measures to
compensate for the costs of the war. Prussia with its policy of neutrality had created more
goodwill among the German states (among which especially the southern states felt betrayed
by the Austrian alliance with their historic enemy France) as well as it had established the
acceptance of the large power in the east, Russia.167
The isolated position of Austria was to increase with the second war of independence in the
north of Italy, which not only weakened its diplomatic position but also aggravated the
already high financial expenses and problems of the empire. It was exactly in this year (1859)
that the National Association had been created by the middle classes, based on the Italian
National Society, preferring the formation of a nation-state under Prussian guidance. But
many voices still favored the ‘grossdeutsch’ solution, a nation-state under guidance of
Austria. Nevertheless, the Italian question had not been complelety desastrous for Austria
because the reluctance of Prussia to support Austria as a German state in this war of
independence, actually increased the support of the southern states for Austria because they
wanted to avoid a dominant Prussia in the confederation. Furthermore, the revival of
liberalism had also positively influenced the Austrian politics, pursuing a more moderate
conservative policy.168
As stated above, the arrival of a new king in Prussia had created high expectations among the
liberals and indeed with his arrival (officially in 1858) many of the conservatives in
government were replaced by liberals but he also relied heavily on a strong army.
Nevertheless, over the years his governments had been based upon a cooperation between
liberalism and conservatism (a combination that was to become so very important also in the
policies of Bismarck as well as in the process of unification). William I more than actually
pursue a liberal policy, was far more concerned with the domination of Prussia in the national
question.169 This could explain why the king focused on the necessity of reforming the
military.
The military reforms of Prussia had increased the liberal opposition, but had also increased
the divisions among the liberals. Their general influence in parliament diminished, but the
liberals maintained an important role in the opposition but parliamentary opposition was
simply ignored by putting the constitution aside. This internal problematic situation had had
damaging effects for the image of Prussia among other German states in this period of liberal
revival.170
Green ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber Germany p.75-76
Brose German history 1789-1871 p. 275-276
168
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 180-182
169
Kitchen, Martin A history of modern Germany, 1800-2000 Malden: Blackwell publishing, 2006 p. 94
170
Brose German history 1789-1871 p. 276-298
166
167
46
In the meantime there had been granted a constitution in Austria (1861) which would enable
the Empire to take the lead in the German confederation. The constitution had been so
important because it made Austria a country based on constitutionalism. Furthermore, Austria
proposed general reforms of the confederation and for which it searched support among the
smaller (southern) German states. But once again it was an Austrian proposal for reforming
the existing confederation and not the guidance in a German nation-state.
A solution to the national question became overshadowed by the trade treaty between France
and Prussia of 1862. The treaty was signed just before the Zollverein members had to decide
whether they wanted to continue their trade agreements within the Zollverein, leaving Austria
out. In this time where economic growth and progress were of such large importance and
coincided very much with political decisions, the member states could hardly not continue
their membership of the Zollverein.171 Although Austria had been left out of these
negotiations, Austria did stimulate the opposition of the southern states to this treaty with
France.172
The member states of the Zollverein did strongly oppose to the Prussian policy, but in this
period of industrialization it would almost be political suicide to abandon the advantages of
the Zollverein and therefore the states, after the necessary protests, agreed with the Prussian
terms.173 Albeit on economic level, this Prussian policy demonstrated the intention of Prussia
to get more involved in German national politics whereas at the same time it demonstrated the
intention of Prussia, already in the beginning of the 1860s, to preserve and strengthen its own
position among and at the cost of the other German states. For this same reason despite many
attempts to not overestimate the importance of the Zollverein in the process of unification, the
political implications of this economic cooperation could not and cannot be denied.
Various German states in the 1860s continued to look upon Austria for German unification,
demonstrated by initiatives of for example Saxony and Bavaria to establish a closer pact
between the German states and Austria, in an attempt to diminish Prussian influence. 174 But
the southern states on the other hand did expect that Austria would apply the necessary
reforms in its own country as well as in the confederation to make a successful unification
possible and especially the latter was a problem for Austria. Prussia on the other hand, opened
up to the nationalists as well as it had demonstrated the preparadness to impose reforms. It
had been reforms that went along the line with preservation of monarchical rule and
preservation of the strength of the military, which were both supported also by Bismarck. Just
as Cavour he focused very much on the economic importance, as well as on monarchic and
military rule. At the end of the 1850s Bismarck recognized the importance of binding the
national elements and the liberal middle classes to Prussian guidance in German unification,
without loosing its conservative basis though.175
Green ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber Germany
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 183-184
173
Green ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber Germany
174
Brose German history 1789-1871 p. 331-334
175
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 190-192
171
p. 79-81
172
p. 80-81
47
3.2
The process of unification
In the 1850s a revival of liberalism had taken place, the economic development of the German
states had been enormous, both by state interference and stimulation as from the economic
classes involved (mainly the bourgeoisise). But the national question in the 1850s, although
only towards the end the interest of the states revived, had remained unsolved. As a decade
earlier, the battle for supremacy between Austria and Prussia had not been decisive. Although
Prussia had been more occupied with the national question and interested in taking the lead in
the formation of German national state, the position of Austria as well as the support of
especially the southern states for Austria, had not weakened that much to exclude Austria
already from the national question. But how was this to continue in the 1860s? What had
happened that within a decade Austria had lost control of the German confedration?
In the beginning of the 1860s the relations between Austria and Prussia had sharpened, and
other than on economic level, got worse especially on political level where questions of the
past still played an important role. One of these questions had been the issue over SchleswigHolstein, discussed also in the first chapter, which revived in 1863. First of all the revival
followed upon Danish provocation to annex Schleswig but was followed by the death of the
Danish king in the same year without an heir. The question arose much support throughout
the German states and national organizations to take action and pursue also the national
question.176 The Austrian and Prussian troops in 1864 succeeded in annexing both provinces
to the German confederation, which a year later were divided among the two powers.
The divisions between the liberals and nationalists about the form of the future German
nation-state still existed and were to increase even more. The positions and attitudes of both
Prussia and Austria also created these contuining divisions since the ‘kleindeutsch’ solution
had lost popularity because of the constitutional problem, as well as the reactionary attitude of
Prussia suppressing the Polish revolt of 1863, whereas Austria had demonstrated that both the
confederation as well as its Empire remained more important than the formation of a German
nation-state.177 Besides these differences between Prussia and Austria as well as the
difficulties concerning both solutions, it was also to be questioned whether either Prussia or
Austria at this point really wanted to establish a German nation-state on the liberal and
national, equal basis as proposed and supposed by several German (liberal) states. At the
beginning of the 1860s the answer to this question, as demonstrated with the SchleswigHolstein issue, had been negative.
The annexation of the provinces by Austrian and Prussian troops had occurred without
permission of the German confederation since the confederation had voted in favor of
annexation of the provinces by the prince of Augustenburg. But Prussia and Austria overruled
the decision of the confederation and when Danish troops entered Schleswig-Holstein, Austria
and Prussia (without informing the confederation) sent an ultimatum leading to war that was
to be over in a few months with a victory for the Prussian-Austrian alliance.178
176
Brose German history 1789-1871 p. 335-336
Green ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber Germany p. 81
178
Green ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber Germany p. 81-83
177
48
For the moment the alliance caused a revival of the national and liberal discussion among the
other states, but it seemed as if the formation of the German nation-state was still very far
away. In 1865 at the Gastein convention a temporary solution had been found to the issue
with the division of the two provinces between Austria (Holstein) and Prussia (Schleswig).
National tensions though, continued also in these provinces increasing the general tension
within the German confederation and Prussia was preparing a war, establishing an alliance
with Italy as also agreement of France for an anti-Austrian policy. 179
At the same time Prussia continued to reinforce the Zollverein, which was to create another
dispute with Austria leading to war. The tensions between Austria and Prussia had been rising
for a long time, increasing even more after the question Schleswig-Holstein. Prussia was now
clearly taking the initiative in the leading position of the confederation when reforms of the
German confederation had been proposed that would exclude Austria. The proposed reforms
by Prussia actually created much opposition among not only Austria but also the states of the
third Germany, willing to protect the confederation (and themselves) of these Prussian
ambitions.180 The question of loyalty to or preference of either Prussia or Austria at this point,
1866, had still be present.
When Italy immediately sent troops to its Austrian border after the confirmation of the
alliance with Prussia, Austria and Prussia both mobilized their troops and Austria demanded
the German confederation for support. As a response to this request and out of fear that
Augustenburg would annex the duchies, Prussia sent its troops to Holstein. Austria once again
directed itself to the German confederation but Prussia simply dismantled the confederation.
The position of Austria was to weaken even more with the quick defeat by the Prussian army
at Königgratz in july 1866, creating a further isolation of Austria. Especially since the victory
of Prussia was immediately followed by the formation of the North German Confederation in
1867, based on the Prussian constitutional system and with large parts of northern Germany
annexed to the Prussian state. Already in august of 1866 with the peace of Prague, Austria had
been pushed to an official agreement accepting the fall of the German confederation in its old
form as well as it had to officially denounce any of its rights and powers over the German
question and affairs.181 Nevertheless, with the war of 1866 finally the long expected clash
between Austria and Prussia had taken place and turned out a victory for Prussia.
But the southern German states, historically always more dependent on Austria, still focused
on the possibility of a German unification including Austria. This was to change, however,
with the war between Prussia and France in 1870-1871 that again had been won by the
Prussian military power.182
Green ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber Germany p. 84
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 184
181
Brose German history 1789-1871 p. 338-343
182
Blackbourn History of Germany p. 184-189
179
180
49
The Austrian-Prussian war, as a consequence of the Schleswig-Holstein issue but also as a
consequence of the Prussian economic domination over the Zollverein, did not only cause the
formation of the North German Confederation, but also solved the internal problems with the
liberals. Ever since 1862 the liberals had been conducting a strong opposition, although
without a constitution, but the Prussian victory had opened up the possibility of a Prussian led
German unification, supported by the Prussian liberals. Moreover, Bismarck acknowledged
that Prussia since 1862 had been governed without a constitution, creating an increasing
support of a large part of the liberals for the policy of Bismarck.
The solution of the constitutional problem had caused a shift in Prussian politics; an alliance
had been established between Bismarck and the liberals (the former acknowledging the
importance of the liberals, the middle classes, to establish a successful modernization of
society) but the other German states continued to look with diffidence towards Prussian policy
because Prussia had been able to establish the North German Confederation (1867) in which
various northern German states had simply been annexed to the Prussian state. The North
German Confederation had been a federal state based on the Prussian constitution and had
been guided by Prussian politics and objectives. This is not only demonstrated by the fact that
the features of the federal state were strongly based upon the Prussian constitution and state
system, but moreover the North German Confederation became to form the basis for further
Prussian expansion, i.e. the basis for the German nation-state.183
Despite the economic and later on also military connections between the North German
confederation and the southern states, the latter still felt strong opposition towards the
Prussian dominated confederation. It was not an opposition against the formation of a nationstate, as long as it would have a liberal basis and the southern states would not loose their
independence. At the same time also within the North German confederation there was a lot
of pressure from the liberals and nationalists; first of all to establish a liberal state and
secondly to complete the formation of the national state, including southern Germany. By
means of peace treaties and re-organization of the Zollverein, the southern states had already
been connected to the confederation, although under strong opposition of the southern states
(such as Baden and Baviera). The path to a nation-state still seemed rather long but within the
North German confederation there had been more possibilities to impose liberal reforms. The
southern diffidence towards Prussia remained though.184
The basis for the German nation-state and the objective of Prussia to establish German
unification under Prussian rule, was immediately pursued with the re-organization of the
Zollverein. Bismarck immediately established a direct (economic) cooperation between the
confederation and the southern states, which was than also extended with a sort of military
cooperation concerning reforms of the military of the diverse southern states among the
Prussian model. These military reforms followed upon military treaties at the end of the
1860s, in a period of increasing tensions between France and Prussia. Despite this cooperation
between Prussia and the southern states and despite a more isolated position for Austria, the
cooperation was not an immediate success or better yet, foresights for a nation-state were not
promising.
183
184
Green ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber
Wehler Deutsche Gesellchafstgeschichte p. 304-313
Germany p. 85-87
50
Once the organization of the parliaments had been established, elections took place in the
several states and the southern states had voted for those members that had a focus on the
preservation of the southern independence as well as an anti-Prussian attitude, whether this
did not already coincide. On the other hand as stated above, the divisions among the southern
states themselves were too strong to be able to form their own confederation. Besides, also in
this period the importance of the Zollverein once again proved a binding factor between the
north and the south (as had it earlier been a factor to economically isolate Austria). Besides,
the events had demonstrated that eventually there was no other possibility and no state as
strong as the Prussian state to pursue the formation of a nation-state.185
Within the North German Confederation Prussia kept an important position and remained the
most powerful state within the confederation, nevertheless, there were several matters (such
as education, religious and legal matters) that remained the responsibility of the states
themselves. Whether or not a centralized federation, Prussian influence and strength could not
be denied, especially because the king of Prussia became the president of the confederation
and the prime minister of Prussia (Bismarck) became prime minister of the North German
confederation. The national question had strongly influenced the centralizing character but
also the maintaince of independent positions within the federal state, considering also the
eventual annexation of the southern states, since they would never agree on a nation-state
entirely based on Prussian rule. Indeed the constitution of the confederation as well as its
entire (federal) system, with an important but not entirely dominant role for Prussia, was to
become also the system for the German empire.
The position of Baden had been remarkable in the southern opposition. Ever since the arrival
of the new grand duke in 1852, the state of Baden had pursued a policy that was directed
towards Prussia. It had been for example the only southern state in the Schleswig-Holstein
issue to support annexation of the provinces by Prussia. But as everywhere also in this
historically liberal state, the liberals were very much divided among each other and therefore
Baden in 1866 first sided with Austria, also because the historical connections of the southern
states with Austria, but after the Prussian victory at Königgratz, Baden changed sides again
and conducted reforms that were more along the side of the northern German (protestant)
states, i.e. Prussia.186 But they remained focused on the necessity of liberal reforms and the
maintenance of independency within the North German Confederation, accompanied by the
general diffidence of the southern states towards Prussia.
Generally the opposition against Prussia had been caused by its ties with the conservative
forces whereas the southern states themselves had rather liberal governments. Nevertheless,
Prussia, or actually the policy of Bismarck, over the years had become a compromise between
the conservatives and liberals, in which the latter (also caused by the economic growth) were
to increase their political power ever more. Nevetheless, the position of the southern liberals
was rather ambiguous because they besides a liberal state, also wanted to finally establish and
conclude a German national state and therefore unification with the North German
Confederation seemed ever more inevitable.187
185
Kitchen, Martin A history of modern Germany, 1800-2000 Malden: Blackwell publishing, 2006 p. 114115
186
Brose German history 1789-1871 p. 350-351
187
Kitchen A history of modern Germany p. 116-117
51
Despite the support and desire for completion of unification, first the formation of the North
German confederation had to be secured. Besides, Bismarck preferred annexation of the
southern states by diplomatic actions in a gradual process instead of achieving unification by
military force, although it would be difficult considering the opposition of the southern
catholic states (especially Bavaria) against protestant Prussia. Besides these internal
difficulties for the formation of a national state, Prussia also had to deal with the French
threat. In France the developments of 1866 and 1867 had been followed with great anxiety
and it was preparing its army to prevent the confederation of extending its border even
more.188 Over the years this tension between France and Prussia only increased.
France, still under guidance of Louis Napoleon III, was not only considering the expansion of
Prussia as a direct threat to its own country, moreover it formed a threat to the policy of the
emperor who wanted to re-establish the dominance of France in Europe. This was already
apparent in the Austrian-Prussian war when Prussia before the outbreak of war had
approached France for support, but in the end Napoleon had chosen to side with Austria,
aiming at an agreement over and perhaps possible annexation of the Rhineland, which with
the defeat of Austria seemed out of the question.189 Nevertheless, France still had these
territorial interests, which had created an ever growing tension between France and Prussia
since neither Prussia was willing to concede any territory to France.190
Another issue between the two powers had been the establishment of the Zollverein
parliaments in 1868. Especially since at the peace of Prague, France had specifically
demanded that Prussia would not make any move to further cooperation between the North
German confederation and the south German states, implying also that military treaties would
first have to be discussed with France. But the military treaties had been established in
secrecy and also the Zollverein parliament had been established without French consultance.
Louis Napoleon began to prepare his army for war.
At the same time Bismarck attempted to persuade southern public opinion towards
nationalism, especially since the southern states still remained hostil towards Prussia. But the
southern public opinion had been influenced by the elections in Bavaria where the catholic
party showed to be victorious, a party that strived for independence but was also more
directed to Austria as a catholic power and even more directed towards France than to Prussia.
Furthermore, the cautious policy of Bismarck not to unite Germany at once after the defeat of
Austria in 1866 had made him loose much support of the national-liberals throughout the
German territory. The lack of support among the southern states as well as a doubtful public
support for Prussia made Bismarck understand that war with France could positively change
the German national question. It was a dynastic issue that would provide the right opportunity
because now Prussia could, with the right propaganda and diplomacy, both influence public
opinion and lead the French into war, as did happen.191
188
Brose German history 1789-1871 p. 362-363
Kitchen, Martin A history of modern Germany p. 110
190
Wawro The Franco-Prussian war p. 22-23
191
Wawro The Franco-Prussian war p. 23-40
189
52
What had been the dynastic issue to eventually persuade the French into a declaration of war?
In 1868/1869 one of the German princes, a relative of the Prussian king, had good
possibilities to take over the Spanish throne, but France opposed to this idea. In an attempt to
settle the question without warfare in the end the German prince did refuse to accept the
crown, not only caused by French threat but also caused by international pressure. This
official refusal was not enough for Louis Napoleon and he requested that the dynastic family
of Prussia (Hohenzollern) would also in the future refuse the Spanish crown. It demonstrated
the determination of France to start the war against Prussia whatsoever but the refusal of the
Prussian king to that proposal, stimulated by the diplomatic policies of Bismarck, formed the
right incentive to declare war.
In the meantime Bismarck had prepared the public opinion in favor of supporting the Prussian
position in the war, as a question of national self-defence. The war started in july and was to
be a bloody and severe, but also relatively short war with victories for the Prussian (actually
German, since also supported by the southern states) army. After the first defeats of the
French troops, the German army went towards the French capital where after the bloody but
successful battle at Sedan the French republic had been established. Eventually, after an
earlier attempt by the French, at the end of january 1871 agreements were achieved for an
armistice in which had been agreed that Alsace and Lorraine were to be annexed to Germany.
In the meantime the international situation had also shifted in a more favorable position for
Germany, since Britain eventually opposed to the French politics of warfare, whereas Austria
was to weak to participate and the removal of the French troops out of Rome offered Italy the
possibility to complete its unification.192 It did not mean that the international world favored
Prussia, but the general opinion had shifted towards the support of nation-states.
It had been the politics of Bismarck but also the strong desire among a large part of the
liberals in the German states to finally complete the formation of a German nation-state,
which created the support for the war with France. The southern German states, bound by the
military treaties, supported Prussia, out of historic hostility towards France. The various
victories of the German troops than increased the sense of national unity.193 The liberal and
middle classes with their (diplomatic) battles over the years had established this course of
German history with an ever increasing desire for a German nation-state, based on a liberal
policy.
It had already been in november 1870 that two of the southern states (Baden and Hesse)
requested annexation with the North German confederation, which was followed by
discussion with the other southern states (such as Bavaria) that eventuallym after long
debates, was to end in the proclamation of the German empire in january of 1871. The
German national state had been established but within the state, different states maintained
their independent position (such as Bavaria), offering also a possibility to counterbalance the
Prussian domination. The Prussian king, as had been decided by the Frankfurt national
parliament in the revolutionary period of 1848/1849, became the German emperor with
Bismarck as its prime-minister and the North German confederation system as its basis in
which a dominant position was to be for Prussia.194
192
Kitchen A history of modern Germany p. 118-120
Green ‘The creation of the German empire’ in: Sperber
194
Kitchen A history of modern Germany p. 121-122
193
Germany p. 88-89
53
Chapter IV
Germany and Italy compared: the processes from 1848 until unification
The several developments of Germany and Italy have been discussed considering their
developments in the 1848 revolutions, their path to unification as well as the process of
unification itself and in these cases there can be found some striking differences as well as
some striking similarities that will be discussed below before coming to a final conclusion and
comparison between Italy and Germany. In the chapters about the 1848 revolutions the
differences in the revolutions from state to state at both Italian and German territory has been
discussed and therefore in this chapter the focus will be on the general Italian – German
differences and similarities.
But first of all, we will make a short consideration on the German and Italian states before
1848. Both territories had been strongly influenced by Napoleon, although the liberal ideas
and policies of the Napoleonic period in the south of Germany remained, whereas in Italy this
had hardly been the case, although a combination of traditional and reform policy had been
attempted. There is one striking and important difference between the German and the Italian
states; although very loose, the German states already for centuries belonged to the same
states-system, first the Holy Roman Empire and in the nineteenth century the German
confederation. This kind of connection had not been present at the Italian peninsula where
foreign domination had played an important role, as well as local and regional rivalries. Over
the centuries the Italian states had had many different forms, but always divided. The
Napoleonic era was to bring a real centralized structure to the peninsula, for the first time,
even though afterwards it collapsed again. Nevertheless, a striking similarity had been the
general same influence of the Napoleonic period, but also the continuing unrest and
revolutionary events afterwards (although to a larger number at the Italian peninsula),
culminating in the 1848 revolutions.
In both countries already before 1848 the liberal and national ideas became more widespread,
which coincided with the rise as well as the ideas of the middle classes. In the research,
especially in the first chapter, we have seen that the middle classes actually always
represented the liberal ideas, a development that continued also after the 1848 revolutions.
Nevertheless, it should be taken in consideration that the increase of the bourgeoisie in
Germany had been far more numerous, caused by the different state structures but also the
earlier economic progress. Everywhere though, the liberal influence and pressure came
especially from the middle classes with their demands for recognition of their new acquired
position in society, equality before law but also constitutional government and a focus on the
modernization of the economy. The liberal middle classes generally could be divided in
moderates and democrats (although in the German literature for the latter the term radicals
will be found more often). Both moderates and democrats focused on the same liberal ideas
but generally differed in the expression and realization of these ideas. The moderates wanted
to establish liberal reforms in a more gradual way and were prepared to cooperate with the
traditional forces to achieve the liberal reforms. The democrats on the other hand were more
revolutionary, although they did not always support the revolution as a goal to achieve liberal
reforms. Furthermore a general division could be made between the moderates and democrats
in the way that moderates often supported monarchical rule, whereas among the democrats
also many republicans could be found. But even within the moderates and democrats
themselves there had been divisions.
54
In the research the focus has merely been on the higher middle classes, a division that has
been made already in the introduction. Despite the fact that it was a group in transition, the
higher middle classes were pretty much a settled group in society, both in Italy and Germany,
enjoying a respectable position in society that they had achieved over the years making them a
group that could not be overlooked anymore. Nevertheless, the political and therefore official
recognition of their new status lacked, creating the liberal resistance towards the old regime.
These higher middle classes, because of their societal position, despite the lack of recognition,
often stood in closer contact to the upper classes of society, influencing also their approach to
the achievement of liberal reforms. As we have seen in the research the higher middle classes,
generally achieved their liberal reforms by means of a moderate approach and especially after
the 1848 revolutions in both countries they focused on cooperation with the traditional forces
and succeeded in liberalizing society.
Even though not comparable in size and influence, the middle classes of Germany and Italy
had generally been emerging classes in a mainly agricultural society, stimulating further
economic development and progress of the economic system, both were liberal oriented in the
search for reforms of politics and society, acting against the privileges of the aristocracy and
the church (which was even more the case in Italy), and in either territory they searched for
more prestige and recognition of their growing position in society as well as an increasing
influence on the state. The states themselves had had a rather ambiguous attitude towards the
bourgeoisie, in both Italy and Germany as we have seen. The states, the old forces, had been
afraid of the revolutionary threat and the disruption of order, but on the other hand the states
(Germany in the 1850s, Piedmont in the 1850s) did stimulate the economic growth and as
such also stimulated the increasing powerful position of the liberal middle classes.
Both moderates and democrats have been of importance in the 1848 revolutions and the
liberal groups extended their importance and influence on society even more in the process
towards unification. Despite the fact that when the popular support in the revolutions of
1848/1849 diminished the traditional forces could easily regain control of the situation, it
were the liberals, especially the moderates with their more gradual approach, to make
modernization and liberalization, but also the increasing consciousness of a national state
possible. Although the liberals had increased in number and importance already before 1848,
the revolutions demonstrated that this group was prepared to take action to demand their own
position and recognition in society. Especially the moderates, the higher middle classes, had
had this role in 1848 because they were the one liberal group to form the connection between
the upper and the lower (middle) classes, influencing both groups in a somewhat more same
direction.
Besides the difference between the liberal groups, which continued over the years and at times
caused clashes between the democrats and moderates, there has been a striking difference
between Italian and German moderates, caused by the difference in economic development.
The Italian states were still very much based on agriculture, whereas large parts of the
German states found themselves in the position of proto-industrialization. This difference
resulted in the fact that in Italy, especially in Lombardy, the cooperation and connection
between the nobility and the higher middle classes (the renters) had been closer than in
Germany. Nevertheless, in Germany the moderates did cooperate with the old forces, but but
not based on historic, cooperative ties. Another reason for this cooperation in various Italian
states between the upper classes and the higher middle classes, had been the foreign
domination, which had also increased the call for liberalization among the upper classes.
55
The cooperation of the moderates in the German states with the old forces has been
mentioned, but before taking a closer look, we first have to take another difference in
consideration, which is connected to the maintenance of the old forces in the German states.
The revolutionary activities at both German and Italian territory had started already before the
actual 1848 revolutions broke out, but at the German territory there had almost been no area
that had not been confronted with the 1848 revolutionary activities, even Frankfurt, although
very minor, had experienced its own revolution. The case was quite different at the Italian
peninsula though; here there had been places where a real 1848 revolution had taken place
such as Lombardy-Veneto and the southern kingdom whereas in other states the revolutionary
events resulted in a quick change of power and a revolution such as at for example Berlin, the
cities of Baden, Vienna or Milan did not occur. The urban revolutionary events were much
smaller in Italy than in Germany, which could also be caused by the difference in economic
development having its influence on the urban development, especially because in that area of
the peninsula that had experienced economic growth, real urban 1848 revolutions took place
(Milan, Venice).
The effects of the 1848 revolutions seemed to be not that different in both Italy and Germany
because the influence of the liberal and national ideas had increased in both countries. But the
circumstances among which this development occurred did differ. Throughout the Italian
peninsula the middle classes (as the entire population of course) had to deal with very
restorative regimes, except for the kingdom of Sardinia that remarkably enough had made an
enormous breakthrough in the 1850s. Also in Germany after the 1848 revolutions measures
had been taken to avoid new revolutionary events and to increase the state control on society,
politics and economy, but on the other hand the state also invested and stimulated economic
growth, modernization. The liberal influence had remained somewhat more obvious, of
course also caused by the south German states that already had a longer experience with
liberalism. At the Italian peninsula, the economic development was relatively low and the
restorative regimes did not allow any modernizing, liberal element in their way. Significantly
many Italian liberals in this period either went in exile to Piedmont (or Britain, France) or
they organized themselves in secret associations. The experience of the 1848 revolutions
could not be forgotten though and the development of liberal and national ideas continued,
especially stimulated by increasing opposition to foreign domination. In Germany actually the
only power that had a real restorative regime after the revolutionary events had been the
Habsburg Empire.
In the German states, although the old forces had remained in power during the revolutions,
the liberal influence could, as in Piedmont, not be wept away and despite the installment of
reactionary regimes after the experience of 1848 (which both conservatives and moderates
wanted to prevent from happening again), there had still been representative government in
which also liberal groups participated and liberal reforms, or better yet modernization of
society did continue under these reactionary regimes, further stimulated by the revival of
liberalism at the end of the 1850s.
56
The close cooperation between the old forces and the liberals in the German states had also
been created by the fact that the middle classes in the German states consisted of a larger
group that in the years before the 1848 revolutions had already gained more influence, also
because the economic development in the German states had taken off somewhat earlier and
faster than in most Italian states. The longer and larger presence of the bourgeoisie in
Germany made that they already before the revolutions had some political influence, even
though it still remained marginal. It was especially of importance after the events of 1848
where the moderates in Germany quickly adapted to the governments and made compromises
with the old forces, like the bureaucratic system, in order to avoid any further revolutionary
events. More important hereby was that the states in Germany, the old forces, during the
revolutions had remained in strong control of the situation and quickly incorporated the liberal
forces within the governmental system (look for example at Prussia).
At the Italian peninsula, although not comparable to the German development, only Piedmont
had experienced the establishment of a moderate conservative reform policy in the 1840s, to
avoid a clash of the ‘old’ monarchical system. Piedmont had also been the only Italian state
where a real 1848 revolution had not taken place, or at least not within the state itself.
Nevertheless, the year 1848 for the Italian states had represented an outburst of the liberal
middle classes, both moderate and democrat, who became the new political rulers after having
overthrown the old forces. With the restoration of the old rulers and the restorative regimes in
the 1850s it therefore also meant a larger diminishment in their influence than in Germany,
especially since the moderates in order to maintain the possibility of liberal reforms depended
very much on the goodwill of the rulers that in the 1850s had disappeared completely, or had
actually only existed under revolutionary pressure and force.
The cooperation between the moderate liberals and the conservative forces in the German
states could also be explained by the different objectives of democrats and moderates in the
national question. The 1848 revolutions in both Germany and Italy pushed forward the
national question, but in a different way in both territories though, especially because all the
German states were independent, bound together by a (loose) confederation whereas in Italy
there were several parts that were under foreign occupation as well as several states that had
close ties to foreign dynasties giving a whole different aspect to the national question,.
Although the intensions were the same; forming a national, independent state, the question
behind it was different. In Germany the states focused on how the national state should be
formed whereas in Italy first independency had to be established and than there would be
searched for the form of the national state.
Nevertheless, there is a general difference between Italy and Germany in both liberalism and
nationalism in the revolutionary years that remained of importance in the years after 1848,
caused by the difference in states-system. The national question in Germany had been
different because there had already been an existing structure, which most states wanted to
maintain. Furthermore, the question of a German national state had to deal with the solution
of the two major powers within the confederation. As we have seen, the preference of the
nationa parliament at Framkfurt had been to generally maintain the structure of the
confederation and include Austria, but without its Empire. The basis for the national question
in this period had been the historical connection to the German states, even if this included
non German speaking parts, and therefore Austria had to be a part of the new German state,
but not all its other states and provinces, such as Hungary or the Italian provinces.
57
The problem of a grossdeutsch or a kleindeutsch solution to the national question remained a
problem for the German states, aslo after the revolutions. The preferences for either a Prussia
or an Austrian dominated state differed and had been overcome only in the 1860s, but not
even because the southern states had preferred Prussia. In Italy these problems did not exist
because there had been no connection at all, the issue was rather which state would be strong
enough and be able to unify the states. It should not be forgotten that various states at the
peninsula around 1848 were more concerned with their own independence. The revolutionary
events of Milan and the support of Piedmont against the Austrian troops did stimulate the
national ideas and the idea of a nation-state, although the south of Italy had rarely been
onvolved in these ideas that were mainly based on preferable economic and independent
conditions. Even in Italy though, the same issue of diffidence played an important role,
considering the support of the other Italian states for the kingdom of Sardinia. Nevertheless,
the Italian states increasingly called for independence and the possibility to develop,
especially economically, on the same level as other European countries, instead of being
dominated by the international world. In Italy nationalism in 1848 for the first time came to its
full expression in the sense of the search for a national state.
Because of the difference between this national idea in Germany and Italy, also the approach
to liberalism had been different. In Italy the 1848 revolutions had actually started as a liberal
revolution; modernization and change of society, as well as liberalization of foreign
(Austrian) rule. Already at the march revolutions the national question became the first issue
to be resolved and liberal reforms would then follow the national events, causing also the shift
from moderates to democrats and then again to moderates when the national problem
appeared rather difficult to solve. The Italian middle classes incrasingly came to the
understanding that there had to be a liberal, independent state that could establish unification
and independence, to than liberalize society. The 1848 revolutions of Germany had also been
characterized by the national question and already at an early stage but here the focus had
been not on independency and the possible leader of unification, because there had been
several possibilities (which actually created another problem), but moreover on liberal
reforms that would facilitate and enable the existence of a nation-state. During the 1850s but
especially in the 1860s also the German liberals and nationalists made the shift to first a
solution of the national question and than liberal reforms would kind of follow naturally.
The national question in both Germany and Italy had the same basis though; the national state
had to be based on modernization and liberalization. The case of Prussia is a good example in
this picture because the necessity of the liberal reforms and the willingness for liberalism
enabled the Prussian society to open up to other nationalists and liberals, to other states in the
sense that the difference with their own societies (often more liberalized than the more
conservative regime Prussia had always had) would diminish and therefore the influence of
Prussia on their states would also be smaller. This issue also emerged from the independent
developments the German states always had in both the Holy Roman Empire and the German
confederation, but also emerged because of the division in support for the grossdeutsch or the
kleindeutsch solution. The case of Piedmont on the other hand is an example of the fact that in
Italy the liberal question, in combination with independency, became more and more an
important issue to support also the national cause and the progress of Piedmont with its liberal
reform policy had shown the possibilities liberalism in combination with nationalism, a
nation-state, could mean for the peninsula.
58
A difference between the two countries had been the emphasis on liberalism; in Germany the
liberals quickly identified themselves with the national question. The origins of the strong
connection between liberalism and nationalism in the German states could be found in the fact
that the German revolutions had been strongly connected to the national question based on
liberal reforms. In Italy the revolutions started as liberal revolutions, focused on reforms but
after the ‘cinque giornate’ of Lombardy the national question became a general issue for the
entire peninsula, instead of liberalism. The war of independence against Austria had put the
emphasis on the national question rather than liberalism (only as a support for national
independence). The more direct identification of the German liberals with the national cause
had of course been formed by the stronger connections between the German states, caused by
the existence of the confederation, which made the national self-consciousness develop in an
earlier stage. Besides the confederation, most German states were also economically
connected or involved with each other, within the Zollverein, which in Italy had been tried but
some kind of economic cooperation only started to work from the mid 1850s, only between
the northern states.
The confederation form of Germany on the other hand exactly pointed to the very difficulties
the German states had to face in forming a nation-state, already at the 1848 revolutions. Not
only because of the question of a ‘grossdeutsch’ or a ‘kleindeutsch’ Germany, but moreover
because within the confederation and cooperation between the states, the states had always
enjoyed a certain, actually a large, independency and at 1848 no state had been prepared to
abandon that independent position. Even later in the process of unification the independent
position within the confederation had been a problem (look at the diffidence between Prussia
and the southern states) but in the end there had been one strong state, Prussia, that could take
the lead over the majority of states in which the other states actually had to follow (or
maintain their independence but then abandon the national question). However, as we have
seen in the previous chapter, this process of Prussian dominance and leading role in the
process of unification had been a difficult process and had only been decided in the 1860s,
when the position of Austria weakened ever more and became ever more isolated.
Nevertheless, the opposition of the southern states had not disappeared but the formation of a
nation-state could in the end be established by the influence also of the national-liberals.
The fact that in the Italian states after the revolutions the national question became regarded
as more important than liberalism also had to do with the fact that Italy still had to deal with
foreign occupation and the 1850s demonstrated that a strong, independent country would be
able to develop in a liberal and economically prosperous way, the example given by
Piedmont. It gave way to the idea that unification was necessary in order to than modernize
and liberalize society. As well as that the 1850s meant a real break of Lombardy with the
Austrian rule because before 1848 at least despite foreign rule Lombardy had been able to
have a certain economic development but the restorative regime now completely impeded
this. Furthermore, the rise of Piedmont (domestically and internationally) and the restorative
regimes at the peninsula only fed the liberal opposition even more in their anti-Austrian
feeling. Other than that, it had been made pretty clear already in 1848 that the only way to
unify Italy would be by force; the Habsburg Empire would not abandon its Italian territory,
which gave an entire different aspect to the process of unification than in the German states.
59
The German states did not have to deal with foreign occupation, but they did have to deal
with an entire different problem, which had caused also the failure of the national parliament
in Frankfurt during 1848/1849 to find a proper solution to the national question. Whereas in
Italy during the 1850s there emerged only one powerful state at the Italian peninsula, the
kingdom of Sardinia, and whereas before 1848 there had not been any state powerful enough
to take the lead, the German states had to deal with several powerful states, most of all Prussia
and Austria. And the German states each had their own preferences as well as reasons for
distrust. The national parliament had tried to find a solution for the German national question
within the confederation in 1848/1849 but these attempts had failed. Furthermore, the
different aspirations of most states also caused the necessary problems to form a national
state, mainly caused by the different intentions of Austria and Prussia, both at this time not
really concerned with the formation of nation-state. Several events during the 1850s and
1860s were to change the situation among the German states enormously though; the Austrian
position among the German states had weakened over the years, whereas Prussia with a
combination of events (successful warfare, strong prime-minister, improving international as
well as economic position) became ever stronger.
Nevertheless, contrary to the Italian case where Piedmont had actually been considered the
only possible state able to lead Italian unification, since the pope had returned to conservative
politics but moreover because it had been widely accepted that unification, independency
would only be possible by warfare. In Germany the emphasis had more been on liberal
reforms though, to than achieve unity. The position of Austria had weakened over the years,
but on the other hand resistance towards the guidance of Prussia in the national question had
not faded. Nevertheless, also at the Italian peninsula diffidence towards the aspirations of
Piedmont remained, but it was the only state powerful enough (both economically as
militarily) to defeat Austria. Among the German states the solution of warfare was considered
undesirable and actually became only a solution for the national-liberals after the foundation
of the North German confederation in 1867 to complete the unification because throughout
the German states the call for a solution of the national question had increased and the past
had demonstrated that only liberalism would not bring unity. But all the same, also the
German national question became decided through warfare in the end, twice.
Where in Germany the states after 1848/1849 had remained in a strong position and were able
to quickly turn society in a somewhat more quiet and stabile period stimulating economic and
social development, in most Italian states the contrary happened. It is striking to see how only
in Piedmont, where there had not been a real 1848 revolution, constitutional government
remained but where in the 1850s also economic and social development really took off. In
most Italian states after the revolutions constitutional rule had been replaced by absolutist
and/or foreign rule and more than in Germany there was a return to the period before 1848,
which was especially the case in the south of Italy where the bourgeoisie was less strong, with
even the abolishment of some of the social revolutionary demands, a development that despite
the reactionary regimes did not happen in the German states. This development caused also a
continuation of the (social) unrest at the Italian peninsula, further stimulated by the secret
associations whereas in Germany the organization (mostly democratic) also had a huge
importance but they were legal and provided more the guidance in the liberal and national
thought. The secret associations in the Italian states were moreover also directed towards the
restorative regimes but despite their secret character their presence had increased even in the
1850s.
60
In the German states with the revolutions of 1848 many institutions and associations had
required a legal status and the development of a national feeling, creating a strong cultural
development had been stimulated by these associations. The development of a German
educational system from the 1850s onward further stimulated the national identity. In Italy
this stimulation had been of less importance; the national and liberal feeling as an expression
against the rulers were very much present but creating a national identity actually only came
to the agenda after the unification had been completed.
The development of nationalist feeling has been quite different between the two countries. In
Germany already before the unification there was one language but national feeling had also
been stimulated by the educational system as well as cultural development. It therefore
seemed as if the German population at the time of unification had been somewhat more
prepared to form one country. Or at least; the formation of a nation-state, a solution to the
national question, could not be avoided anymore and the developments of the 1850s and
1860s contributed to the fact that the question became ever more important. In Italy the
cultural development had most certainly been there, there has been in the same period as in
Germany a huge growth in literature and education, but there was not a common language, the
developments remained regional until the formation of the Italian state.
Having stated this, one could suggest that therefore Germany in its formation as a nation-state
would have had fewer problems to form a real nation. Nothing less is true though, because
despite a common language, the connection of the confederation or the Holy Roman Empire,
and general economic development (within the Zollverein for example), the German states
had been very independent states. The different developments over the years, but merely the
independent position of the German states actually seemed to make unification more difficult
because the German states had been well-functioning independent states, but without much
unity. The issue of the formation of German nation-state had rather been to find a solution for
the battle for supremacy within the confederation and to form one large German state against
the international threats, but also to profit from a national economy and development. The
Italian states though, generally were to profit from unification with a liberal and economic
progressive Piedmont and needed these liberal changes to keep up with the (economic)
developments in other parts of Europe. On the other hand also in Italy the historic divergences
could not be taken away by unifying the peninsula, nor could the differences in development
and this was something also Germany had to deal with.
The economic situation of both countries after the revolutions had been quite different. Even
though there had been considerable economic progress in the northern Italian states, the south
remained an agricultural state where also the middle classes did not develop in the same way
as in the north, which also had its influence on the development of the liberal thought. The
one independent state of the Italian peninsula, Piedmont, did know an enormous economic
growth though. But it was not comparable to the industrial boom that took off in all the
German states (excluding Austria). This not only depended on the difference in regimes since
also in Lombardy and Tuscany there had been economic development, but the lack of raw
materials caused the impossibility for the Italian states to develop at the same period as
Germany into an industrialized state.
61
But then again, the economic growth and development of Piedmont had shown the
importance of independence and actually stimulated the national cause. Nevertheless,
Germany became an industrialized country already in its years before the unification. Or
maybe it is even better to say that it found its industrialization and the settlement of the
middle classes completed by the unification, a general development ahead could immediately
be made whereas for Italy unification had been a necessity to further develop economic
growth and the formation of an independent nation-state would open possibilities for
economic progress, which in many Italian states was still lacking. The importance of a strong
bourgeoisie, looking for economic progress and modernization, is shown by both countries; in
Germany throughout the divergent states but also by Austria that did not provide the
possibilities for the middle classes to develop and in Italy the importance of the bourgeoisie
had been shown by the northern states. In this case it was not only Piedmont where the
importance of the liberal middle classes of course had been most obvious, but also in
Lombardy-Veneto that with their middle classes and its increase (possible because of the
close connection to the nobility) showed the importance of modernization for which liberal
reforms were necessary and therefore the national cause had to be pursued. The middle
classes in both Italy and Germany were to play a very important role in both ideologies,
especially connecting them to modernization and progress. The bourgeoisie had been the only
group able to point to the problems of society because they were in the position, during the
1850s and 1860s even more than at the time of the revolutions, to pressure the upper classes
for modernization caused by the economic importance of the middle classes for society.
Despite what may seem, there had not only been differences between the two countries.
According to my opinion although there were many differences, the intentions and necessities
generally had been the same. An example is the economic progress of the two strongest states
after the unification; Prussia and Piedmont. Although compared to each other of course the
economic progress of Piedmont was of quite a different character and size than that of
Prussia, but among their accompanying states, these two states both were to take and form the
example for the other states.
The essence of the strength of these two states had also been shown by the solution of the
revolutions of 1848, since both Prussia and Piedmont were to play a decisive part in that (look
at the military operations of Prussia in the other German states and the war of independence
supported by Piedmont), but also later in the process of unification both are to take the leading
role, based on quite the same principles (a strong statesman willing to look up both to liberals
as well as conservatives, a strong army, a powerful state). The kings of both states were
monarchs with quite conservative basis, though; both went along with the moderate
bourgeoisie in order to control the revolutionary spirit and to maintain their own position.
Also did neither of the kings at the time really stood for the creation of a nation-state, but
were seeking to expand their own state which eventually with the economic progress and
further political developments (the arrival in both states of a statesman that was to put much
personal influence on decisions for and in the unification process) the right opportunity had
arrived. Both states had a conservative constitution which preserved the role of the monarch
within the state, but also did both states have a large and strong army, which was also very
important in the making of the national state considering the fact that both Germany and Italy
have been established by military victories.
62
Nevertheless, the conservative actors, the monarchs and the army, had been of importance but
furthermore the liberal and national ideas of the (higher) middle classes were to pave the way
for unification. The initiative for the liberal reforms were taken by the middle classes,
pressuring society for modernization but also for the national cause because the liberal and
national thought went ever more along the same line. On the other the hand the strong states
were not only necessary to guide the territories to a successful unification but most of all to
put the necessary pressure on the other countries to be annexed to either Prussia or Piedmont.
Another similarity between Piedmont and Prussia besides taking the leading role in
unification had been their development in the 1850s and 1860s. Although it might seem rather
contradictory to compare the liberal Piedmont with a liberal-conservative Prussia, it should
not be forgotten that Piedmont was that progressive and liberal especially in comparison with
its Italian counter-parts. Despite the fact that Piedmont needed to establish also more liberal
reforms to arrive at a level to be internationally accepted as a liberal state. Furthermore,
despite many quarrels between conservatives and liberals, there had been a certain balance
between the two powers, as there had been in Prussia. Both states were to have a dominating
influence on the later basis of the nation-state, not only in the sense that they were the leading
states in the process of unification but moreover their constitution, their state-system was to
become the basis for the new nation-state.
But, this important influence of both states in their later nation-states, is marked by one
striking difference. Although with the formation of the North German Confederation Prussia
became the dominant state within the confederation, this state-system did preserve certain
rights and possibilities to the individual states. This system of the North German
Confederation several years later became the basis for the German Empire but the
independency for the ‘new’ states (such as Bavaria) had been guaranteed and therefore the
system of the Empire, although centralized in many ways, did not diminish the strong position
of the other states. Even within this Empire counter-balancing forces seemed to be active. In
Italy though, the state-system of Piedmont had been imposed on all the Italian states,
centralizing the entire Italian peninsula into a kingdom based on the principles of the state of
Piedmont, which was to create the necessary problems exactly because of the divergent
historic development of the states. The question is of course whether the Piedmontese system
had actually centralized the peninsula and the answer has to be a negative one because the
other Italian states had to be put on the same level as Piedmont, the systems had to be
according to Piedmontese rule. The new kingdom of Italy did get a centralized system, but
entirely based on the former system of the kingdom of Sardinia with no regards to the
traditions and experiences of the individual states. In Germany this development would have
never been possible because of the earlier explained connection within the confederation as
well as the more independent status and more equal development, making the positions of
various states stronger.
63
As we have seen, the liberal and national feelings had been present in both the German and
Italian states already before the 1848 revolutions, increasing with the growth of the middle
classes that acquired an ever more important position in this society in transition and saw a
possibility in the liberal and national idea to establish their ideas about modernizing and
liberalizing the society. It was a process, however, that in both states was to take some time
because of the somewhat retarded industrial development as well as the fact that both the
German as the Italian states also had to focus on the national question. The problems of the
middle classes came forth with the 1848 revolutions, together with many other social and
economic problems. Therefore, one should watch out in calling the 1848 revolutions just
simply middle class revolutions because, as has also been discussed, without the support of
the lower classes the protests against the traditional forces did not have the strength to
establish a general necessity of recognition of the changes that had taken place in society.
Despite the fact that the revolutions had been widely supported by also the lower classes of
society, it were the liberal and national thought to dominate the revolutions, brought in by the
middle classes and it were the liberal middle classes to maintain this thought alive also after
the revolutions. The 1848 revolutions had been the first example of the increasing influence of
the liberal and national middle classes.
The 1848 revolutions had demonstrated in both the Italian and the German states, the
necessity to find a solution for the national question in these changing times. Nevertheless,
several other issues had to be resolved before a solution to the national question could be
found. Most of all, the liberal middle classes had to gain more influence and means over the
years to establish their political position. It is especially in this sense that the 1848 revolutions
and its aftermath the 1850s (and for Germany the 1860s) have been of such an importance.
The 1848 revolutions had put the liberal middle classes on the agenda as a force that were of
huge importance to society, that could not be ignored anymore but at the same time showed to
be also possible reasonable members of politics (for example in the battle to stop the
revolutionary activities). This position of the liberals was not yet influential enough, but was
to grow over the years with the several political events stimulating the national question,
highly influenced by the liberal thought, as well as pushed forward by the economic
developments and the automatic change of society that needed also a change of politics.
Furthermore the role of the liberals and the liberal thought in the process of both
modernization and unification of the Italian and German states, became ever more clear over
the years, which is to be contributed to their economic involvement but also improved means
of communication and organization, as has been shown by for example the formation of both
in the Italian as in the German states of a National Society.
In the conclusion, by means of Boolean analysis, we will take a closer and more specific look
at the precise elements that emerged over the years to make the transformation from
liberalism and nationalism in 1848 when the national questions remained unsolved, to the
successful unifications of both Germany and Italy. The Boolean analysis will not only
demonstrate a general overlook of the similarities and differences at 1848 and at the time of
the unifications, but will moreover provide the possibility to look at the changing elements
that could, or perhaps will not, explain the importance of the 1850s and 1860s.
64
Chapter V
Conclusion
In the previous chapters within case studies have been made of both Germany and Italy at the
time of the revolutionary events in 1848/1849 and the process of unification. In chapter IV a
comparison has been made between Germany and Italy considering the different
developments and processes to establish a clear distinction between the similarities and
differences. The comparison also served to define the developments and their importance in
the process of unification for both countries; elements such as the presence of a strong state,
liberalism, nationalism, the middle classes, economic growth, diplomatic expertise But also
the 1850s have been important as a preparatory phase towards a nation-state. In this
conclusion we will try to clarify these elements and their developments by simplifying the
data, which will be done by means of Boolean analysis, as explained in the introduction. We
will than be able to explain the processes and the importance of the 1848 revolutions, but we
will also turn to the thesis of Charles Tilly; had it been warfare, capital and coercion to form
the nation-states? The Boolean analysis will also serve as a tool to give an answer to the
importance of the development of the 1850s.
As stated in the introduction, it will be necessary to make two Boolean analyses for a good
understanding of the importance of 1848 on the processes of unification. But the two different
analyses will also enable us to explain the importance of either the strong state or the three
elements; middle classes, liberalism and nationalism. In the previous chapter we have seen
that the presence of a strong state had been a necessity for a successful unification of both
Germany and Italy. The two Boolean analyses will demonstrate the changes there have been
from 1848 to the processes of unification and will provide the answer to the presence or
absence of a strong state. What had changed that made the formation of nation-state possible
within one or two decades and what had been the decisive elements in this change? In order to
provide a good answer to the changes and the decisive elements in these changes, the outcome
variable in both analyses will have to be the same. As mentioned above, a strong state had
been a necessity for unification and therefore the strong state will be used as the outcome
variable.
In both analyses, besides the same outcome variable, the same variables will be used to be
able to establish the changes of the elements and the importance of the elements for a strong
state and thus for unification. The Boolean analysis will answer the question which elements
had been necessary to be considered a strong state, but also which elements had changed from
the 1848 revolutions to the processes of unification. Furthermore, the Boolean analysis will
leave enough room for an explanation on the simplification of the data as well as an
explanation on the elements.
65
The central question of the thesis have been the importance of the 1848 revolutions for the
processes of unification for both Germany and Italy, as well as the importance of either the
strong state or the three elements on which this research has focused (liberalism, nationalism,
bourgeoisie). In the introduction the various historical problems of this argument have already
been discussed and in this conclusion we will try to answer these problems, based on the data
of the Boolean analyses. Had the processes of unification been structural or possible? Had it
been a process planned by a strong state and directed from above or had it been the different
elements that enabled the unifications? After the Boolean analysis, when the importance and
interdependence of the elements has been determined, we will turn to these interesting
questions.
In both analyses the emphasis will be on establishing the general pattern; the general
development of the states in the processes of unification to maintain the focus on the elements
instead of the events, enabled by the simplification of the data. The selection of states that has
been made in the introduction will be used as a tool within the Boolean analyses to establish
the importance and changes of certain elements or combination of elements in the states.
In the previous chapters case studies of both Germany and Italy have been made with a focus
on the selected states in the period from 1848 until the unification and in the fourth chapter we
have seen that in the end in both future nation-states, only two states had emerged as strong
states; Piedmont and Prussia. Although in Germany the southern states also had a relatively
strong position and initially had opposed annexation with the North German Confederation, in
the end one German Empire had been formed. The question therefore of the importance of
one decisive element or combination of elements to form a strong state that could take the
initiative in the process of unification, still remains. This question also remains for the Italian
peninsula where, contrary to the German states, in the beginning these had been no strong
states whereas in the end one strong state had emerged.
The elements mentioned above; liberalism, nationalism, army, economic development,
diplomatic expertise, revolutionary events, will be the variables in the Boolean analyses.
These variables all include various aspects of society and social development will therefore
not be taken in consideration as a separate variable. In the thesis the focus has merely been on
on the political processes, the cultural developments have only been discussed when
discussing liberal or national ideas. In this period cultural development has been very
interdependent with the rise and development of these two ideologies, but also with the
economic development. Since the focus of this research as well as the focus of the conclusion
is based on the importance of liberalism, nationalism and the middle classes in both 1848 and
the processes of unification, the cultural developments will not be mentioned as a separate
variable.
Before applying the elements in the analyses, the variables that will be used have to be
explained. The economic development will regard the economic progress of the various
states. However, the economic progress is not based on figures or numbers (because of the too
divergent economic developments among the states in various industries) but on economic
growth in general. The focus will be on the development a state made in comparison to its
earlier economic situation and in consideration to the developments of the other states of
respectively Italy or Germany.
66
The presence of revolutionary events within society is the pressure from society, from the
middle classes, the lower classes or both, at the existing institutions, directed towards the
state, with a large focus on social and economic improvement, resulting in massive actions
and disturbances of daily life. The diplomatic expertise will represent the presence of a strong
groups or statesman in both domestic as well as international affairs. The diplomatic expertise
mainly focuses on the international position and possibilities of a state. Another variable will
be the army; the state apparatus of force in contrast or perhaps in cooperation with the
economic development (both elements stated by Charles Tilly in his Coercion, capital, and
European states, AD 990-1992 as the important combination for strong states). With the army
as a separate variable, we will see whether the thesis of Tilly with his combination of capital
and army as a necessity for a strong state will also determine the outcome of a strong state in
these cases.
The last two variables that will be used in the Boolean analyses will be the ideologies
liberalism and nationalism. As we have seen in the previous chapters these two ideologies had
been closely connected, especially in the processes of unification, but we have also seen that
this differed throughout the years and more importantly, it differed among the states and
therefore liberalism and nationalism will be taken in consideration separately. However, in
the thesis the other focus has been on the middle classes, but the previous chapters have
demonstrated that the liberal ideas had been represented by the middle classes and therefore
the presence of the middle classes will be taken in consideration when discussing liberalism.
The thesis has demonstrated that where the liberal ideas had been widespread and further
developed, the middle classes had an important position in that society. The variable
liberalism thus represents the presence of the bourgeoisie, but also the demands for economic,
social and political improvements focusing on the liberties and possibilities of the individual
as well as on constitutional politics. The middle classes had also been closely connected to the
ideas of nationalism, however, the variable nationalism in this case does not only represent
the support of the middle classes for the national question, but also the preparedness of the
states to act in favor of the national question.
Finally, the outcome variable will be the strong state. The outcome variable will be positive
when a state has a well-functioning bureaucracy, powerful leadership formed by the
government, as well as the means of controlling the state affairs both in the domestic as in the
international area. The state has a certain power over society and influence over the
institutions and the state had to be independent.
Having discussed all the variables and the outcome variable, a short consideration is
necessary on the various states that will be used as representatives for the divergences within
the future German and Italian national state. Baden, Frankfurt, Prussia and Austria were all
four members of the German confederation in 1848, but Austria in the end did not participate
in the German empire. Frankfurt as free city-state had had a rather special position within the
confederation because the seat of the national parliament of the German confederation was at
Frankfurt. Frankfurt in the Boolean analysis will therefore mainly be considered in its
function as the national parliament of the German confederation. Even though the role of
Frankfurt has been especially important in the 1848/1849 revolutions, it will also be taken in
consideration in the second analysis to see whether the position of the national parliament had
changed. Baden as a southwestern state had had a longstanding liberal tradition and had
played an important role in the revolutions of 1848/1849. Furthermore, Baden became part of
the German Empire only in the second phase.
67
Prussia and Austria had been the largest states of the German confederation and both played
an important role in the 1848/1849 revolutions as well as in the process of unification. Austria
in this conclusion will be taken in consideration in its role and importance as a member of the
German confederation. The position of Austria within its Habsburg Empire therefore will not
be discussed. These four states of the German confederation all represent the divergent
problems the states had to face in the process of unification.
The situation at the Italian peninsula had been rather different, not only because large parts of
the peninsula had strong ties or were dominated by foreign dynastic houses but also because
the Italian peninsula did not form a confederation as the German territory. Lombardy-Veneto
had been the only province directly governed under Habsburg rule, although Austria did have
dynastic ties with other Italian states. Already in the 1848 revolutions the provinces of
Lombardy and Veneto took divergent paths and also later in the unification process their paths
were to be quite different. Lombardy had been the first province to be annexed by the
kingdom of Sardinia with some areas of the Veneto, whereas Venice only became part of the
Italian kingdom in 1866.
The kingdom of the two Sicilies had been ruled by the Bourbon family. It had been a state
with many peculiarities but also a good example for the divergent causes and problems at the
peninsula. Besides, the southern kingdom had been the only state where the national ideas had
a different significance (the importance of separatism at Sicily). The southern kingdom in size
had been the largest state at the peninsula, but it had not been able to manifest itself as a
strong state. Although the kingdom of Sardinia included less territory than the kingdom of the
two Sicilies, it had been exactly Piedmont to increase its influence over the other Italian states
after 1848.
All the variables and states have been discussed, therefore we will now focus on the Boolean
analyses. First of all, we will discuss the 1848/1849 revolutions and in the second analysis the
German and Italian states at the time of unification will be discussed.
68
Table 1
1848/1849
Austria
Baden
Frankfurt
Prussia
Lombardy-Veneto
Piedmont
Southern Italy
A
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
A=
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
economic development
revolutionary events
diplomatic expertise
army
liberalism
nationalism
T=
strong state (outcome variable)
0 = absent
B
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
C
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
D
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
E
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
F
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
T
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1 = present
A further reduction of the data is not necessary because both Austria and Prussia, which were
the only states in this period to have a strong state, show the same combination of variables:
T= ABCDEf. Although a further reduction of the data is not necessary, a closer look at the
combination and especially at the negative outcome of the other states is necessary.
There is a striking outcome; there are two strong states in this period in Germany compared to
those states discussed here, whereas at the Italian peninsula there was none. When we look at
a possible explanation for this, the foreign domination at the Italian peninsula could be
mentioned. However, Lombardy despite the foreign domination did have an economy that had
been way ahead of the other Italian states and it had also experienced strong liberal and
national feelings, with a large presence of the middle classes (often closely connected to the
upper classes in Lombardy). Nevertheless, despite this presence of liberalism and nationalism,
the possibilities for Lombardy-Veneto had indeed been restricted by Austrian rule, creating a
larger emphasis in this province on the national question. It had also been the strong position
of Austria in the second period of the revolutionary events that had enabled Austria to regain
control over Lombardy-Veneto, but the strengthened position of Austria also influenced the
German states. First we will discuss the kingdom of the two Sicilies and the kingdom of
Sardinia where the situations had been rather different.
Although it did have a strong army and was an independent state, the southern kingdom had
not been able to become a strong state, which was caused by the absence of economic
development and the absence of liberalism and nationalism. All these variables actually
represent the absence of the middle classes in the south, or at least not comparable to the other
Italian states. However, also the kingdom of the two Sicilies had experienced revolutionary
events but primarily they were more concerned with the separatist feelings at Sicily increased
by the economic depression and the social and economic demands of the lower classes. It was
only after the revolutionary events at the north of Italy that the south of Italy got inspired by
the liberal and national idea, but it remained rather marginal and the revolutionary events
were mainly supported by the lower classes.
69
The kingdom of Sardinia though, had been an independent state but besides its relatively slow
economic development, it also had no diplomatic expertise. The state of Piedmont had been
influenced by the liberal and national ideas though, albeit mainly after the revolutionary
events in Lombardy-Veneto. At the time of the revolutions, Piedmont had been able to
maintain control over the situation within its own state but it had no power to extend its
influence over the other states. This influence and recognized position of the kingdom of
Sardinia was to increase and diminish also during the revolutionary events of 1848/1849, with
the lost of the first war of independence, but was to build up this position during the 1850s.
In Germany the situation had been rather different with various strong states, such as Prussia
and Austria. Both states had been interested in the supremacy within the German
confederation, but their interest for the national question had been low because it could mean
a diminishing influence of their own states. The states, although the national ideas did play a
role in the revolutionary events (except for Austria), had not prepared to diminish their own
influence to form a nation-state, as was also demonstrated by the position of the southern
states. As has already been demonstrated in the fourth chapter, and as also Boolean analysis
demonstrates, the national question had indeed been present in German society but not among
the major powers. In Frankfurt and Baden the popular and social pressure for the national
issue had been present (look at the events in Baden with the call for a republic), enforced by
the liberal ideas. Nevertheless, the states had not been able to form a majority or solution to
the formation of the nation-state, as was demonstrated by the incapabaility of the national
parliament to increase its power over the individual states.
Although in both Frankfurt and Baden liberalism and nationalism had been highly present,
they did not have strong states, especially because they did not have a strong army (in both
states the Prussian army had to intervene) nor diplomatic expertise. Although the state of
baden did have a strong bureaucracy it did not have a strong, recognized position among the
other German states (for the southern states Bavaria had been the strong state). Remarkable is
that all the German states turn out positive in the economic development, with the exception
of Baden, which had been rather exemplary for the south of Germany. Baden still had a more
agricultural society and was to experience the huge economic progress only in the 1850s and
especially in the 1860s. Frankfurt, as mentioned earlier, had a rather different function as the
place of the national parliament and as such did not experience an 1848 revolution as did
occur in other German states. Nevertheless, also here the supremacy of Prussia had been
demonstrated, by interference of the army. Also the Austrian army had demonstrated its
supremacy in this period, but than in its Italian province, with a victory over the Piedmontese
army.
70
Before trying to find an answer at the importance of the 1848 revolutions in the process of
unification, for which there should also be taken a look at the second table, another small
consideration has to be made. In this first table there has been demonstrated, according to the
point of Tilly, a strong connection between coercion and capital (economic development and
the army, as well as strong state) but the combination of these two elements would give only a
partial response to the question why the nation states had not been formed in this period. As
for Italy none of the states had represented this combination and also in Germany the other
two states had been negative on the strength of the army and the strength of the state, so in the
negative cases where the combination of capital and coercion is missing the statement would
actually be true. The point of the national question of Germany in this period has to be
answered by the unwillingness of the strong states, both Prussia and Austria, to stimulate the
formation of a nation-state. Therefore coercion and capital had not been the only important
elements in this period because than the situation could have been rather different, but it has
especially been the liberalism and nationalism of the southern states to influence these strong
states.
Nevertheless, the importance of nationalism should not be forgotten because even though
Austria and Prussia were not willing to sacrifice anything for the national cause, the national
question especially because of that attitude did play a role. The Italian cases demonstrate quite
a different picture where there had been a larger focus on the national question, but inspired
by liberal ideas though, although only in Piedmont actual liberal reforms had taken place.
Therefore it could be stated that in this period it did not all evolve around the question of
capital and coercion but moreover about the fact that the ideologies as well as the middle
classes were still developing and had now made there entrance, demonstrated their importance
and in the second table we will se whether that was to stay and influence unification.
However, having completed this first Boolean analysis we will try to provide an answer to the
question of the failure of the 1848 revolutions. It of course depends on how you look at the
revolutionary events of this period. Have the revolutions succeeded in completing the national
state? No, they actually did not, but had that really been the objective of the revolutionary
events? The revolutions of 1848 represented the start of a new period; the start of a liberal and
national change in both Italy and Germany, inspired and stimulated by the middle classes who
gained ever more influence and who with the revolutionary events of 1848 had demonstrated
their demands and power. Overall it should not be forgotten that large parts of the middle
classes, especially the higher middle classes, did not want revolution to achieve their goals.
Furthermore the liberal demands had been the main objective of the revolutions. Once
revolution broke out, they used it as a way to increase their own position in society and
increase the liberal and national ideas. Therefore, at this point I would state that the
revolutions of 1848 had not been a complete failure because it only formed the beginning of
the process that was to come, but we will see in the second analysis if that argument holds and
if the development of the 1850s has been decisive in the process towards unification.
71
Table 2
Unification
Austria
Baden
Frankfurt
Prussia
Lombardy-Veneto
Piedmont
Southern Italy
A
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
A=
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
economic development
revolutionary events
diplomatic expertise
army
liberalism
nationalism
T=
strong state (outcome variable)
0 = absent
B
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
C
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
D
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
E
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
F
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
T
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1 = present
In this table again only two states emerge as strong states, but this time one state of each
territory, namely Prussia and Piedmont, with the combination of variables: T = AbCDEF. At
the time of unification at both territories there had thus been one state that could take the
guidance over the other states in forming a nation state. This was also true for Germany where
indeed the southern states had remained strong and independent states until the unification but
never in the process of unification reached the accordance among them to take the lead in
unification and as single states not strong enough to put enough pressure on the other German
states to prevent Prussia from taking the lead.
There are some remarkable outcomes in this second analysis. First of all the position of
Austria that in the first analysis had been a strong state. Austria in the process of unification
had maintained a strong position for quite some time, but the international events as well as
the events within its Empire had weakened its position. This isolation of Austria had increased
by the Prussian efforts within the Zollverein. Nevertheless, the negative outcome of Austria in
this second analysis has mainly been caused by the military losses in the 1860s, which had
enabled Prussia to take the lead in unification. Austria as leader of the Habsburg Empire could
have still been a strong state, but it had lost its strong position among the German states.
The outcome variables of both Austria and Piedmont exactly demonstrate the importance of
the process of unification, the development towards a nation-state and the development in
liberalism and nationalism. Piedmont had experienced a remarkable growth and development
on different areas in the 1850s whereas the development of Austria, although in the 1850s not
negative, in the 1860s could not compete anymore with the other German states, especially
with Prussia.
72
Another remarkable development in this period had been the development of liberalism
(except in the southern kingdom of Italy), despite either reactionary or restorative regimes.
The German states in the 1850s had been characterized by reactionary regimes, but as stated
earlier, these reactionary regimes could by no means be compared by the harsh restorative
regimes at the Italian peninsula where the liberal spirit as well as the national spirit did
continue by means of secret associations and Piedmontese propaganda. Nevertheless, the
possibility for many of the liberal exiles to go to Piedmont had also further stimulated the
growth of liberalism in the different states. Reactionary regimes in the German states did not
mean repressive regimes, but only to avoid new revolutionary outbursts; the developments
and progress (look at the economic development) continues whereas at the Italian peninsula
this was far more complicated by the restorative regimes that often wanted to turn back time.
In the south of Italy where the king already in 1848 had imposed a very restorative regime,
the liberal and national ideas had had little possibility to develop, which had also been caused
by the small presence of the middle classes. This did not mean that the liberal and national
ideas had been completely absent, but in comparison to the other states the kingdom of the
two Sicilies their development had been very minor. The revolutionary activities, however,
which in this period only occurred in two states (Lombardy-Veneto and the kingdom of the
two Sicilies), had been based on the same social and economic problems of more than a
decade before, especially in the south of Italy. Furthermore, despite support for the
Piedmontese guidance in the process of unification, the sense of separatism in Sicily had
remained very strong and the kingdom of Sardinia was regarded only as a way out of Bourbon
oppressive rule and a temporary solution.
As mentioned above, in Germany there had not been restorative but reactionary regimes but in
none of the states, except Austria, had liberals been completely banned out of politics after the
1848 revolutions and the revival of liberalism as well as nationalism at the end of the 1850s
explains the still positive outcome of liberalism in the German states. Also in Austria liberal
elements remained active and became somewhat stronger when in 1861 a constitution was
introduced.
The absence of southern Italy in the national question has been explained above but also
Austria, in contrast to the other German states, had not so much been concerned with the
national question. That is to say, in the period after the revolutions Austria had tried
everything to make a restoration of the German confederation possible (as did happen) and
wanted to reform the confederation but was not willing to form a nation state because that
would mean that it would have to give up many of its territories.
Significant is also the point of economic development where Piedmont, the only Italian state
without a restorative regime, had experienced a period of intensive economic progress, the
other Italian states, including Lombardy-Veneto that suffered under restorative Austrian rule,
lacked behind in this economic boom. In Germany the economic boom was to be experienced
generally everywhere, except for Austria. This does not mean that there had not been any
economic development in Austria in the period after 1848, but in comparison to the economic
boom and enormous progress of the other German states, Austria did lag behind with its
protectionist policy.
73
Another short consideration needs to be made on the position of Frankfurt. The national
parliament in the 1850s and even in the 1860s had made several attempts to regain control
over the confederation, but it did not have the power to act against for example Prussia. The
role of Frankfurt in the last phase of the unification had been a very minor role, because
Prussia had dismissed the national parliament and with the formation of the North German
Confederation Frankfurt had been annexed.
Discussing the most most significant elements of this second table, we also have to discuss
the element of diplomatic expertise. At the time of the revolutions only Austria and Prussia
had had diplomatic expertise whereas at the time of unification, and already in the process
towards unification, only Piedmont and Prussia demonstrated to have developed this
diplomatic expertise. But despite the fact that only these two states had the diplomatic
expertise, the element should not be overestimated because diplomatic expertise turned out
positive and useful for the states only in combination with economic development, liberalism,
nationalism and a strong army. In both Prussia and Piedmont the diplomatic expertise had
actually been represented by one man, Bismarck for Prussia and Cavour for Piedmont. These
statesmen had been of great importance but especially in combining the other elements of
society and successfully use them in the establishment of the own state and then also in the
process of unification. Both Cavour and Bismarck had been able to combine the importance
of the national and liberal issues to each other and both had been statesmen who anticipated
on the increasing call for liberal and national reforms.
Also the second analysis demonstrates exactly the point made at the first table; only coercion
and capital does not necessarily make a strong state or create the possibility of a nation state.
As with the 1848 revolutions also in this period the ideologies demonstrate to have had great
importance, especially in public opinion but also in pressuring the states (especially in
Prussia). Nevertheless, the combination of capital and coercion, as can be seen also in this
second table, remains to be very important and it indeed gave a push forward in the
development towards unification, in the sense that it offered both Prussia and Piedmont the
means to explore and use the combination of the other elements in a different way than the
other states.
Discussing this argument of Charles Tilly, there has to be made another final point though,
which is concerned with the emphasis on warfare. By taking only a general look at the Italian
and German unification one would immediately state that both states have been established by
warfare, but the tables above have demonstrated, especially the second one, that besides
warfare several other elements had been necessary to make the unification process of the
different states to a success and that is especially the development of the two ideologies and
the increase of the middle classes and their influence in society during the 1850s and in
Germany also during the 1860s. By means of associations but also the economic
development, liberalism and nationalism, this developed into stronger ideologies with clearer
ideas about the nation-state and modernization. The development was especially important
because whereas at the time of the revolutions the liberal and national thoughts had had
different emphasis, in the 1850s and 1860s in both Germany and Italy they develop into a
national liberalism in which national unity will further stimulate liberalism on the basis that
was provided by the strong states. This is also why there had been so many controversies and
different feelings towards Prussia in the process of unification because it first needed to
liberalize its society and approach to the population with liberal reforms.
74
The thesis of Tilly should, however, as the Boolean analyses demonstrate, not be put aside
because the presence of a strong state was indeed very important but it depended on a
combination of elements. This combination of elements was most certainly supported by the
presence of capital, economic development and progress, but also by the rise of the middle
classes and the two ideologies. The middle classes with their liberal and national ideas had
actually stimulated the states to develop and invest, not only in the economy but also in
politics. The pressure of the liberal middle classes, considering also their increasingly
powerful position in society, increased and to avoid any new revolutions, the states
anticipated on these liberal and national thoughts.
There are some final remarks left to be made. First of all, the importance of the 1848
revolutions in the process of unification, which has already been discussed above but we need
to see now whether that argument after the second Boolean analysis still stands. The Boolean
analyses clearly show the difference between the states but also show that they were states in
transition. More than that there is a close connection to be found in the process of unification,
pointed out by the developments of the 1850s (and 1860s) that resulted in a certain outcome
in the second table and the development of the ideologies has been very important in this
process, as well as the combination of force and economic development but also diplomatic
expertise. It actually had been the 1848 revolutions to introduce these elements because
before that period the ideologies had not been that strong to put so much influence on society
as did happen in 1848 and moreover the importance of the revolutions could be found in the
fact that it made several changes possible in the period afterwards as well as that it showed in
both Italy and Germany the necessity of one strong state representing the possibility of a
nation state.
The revolutionary events of 1848 had actually demonstrated the grievances of the middle
classes, the group in society that was in transition and influenced by liberalism and
nationalism. It were also exactly the middle classes to increase in the 1850s, by ways of the
enormous economic development many states experienced, and with them the liberal and
national got ever more widespread. The advantages of liberalism and nationalism became ever
clearer and besides, the events of 1848 could not be forgotten anymore. The governments,
whether conservative, reactionary or restorative, one way or another had to deal with this new
group in society and it was better to cooperate with them than fear another revolution. The
revolutionary events may perhaps not be considered a success in the sense that they did not
result in a collapse of the old system, on the short term, but in the long run the middle classes
did achieve their goals with liberal, representative states bounded together in one national
state.
The period after the revolutions enabled the middle classes to prepare the liberal as well as
national reforms on a different level and pressure society and politics in a more gradual but
also structural way. The middle classes had needed the revolutionary events of 1848 to
establish further possibilities, but for them the revolutionary events had not been a total
failure. Therefore, in the end I continue my former point of view that when we look at the
revolutions of 1848 as bourgeois revolutions and we take in consideration the path the
bourgeoisie has gone after the revolutions, it could by no means be considered a failure.
75
The path to modernization and liberalization of society could not be changed anymore, as well
as had been demonstrated that a more satisfying solution had to be found for the national
question, both in Germany and Italy. They had wanted to prevent new revolutions or
continuing revolutionary events and the further development of liberalism and nationalism
provided more lasting measures and answers. This preparation and gradual reforms of society
and politics resulted eventually in the formation of Italy in 1861 (than officially in 1870) and
Germany in 1871.
One final issue has to be taken in consideration that has been mentioned at the beginning of
the conclusion; the question whether it had been a unification from above. Actually the
answer to this issue has already been given, because the combination of elements and not only
the strong state had made this process of unification to a success. Had it only been unification
from above, the liberal and national forces in society would have not been that important.
Besides, if the unifications had been established from above, it could as well have been
annexations instead of the formation of nation-states. The middle classes had actually
contributed to the formation of national states, based on liberalism. Had the unifications been
random? Could the process have developed differently? The processes most certainly could
have developed differently but the emergence of liberalism, nationalism and the middle
classes in the end would have contributed to the necessity and preference for a nation-state.
The developments of the ideologies as well as the rise of the middle classes could not stopped
and would in the end, as well as the ambitions of the states, have led to a unitary state.
Already before 1848 the different states had been more and more concerned with the liberal
and national ideas; caused by historical as well as economic and social developments. The
development of these ideas in a successful unification needed time and the 1850s and 1860s,
together with the emergence of liberalism and nationalism, had been very important in this
question. The states had not been unified randomly, it had been based on historical roots and
experiences in both Italy and Germany, and had in the end been established by a combination
between strong states who could give the necessary guidance and on the other hand the
sentiments from society that made the states move in a certain direction.
76
Epilogue
In these final sentences I would like to make some last remarks on the thesis. Despite the fact
that I had quickly found the argument for the thesis, it took several months to complete this
research. The argument of the thesis has been rather complex and could be used also to write
a beautiful book about Germany and Italy, but unfortunately that was not the intention of this
thesis. Even during my studies as an undergraduate of Italian language and culture I had been
very interested in history and I had been very pleased with the possibility to participate in the
program of the master Comparative History. As an undergraduate I had already been very
interested in the processes of Italian history, especially in the broader perspective of European
history. My specific interest for German history in comparison to Italian history had started
after a course of dr.mr. Lantink about fascism. This course had actually further stimulated my
interest in history and although I did take other courses on various historical arguments, the
interest in a comparison and combination of Italian and German history had never
disappeared. The master Comparative History of course provided the perfect possibility for
such a comparison.
In my study I had already several times made comparisons between the German and Italian
contemporary history, but mainly focused on the fascist and nazist regime. For my thesis I
wanted to do research on a different argument, but still a comparison between Germany and
Italy and since both countries had been united in almost the same period, I decided to focus on
the unifications of Germany and Italy in the nineteenth century. In the general literature as
preparation for the argument, the revolutions of 1848 immediately had my interest, especially
because of the seeming similarities and the development into nation-states of both Germany
and Italy only several decades later. Comparisons between Germany and Italy considering the
nazist and fascist regimes have often been made, but a comparison between the unifications of
both countries with the explanation in the 1848 revolutions had been rarely done and therefore
I decided to take this challenge.
It has most certainly been a challenge, but a very interesting challenge and an argument that
certainly deserves further investigation. The literature for this argument had been rather
difficult to find, especially recent Italian literature but in the end I did succeed in collecting
the most important literature on the argument. For the German case I would like to thank my
main supervisor, dr. mr. Lantink, with his advices on the most important German literature. I
would also like to thank dr. mr. Lantink for his availability and preparedness to allow me to
write the thesis in Florence, which did demand some more organization but worked out fine.
Finally I would like to thank the other supervisor considering the comparative element, prof.
dr. Prak, with his advices on the introduction and conclusion. A final thanks will be for my
parents, for all their support not only in the last months but throughout my study.
Maureen Sluiter
0026905
77
Literature thesis
Austensen, R.
‘Austria and the ‘Struggle of supremacy in Germany’, 1848-1864’
In: Journal of modern history, 52 1980 p. 195-225
Banti, Alberto Mario
Il Risorgimento italiano
Roma: Gius. Laterza e figli Spa, 2004
Beales, Derek
Il Risorgimento e l’unificazione dell’Italia
Orig. Title: The Risorgimento and the unification of Italy
Bologna: il Mulino, 2005
Blackbourn, David
History of Germany 1780-1918. The long nineteenth century
Oxford: Blackwell publishing ltd, 2003
Blackbourn, David Eley, Geoffrey
The pecularities of German history: bourgeois society and politics in nineteenth century
Germany
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985
Breuilly, John
The formation of the first German nation-state, 1800-1871
Hampshire: Palgrave, 1996
Brose, Eric Dorn
German history 1789-1871. From the holy Roman empire to the Bismarckian Reich
Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1997
Castronovo, Valerio
Storia economica d’Italia: dall’Ottocento ai giorni nostri
Torino: G. Einaudi, 1995
Cavicchioli, Silvia Cerato, Sabina Montaldo, Silvano
Fare l’Italia. I dieci anni che prepararono l’unificazione
Roma: Carocci, 2002
Cirelli, Renato
La questione romana. Il compimento dell’unificazione che ha diviso l’Italia
Pessano: Mimep-Docete, 1997
Crankshaw, Edward
Otto von Bismarck e la nascita della Germania moderna
Milano: Mursia, 1988
78
Davis, John A.
Italy in the nineteenth century. 1796-1900
New York: Oxford University Press, 2000
Dowe, Dieter Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard Langewiesche, Dieter
Europa 1848. Revolution und Reform
Bonn: Dietz, 1998
Dipper, Christoph Speck, Ulrich
1848 Revolution in Deutschland
Frankfuhrt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1998
Dwyer, Philip G.
Modern Prussian history, 1830-1947
New York: Longman, 2001
Ginsborg, Paul
Daniele Manin and the Venetian Revolution of 1848-1849
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979
Hearder, Harry
Italy in the age of the Risorgimento 1790-1870
New York: Longman Inc., 1986
Hobsbawm, Eric J.
Il trionfo della borghesia 1848-1875
Roma: Laterza, 1979
Holborn, Hajo
Storia della Germania moderna 1840-1945
Milano: Rizzoli Editore, 1973
Kitchen, Martin
A history of modern Germany, 1800-2000
Malden: Blackwell publishing, 2006
Lutz, Heinrich
Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen
Bologna: il Mulino, 1992
Mack Smith, Denis
Modern Italy. A political history
New Haven: Yale U.P., 1997
Mack Smith, Denis
Victor Emanuel, Cavour and the Risorgimento
London: Oxford University Press, 1971
79
McGaw Smyth, Howard
‘Piedmont and Prussia: the influence of the campaigns of 1848-1849 on the constitutional
development of Italy’
In: the American Historical Review, 55 no. 3 1950 p. 479-502
Nipperdey, Thomas
Deutsche Geschichte, 1800-1866
München: Beck, 1983
Salomone, William A.
‘Statecraft and ideology in the Risorgimento. Reflections on the Italian national revolution’
In: Italica, 38 no. 3 1961 p. 163-194
Sperber, Jonathan
Germany 1800-1870
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004
Tilly, Charles
Capital, Coercion and European states, AD 990-1992
Cambridge: Blackwell, 1993
Varni, Angelo
Il 1848, la rivoluzione in città: atti del convegno di studi, Bologna, 7 dicembre 1998
Bologna, Costa, 2000
Wawro, Geoffrey
The Franco-Prussian war: the German conquest of France in 1870-1871
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003
Wehler, Hans-Ulrich
Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte bd 2 bd 3
München: Beck, 1989
Woolf, Stuart
A history of Italy 1790-1860
London: Methuen and Co ltd, 1979
Verso Belfiore: società, politica, cultura del decennio di preparazione nel Lombardo-Veneto:
atti del convegno di studi, Mantova-Brescia, 25-26-27 novembre 1993
Brescia: F.lli Geroldi, 1995
80