Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bismarck and his role in German unification
Essay on the story of Italian unification
Essay on the story of Italian unification
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bismarck and his role in German unification
The divided European nations in the mid ninteenth century came under the control of Count Camillo Benso di Cavour of Italy and Otto von Bismarck of Germany, both leaders in unification and prominent figures in European politics. The Congress of Vienna after Napoleon reshaped boundaries based on previous monarchies and disregarded ethnic and cultural boundaries, leaving European states disconnected and detatched. At the time, Prussia and the German Confederation and the states on the Italian peninsula were each connected by shared languages, cultures, religions, and ideals. The Napoleonic wars sparked a common identity and surge of Nationalism for European states, which was channelled by Bismarck and Cavour to unify Italy and Germany. Additionally, …show more content…
However, they both disliked nationalists who asked for a republic or communist state because it threatened their power. European nations were phyiscally divided after the Napoleonic wars, but simultaneously brought together by the Nationalist spirits evoked in wartime. Liberal middle class citizens in Germany sought to transform absolutist Prussia, the most powerful kingdom in the German confederation, into a constitutional monarchy and unify the 38 states. Bismarck, as Prime Minister, also wanted to unify Germany but he did so in the interest of his own power and expansionist ideology. He sought to have German patriotism and glory in the unity of wartime, encouraging citizens to volunteer for their country which created the common identity and cause which is core to Nationalism. However, his dictorial actions overrode his hopeful liberal speeches to the Nationalists. He was known to override Parliament and rarely included elected officials in his decision making porcesses. Unlike Cavour, he was much more aggressive militarily and willing to achieve unification more militarily than Cavour. Cavour was a skilled statesman who was also a very intelligent diplomat, who was willing to encourage Nationalism to maintain control and amaldagate Italy. Cavour and Giusseppe Girabaldi organized the Red Shirts, an entirely volunteer based army that fought in Southern Italy and toppled the conservative princes. …show more content…
For example, Cavour was a former diplomat and based his political decisions strategically based on Italy’s relationship of other countries and maintaining the balance of power. Cavour was not as involved in the public sphere and gave far fewer speeches than Bismarck. Also, Cavour gave rights to unions, held elections that he approved, and implemented socialist welfare policies. Even though Cavour approved all political elections, he promoted universal male suffrage for the legislative body. He also implemented conservative actions including appointing ministers as puppet rulers, overthrowing the national Assembly and controlling the economy closely. Bismarck’s style of ruling domestically differed greatly from Cavour. To start, Bismarck was the sole unifier of Germany and his motivations of war left Germany a highly miliarized land that offset the balance of power in Europe and threatened other nations. Bismarck promised lower taxes, a legislative body, and universal male suffrage. It can also be argued that Bismarck was more of an expansionist than he was interested in unification. Bismarck’s motives to conquer territories were selfish and egotistic, with an end goal of increasing his own political power. Bismarck tried to inspire German pride and nationalism through his reforms, including “Kulterkampf.” Also, unlike Cavour, Bismarck expanded the reach of Parliament to unify Italy compared to
In the late 1800s, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck used different strategical plans in order to gain as much power possible, the majority of the plans consisted of him taking advantage of the different political parties. Bismarck used many traditional political strategies in order to gain the power he craved for, such as creating harsh laws and prohibiting certain beliefs or ideas. Unfortunately, these strategies did not satisfy the people, so Bismarck later started to increase the welfare of the working class, apologized to the Socialists, and did much more to obtain more political strength which eventually created a new conservatism. In an effort to increase political power for the Kaiser, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck uses liberal and traditional
The controversies surrounding his life still go on between historians today. He is portrayed as a destroyer of liberty and also as a compromiser of liberalism. Some see Bismarck as trying to preserve the old order of Europe. Bismarck worked against liberal plans for unification of Germany but stood proudly in the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles as the German Empire he helped to create was proclaimed. Bismarck as man and as statesman has been a point of interests for many history scholars’ interpretations. Bismarck’s empire lasted only 20 years after him. Bismarck believed that armed force was necessary in relations among governments – Blood and Iron his methods. Through three successful wars Bismarck united Germany. With the creation of the 2nd German Reich Germany become the strongest nation on the continent. After the union of the German states Bismarck became an outspoken activist for peace on the continent. Bismarck never succumbed to the temptation of conquest. Bismarck led the German people to empire but is criticized by not training the nation in self-governing. Bismarck never talked about racial supremacy or unlimited conquest. He believed in a balance of power resting upon the existence of strong nation states.
In 19th century Italian states united to make Italy while the Germanic states united and made Germany. For Italy there were three people who had a major role in unifying Italy. They were Mazzini, Garibaldi and Cavour. For Germany it was more like one person who united the German states to make Germany and that was Bismarck. On the other hand there was a strong Austrian empire that would not tolerate any nationalist feelings to rise anywhere in Europe.
In document 3, it states “Nationalism has become general; it grows daily; and it has already grown strong enough to keep all the part of Italy united despite the differences that distinguish them.” This is saying that even though in the different regions of Italy have differences they still come together as one. Nationalism is important to countries because it is the people taking pride for their country. An Italian nationalist led the rebellions then the state piedmont declared war against Austraila. Camillo di Cavour was one of the most important leaders of the Italian unification movement, he helped Italy become one nation. In document 4 it is saying that Germany was united by a common language and a common way of thinking. Germany’s revolution was inspired by the French revolution when they were trying to change their
Both men were incredibly calculating and intelligence. Because of this, they both achieve their similar goal in different ways. The main difference between Bismarck and Cavour was the use of violence. Both men knew their limits. Bismarck was known to accomplish his goals by military terms through war. Cavour, too, took part in wars and battles, but not as often or as many as Bismarck. Cavour could not unify by means of force, so he found others ways, while Bismarck had access to a strong military and allies.
Cavour's Diplomacy and Garibaldi's Ideas and Italian Unification The historical view of Italian Unification like other revolutionary processes of the nineteenth century has become a mix of both exaggerated myth and fact. With hindsight historians can now detach themselves sufficiently from events to distinguish, objectively which figures in the Risorgimento allowed it to result in the United Kingdom of Italy in 1870. Any historical movement is a culmination of events and combination of different figures. Both Giuseppe Garibaldi and Count Camillo Benso di Cavour emerge as leading figures in the movement.
The revolutionaries in Italy had longstanding grievances, some were nationalists and some were liberals. Despite all having different ideas and aims they all resoundingly agreed that Italy needed change. The hopes of the various revolutionary groups had been raised by the election of Pope Pius and Charles Albert the King of Piedmont Sardinia. However, their hopes and resulting revolutions were crushed due to many concerning factors.
Economically, he made a potential of fertile land and wealth, and politically he created a constitutional government, making it so 2% of the population can vote. His economic reforms included, introducing the national bank investment into public use. He also improved infrastructure by developing railways, and creating the Cavour Canal for modernized agriculture. Not only this, but he also increased trade. He brought forth political modernization by instituting freedom of press, academic freedom, meaning all citizens, but women, can vote, and universities can choose their curriculum. He also brought forth the freedom to form political parties, and the Siccardi Laws. The Siccardi Laws reduced the power of the Catholic Church by not letting The Church hide anyone, and Clerics were also tried in secular courts, which put The Church back into public law. This means that if anyone in The Church is against Cavour, then they can go to jail. This made the state the highest political authority, and allowed Piedmont the right to prosecute member of the church and their supporters. This shows that even though Garibaldi had immense success on the battlefield, Cavour did more behind the scenes, and brought unification towards everyone even regular citizens, and those with high
However, it was not unified: Count Camillo di Cavour favored the domination of Piedmont and French liberalism; Vincenzo Gioberti led the conservative nationalists under Pope Pius IX; Mazzini led the Young Italy in pursuit of a republic. Lombardy and Venice both declared themselves free of Austria and in favor of a united Italy. Carlo Alberto, the king of Piedmont Sardinia, took control of the Italian forces to fight for the independence of the northern
Bismarck was trying to strengthen the German government by getting rid of the division by fighting against the socialists and the Church. This relates to Lincoln because he was reunifying the United States by supporting the north in the Civil War and getting rid of
In 1871 two new major states of Europe had been formed—the German Empire and the kingdom of Italy. The new German Empire, under the hand of Otto von Bismarck, was steered carefully, always with an eye upon France, for the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) had left France thirsting for revenge and for recovery of the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. 2
There was no desire for a unified Italy, free from external control, but individual states. with their own control, and their own. Each revolution is separate. This meant that instead of a mass revolution of the entire country, which would have. been too strong to suppress, there were many smaller revolutions which were in turn crushed.
The Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 created the so-called German Confederation under Austrian and Prussian hegemony, but this unit disappointed the dreams of nationalists. The rivalry of Austria and Prussia paralyzed it in a way comparable to the effects of Soviet-American dualism on the United Nations during the Cold War. Almost everywhere, the old rulers repressed the nationalist movement after 1815. The German princes realized that nationalism required ...
... These three wars achieved Bismarck’s goals of obtaining support for the army reforms and unifying Germany under Prussian leadership (which meant the expulsion of Austria from Germany’s affairs). So, the unification of Germany in 1871 was achieved through a combination of factors: the idea held by the German people of a unified nation (nationalism), the fear held by the German aristocracy of anything which may result in a reduction to their power, such as liberalism and the ‘Napoleonic Fear’, the Prussian King William the first whose most important roles were appointing Bismarck and the introduction of the army reforms, and of course, Otto Von Bismarck. Bismarck was the reason for the three wars against Austria, France and Denmark, the implication of the Prussian army reforms and he made sure that the German states finally unified under the rule of a Prussian monarch, or ‘German Kaiser’, ruler of the newly founded German Empire in 1871.
“Bismarck and German Nationalism.” The American Historical Review Vol. 60, No.3 (1955): pg. 78. 548-556.