Question a: Identify and explain two problems facing the kingdom of Italy from 1861 to 1870.

William’s answer:

Cavour’s death was a major blow to the new kingdom of Italy. He died on 6 June 1861 unexpectedly and was found very hard to replace. Ricasoli, Farini, Maghetti and la Mamora all followed Cavour but none of them were of the same calibre. They had also been kept ignorant of what was happening in Cavour’s government as he had a near monopoly of the cabinet positions.

The state of the Italian economy was a major problem facing the new kingdom. The kingdom was 2450 million lire in debt. This huge debt was not helped by the inheritance of debts from the states which it had taken over. By the middle of the 1860s a third of all Italian bonds were in foreign hands. All this put together resulted in huge economic problems for the kingdom to face up to.

Another problem faced by the government was the backwardness of industry and agriculture. It was widely thought that the output from cereal production had scarcely risen above that of the Roman Empire.

Also, 30 per cent of all production was eaten up by repayments which were absolutely huge. This was a large percentage of what was Italy’s biggest economic asset, to be taken up by repayments. This stopped investment in many areas and especially in agriculture and industry where progress was needed to increase output and thereby increase funds.

As much as 80 per cent of the people working in agriculture and industry were women and children. A vast revamp of industry and agriculture was needed to help Italy’s dire financial situation. This situation was mainly a result of Cavour’s policies.

Although unity was voted in by a huge majority, this can be misleading. The yes vote could have meant one of two things. Either a federalised state where the states kept their local autonomy or a centralised government ruling over the whole kingdom. It is unclear whether people actually knew what they were voting for. Some voted yes against the previous rulers or the rebels rather than because they wanted unity. Support for unity was not as great as it seemed.

Examiner’s comment

William has a good attempt at this question. He identifies two main issues to look at to start with, though he could have used an introduction to sharpen his approach and put down a clear marker for the examiner to follow. His two initial themes are the weakness of leadership after Cavour’s death and the economic problems faced by the new Italy. Both are perfectly valid areas to concentrate on; the difficulty with William’s answer is that he doesn’t draw out what the strands of this particular problem could be. He reels off a valid list of names, but apart from a general observation that they were each excluded from Cavour’s administrations, there’s no effective development of other issues surrounding this point. After all, the question does ask William to examine up to 1870!

Economic issues are somewhat better handled and there is some much better detail given which builds a more convincing discussion. More precision would gain higher marks and the short paragraphs need to cover issues more crisply for a top band to be awarded.

William’s answer was awarded 18 marks: this puts it into Band C. The main reason for this was that the answer required a balanced review of two issues, as asked for in the title, yet really focused on one; economic problems. The moral: know that the mark scheme is specific about balance and structured development of discussion and write accordingly. Two factor questions are also popular for part (a) on the period study papers; do some research through the past papers which are now available.

Question b. How far do you agree that the most important reason Italy was united between 1859 and 1861 was the diplomacy of Cavour?

Metternich was forced to flee and this left Austria severely weaker. During the 1850s Austrian attention was diverted elsewhere to Germany. The Austrians were fighting Prussia over control of Germany and the Prussians were able to defeat the Austrians. This showed a shift in power in Europe. However, as long as Austria remained strong and in control of Italian affairs then unification was unlikely.

In 1852 Cavour became Prime Minister of Piedmont. He built up infrastructure such as railways, buildings and bridges and signed trade treaties with foreign countries. All this put together gained Piedmont and Cavour international recognition.

In 1858 Cavour crucially signed the pact of Plombières. This stated that Prussia would help Italy in a war against Austria as long as Austria seemed to be the aggressor. This was a showing of Cavour’s diplomatic skills and his ability to make treaties and alliances that were to the benefit of Piedmont.

Austria declared war in 1859 and the Prussians stood by their agreement and helped Italy fight against the Austrians. The joint forces defeated Austria.

In 1860 Louis Napoleon was the instigator of Villafranca. It was here that Nice and Savoy were given to France. Naples and Sicily were given to Piedmont. This was a further step towards the unification of Italy.

In 1861 the Pope then allowed Cavour to go to the Papal States to meet Garibaldi and Naples and these states joined Piedmont.

The diplomacy of Cavour was obviously a major reason why Italy became unified and his diplomatic skills helped gain the help of the Prussians who were to be a major player in defeating the Austrians in 1859. However, I do not believe that the weakening of Austria was the most important factor in achieving unity. The Austrian strength was clear for all to see when they helped out Duke Francesco Duchess Marie Louise to easily crush revolts in 1830. Metternich, who was opposed to both nationalism and liberalism, sought to uphold the status quo throughout.

It was clear that so long as Austria remained the dominant force in Italian affairs, unification was very unlikely. With the Austrians weakened and eventually removed, unification was a lot more likely. Cavour can be credited with giving the Italian question its first realistic glimmer of hope.

Examiner’s comment:

William’s answer to this main question, worth 60 marks was less assured than part (a). Centrally, the answer lacks analytical sharpness, which is required to take an answer up to Bands B or A. William’s response is characterised by a more story telling, narrative style which is only going to be worth, at best, a low Band C. His focus on 1859 to 1861 is also poor; there’s just too much background and setting the scene: just look at the reference to Metternich and the 1830 revolutions. There just isn’t the time for such diversions. Remember, that just because you’ve been taught it or learned it up, doesn’t automatically make for inclusion in an answer at any price! Being selective and focused is what it’s all about!

William also gets his chronology confused around the involvement of Prussia in Austrian affairs. This again takes credibility away from his answer, though this shouldn’t in itself condemn the answer to oblivion!

Overall, what was the verdict on this answer? It was only deemed to be worth 25 marks out of 60, Band E. Analytical and structure answers are what’s needed here and, sadly, William’s got more work to do before he can secure a respectable mark.

Use these answers to check out your own understanding of what the demands of AS History are all about. The boards publish general and specific mark schemes which you should get hold of either direct from board websites or from your teacher. Study these carefully and make sure you know what you need to do and have worked through as many sample questions as you reasonably can.