Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay.
Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

Impact of Giuseppe Garibaldi on the Italian Unification

Info: 5650 words (23 pages) Essay
Published: 8th Feb 2020 in History

Reference this

 Giuseppe Garibaldi was the most significant figure in Italian Unification between 1796 and 1900.’ How far do you agree?

 

As the question states, the fact that Garibaldi was undoubtedly a significant individual in the process of Italian Unification, should not be overlooked. However, he was not the only figure to achieve this, as it would not be possible for him to have had the influence to single handedly unify Italy. Therefore, it reasonable to propose that the four dominant figures that facilitated Italian Unification were Napoleon Bonparte, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Camillo Benso di Cavour and Francesco Crispi- all of whom have differing levels of significance. Consequently, it is reasonable to suggest that the most important figure in getting Italy to be one Kingdom was Cavour. The army officer, had many political accomplishments such as advocating for constitutional monarchy, creating tactful diplomatic alliances with France, and defeating Austrian forces in 1859. The Italy that was a result of unification, was more-so the Italy that Cavour envisioned; rather than that of the likes of Garibaldi like the statement favours.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Essay Writing Service

The process to Italy’s final stage of unification, was an ultimate result of years of political fragmentation and confusion. During the 18th Century, Italy was a collection of seven states, with only Piedmont having a ruling monarch. The Risorgimento was what developed the small, seven autonomous states and to have interactions between them all.  Napoleon’s Italian invasion in 1796, is thought to have been the catalyst of which started the political, institutional and ideological foundations for Italy’s future. After the Napoleonic rule had ended in Italy, the Congress of Vienna in 1815, was what was widely accepted by the leaders who restored the states in the different Italian Kingdoms; it bought a collective thought, that a centralised administration was the most effective way of controlling society. In 1830, there were a series of uprisings along the Italian peninsula, which consequently resulted in outcry for different Italian territories from within the peninsula, to merge and become one unified nation. The principle of Italy being one amalgamated state was again shown as a result of revolts, through the 1848 insurrection failures. This prompted more moderate political thinkers to advocate a unified Italy; an idea of which becomes increasingly popular and realistic. In March 1861 the ‘Kingdom of Italy’ was declared, with Victor Emmanuel II as its king; however, this did still not include the Papal States and the Republic of Vienna. The 1880s and 90s were a time of crisis regarding agriculture and economy; both of which would have not portrayed, the still new country, well on a global scale. 

The individuals that facilitated Italian Unification have subsequently had a number of historical interpretations and primary sources, such as journal articles written about them. However, their validity and reliability is varied due to the fact that they are particularly opinionated; therefore, they can be biased in order favor their own personal views on Italian Unification. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that sources written throughout 1796 and 1900, for example a speech or letter from one of the figures of significance, may be considered to be more reliable due to their accuracy and the fact that it is a personal account. An example of this is Cavour’s speech to the Piedmont Chamber of Deputies, 1858,[1] in which in itself emphasises the influence and power that Cavour had on his peers, enabling for him to be arguably, the most memorable candidate in the unification of Italy.

On the other hand, it is also reasonable to enquire the importance of sources of a more modernised origin. Martin Clarke’s 2013 edition ‘The Italian Risorgimento’[2], mentions numerous documents regarding Cavour’s significance; such as Document 21, which contains one of Deputy Giorgio Asproni’s diary entries, on how it would be difficult to find a successor to Cavour that had the same prominent qualities as him. Clarke’s book also mentions why Garibaldi was seen as a hero in Document 17, further emphasising Garibaldi’s pivotal political impact on the Italian population. People saw Garibaldi as a hero in Italian Unification, not just an individual who was blindsided by military influence; but someone who had the ability to be a political saviour. Another example of modern literature that is massively beneficial in its representation and interpretation of Italian Unification, is Christopher Duggan’s ‘A Concise History of Italy’ from 2014. [3]

To adequately examine the whole period that was the process to Italian Unification, it is necessary to address it in several sections and individuals, due to the inability to cover the whole period if this is not done. This being said, the main focus of the essay will be Cavour’s influence over Italian Unification, with reference to the argument that he holds more significance over Garibaldi. The fact that Garibaldi was also a prime driving force in making Italy one ‘Kingdom’, will not go unacknowledged. Francesco Crispi and Napoleon Bonparte can be seen at the figures to seemingly ‘open’ and ‘close’ the whole process of Italian, so their influence too, should not be disregarded.

Prior to what developed into French rule in Italy, there was constant revolutionary unrest; the political shape of the Italian peninsula, derived large parts from the influence of Papal diplomacy over the previous millennium. Preceding Popes had tended to strongly support the existence of a number of small states in the north of the peninsula, therefore seemingly rejecting the proposition of Unification, such that no strong power might presume to try to overshadow the papacy. Napoleon Bonparte’s significance in regards to Unifying the Kingdom of Italy, can be disputed in many ways; one being that Napoleon was the catalyst, so to speak, in starting off Italian Unification. This being said, it is reasonable to also argue the counter argument; that he did not do as much as Giuseppe Garibaldi, as stated in the question for example.

After conquering Italy, Napoleon left several legacies that support his importance to Italian Unification; that being an efficient government, practical demonstrations of the benefits of a ‘Kingdom of Italy’ and a hatred towards foreign influence, much like Garibaldi. Napoleonic rule laid the political, institutional and ideological foundation of Italy’s future. The process of Napoleon’s occupation of the majority of Italian states did not take particularly long, however after years of failing to occupy the Republic of Venice, he succeeded, thus placing humiliation on a once proud and energetic state; but now worn out and enfeebled, oligarchy. It was a miserable end to the Republic of Venice, but it should be considered that if they had not been brought under Napoleonic control, it would have made unifying them in conjunction with the rest of Italy, significantly more difficult in later years. Having already lost their independent sovereignty, the Republic of Vienna may have been more willing to form with the kingdom of Italy; in comparison to if they still maintained independence.

 Napoleon introduced Napoleonic Code[4] in Italy, which was the first time Italy has written constitution to therefore abide, and had a bureaucratic political system. Napoleonic Code was one of the great contributions Napoleon had made to Italian civilisation and a good government; although its it should be noted that it meant a consequent result of his code was a lack of egalitarianism; the code did not extend to emancipating women, who were subjugated to fathers and husbands. The Civil Code signifies a typically Napoleonic fusion of liberalism and conservatism, although most of the basic revolutionary gains, such as equality before the law, freedom of religion and the abolition of feudalism, were consolidated within its laws. However, it should be noted with the inspiration of Napoleonic code, a number of European and Latin American countries, most notably, Italy, created their own versions of Code Napoléon. The Italian Civil Code of 1865-enacted after the unification of Italy- had a close but indirect relationship with the Napoleonic Code. The new Italian code of 1942 departed to a large extent from that tradition.

Furthermore, as the Napoleonic period progressed, many people grew increasingly resentful of French Rule. The fact that France conscripted men from Italy to fight and die for the French empire, was hated by many Italians. 27,000 Italian men went to fight in Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, yet only 1000 returned; consequently, enraging Italians further to a point of little return. High tax was also placed on Italy to pay for French wars; with 60% of the tax raised in Italy being spent on militant means. 

It can be concluded that Napoleon Bonaparte himself didn’t had much influence on Italian Unification, due to the fact that most Italians despised the Austrians more so than the French. Furthermore, central and southern Italy were scarcely struck by Napoleonic warfare and regarding the Papal state, the French occupation did have much influence. The fact that Napoleon started the process to Italian Unification through the legacy of his political administration, should not be disregarded.  In any case, the administration that Napoleon started in Italy was unconditionally and without much question, positive. The endorsement of the industrial capitalism in the north, the rationalisation of public administration, and the concentration of the properties and overall the law which erased feudalism in August 1806, are just a few of Napoleon’s achievements, thus emphasising his importance and significance in the process to Italian Unification. It should also be noted that these were changes which remained also after Napoleon’s power left the peninsula. However, the fact that he did not have the most importance in regards to Italian Unification should be reiterated; Napoleon inspired several leaders, both political and militant, in continuing the long process that was Italian Unification.

It is reasonable to argue that Camillo Benso di Cavour was perhaps the most significant figure regarding the importance of Italy’s Unification, in comparison to Giuseppe Garibaldi as otherwise stated in the questions statement. He was a pragmatist, and a man who practiced politics of a similar nature. He created alliances with countries such as France and Prussia, when it was politically required and necessary. He used international power to achieve his domestic goal and prestige.  Giuseppe Garibaldi on the other hand, was a man who was forced to rely his own national popularity through previous militant success, to make a similar indent in the political progression of Italian Unification. The question’s statement is particularly favourable of Giuseppe Garibaldi’s participation regarding unification, however it should be considered that Cavour understood the association between national and international events, and was thus able to manipulate foreign policy for his gain, thus emphasising his competence. Garibaldi was a democrat and soldier, was without question foreboding a future of conflict with the monarchs of Europe. Cavour, with additional credibility of representing a monarch, made the blend of having a successful political career, all that more applicable to the political situation of Italy in the mid- 1800s. With this being taken into great consideration, it is quite doubtful that Garibaldi would have ever been able to gain the upper hand in Italy, in relation to Cavour.

Cavour’s speech to the Piedmont Chamber of Deputies in 1858[5], only emphasises his influence on fellow peers regarding the support of his views, in Unifying the division of the Italian States. Unlike Napoleon, Cavour recognises the importance of receiving acceptance from foreign powers and their benefits. In his speech Cavour emphasises the success of the Crimean war[6], and that as a whole, it was a policy in which their “hopes were not disappointed[7]”. This is in regards to the Sardinia-Piedmont, and their allies’, victory. With Cavour strategically creating alliances with Britain and France, he established a relationship with nations of vast military strength, which could be beneficial when unifying Italy or if there were any further conflicts. In his speech Cavour also states whilst “declaring our firm intention to resect treaties[8]”, they must “maintain in the political sphere the enterprise which was defeated in the military sphere[9]”. It is section of his speech, Cavour makes clear that there needs to be changes in the attempts of making Italy a unified nation. This shows Cavour’s emphasis on the fact that war and conflict- trying to achieve unification regarding militant means- were not working; but by perhaps being politically proficient, unification would be more likely. The fact that this was a speech to the parliamentarians of Piedmont, making it a matter of public record, accentuates the accuracy of this source. The speech is a relatively precise translation which further emphasises its accuracy. Cavour is trying to convince the parliamentary diplomats to continue in their support for an amalgamated Italy and how if done politically and with acceptance of foreign power, unification would be easier. However, the fact that it was a speech made to only the deputies, those of an authoritative status, could perhaps be to seemingly eradicate opposition from those of a lower class, in which unification might not perhaps greatly effect. However, it does need to be recognised that in 1858, Italy is not yet unified, it had been attempted several times but failed. Cavour’s attempts to convince the chamber of deputies on the advantages and ways to politically unify Italy, only makes the idea of Italian unification more possible than it had been previously. 

The Historical Journal[10], appears to mention and interpret historian Harry Hearder’s, book ‘Cavour’[11]. It mentions that Hearder seems to take a ‘great man’[12] theory regarding Camillo Benso di Cavour, in which he sympathetically portrays Cavour’s character. Hearder believes Cavour to be perhaps the key figure in the process of Italian unification, if not “one of the major figures of the nineteenth century[13]”. On the other hand, Revisionist historian Denis Mack Smith appears to favour Garibaldi and his influence towards the Unification of Italy. Mack Smith described Cavour as a man who was “dishonest, a coward, and anti-unificatory”, which emphasises his unpopular opinion on the Piedmontese statesman. Fellow Revisionist Historian LCB Seaman stated that “As a parliamentary liberal, Cavour did not believe in Italian unification. For him the idea was too radical and there were too many obstacles in the way”[14], which emphasises the idea that Cavour was not interested in the benefits of Italian Unification for the different Italian States, but only Piedmont.

With the differing opinions about the Piedmontese statesman taken into account, it is still reasonable to conclude that Cavour was more significance in his importance and role regarding Italian Unification, in comparison to Giuseppe Garibaldi.  This is due to the fact that Cavour recognised the changes that needed to be done in order to progress the idea of Italian Unification on, regarding the shift of militant means to that of which is more political. Cavour also knew the importance of creating tactful diplomatic alliances with countries with strong militaries, and how creating these alliances would benefit unification.

The questions statement introduces Giuseppe Garibaldi to be the most significant figure in Italian Unification. This can easily be disputed due to the vast credible works of figures such as Camillo Benso di Cavour, who arguably did more in terms of pushing the process of Italian Unification. Cavour was mindful of the different political strategies that were needed for Italy to unify, in addition to military approaches. On the other hand, Garibaldi was seemingly focused on only the military tactics to achieve unification, for example, he used guerrilla warfare to win control of southern Italy. It can be argued that Garibaldi used conflict to enable him to gain credibility regarding his successes, but also his failures to emphasise his deterministic nature. Garibaldi was a democrat and soldier, which without question, gives a foreboding sense of a future full of conflict with the monarchs of Europe, which is why it can be argued he wasn’t the most significant individual. However, Garibaldi’s heroic like status emphasised his pivotal political and military impact on the Italian population, and this should not be overlooked. People saw Garibaldi as a hero in this   particular process; not just an individual who was focused on military influence, but someone who had the ability to be a political saviour to the separated Italian States.

In Lucy Riall’s 2009 book of the Risorgimento[15](pp 33),  it is stated that “few political leaders have captured the public imagination much like Garibaldi”[16]. This emphasises the power and respectable reputation Giuseppe Garibaldi had; the extent in which he could influence and encompass the minds of the people, were beyond the capability of other political pragmatists that have ever lived.

Document 22 of Martin Clarke’s “The Italian Risorgimento[17], stresses the ways in which Giuseppe Garibaldi was not perhaps the hero or successful military leader, he was often made out to be[18]. This particular document is titled “Garibaldi failed to take Rome”[19], which further highlights his failures, and therefore goes against the principle that Garibaldi was consistently admired and successful in militant tactics throughout the Italian States. The document notes of Garibaldi and his volunteers of troops’ failure to take the Papal state of Rome. In Document 22 it is stated in regards to Garibaldi’s makeshift army of troops, that “most of these bands were people jumbled together at random, many of them barely able to handle a gun”[20], thus indicating the idea that  Garibaldi was seemingly incompetent to withhold  a stable military front. With this particular inability, it is difficult to envision Garibaldi to be the main protagonist of the Italian Risorgimento; someone who would bring a sense of collective patriotism to the once divided states, if he cannot stabilise an army. However, it should be noted that the document goes on to say “they showed that patriotic fervour had spread from the democratic circles down to the lowest classes…”[21] in regards to the army of volunteers. This further alludes the idea that Garibaldi was seemingly a hero in the eyes of the people. Thus the argument that Garibaldi was a highly influential figure regarding Italian unification-as he could popularise his policies and tactics through his admirers-is brought to the forefront. Due to the fact that this particular document is from a German observer in Rome, accentuates its accuracy. It is a direct account of what this person witnessed, that being both Garibaldi’s military blunder and the sense of jingoism portrayed those devoted to his heroic status. However, Garibaldi’s attempt to take the Papal territory of Rome, was in 1867, several years before Rome was named the capital of the Kingdom of Italy and Italy was established to be one unified nation. Therefore, this makes it difficult to argue Garibaldi’s military influence to be the driving force which would consequently make him the most significant figure in Italian Unification. This particular source, a document derived from Clark’s “The Italian Risorgimento”[22], is vital its portrayal of those who did not see Garibaldi to be so heroic, and thus disagreeing with the statement of Giuseppe Garibaldi being the most significant figure in Italian Unification between 1796 and 1900.’

With the two varying opinions concerning Garibaldi’s influence of Italian Unification, to be either that it was rather weak or that it was the main catalyst in achieving its finality, it is reasonable to conclude that Garibaldi was not the most significant figure in establishing the Kingdom of Italy. Even though he was not arguably the main protagonist, it should still be stressed that Garibaldi’s military powers and convictions, in addition to his popularity, were highly beneficial in progressing the process of Italian Unification to its final form. However, it must be emphasised that Garibaldi’s reliance on his popularity and militant means of achieving power, were not always the most successful or amendable. Change was needed in order for Unification to progress to its finality, yet Garibaldi was not adapting to this particular change, unlike Camillo Benso di Cavour. This stresses why Cavour was of more significant individuals in the process of Italian Unification from the years 1796 and 1900, than that of Giuseppe Garibaldi, as the questions statement advocates.

In comparison to Giuseppe Garibaldi, Francesco Crispi is arguably one of the least significant out of the four main protagonists in their influence in the Italian Risorgimento. This is mostly due to the fact that Italy was already unified state when he was in an authoritative power and in a position in which he could make governing decisions. Crispi was Prime Minister in 1887 and in 1893, yet the stage in which the Italian Unification process was completed, was 1871. However, it is reasonable to state that Crispi was a key figure in terms of the fact that he was able to maintain Italy as being one amalgamated nation; under his government rule, Italy did not go back to its former division of separated states. Duggan (pp 166)[23],  states that “Crispi was the dominant political personality in Italy during the last years of the century” [24], which only accentuates further, Crispi’s success in maintaining the amalgamated nation. It can also be argued that due to the fact that Crispi was a supporter and close friend of Garibaldi, his influence over things such as Garibaldi’s expeditions, highlight that he was still a key figure in Italy’s Unification; however, just still not as much as his associate, Garibaldi.

Francesco Crispi admired Giuseppe Garibaldi for his military work and politics, which is perhaps why Crispi became such a keen supporter and friend of Garibaldi. The friendship between the two allowed for their influences to merge. Historian Duggan[25] (pp 455-457), stated that Crispi “may have made his greatest contribution to unification in his relations with Garibaldi”, thus emphasising his political and militant reliance on the successes and attainments of Giuseppe Garibaldi. Duggan also stated that “Crispi was to stay in the shadows” (pp 455)[26], alluding that Crispi was a seemingly backbench politician; someone who would be dependent on other peoples triumphs. Nevertheless, Francesco Crispi helped persuade and plan Garibaldi’s Expedition of the Thousand, often nicknamed “Garibaldi and the Thousand”. This particular expedition was vital, though as risky as this particular venture was, it helped bring Naples and Sicily to the Kingdom of Sardinia, which was the last territorial conquest before Italy became one kingdom. Without Crispi’s heavy influence in Garibaldi’s tactful and very much successful expeditions, the process in which Italy became a Kingdom, would have been significantly longer; if not, it would have not happened at all.

However, with the overwhelming authoritative power he had ascribed, Crispi soon became much like a dictator. Duggan specified that Crispi was “too headstrong a character” (pp 166)[27], which came to be his political hamartia.  He was repressive and he brutally crushed socialist states like Sicily. This goes against the indication that Francesco Crispi was one of the leading influences in the Italian Risorgimento as he is now creating divisions, and subsequently against the argument that Crispi himself, maintained the newly unified states. The dictator like leadership only established further, the already pre-existing North and South divide regarding the social and economic problems. Piedmontese statesman Massimo d’Azeglio stated that “L’Italia è fatta. Restano da fare gli italiani[28], which translates as “We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians”[29], which is far from what Crispi seemed to have achieved; he arguably divided them further.

In conclusion, it is reasonable to state that Francesco Crispi did have a level of influence in terms of Italian Unification, in regards to his ability to seemingly maintain the Italian states and also his influence on one of the main protagonists, Garibaldi, to some degree. However, his dictatorship style of leadership is brought to the forefront, and consequently puts his positive influence in the background. Crispi created division both economically and socially, which were hard to fix; which is why it can be argued that in this particular circumstance, Giuseppe Garibaldi is of more significance, than that of the likes of Francesco Crispi.

Of the sources used, some particularly noteworthy include; Christopher Duggan’s ‘A Concise History of Italy’[30], Martin Clarke’s ‘The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition’[31], and Lucy Riall’s ‘Risorgimento: The History of Italy from Napoleon to National State’[32]. These sources provided the key historical background and interpretations, needed to adequately analyse the importance of the different individuals that facilitated the process of Italian Unification, from the years 1796 to 1900. Arguably, the most useful primary source when answering the question, was Cavour’s speech to the chamber of deputies in 1858[33].This source provided the vital information that the idea of unification is no longer impossible, and how the combative strategies that had been used previously, were not working. In his speech Cavour identified the need of change from the failing attempts of unification through military force, to that of additional political potency, which could make the thought of unification more realistic. Cavour’s speech is particularly useful due to the fact that it is a direct dialogue from arguably the most influential figure in Italian unification, to parliamentarians of Piedmont, accentuating the accuracy of this source. The ability to access different primary sources in relation to Italian Unification, can be argued to be limited. This is due to the fact that a significant amount of reliable, accurate data such as speeches, or journal articles from the period 1796-1900, are not always readily translated from Italian or French to English. The research for Italian Unification used in this particular piece of work, may also be unintentionally limited due to the sources available online or in libraries.

Overall, the argument regarding Camillo Benso di Cavour to be the main protagonist between 1796 and 1900, in regards to Italian Unification still stands; consequently, disagreeing with the questions statement of Garibaldi being the most influential. He recognised that if the process of unification was to eventually finalise, it had to be looked at from the addition of a political perspective; other than that of military standpoint that Garibaldi famously took. As stated previously, the Italy that came as a result of unification, was most like the Italy Cavour had envisioned, rather than that of Garibaldi; emphasising Cavour’s impact. However, the combined influence of Crispi, Napoleon and Garibaldi, should not be overlooked. Each individual mentioned, benefitted unification in some way, and that if one individuals’ impact was not mentioned, there would be difficulty in explaining the various reasons the Italian Risorgimento came to be.  Nevertheless, it should still be stressed that Cavour’s influence over Italian Unification was the most prominent, with reference to the argument that he holds more significance over Garibaldi as otherwise stated in the question.

Bibliography

  • Carter, N. (1996). The Historical Journal. Nation, Nationality, Nationalism and Internationalism in Italy, from Cavour to Mussolini, pp545-551. Retrieved from JSTORE: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2640196
  • Clark, M. (2008). Modern Italy 1871 to the Present Third Edition. Pearson Education Ltd.
  • Clark, M. (2013). The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition. Routledge.
  • Duggan, C. (2014). A Concise History of Italy. Caimbridge University Press.
  • Hearder, H. (1994). Cavour (Profiles in Power. Routledge.
  • Killinger, C. L. (2002). The History of Italy. Greenwood Publishing Group.
  • Modern History Sourcebook: Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61. (n.d.). Retrieved from Internet History Sourcebooks Project: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1861italianunif.asp
  • Research Subjects: Government and Politics . (n.d.). Retrieved from Napoleon Series : http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/c_code.html
  • Riall, L. (2009). Risorgimento: The History of Italy from Napoleon to Nation State. Palgrave Macmillan .
  • Seaman, L. (1964). From Vienna to Versailles. Routledge.
  • Stuart, E. M. (1919). Fine Arts Journal, Vol. 37, No.3. Modern Italy and Her Struggle for Liberty (Chapter l), pp. 30-39. Retrieved from JSTOR.

[1] (Modern History Sourcebook: Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61, n.d.)

[2] (Clark, The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition, 2013)

[3] (Duggan, 2014)

[4] (Research Subjects: Government and Politics , n.d.)

[5] (Modern History Sourcebook: Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61, n.d.)

[6] (Modern History Sourcebook: Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61, n.d.)

[7] (Modern History Sourcebook: Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61, n.d.)

[8] (Modern History Sourcebook: Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61, n.d.)

[9] (Modern History Sourcebook: Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61, n.d.)

[10] (Carter, 1996)

[11] (Hearder, 1994)

[12] (Carter, 1996)

[13] (Carter, 1996)

[14] (Seaman, 1964)

[15] (Riall, 2009)

[16] (Riall, 2009)

[17] (Clark, The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition, 2013)

[18] (Clark, The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition, 2013)

[19] (Clark, The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition, 2013)

[20] (Clark, The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition, 2013)

[21] (Clark, The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition, 2013)

[22] (Clark, The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition, 2013)

[23] (Duggan, 2014)

[24] (Duggan, 2014)

[25] (Roberts, 2003)

[26] (Duggan, 2014)

[27] (Duggan, 2014)

[28] (Killinger, 2002)

[29] (Killinger, 2002)

[30] (Duggan, 2014)

[31] (Clark, The Italian Risorgimento 2nd Edition, 2013)

[32] (Riall, 2009)

[33] (Modern History Sourcebook: Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61, n.d.)

 

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please: