The 1848 Revolutions

"Slumber not in the tents of your fathers. The world is advancing." So said Mazzini before the 1848 Revolutions, he hoped, like so many others, that a new order could be created in Italy, a new reformed Italy. But despite preliminary victories, it was clear that by 1849 that the revolutions of 1848 had been failures, just as they had failed in 1820 and 1831. All across Italy revolutions were quashed, in Sicily Neapolitan rule had been re-established forcibly and the two "Sicilies" had had to reunite. Now they had an even more repressive and absolutist government than prior to the revolution.

The Roman Republic had also been destroyed by the French, who continued to occupy Rome, returning the Pope to "temporal" power. People who thought that Pius IX would be a liberal supporter of Italian unification were sorely disappointed as Pius said he would do no such thing.

Tuscany, Modena and Parma, the "Central Dutchies" were once again under absolutist rule. The Austrians also continued to assert their power by taking a stronger grip on the Venetian Republic and Lombardy. Piedmont, the strongest Italian state had also had humiliating defeats inflicted upon it by Austria.

The only visible success that the Revolutionaries seemed to gain was the constitution of Piedmont, The Statuto, granted by Charles Albert, this endured the revolutions. This was quite a significant victory for the Revolutionaries, despite its apparent insignificance when compared to the nation-wide defeat of the revolutions. This was because none of the other constitutions had survived in other states, and the Statuto, would eventually form the basis for the United Kingdom of Italy in 1860.

Overall, despite the survival of the Piedmont constitution, the 1848 Revolution had been an almost unanimous failure. AS with the 1820 and 1831 revolutions, Italy had suffered from a number of drawbacks, which cost them.

Similar to previous revolutions, the 1848 revolution showed a distinct lack of co-operation between the various revolutionary parties across Italy. In Piedmont, for instance, Charles Albert wouldn't accept any volunteers from any other States in his army, nor would he work with other revolutionary groups unless they swore their loyalty to him.

For Charles Albert this was a mistake. With lots of potential soldiers from other states, he was wasting a golden opportunity. Had Albert been able to utilise these soldiers, rather than leaving them, he would have certainly stood a far better chance at defeating the Austrians in the ensuing battles.

The revolutionaries themselves were also divided between themselves. There were liberal revolutionaries who believed that granting a constitution by the ruler, rather than a total overhaul of the current political system was the first step. However, they were at odds with the radical revolutionaries who wanted Republics, with no intermediate step.

As a result of the divide between the revolutionaries themselves, there was no universally accepted leader. Pius IX, cited as the best hope for a unified leader by many, including Cavour, was out of the question after he debunked rumours of being liberally inclined. Local revolutionary leaders had no central guidance and the provisional governments that were initially set up in the wake of the revolutions ranged from being moderate, liberal, republican, monarchist, democratic and many more besides.

The point in this was that there was a distinct lack of Unity, everyone was extremely localistic rather than nationalistic. With no defined goals or no one leader, it is certainly a difficult aim to ascertain a good unified Italy.

The failure of the revolutions was not solely due to the provisional governments that were set up during 1848 and the lack of an overall guidance. Another issue that came into play was the inexperience, many of the revolutionaries were middle class, and they tended not to be experienced politicians, many had never obtained high positions in the political ranks of the previous system, thereby not necessarily knowing what made governments tick.

These inexperienced revolutionaries also lacked in resources, mainly military ones. After having gained power, the revolutionaries often found it difficult to maintain what they had. Partly due to the fact that the mass of the population, mainly peasants, felt alienated to a degree, by middle class revolutionaries. Despite a few minor changes to peasant life, they mainly didn't find themselves better off than from when they were under the rule.

In the Roman Republic, for example, although there was a raft of legislation for freedom of speech and an attempt at a coalition against Austria, these reforms didn't directly improve the commoners' lives. It certainly enhanced the middle classes, but the lower orders didn't benefit. Social reform simply didn't improve the lives of ordinary people.

Another vital point for the reason of revolutionary failure in 1848 was the fact that Italy had adversaries. These adversaries also tended to have a large military capacity comparatively to the Italian states. Italy was a cluster of small states compared to the large empires that surrounded her, making Italy an easy target for military dominion.

Perhaps out of all of the reasons for the failure of the revolutions in 1848, one of the most important ones was Austria. The Austrian Empire was a bordering superpower to the Italian peninsula, Austria commanded potent military forces who were superior in numbers to the Italian states, better led than the Italian states and far better equipped.

This was clearly why one of the reasons that Mazzini attempted to create a coalition of Italian states against Austria. A great European superpower against an insignificant Italian state was an unfair match. Although even if a united front against the Austrian threat had been utilised by Mazzini and his allied, the odds were still against the Italians in a battle against Austria. In any conflict, Austria had the stronger hand against Italy. Austria also took a leading role in the restoration of the old regimes into countries that had revolted in 1849.

During the provisional governments of 1848, the revolutionary states clearly needed allies or other countries sympathetic to their cause in order to counter or at least hinder the threat of Austrians or any enemies of reform. The traditional enemy of Austria, France, was a clear choice for assistance; however, the potential ally actually destroyed the Roman Republic, and defeating Italian nationalists. This was France's only military action during the war.

Indeed, the reason for the lack of allies in Europe seemed to be the Papal influence on Europe. In the 19th Century, most of the major powers in and around Italy and Europe, were Catholic. Italian revolutionaries actually deposed the pope from temporal power! The Pope wanted to regain his "Papal States" and used his influence on the Roman Catholic powers to gage counter-revolutionary measures.

France, in deposing Mazzini and the triumvirate, attempted to gain favour from the Pope, for returning him to power. Mazzini attempted to appease the French, but Mazzini had little to offer in the interests of the French. It seems that there was little cause for joy in the nationalist camps, as allies sided with counter-revolutionary thinking.

Despite the obvious failure of the 1848 revolutions, the Statuto of Piedmont had survived. This increased political chances for the middle class and those not in the aristocracy. Tens of thousands of Refugees fled to Piedmont, this gave Piedmont quite a nationalistic flavour compared to the rest of Italy, paving the way for Count Camillo Cavour, a key figure in Italian Nationalism.

Bibliography

_{Collier, M. (2003). Italian Unification 1820-71. Heinemann.}

_{Cunsolo, R. (1990). Italian Nationalism: From Its Origins to World War II. Kreiger.}

_{Pearce, R. (2007 ). Unification of Italy. Hodder Education.}