Venetia and Rome: acquired through other people's wars

What the specification asks for

“Piedmont and Austro-Prussian War, the second battle of Custozza and Union with Venetia; the problem of Rome: the papacy and French occupation. The failure of Garibaldi's diplomacy (1862–67), Piedmont and the Franco-Prussian War and the acquisition of Rome.” — examined through causation and consequence. Incandio is aligned to specification 4HI1; it is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson.

1 · Understand it

1866: Venetia

Bismarck was preparing war against Austria and wanted a second front. In April 1866 Prussia and Italy signed an alliance: Italy would attack Austria in the south and would receive Venetia if Prussia won. The war began in June.

Italy lost. The army was beaten at Custoza on 24 June, and the navy was defeated at Lissa in July by an Austrian fleet that was outnumbered and outgunned. Garibaldi, commanding volunteers in the Tyrol, was the only Italian commander to achieve anything and was ordered to withdraw.

Prussia, meanwhile, destroyed the main Austrian army at Sadowa in July, and the war was over in seven weeks. Austria ceded Venetia — to France, which transferred it to Italy, a piece of diplomatic staging that Italians found humiliating and that accurately described what had happened. A plebiscite in Venetia then endorsed the transfer.

1870: Rome

Rome had been protected by French troops since 1849. Garibaldi tried twice to take it without the government: in 1862 he was stopped by the Italian army at Aspromonte and wounded, which is the sharpest illustration of the state's position — the national hero shot by the national army to prevent a war with France. In 1867 he tried again and was defeated by French and papal troops at Mentana, where the new French chassepot rifle was used to considerable effect.

The obstacle was removed in 1870 by a war Italy did not fight. France declared war on Prussia in July, withdrew the Roman garrison to meet the emergency, and was defeated at Sedan in September. On 20 September Italian troops breached the walls at Porta Pia after a brief bombardment and entered Rome. A plebiscite endorsed the annexation and the capital was moved from Florence to Rome in 1871.

Pius IX refused to accept it. He declared himself a prisoner in the Vatican, rejected the Law of Guarantees offered by the Italian state, and forbade Catholic participation in the kingdom's politics. The Roman question was not settled until 1929.

The pattern, and the argument it supports

Italy fought for Venetia and lost, and received it because Prussia won at Sadowa. Italy could not fight for Rome at all, and received it because France was defeated at Sedan. Neither province was taken by Italian arms.

That is the strongest available evidence for the argument that has run through the whole option: unification was accomplished by diplomacy and by the calculations of great powers rather than by a national movement. Lombardy came from a French army, central Italy from an agreement paid for in Nice and Savoy, Venetia from a Prussian victory and Rome from a Prussian one again.

The counter-argument is that being in a position to benefit is not the same as being lucky. Italy had to have an army, an alliance and a government capable of making one in 1866, and a state ready to move within weeks in 1870. A candidate who says only that Italy was fortunate has produced half an answer; the other half is that Cavour's successors had built something that could take an opportunity when it came.

2 · Learn it — the notes

The dates that earn marks

1862

Garibaldi is stopped and wounded by the Italian army at Aspromonte. Why this date: The state shoots the national hero to avoid war with France, which shows exactly where the constraint on Italian policy lay.

1866

Italy is defeated at Custoza and Lissa and receives Venetia after Prussia's victory. Why this date: It is the clearest case of a province acquired by another power's success.

1867

Garibaldi is defeated at Mentana by French and papal troops. Why this date: It demonstrates that Rome could not be taken while the French garrison remained.

September 1870

French troops withdraw for the war with Prussia; Italian forces enter Rome at Porta Pia. Why this date: Unification is completed at the moment a foreign garrison is needed elsewhere.

The figures, and how far to trust them

• Seven weeks — The duration of the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, in which Italy fought and lost.
• 20 September 1870 — The entry into Rome through the breach at Porta Pia.
• 1871 — The transfer of the capital from Florence to Rome.

The people to place

• Otto von Bismarck — Prussian minister-president; the alliance of 1866 delivered Venetia to Italy through Prussian victory.
• Giuseppe Garibaldi — Attempted Rome in 1862 and 1867 and was stopped by the Italian army and then by the French.
• Pius IX — Declared himself a prisoner in the Vatican after 1870 and rejected the Law of Guarantees.

How historians disagree

Attributed interpretations, never voiced — the AO4 seam.

• The 'foreign hand' reading: Every territorial gain of the Risorgimento followed a foreign war: France in 1859, Prussia in 1866 and 1870. Italy was assembled in the interstices of other powers' quarrels. Contested by The reading that opportunities do not take themselves — that Italy needed an army, an alliance and a functioning state to convert Sadowa and Sedan into provinces, and that other small states in similar positions gained nothing..

What students say — and what is actually the case

Not this: Italy won Venetia by defeating Austria in 1866.

This: Italy was beaten at Custoza and at Lissa. Venetia was ceded because Prussia destroyed the Austrian army at Sadowa, and it was transferred through France.

Not this: Rome was captured after a long siege.

This: There was a brief bombardment and a breach at Porta Pia on 20 September 1870. The obstacle had been the French garrison, and it had already left.

Two things students merge

Blurred: Aspromonte and Mentana.

The distinction: At Aspromonte in 1862 Garibaldi was stopped by the Italian army; at Mentana in 1867 he was defeated by French and papal troops. The first shows the Italian government preventing him, the second shows France doing it, and the two make different points.

Blurred: Acquiring territory and winning a war.

The distinction: Italy acquired Venetia and Rome without winning anything. Keeping the two apart is the whole basis of the argument about how unification was achieved.

What a Grade 9 answer holds here

A Grade 9 answer refuses to let this become a story about luck. Italy was defeated at Custoza, at Lissa, at Aspromonte and at Mentana, and it finished the decade with Venetia and Rome — which required, at each opportunity, an alliance already signed, an army already mobilised and a government able to act within weeks. Being positioned to profit from somebody else's victory is a policy, not an accident.

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 pairing of Custoza and Lissa with the acquisition of Venetia. Two defeats and a province in the same sentence is the most economical way to make the option's central argument.

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 how Italy acquired Venetia and Rome? [6 marks · Paper 1 (a)]
2. Explain two effects of the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 on Italy. [8 marks · Paper 1 (b)]
3. Explain two effects of the Franco-Prussian War on Italy. [8 marks · Paper 1 (b)]
4. 'Italy was united by foreign wars rather than by Italian efforts.' How far do you agree? [16 marks · Paper 1 (c)(i) or (c)(ii)]
5. 'Garibaldi did more harm than good to Italy after 1861.' 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?.

Carry on through the option

• Previous lesson: Obstacles to unity after 1861 and 'Piedmontisation'
• Next lesson: Unity in 1870: what had and had not been achieved
• Key topic 5 · Venice and Rome and the extent of unification by 1870 · Development of a nation: unification of Italy, 1848–70 · the option's timeline · Incandio History
• The other key topics of Development of a nation: The 1848 Revolutions in the Italian states · Developments in Piedmont, 1849–54 · The defeat of Austria, 1854–59 · Garibaldi and the Papal States