Italy was proclaimed a kingdom in 1861. In what nature and to what extent did the lives of Italians improve between 1861 and 1870??

Question 1

Italy was proclaimed a kingdom in 1861. In what nature and to what extent did the lives of Italians improve between 1861 and 1870??

Answer 1

Italy was proclaimed a kingdom in 1861. In what nature and to what extent did the lives of Italians improve between 1861 and 1870??

Question 2

Politically

Answer 2

Did improve- Single criminal legal code and civil law code adopted for all of italy in 1865 (bar Tuscany)
Unified army and navy supported by Prussia formed, with 20,000 officers, 255,000 soldiers and 2 million in recruits, who were stationed together for 4 years at a time to reduce social divisions
-All customs, coinage, weights and measures were standardised to smooth economic transactions, and Piedmontese constitution became an Italian constitution
Modernisation of politics in Italy began to shift the importance of shaping the country away from the monarchy and towards the Italian people. Army gave people an increased degree of security whilst providing jobs

Didn’t improve- Brigands war- a civil war that claimed more lives than the 3 wars of unification increased divisions between north and south further. Increased taxes in south after Bourbon rule collapsed leaving power vacuum. 25000 Brigands took to the hills to avoid military conscription in 1861, showing unified army didn’t improve the lives of all people. 82000 brigands in 1862 against 90000 troops.
-Piedmontisation- Lack of regional consideration during piedmontisation, 53 decrees changed in Naples in 2 days, whilst Piedmont failed to recognise the lack of social and political unity in the south, Mafia easily corrupted the new legal systems. Furthermore a lack of human and financial capital meant it was never going to be sustainable, and due to pre-existing differences in prosperity between north and south, south became drain on the North.

Despite some political reform that was mainly to be enjoyed by the literate (in the form of education), clearly the lives of all people were made worse by a deadly civil war that heightened social and political divisions between the north and south. Southerners lives made worse more due to already poor welfare, but northern lives hardly made much better

Question 3

social and economic

Answer 3

Did improve- 1867 act that began the sale of nearly half a million acres of church land was bought in the North by many peasant farmers. Whilst the rich bought land in the south, it showed that there was a shift towards helping the peasants and that unification was not universally bad for the poor.
-Casati law of 1859 made primary education compulsory in the following years, with schools and universities coming under control of the state, being funded for by attacks on the church. More of a benefit for the upper classes because lower classes were largely illiterate and so benefited less.

Didn’t improve- Dual economy- Earlier economic reforms such as mount cenis tunnel created link to France and more potential trade from Milan who was linked to European cities by roads, whilst Sicily and Sardinia had no railways at all. The North was expanding at much quicker rate than the south so lives of northerners improved more than Southerners.
-Debt and costs- regressive taxes fed into the idea of a dual economy. To fund new railways and infrastructure (as 60% of railway shares were owned by foreigners in 1866) the unpopular grist tax was introduced (tax on milling corn), led to 250 deaths and 1000 wounded due to riots. Flour tax in 1865 also regressive, reduced living standards of poorer people mainly in the south.

Overall socially and economically it could be argued that actually the lives of very few people got better; the lives of people in the south was deteriorating to pay for infrastructural reforms in the North, of which there were very few, and so whilst the southerners lives mostly got worse, the Northerners lives hardly got any better.

Question 4

Religious

Answer 4

Didn’t improve because of a period of fractious cohabitation that lasted throughout the entire time period. Pope refused to give up Rome and declared himself a prisoner of the vatican in 1870.

• Syllabus of errors (popes response to ‘dangerous modernisation’ of society). states pope would remain in control of education/culture/science(temporal power), Zero tolerance for other religions, wouldn’t accept social progress. People forced to choose between religion and free speech increased social divisions and made modernisation of the Papal States harder.
• Attacking church property- to pay fo education, 2382 monasteries were taken away, depriving areas of charity. Upper classes education being funded at the expense of the poor who relied on church aid.

In this area, the strictness of the papacy had adverse impacts on the greatest number of peoples lives because of the religious nature of the country (90% catholic). People from all classes struggled to choose between religion and social improvements, so pope did not improve the lives of Italians at all.

Question 5

Line of argument

Answer 5

Overall there is a clear conclusion that the lives of Italian people on the whole did not get better, and in almost every case got worse. A pre-existing divide between the north and south catalysed the deterioration of peoples living standards more-so in the south than the North, because the south just weren’t developed enough to implement systems that had worked in the North. In the nature of religion were the lives of Italians worsened to the greatest extent because whilst the Brigands war and its aftermath were certainly felt nationwide, the pope remained a direct barrier to improving peoples lives until the very end of the period with his actions having the greatest impact on the largest number of people, and successive popes didn’t even recognise the Italian kingdom until the 1920’, showing the Pope to be the most significant factor in shaping the lives of Italian people