Pearson Edexcel International GCSE in History · 4HI1 · Free · no account needed

Orsini, Plombières and the Second War of Independence

How did an attempt to assassinate Napoleon III end in a French alliance with Italian nationalism?

Option 2 · Development of a nation: unification of Italy, 1848–70 › Key topic 3 · The defeat of Austria, 1854–59 — one of 3 lessons in this key topic. Paper 1 — depth study: Development of a nation: unification of Italy, 1848–70, key topic 3 (30 marks: 6 · 8 · 16).

Learn Orsini, Plombières and the Second War of Independence, teach it to an AI pupil, then defend it in a marked debate — this lesson carries all three.

What the specification asks for

“Causes of the Second Italian War of Independence, including nationalism in Piedmont, relations with Napoleon III, the significance of the Orsini Affair and the Pact of Plombières” — examined through causation. Incandio is aligned to specification 4HI1; it is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson.

1 · Understand it

The bomb, and the letter

On 14 January 1858 Felice Orsini, an Italian nationalist, threw bombs at Napoleon III's carriage outside the Paris opera. The Emperor and Empress were unhurt; eight bystanders were killed and well over a hundred injured. Orsini was tried and executed in March.

What happened between the trial and the execution is the reason this event is on the specification. Orsini wrote from prison appealing to Napoleon to remember his own youth as a member of the Italian secret societies and to free Italy from foreign domination. The letter was read out at the trial and published in the Moniteur, the official French newspaper — which means it appeared with the Emperor's permission.

That single editorial decision tells you how Napoleon III chose to respond to being nearly killed by an Italian nationalist. He treated the attempt as evidence that the Italian question was dangerous to France while it remained unsettled, and as an opportunity to present intervention as a response to a grievance rather than as an aggression.

Plombières, and what was actually agreed

In July 1858 Cavour travelled secretly to the spa town of Plombières and met Napoleon III alone. There is no formal record of the conversation; what is known comes from Cavour's own long letter to Victor Emmanuel written immediately afterwards, which is the principal source and is not a disinterested one.

The plan was specific. France would provide 200,000 men and Piedmont 100,000 for a war against Austria, which had to appear to be provoked by Austria rather than by Piedmont. Austria would be expelled from Lombardy and Venetia, which would go to an enlarged Kingdom of Upper Italy under Victor Emmanuel. Central Italy would form a second state, the Pope would preside over a loose confederation of the resulting states, and Naples would remain. France would receive Nice and Savoy, and a marriage would link the two dynasties.

Notice what is not there. This is not a plan for a united Italy; it is a plan for a four-state federation in which Piedmont is much larger and France is compensated. Anybody arguing that Cavour worked consistently for unification has to explain why, given a private conversation with the Emperor of the French and a free hand to ask, he asked for this.

Engineering a war Austria had to start

The requirement that Austria appear the aggressor governed the first months of 1859. Cavour mobilised, encouraged volunteers from Lombardy to cross into Piedmont, and made speeches designed to be intolerable in Vienna while conceding nothing that could be called provocation in London.

It nearly failed. British mediation proposed a congress and general disarmament, and Napoleon, alarmed, accepted; Cavour was instructed to disarm and was, by his own account, close to despair. He was rescued by Vienna. On 23 April Austria issued an ultimatum demanding Piedmontese demobilisation within three days. Cavour rejected it and Austria invaded, which cast Austria as the aggressor exactly as the Pact required and brought France into the war.

That sequence is the best single illustration of how the war of 1859 was caused. It was engineered by Piedmont, financed and fought principally by France, and triggered by an Austrian decision that a more patient government would not have taken.

2 · Learn it — the notes

The dates that earn marks

January 1858
Orsini's bomb attack on Napoleon III. Why this date: It convinced the Emperor that an unsettled Italy was a danger to him personally, and the publication of Orsini's letter shows how he chose to use it.
July 1858
The secret meeting at Plombières. Why this date: It sets the terms — a four-state federation, Nice and Savoy to France — that are the strongest evidence about Cavour's actual aims.
23 April 1859
Austria issues an ultimatum demanding Piedmontese demobilisation. Why this date: It rescued Cavour at the moment British mediation had almost prevented the war, and it made Austria the aggressor as the Pact required.

The figures, and how far to trust them

  • 200,000 and 100,000 — The French and Piedmontese troop commitments agreed at Plombières.
  • Nice and Savoy — The territories promised to France in return, which is the price of the alliance.
  • Three days — The period allowed by the Austrian ultimatum of April 1859.

The people to place

  • Felice Orsini — Italian nationalist whose attempt on Napoleon III, and letter from prison, reopened the Italian question in France.
  • Napoleon III — French Emperor; permitted the publication of Orsini's letter and negotiated the Pact of Plombières.
  • Cavour — Negotiated at Plombières and engineered the appearance of Austrian aggression in 1859.

How historians disagree

Attributed interpretations, never voiced — the AO4 seam.

  • The 'Plombières proves the aim' reading: Cavour asked for an enlarged northern kingdom in a papal confederation, which is what he wanted; unification in 1860 was forced on him by events in the south. Contested by The reading that Plombières records what Napoleon III could be persuaded to accept rather than what Cavour ultimately wanted, and that a negotiator asks for what is obtainable rather than for his whole programme..

What students say — and what is actually the case

Not this: Plombières was an agreement to unify Italy.

This: It provided for four Italian states in a confederation presided over by the Pope, with Nice and Savoy ceded to France. Nothing in it unifies anything.

Not this: The Orsini affair made Napoleon III hostile to Italian nationalism.

This: He published Orsini's appeal in the official journal and negotiated with Cavour six months later. He concluded that the question needed settling, not that the nationalists needed suppressing.

Two things students merge

Blurred: The cause of the war and the pretext for it.

The distinction: The cause is the Franco-Piedmontese agreement of July 1858; the pretext is the Austrian ultimatum of April 1859, which Cavour needed and Austria supplied. Confusing the two makes Austria responsible for a war designed nine months earlier.

Blurred: What Cavour asked for and what he wanted.

The distinction: Plombières records a negotiated proposal with a foreign emperor, not a private manifesto. It is strong evidence and it is not conclusive, and saying so is what a Level 4 answer does with it.

What a Grade 9 answer holds here

A Grade 9 answer notices that Cavour needed Austria to do something stupid and could not make it happen. The whole design of 1859 required Austria to appear the aggressor, British mediation had almost prevented the war, and what rescued the plan was an ultimatum from Vienna that nobody in Turin controlled — so the most carefully engineered war of the century was completed by the enemy.

3 · How it is examined

This strand is genuinely set through: Paper 1 (a) (6 marks — “What impression does the author give about …? You must use Extract A to explain your answer.”); Paper 1 (b) (8 marks — “Explain two effects of … on ….”); Paper 1 (c)(i) or (c)(ii) (16 marks — “'[A statement about the period.]' You may use the following in your answer: • [prompt] • [prompt]. You must also use information of your own. How far do you agree? Explain your answer.”).

What earns marks: The actual terms of Plombières, stated as four states rather than one. It is the single most useful fact on the option for any question about Cavour's aims.

The cap that bites here: The 8-mark question caps a single cause at 4 marks; Orsini and Plombières are two.

4 · Prove it — the questions

Answered inside Incandio, where a marker checks what a correct answer must contain and tells you which half was missing. The marking stays in the app; the questions are here.

  1. What impression does the author give about the Pact of Plombières? [6 marks · Paper 1 (a)]
  2. Explain two effects of the Orsini affair on French policy towards Italy. [8 marks · Paper 1 (b)]
  3. Explain two causes of the Second Italian War of Independence. [8 marks · Paper 1 (b)]
  4. 'The war of 1859 was caused by French ambition rather than Italian nationalism.' How far do you agree? [16 marks · Paper 1 (c)(i) or (c)(ii)]
  5. 'The Pact of Plombières shows that Cavour did not want a united Italy.' How far do you agree? [16 marks · Paper 1 (c)(i) or (c)(ii)]

Decide it

This lesson feeds a Decide History judgement — a position you commit to, an objection you answer, a criterion you name: Who unified Italy?.

Think you understand it?

Reading is the start. On Incandio a topic counts as mastered only once you have taught it and defended it — the two things a revision guide cannot ask of you.

Incandio this topic → Prove it. Teach it. Defend it. What does “Incandio it” mean?

  1. Prove it — five questions on Orsini, Plombières and the Second War of Independence, marked on the spot, that tell you what was missing rather than just what was wrong.
  2. Teach it — Explain Orsini, Plombières and the Second War of Independence — what happened, why, and what it made possible — to Ember, an AI pupil who asks the awkward question. Understanding is credited; wording is not required.
  3. Defend it — Argue Orsini, Plombières and the Second War of Independence against the historical mind with the strongest claim on it — three rounds, marked against descriptors you can read before you begin.
  4. Then the exam — 15 authored exam-style questions on this option, marked on Incandio with the mistake you actually made named.

Completely free. No subscriptions, no paywalls, no account needed to start.

The debate is against The Case for Piedmont — the case itself, argued at its strongest, because on this strand there is no single person whose position the learner has to defeat.

The same people, elsewhere in the option

Carry on through the option