National Unification of Italy and Germany (1850 - 1870)

Contents:
- 2 restoration and 4 cases;
- The eastern crisis and Crimean war;
- The formation of the kingdom of Italy;
- Bismarck and the foreign policy of Prussia;
- The formation of the 2 Reich

Failure of the Vienna System

The Vienna system failed because it was created when states were monarchies.
The new state’s organization that was born after the revolutions wasn’t expected.

Italy and Germany in the Mid-19th Century

Italy

Kingdom of Sardinia: Constitutional Monarchy with the Statuto Albertino (the only Constitution in Europe after the Second Restoration).
Kingdom of 2 Sicilies: Monarchy.
Papal States.
Independent Duchy of Tuscany and Modena: Under Austrian influence.
North of Italy: Under Austrian dominion.

Germany

Eastern Prussia: Bordered Russia.
Western Prussia: Annexed after the Napoleonic Wars.
German Territories: People who spoke German.
Independent states: Under Austrian influence (Northern states were more Prussia-oriented and southern states were more Austria-oriented).
2 dutchies: belonged to the Kingdom of Denmark, but the population was German.
Confederation of German states: Created in 1815, existed because of the shared common language. Prussia will be the center of German confederation.

Second Restoration

The term restoration refers to when former monarchs went back to their thrones (the First one was in 1815).
The onset of the second restoration differed from the first in several key aspects:
- The unresolved issues on nationality and freedom: Italy and Germany had a lot of unresolved cases.
- A radical transformation in the social structure, marked by the rise of the bourgeoisie and the emergence of the industrial proletariat (a new force that will be supported by the socialists).
- The lack of homogeneity within the Second Restoration, as it encompassed 4 distinct situations:
  - Great Britain
  - Kingdom of Sardinia
  - Prussia
  - France

Domestic Situations of Key Countries

Great Britain

The rise of the Whigs (liberal aristocrats) brought about a government committed to liberal reforms and a departure from the policies of the major Central and Eastern European powers.
The nation was concerned with the Eastern question (Russia and Ottoman Empire), particularly with Russia's ambitions.
Also, the rise of the Second Empire in France was seen as a possible threaten.
Therefore, Great Britain changed its foreign policy that was less dynamic and more focused on Europe.

Kingdom of Sardinia

The only European state to retain a constitution (Statuto Albertino) and the sole Italian actor in international politics.

Prussia

Strong and powerful country (First German parliament summoned here), firmly committed to pursue primacy within Germany, marked by the Austro-Prussian dualism that dominated German affairs.
His leader adopted liberal reforms in territories of German Confederation.
There was already the game to fight against Austria to unify Prussia with the German Confederation

France

Policies shaped by 3 factors:
- Louis Napoleon’s Ambition
- Bourgeoisie
- Public opinion
There were conflicting political forces that were often incompatible with one another: there is still a Parliament with different parties:
- Monarchist (supported Napoleon III)
- Liberals
- Democrats
- Socialists
Napoleon’s foreign policy was characterized by:
- The catholic support in guiding French expansionist policies. He was the leader of Catholic population in France. During his rule, Catholics played an important role in domestic and international policies.
- Policy of nationalities as a central topic: he promoted the independence of new states
However, Napoleon III was very ambitious, but unleashed forces that ultimately overpowered him. This dealt a final blow to the European concert established at the Congress of Vienna.

Eastern Question and Crimean War

Eastern question started in 18th century when the Ottoman Empire started to be less powerful, and many states were interested in conquering its territories.
Great Britain wanted to maintain the status quo in Middle East because wanted peace in order to keep trading safe.
On the other hand, Russian wanted the access to the sea and wanted to conquer territories there.
It is a very important question as for the first time all the powers that participated to the Vienna Congress entered in the Crimean War (Prussia and Austria only supported France and Great Britain).

Pretext of the Crimean War (1853 – 1856)

The Crimean War (1853-1856) saw Russia pitted against much of Europe. Austria and Prussia declared their neutrality in the conflict.
This came as a great surprise to the Russian Emperor Nicholas I, who had been confident that Prussia would support him if needed and even attack France and Italy, both involved in the conflict.
The pretext of this was rather intriguing.
Russia was a deeply religious state, and its emperor was a devout believer in God and Orthodox Christianity.
Given that the Russian people were Orthodox, the empire felt it had the duty to protect the Orthodox populations (Greeks, Serbs and various other communities) living under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
Furthermore, Russia had a particular interest in safeguarding the religious sites located in modern-day Palestine, which at that time were also part of the Ottoman Empire.
However, France, under the leadership of Napoleon III—an ambitious man—also claimed the role of protector, despite being Catholic.
Indeed, Napoleon III insisted on defending Christians, regardless of their specific denomination.
This disagreement over who would protect the Christian populations and religious sites became a major point of contention between Russia and France, ultimately leading to their conflict.
Public opinion played a crucial part in shaping the course of events.
In both France and Russia, national pride, religious sentiment, and the desire to assert influence over the Christian populations in the Ottoman Empire stirred widespread interest and support for the conflict.
Especially, thanks to the anti-Russian propaganda, the European public opinion largely turned against Russia, expressing solidarity to Ottoman Empire. In fact, many viewed Russia as the aggressor who unjustly attacked a weaker vulnerable state (Ottoman Empire).

States position about the War

Austria: decided to preserve the status quo in the Balkans and declared its neutrality. It was a very big disappointment for Nicolas I.
Great Britain: aligned with France and was highly invested in preserving the status quo, since nobody at that time could predict what might happen if the Otttoman Empire ceased to exist. Indeed, the British Empire sought to ensure that things remained stable, as peace in Europe and the Middle East was essential for trade. The survival of the Ottoman Empire was fundamental in order to maintain this balance.
Kingdom of Sardinia: joined the war in 1855. The prime minister was Cavour, who fully understood that the only way to achieve a unified Italy was by securing the support of the great powers of the time, which were France and Great Britain. So, he made the strategic decision to join the anti-Russian coalition. The kingdom of Sardinia entered in the war with 15000 soldiers. Although this participation offered no immediate benefits for the kingdom of Sardinia, it managed to obtain a favorably position by demonstrating its support for France, thus allowing Cavour to later present Italy’s claim for unification.
Prussia: adopted a neutral position, but actually wanted to support France, since at that time It was the promoter of the idea of national identity and independence war. By giving its unexpressed support, Prussia wanted to guarantee French support in future actions and policies in the international arena.

The development of the War

The war began when Russia sought to gain influence over Orthodox Christians in Ottoman-controlled territories, leading to disputes between the Eastern Orthodox Church, backed by Russia, and the Roman Catholic Church, supported by France, over the control of Christian holy sites in Palestine.
When diplomatic solutions failed, Russia occupied Ottoman territories in modern-day Romania, triggering Ottoman retaliation and the onset of war in October 1853.
One of the first major military actions was the Russian victory at the Battle of Sinope in November 1853, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet annihilated an Ottoman squadron. This raised alarm in Europe, prompting Britain and France to declare war on Russia in March 1854. Their intervention shifted the war from being a localized Russo-Ottoman conflict to a broader European struggle.
The allied forces sought to neutralize Russia’s military influence in the Black Sea region by targeting its key naval base at Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula. The Crimean campaign would become the war’s focal point, with both sides committing significant resources to the siege of Sevastopol. The siege began in September 1854, following the landing of British, French, and Ottoman forces at Eupatoria. However, the war soon devolved into a protracted siege, characterized by brutal trench warfare, where both sides struggled to gain ground around Sevastopol.

End of the war and treaty of Paris (1856)

By early 1856, all sides were exhausted. Russia, unable to break the allied siege of Sevastopol and facing economic and military strain, sought peace. It was a devastating defeat for Russia that for the first time, was overcome by a coalition of European powers (4 in total).
The loss was particularly painful, as Russia’s major ambition had been to secure unrestricted access to the Black Sea, and ultimately the Mediterranean. Instead, Russia lost everything: couldn’t any longer maintain military ports and warships in the Black Sea, and was banned from sailing its navy there, which greatly decreased Russian influence in this area’s trade.
Additionally, the treaty diminished Russian influence on the Balkan region:
- Russia was forced to withdraw from the Danube region which passed under the protection of France
- Moldavia and Wallachia were recognized as a quasi-independent state under the Ottoman Empire
- Russia lost its right to safeguard the religious sites in Palestine.
However, after the war, Russia embarked on a series of reforms aimed at strengthening its domestic policy and modernizing the nation. These reforms were seen as essential to regaining the right to challenge the terms of the Treaty of Paris.

Long term consequences of the peace

The political emancipation of the Danuban principalities and the formation of Romania under the influence of France were the two main consequences of the Treaty of Paris. Romania was a strategically important country due to its proximity to the Balkans, a region of significant interest to several powers, including Great Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria. France, recognizing the geopolitical value of the area, was eager to assert its influence and play a role in shaping its future.
Cavour publicly articulated the principles and objectives of the Kingdom of Sardinia’ s policies, achieving a moral victory with significant consequences. He saw the Crimean War as an opportunity to build strategic alliances with France and Great Britain, and to bring to the international arena the Italian question (The unification of Italy).
Another consequence was the weakening of Russian-Austrian relations. Tsar Nicholas I was deeply disappointed by Austria’s neutral stance during the conflict. This strained relationship had lasting effects, as Russia later refused to assist Austria when it faced challenges in protecting its own territories. It was the end of the Holy Alliance.
The rapprochement between France, Prussia and Italy was another important outcome of the peace. Prussia and Italy were both seeking powerful allies to support their ambition for national unification, and it was France that they ultimately turned to for backing.
The Crimean War represented a turning point in the German and Italian unification movements because it placed powers on opposite sides of the battlefield for the first time since Napoleonic wars. France and Great Britain joined forces to stop Russian ambitions into Ottoman territory in Crimea. The Crimean war ended an area of cooperation between Great Powers.

Cavour and the Unification of Italy

The revolutionaries who sparked and participated in the uprisings of the first half of the 19th century were driven by deeply romantic ideals. They spoke passionately about concepts like national unification, equal rights, and liberal freedoms. However, the second half of the 19th century marked the end of Romanticism in European political thought. The era of idealistic visions gave way to a more pragmatic and grounded approach, as Realism emerged as the dominant force shaping European political life. Cavour and Bismarck were both representatives of this new political idea, called realpolitik (the founding father was Machiavelli).

Cavour’s background and political ideas

Cavour was born into a wealthy aristocratic family of landowners, deeply involved in Italian politics. As the youngest child, he was not entitled to inherit his father's lands, leaving him with the typical career options for a man of his status: the military or the church. He chose the military and became an officer, but soon grew disillusioned with his service and decided to leave the army.
Like Bismarck, Cavour then traveled across Europe, where he was exposed to various political systems and social structures. These experiences broadened his perspective and, upon his return to Italy, he committed himself to politics.
Cavour initially entered Parliament and took on the crucial role of overseeing agriculture, transport, and industry—key sectors in the modernization of Italy. His success in this role eventually led to his promotion, and he became the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Sardinia, positioning himself as a central figure in the movement for Italian unification.
He argued that Piedmont should exercise freedom in its institutions and foreign policy, adhering to the principle of liberty. Indeed, Cavour was a strong advocate for moderate national liberalism, identifying as a liberal himself. Unlike Bismarck, who was a staunch conservative, Cavour supported liberal freedoms and believed that the ideal political system was a constitutional monarchy.
Additionally, Cavour promoted anticlerical policies (a stance he shared with Bismarck). He harbored a deep dislike for the Pope and sought to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church in politics (that alienated both the Pope and Napoleon III).
Cavour also demonstrated great political wisdom by turning the Kingdom of Sardinia into a refuge for political exiles from across Italy. He welcomed liberals, republicans, democrats, and socialists—those who had rebelled against their conservative regimes in other Italian states. As a result, Sardinia became a hub for political opponents, gathering together the key figures who would later drive the unification of Italy (the creation of National Society in 1857, which established clandestine networks throughout Italy).
Cavour was a statesman with a modern and pragmatic approach, grounded in the principles of realpolitik. He understood that Italy could not achieve unification on its own, having learned valuable lessons from past revolutions, such as the failure of the First War of Independence in 1848. Revolutionaries like Ciro Menotti had mistakenly counted on French support, but it never materialized, and they also lacked the backing of the general population. So, Cavour realized that to succeed, he needed not only to secure France’s assistance but also to rally popular support from within Italy. This led him to carefully navigate the complex political landscape, forging alliances and crafting a strategic vision that would eventually lead to the unification of Italy.

The role of France on the unification of Italy

Cavour’s primary ally in his efforts to unify Italy was France, led at the time by Napoleon III.
In 1858, a notorious assassination attempt was made on Napoleon III’s life by Felice Orsini, an Italian radical democrat and socialist. Orsini’s attempt to murder Napoleon III failed, and he was sentenced to death. Before his execution, however, Orsini wrote a letter—some historians speculate that Napoleon III himself may have had a hand in crafting it, though officially, it was Orsini’s own plea. In the letter, Orsini begged for Napoleon III’s pardon and implored him to support the unification of Italy under the Kingdom of Sardinia.
It's important to note that Cavour did not support Orsini or his methods. As a liberal opposed to violence, Cavour understood that the only viable path to Italian unification was through diplomatic support from France, not through radical actions. While Napoleon III shared some liberal principles, he was still an emperor and firmly opposed to any republican or revolutionary movements.
So, If Cavour sought to secure support from Napoleon III, it was crucial for him to distance himself from Orsini and the radical Italian movements. Cavour was a staunch opponent of these factions, particularly Mazzini, who led the republican movement. The assassination attempt by Orsini created significant tensions between France and Italy, casting a shadow over their diplomatic relations. However, when Napoleon III questioned Vittorio Emanuele II about Italy’s responsibility in the plot, the King swiftly distanced himself from Orsini’s actions.
During this period, France felt confident in its longstanding rivalry with Austria, a historical enemy in Europe. As a result, Napoleon III decided to provide the support Cavour had sought. This backing meant that France was willing to assist Italy in its struggle against Austrian domination. It was clear that if Italy pursued unification by bringing all the Italian territories under the rule of the Kingdom of Sardinia, it would inevitably lead to a war with Austria, which controlled key Italian regions. So, France’s support included not only diplomatic aid but also the commitment of French troops to assist Italy in its military efforts against Austria, marking a critical step toward Italian unification (establishment of a Franco-Italian alliance oriented against Austria)
In 1858, a significant meeting took place in Plombières, France, between Cavour and Napoleon III. During this meeting, the idea of an Italian confederation was first proposed, modeled after the German Confederation. This confederation aimed to unite the various Italian states under a single political framework.
While they signed an agreement to support this confederation, Napoleon III stipulated that, in return for his backing, he wanted the territories of Nice and Savoy, although these regions were part of the Kingdom of Sardinia and inhabited by Italian populations. Cavour faced a very difficult decision, sacrificing Nice and Savoy was a challenging trade- off for him, as it meant conceding Italian lands to ensure French support in the impending war against Austria. This maneuver highlighted the complex negotiations Cavour had to navigate in his quest for Italian unification.

Austro-Italian War of 1859

On the 26 of April 1859, the Austro-Italian War broke out, marking a significant conflict that turned out to be highly successful for both the kingdom of Sardinia and France. Indeed, the allied forces achieved important victories, particularly at the Battle of Solferino (24th June 1859). On 8th June 1859 Napoleon III and Vittorio Emanuele II triumphantly entered Milan as liberators and a statue of Napoleon III was erected in Parco Sempione (Milan).
The successful war against Austria by the Piemonte forces inspired uprisings and appeals for unity from other Italian states. In Tuscany, Parma, and Modena, people rallied under the leadership of various factions, including liberals, republicans, and democrats, each depending on the specific territory.
France did not fully comprehend that its war against Austria would incite rebellions in other parts of Italy against local monarchs, many of whom were aligned with the Austrian dynasty. Napoleon III was taken aback by the extent of the reactions in various Italian states and, consequently, chose to sign an armistice with Austria (the armistice of Villafranca, without the knowledge of Piedmont). Several factors influenced this decision:
- There was a growing fear of the republican and democratic movements that had been ignited by the success of the war
- Napoleon III was concerned about French public opinion, which had been deeply affected by the significant number of losses during the Battle of Solferino. The growing dissent among the French populace regarding the war led to a denial of support for Napoleon III, compelling him to seek a ceasefire and sign the armistice with Austria.

Forming the Kingdom of Italy

This turn of events was, understandably, a significant disappointment for the Italians, who had relied on French support in their struggle for unification. However, by the time Napoleon III decided to withdraw, it was too late to reverse the momentum of the revolutionary movement. The desire for unification had already gained traction, and local monarchs found themselves in a precarious position, ultimately seeking refuge in Austria to escape the growing tide of insurrection.
Especially, in 1860 the annexation of Modena, Parma, Tuscany and parts of the Papal State (Bologna and Ferrara) to Piedmont was achieved throughout plebiscites.
A pivotal figure in the unification process was Giuseppe Garibaldi, who set sail from Genoa with his famed