Divided Italy, Austria and Mazzini
Before unification "Italy" was only a geographical term -- a peninsula of separate states, with Austria ruling Lombardy and Venetia and propping up conservative rulers elsewhere, the chief obstacle to unity. Mazzini gave nationalism its ideology, founding Young Italy (1831) for a united, independent, republican Italy won by popular revolution. But his risings kept failing against Austria's army, so leadership passed to Piedmont-Sardinia's monarchy.
Two routes: Cavour and Garibaldi
Unification combined two contributions. Cavour, Piedmont's PM under Victor Emmanuel II, used diplomacy: at Plombieres (1858) he won French help, provoked Austria into war in 1859 to gain Lombardy, and central Italy voted to join. Garibaldi led the Thousand in 1860, took Sicily and Naples, then handed them to Victor Emmanuel II rather than found a republic. The Kingdom of Italy came in 1861; Venetia followed in 1866, Rome in 1870.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Describing events, not explaining why
Explain- and evaluate-type questions credit connected reasons or consequences, not a general narrative. On A2 a common error is a "first this, then that" account of unification instead of answering why something happened or its significance. Disconnected facts blur together and lose focus on the exact question set.
Digest -- General exam technique: candidates list disconnected facts instead of connected prose answering the set question (Paper 1).
Drifting outside the question dates
Candidates often bring in material outside the date range named -- for example the 1848-49 revolutions when a question is about the 1859 war with Austria, or events after 1870 when it asks about completing unification. This dilutes relevance and costs marks even when the knowledge itself is accurate.
Digest -- General exam technique: candidates frequently include material outside the date range specified, diluting relevance (Paper 1, Paper 4).
One-sided "who contributed more"
On "how far" questions comparing Cavour and Garibaldi, weaker answers argue only one figure (all-Cavour or all-Garibaldi) instead of developing both before a judgement. Give specific detail for each contribution, then explain which was more decisive -- a real judgement, not a restatement of the two sides.
Digest -- General exam technique: weaker Part (c) answers argue only one side rather than developing both (Paper 1).
Confusing the names and the two wars
Similar names get muddled. Victor Emmanuel II (the first King of Italy) is not the earlier Victor Emmanuel I. The 1859 war (Piedmont and France against Austria, winning Lombardy) is not the 1866 war (Italy allied with Prussia against Austria, winning Venetia). Reversing or merging the two wars breaks the chronology of how territory was gained.
Digest -- General exam technique: confusing similarly-named events and personnel is a recurring error across topics (Paper 1).
Confusing Mazzini, Cavour, Garibaldi
Their roles are distinct and muddling them loses marks. Mazzini = republican ideas and Young Italy (inspiration, not unification). Cavour = diplomacy and calculated war that secured the north. Garibaldi = volunteer conquest of the south. Assigning one man's actions to another weakens both recall and analysis.
Digest -- General exam technique: confusing similarly-named personnel is a recurring error across topics (Paper 1).
Two Sicilies is not Piedmont
Two states are confused. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was the southern Bourbon state Garibaldi conquered in 1860. Piedmont-Sardinia was the northern state, led by Cavour and Victor Emmanuel II, that drove unification and formed the core of united Italy. Mixing them up reverses who conquered whom.
Garibaldi did not want a southern republic
Wrong belief: that Garibaldi conquered the south to found his own republic. Though a nationalist, he handed his conquests -- Sicily and Naples, taken with the Thousand (1860) -- to King Victor Emmanuel II, so north and south merged as the Kingdom of Italy (1861). Assuming he fought for a southern republic misreads why unification succeeded as ONE kingdom.
Three-stage "how far do you agree?"
For a "Cavour did more than Garibaldi" essay, work in three stages: (1) FOR -- Plombieres (1858) and the 1859 war winning Lombardy; (2) AGAINST -- Garibaldi's Thousand (1860) taking Sicily and Naples, then handing the south to the king; (3) a judgement on which mattered more.
Match the command word
"Describe" wants features only. "Explain why" wants connected reasons or consequences. "How far do you agree" wants both sides plus a weighed judgement. Read the command word before writing, so you answer the exact question rather than telling the story of unification.
Anchor every point to a dated example
Vague claims score little. Tie each point to a specific dated fact -- Plombieres (1858), the 1859 war, the Thousand (1860), the Kingdom of Italy (1861), Rome (1870) -- so the examiner sees precise knowledge, not generalisation, which is what lifts an answer between levels.
Before unification, Italy was not a single country but a patchwork of separate states across the peninsula. The most powerful obstacle to unity was Austria, which directly ruled Lombardy and Venetia in the north and used its influence to keep conservative rulers in power elsewhere, including the Papal States (ruled by the Pope) and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the south. Unification was achieved between 1859 and 1870, mainly through the combined efforts of Piedmont-Sardinia's statesman Cavour and the nationalist soldier Garibaldi, working (n
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
