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

Unity in 1870: what had and had not been achieved

A state existed by 1870. Did a nation?

Option 2 · Development of a nation: unification of Italy, 1848–70 › Key topic 5 · Venice and Rome and the extent of unification by 1870 — one of 3 lessons in this key topic. Paper 1 — depth study: Development of a nation: unification of Italy, 1848–70, key topic 5 (30 marks: 6 · 8 · 16).

Learn unity in 1870: what had and had not been achieved, teach it to an AI pupil, then defend it in a marked debate — this lesson carries all three.

What the specification asks for

“Unity in 1870: factors promoting and working against unity” — examined through change and continuity. Incandio is aligned to specification 4HI1; it is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson.

1 · Understand it

What had been achieved

The territorial work was complete. In 1847 the peninsula held seven states, Austrian provinces and a French-protected papal territory; by 1871 there was one kingdom with its capital at Rome, one currency, one legal code, one army, one tariff and one parliament. Austria had been expelled and France's garrison had gone.

Institutionally, the change was real. A national railway network was being built where there had been separate and incompatible systems. Conscription created an institution through which men from Sicily and Piedmont served together, which is one of the few genuinely national experiences the new state provided. A single administration reached, on paper, every commune in the country.

What had not

The franchise in 1871 was about two per cent of the population, restricted by property and literacy. The parliament that governed Italy therefore represented a very small part of it, and the plebiscites that had legitimised annexation had been open and administered.

Language is the sharpest measure. Standard Italian, based on literary Tuscan, was spoken by a small minority; most Italians used regional languages that were not mutually intelligible, and estimates of the proportion who could use the national language at unification are low by any reckoning. A parliament in Rome legislated in a language most of its subjects did not speak.

The papal boycott withheld a large part of a Catholic population from the state's politics. The south was still recovering from four years of repression, and emigration from it was about to become the largest movement of people in modern Italian history. And the north-south economic divergence, which the tariff and tax settlement had widened, became a permanent feature.

Making Italians

Massimo d'Azeglio is credited with the observation that Italy had been made and it now remained to make Italians. Whether he used those exact words is uncertain and the thought is a fair summary of the position in 1871: the state existed and the nation was a project.

The strongest way to answer a question about the extent of unification is to separate three things and say how far each had gone. Territorially, unification was complete by 1870 with the exception of areas still under Austria that would be claimed later. Institutionally, it was substantial and imposed rather than negotiated. Nationally — in the sense of a population that identified with the state and could communicate across it — it had barely begun.

That structure also answers the interpretation questions, because the disagreement among historians is largely about which of the three is meant. An account stressing the diplomatic achievement and an account stressing the southern experience are not usually contradicting each other; they are measuring different things, and saying so is a Level 4 move.

It is also worth measuring the achievement against what was available in 1847, because the alternative standard produces an unfairly harsh verdict. In that year the peninsula contained seven separate states, an Austrian army of occupation, tariff walls between provinces fifty miles apart and a papal government with its own criminal courts. Within twenty-three years there was one state, no occupation, one tariff and one code of law, obtained at a cost in lives far below any comparable European reorganisation of the century. Judged against a modern nation state Italy in 1871 falls a long way short; judged against Italy in 1847 the change is among the largest in nineteenth-century Europe, and an answer at the top band says which comparison it is making.

2 · Learn it — the notes

The dates that earn marks

1871
Rome becomes the capital; Pius IX rejects the Law of Guarantees. Why this date: The territorial settlement is completed and the religious one is refused in the same year, which is the shape of the whole problem.
1871
The franchise stands at about two per cent of the population. Why this date: It measures how far the state that had been unified was in any sense representative of the people unified into it.
1874
The papacy formally instructs Catholics not to vote or stand in Italian elections. Why this date: It converts papal non-recognition into a practical withdrawal of a large part of the population from national politics.

The figures, and how far to trust them

  • About 2 per cent — The share of the population entitled to vote in the Kingdom of Italy in 1871. (Estimates vary slightly with the qualification rules applied; all are of this order.)
  • A small minority — The share of the population able to use standard Italian at unification. (Estimates differ substantially between scholars and by whether passive comprehension is counted; all are low.)
  • Seven states to one — The territorial change between 1847 and 1871.

The people to place

  • Massimo d'Azeglio — Piedmontese statesman associated with the observation that Italians still had to be made.
  • Pius IX — Rejected the Law of Guarantees and withheld Catholic participation from the new state.

How historians disagree

Attributed interpretations, never voiced — the AO4 seam.

  • The 'incomplete unification' reading: A state was created and a nation was not: a two per cent franchise, a linguistically divided population, a papal boycott and a repressed south add up to a political construction rather than a national community. Contested by The reading that judges unification against what was available in 1847 rather than against a modern nation state, and finds the elimination of seven frontiers, an occupying empire and a foreign garrison within twenty-three years an extraordinary achievement..

What students say — and what is actually the case

Not this: Unification created a united Italian people.

This: It created a state. Most of its inhabitants did not speak the national language, could not vote, and in many cases were instructed by their church not to participate.

Not this: The Risorgimento was a mass popular movement.

This: Active participation was concentrated among the educated and propertied. The plebiscites were open and administered, and the south required years of military occupation.

Two things students merge

Blurred: Territorial, institutional and national unification.

The distinction: The first was complete by 1870, the second was substantial and imposed, and the third had barely begun. Most disagreements between historians about how far Italy was unified are disagreements about which is being measured.

Blurred: Unity and centralisation.

The distinction: The kingdom was highly centralised, with prefects appointed from the capital, and centralisation is what made unity felt as imposition in the south. A federal settlement was seriously proposed and was not adopted.

What a Grade 9 answer holds here

A Grade 9 answer settles the argument by separating the questions. Italy was completely unified as a territory, substantially unified as an administration, and barely unified as a nation — and because most historians who disagree about the Risorgimento are measuring different one of those three, naming which is being measured resolves more of the dispute than choosing a side.

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 two per cent franchise and the language figure, used together. They convert 'Italy was not really united' from an opinion into a measured claim.

The cap that bites here: The 16-mark question needs three aspects; territorial, institutional and national is a structure that supplies them automatically.

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 extent of Italian unity by 1870? [6 marks · Paper 1 (a)]
  2. Explain two effects of the narrow franchise on the new Kingdom of Italy. [8 marks · Paper 1 (b)]
  3. Explain two effects of linguistic division on the new Italian state. [8 marks · Paper 1 (b)]
  4. 'Italy was a state but not a nation in 1870.' How far do you agree? [16 marks · Paper 1 (c)(i) or (c)(ii)]
  5. 'The unification of Italy was a remarkable achievement.' How far do you agree? [16 marks · Paper 1 (c)(i) or (c)(ii)]

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 unity in 1870: what had and had not been achieved, marked on the spot, that tell you what was missing rather than just what was wrong.
  2. Teach it — Explain unity in 1870: what had and had not been achieved — 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 unity in 1870: what had and had not been achieved 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