How was Italy unified?

Cambridge IGCSE History 0470 · Paper 1 Section A, Core Content Option A Syllabus: 2027 and 2028 Option A: The nineteenth century: the development of modern nation states, 1848 to 1914 Key Question 2 of six

This file covers one Key Question: how a peninsula of separate states, most of them under Austrian influence, became a single Kingdom of Italy. If you are looking for Bismarck, the Zollverein or the Frankfurt Parliament, you are in the wrong file: German unification is Key Question 3 and lives in the How was Germany unified? notes. If you are looking for the revolutions of 1848 across Europe as a whole, that is Key Question 1, and it has its own file too.

The awkward part is that these three overlap on purpose. The 1848 to 1849 revolutions happened in Italy as well as in France, Germany and the Austrian Empire, and Cambridge examines Italy in 1848 under both Key Question 1 and Key Question 2. Germany's wars of 1866 and 1870 handed Italy two of its last pieces. This file stays on Italy throughout and, where the two stories touch, says what Italy gained and leaves the rest to the German file.

1. What the syllabus actually asks

This is the wording printed in the Cambridge IGCSE History 0470 syllabus for 2027 and 2028. Learn the Key Question itself, because 10 mark questions are built out of it directly, often almost word for word.

Key Question 2

How was Italy unified?

Focus points

• Why was Italy not unified in 1848-49?
• How important was Garibaldi's contribution to unifying Italy?
• Did Cavour help or hinder the unification of Italy?
• How important for other European countries were moves towards Italian unification?

Specified content

• Austrian influence over Italy
• Italian nationalism and the role of Mazzini
• Events of 1848-49
• Victor Emmanuel II and Cavour: the agreement of Plombières, war with Austria in 1859
• Garibaldi and the invasion of Sicily and Naples
• The creation of the Kingdom of Italy, completion of unification by 1870

Cambridge prints those date ranges with an en dash. They are hyphenated here, and nowhere else in this file, so that everything else can be read as plain text.

What the three layers mean

Cambridge defines them itself: key questions define the over-arching issues, focus points identify the issues that enable candidates to gain an understanding of the key question, and specified content provides guidance on what needs to be studied.

So the four focus points are not four chapters to memorise in order. They are four arguments, and each one is a ready made 10 mark question that you must be able to answer in both directions. Sections 4 to 7 are built on them.

The dates the syllabus does not print

The Option A heading says 1848 to 1914. Key Question 2 has no date range of its own, and both ends of it leak.

It starts before 1848. A 2024 paper set a 4 mark part on the Carbonari, and its mark scheme credits the failed revolution of 1820 and the uprisings of 1831. Another set "Describe Mazzini's activities before 1848". Young Italy was founded in 1831. A mark scheme for a question on why unification took so long credits a candidate writing that the Carbonari led a revolt in Naples in 1820 and that there were further revolutions in 1831.

It runs past 1870. The specified content says "completion of unification by 1870", but papers have set "Describe the events that led to Rome becoming the capital of Italy in 1871", "Describe how the unification of Italy was completed in 1870-71" and "Is it surprising that it took until 1870-71 to unify Italy?". Rome was taken in September 1870 and became the capital in July 1871, and Cambridge examines both.

Revise 1820 to 1871, not 1848 to 1870.

2. Where this Key Question turns up on the paper

The mark ladders are the same for every question on Paper 1 and they are set out in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes: the three parts and their marks, the assessment objective split, and the two rules Cambridge changed for the 2024 series. Read that page once. Nothing below repeats it.

What is specific to this Key Question is where it sits and how reliably it appears.

It is Question 1 or Question 2, and never anything else. Across the 48 Paper 1 mark schemes read for these notes, covering March, June and November from 2018 to 2024, 34 set a question on Italian unification: 22 at Question 1 and 12 at Question 2. Not one appeared at Question 3 or Question 4. That follows from the syllabus rule that two of the four Option A questions come from Key Questions 1 to 3 and two from Key Questions 4 to 6: Italy competes with the 1848 revolutions and with Germany for the first two slots.

Roughly seven papers in ten carry it. That is the highest hit rate of any nineteenth century Key Question in the set read, and it means Italy is close to a safe bet if you are taking Option A. It is not a certainty. Fourteen of the 48 papers had no Italian unification question at all.

Question 1 is not always "the Italy question". In one June 2024 paper, Question 1 had part (a) on the Provisional Government in France in February 1848, part (b) on the growth of German nationalism, and part (c) on Italian unification in 1848 to 1849. A candidate who had revised Italy alone would have found the 10 marks available and the other 10 out of reach. In a November 2024 paper the reverse happened: part (a) was on Pope Pius IX and events in Italy in 1848, but parts (b) and (c) were on France and on the 1848 revolutions generally.

1. Cambridge sets one question, not one topic
2. the three parts can straddle Key Questions 1, 2 and 3
3. revising Italy without 1848 across Europe leaves marks on the table in the same question

One question stem has already been reused. "Why did Cavour resign in 1859?" was set as a 6 mark part in a November 2023 paper and again, word for word, in a November 2024 paper.

It is also a Paper 2 topic

Paper 2 sets a prescribed topic that changes every series, and Italian unification comes round. All three November 2019 papers used it, as did all three June 2021 papers and a March 2022 paper, with titles such as "How important was Giuseppe Mazzini to Italian unification?", "Was Austria the most important obstacle to Italian unification?" and "Was Italian unification a triumph?".

More to the point, the syllabus names the future ones. For examination in 2028, "How was Italy unified?" is the Option A prescribed topic for both the March exam and the June exam. If you are sitting 2028, this Key Question can earn marks on two papers.

That does not make Paper 2 an extension of this file. Paper 1 carries no source marks at all and Paper 2 carries almost nothing else. The overlap is the knowledge, not the skill.

3. The starting position: Austrian influence over Italy

This is the first item of specified content, and it is the thing that has to be removed before anything else can happen. Get it precise, because it supplies the "other side" for half the 10 mark questions on this topic.

What Austria actually held. Austria controlled Lombardy and Venetia directly. Beyond that, the Habsburgs had married into the ruling families of several central Italian states, such as Parma and Modena, so Austrian influence reached well past the border of Austrian territory. Metternich opposed every form of liberal and nationalist expression, secret police hunted opponents and newspapers were censored.

Why Austria would not let go. Lombardy and Venetia were rich. Cambridge's mark schemes state that they paid one third of the Empire's tax revenue. Losing them would have cost Austria money it could not replace, damaged its prestige, and, worse, encouraged nationalists elsewhere in the Empire, particularly the Hungarians. That is why a 6 mark part was set as "Why did events in Italy matter to Austria?".

Why Austrian rule was resented. Austria took a great deal out of Lombardy and Venetia in taxes, including a tax on tobacco, and spent very little back: mark schemes note it built almost nothing in the way of public facilities or infrastructure. It also refused Italian requests for civil liberties.

What made Austria hard to beat. The army was professional, well led by Radetzky, and could fall back on the Quadrilateral fortresses and draw on large reserves held behind them.

1. Lombardy and Venetia pay a third of Austria's tax revenue
2. Austria will fight to keep them
3. Italian nationalists cannot win alone
4. unification will need a foreign ally, which is what makes Cavour's diplomacy decisive

4. Focus point: why Italy was not unified in 1848 to 1849

Folds in the specified content on Italian nationalism, the role of Mazzini, and the events of 1848 to 1849.

Nationalism before 1848: the Carbonari and Young Italy

The Carbonari were a secret revolutionary society, organised in small cells across Italy, anti-clerical, wanting constitutional government and supporting Italian nationalism. They took part in the failed revolution of 1820 and in the uprisings of 1831. They were gradually replaced by Young Italy.

Mazzini joined the Carbonari and then founded Young Italy in 1831. It recruited Italians under the age of 40 and aimed at a united, independent, republican Italy. It plotted a revolt in Savoy and Piedmont in 1833, tried to start uprisings in Sicily, Tuscany and Bologna, and was finally broken after an attempted revolt in Milan in 1853. Mazzini himself attempted coups in 1833 and 1834 and led risings in Mantua, Milan and Genoa in the 1850s. All of them failed.

His importance is not in what he won. Cambridge's own Level 3 exemplar puts it this way: Mazzini provided the ideas behind the Risorgimento, and his vision of Italy as one nation reached people like Garibaldi, who joined Young Italy young. He insisted Italy would have to win unity by itself rather than depend on other countries. He was, in the mark scheme's phrase, a hothead and not very practical, but for thirty years he inspired generations of revolutionaries.

1. Mazzini's revolts all fail
2. but the failures publicise the idea
3. a generation including Garibaldi is recruited to it
4. the practical work is done later by people Mazzini converted, which is why "contributed little" is an argument you must be ready to reject

Pope Pius IX, and the Allocution

Pius IX became Pope in 1846 with a reputation for liberalism. He released political prisoners, ended press censorship, brought non-churchmen into his government and issued a new constitution. Nationalists began to see him as the possible head of a united or federated Italy. He had real influence over Italian Catholics and, importantly, sizeable military forces.

Then in April 1848 he issued his Allocution. In it he said he did not support the war against Austria, that he did not wish to lead any Italian confederation, and that the Papacy was universal and therefore above all national states. He had been pushed into it after Durando led papal troops to support Charles Albert. He would not fight another Catholic power, and he saw Charles Albert as an aggressor.

The effect was immediate: papal troops were withdrawn from the front, Pius was branded a traitor, and some troops refused to fight alongside Charles Albert at all. Pius fled to Gaeta in November 1848, appealed to France, Austria, Spain and Naples to crush the Roman Republic, excommunicated its leaders, and returned to Rome in 1850 after the French had destroyed it.

Charles Albert's war

Charles Albert of Piedmont granted a constitution and then, in March 1848, declared war on Austria and invaded Lombardy. Cambridge credits an army of 60 000 men. He had early successes despite lacking numbers.

Then it went wrong, and each reason is a separate explained point:

• He delayed, and the delay let the Austrians organise reinforcements and regroup. Austria sent 20 000 troops to reinforce Radetzky.
• The people of Lombardy did not rise in the numbers he had expected, which hurt both his numbers and his morale.
• The Pope withdrew his support after the Allocution, and King Ferdinand of Naples and Tuscany recalled their troops, leaving Piedmont and Lombardy fighting Austria alone.
• He was beaten at Custoza in 1848 and, having been persuaded to try again, crushed by Radetzky at Novara in 1849. Austria had more infantry, more cavalry and more heavy guns, and Radetzky had more skill and experience than any Piedmontese general.

He abdicated in 1849. Piedmont was made to pay Austria an indemnity of 65 million francs.

The Roman Republic

With the Pope gone, elections were held and a Roman Republic was declared, ruled by a triumvirate that included Mazzini. It abolished capital punishment, announced freedom of religion and ended censorship. The Pope's minister Pellegrino Rossi had been murdered. A French army laid siege to Rome, with Garibaldi leading the resistance, and the French entered the city in July 1849. The Republic was over, and the French restored the Pope.

Arguing it both ways

This focus point is set as "Little progress was made towards Italian unification in 1848-49", "The Pope was the biggest obstacle to Italian unification in 1848-49" and "Charles Albert was responsible for the failure of the 1848 revolution in Italy".

Little progress was made. Italians were divided: republicans in Rome and monarchists in Piedmont would not join forces, and Charles Albert would not work with any group that did not first declare loyalty to Piedmont and its royal family. Outside a few places such as Milan there was no great popular enthusiasm, and most peasants were more concerned with surviving the year. Austria simply recovered its power, and would keep it until somebody found a way to beat it.

Some progress was made. Several old regimes had fallen very easily, which showed how weak they would be next time. There was strong anti-Austrian feeling and middle class support for independence in the north. The exploits of Mazzini and Garibaldi and the Roman Republic gave nationalists something to point to. And Piedmont kept its constitution, which made it the state that nationalists in the north would look to from then on.

1. the revolutions are crushed
2. but Piedmont alone keeps its constitution
3. nationalists start to see Piedmont, not a popular rising, as the route to unity
4. the initiative moves from Mazzini to Cavour

5. Focus point: did Cavour help or hinder the unification of Italy?

Folds in the specified content on Victor Emmanuel II and Cavour, the agreement of Plombières and the war with Austria in 1859. Note the shape of the focus point: Cambridge is not asking you to praise Cavour. It is offering "hinder" as a live option, and the strongest answers take it seriously.

Building the instrument: Piedmont in the 1850s

Cavour's first achievement was not diplomatic. It was making Piedmont the one Italian state that could stand a war:

• The Siccardi laws controlled the powers of the Church, and civil marriage was introduced.
• Piedmont was industrialised, the cotton industry developed, and there was large scale railway expansion.
• The ports, especially Genoa, were commercialised, and the government pushed free trade, with Cavour making free trade treaties with several countries.
• The legal system was reformed and the army was modernised and strengthened.
• Cavour ran a newspaper, Il Risorgimento, which called for the independence of Italy, and kept agents in the central Italian states to encourage union with Piedmont.

The point of all of this, in the mark scheme's words, was to produce a model state that could withstand the rigours of war.

Buying an ally: the Crimean War and Plombières

Austria refused to join Britain and France against Russia. Victor Emmanuel II and Cavour saw the opening and sent Piedmontese troops to the Crimea. What Piedmont gained was not territory but a seat at the Paris peace conference in 1856, a relationship with Napoleon III, and the standing to hint that it was owed a favour.

Two more things pulled Napoleon III in. He had been a member of the Carbonari when young. And the Orsini bomb plot of 1857, an attempt on his own life, came with a letter from Orsini urging him to take up the Italian cause. A go-between, Jacques Bixio, worked between Turin and Paris, and a marriage was proposed between the Piedmontese king's daughter and the Emperor's cousin.

The result was the secret meeting at Plombières in 1858. What was agreed there is set as a 4 mark part often enough that it is worth learning as a list:

• France and Piedmont would ally in a war against Austria, and Cavour would provoke Austria into declaring it.
• Piedmont would take Lombardy and Venetia, and the Duchies of Parma and Modena, as a Kingdom of Upper Italy.
• A Kingdom of Central Italy would be under French influence.
• The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies would stay under Ferdinand II.
• The Pope would keep Rome, and the four parts would form a confederation under his presidency.
• France would receive Savoy and Nice from Piedmont.

Read that list carefully. Plombières was not a plan to unify Italy. It was a plan to enlarge Piedmont, weaken Austria and leave Italy in four pieces under a papal figurehead. That is the single best piece of evidence for the "hinder" side of this focus point, and it is Cambridge's own.

1859, and the betrayal

The war came. Austria was beaten, notably at Solferino, and Piedmont gained Lombardy. Then Napoleon III signed the truce of Villafranca without consulting Cavour. Venetia stayed Austrian, provisional governments were left in place in Tuscany, Parma and Modena, and the promised Kingdom of Upper Italy did not exist.

Cavour resigned in protest in 1859, furious that Napoleon had not consulted him and that Venetia had not been won, and angrier still that Victor Emmanuel would not let Piedmont fight on alone. He was back as prime minister within a few months. Tuscany and Emilia then joined what had become the Kingdom of Sardinia, and Savoy and Nice went to France as agreed.

1. Cavour buys France with the Crimea
2. France fights Austria in 1859
3. Napoleon quits early at Villafranca
4. Piedmont gets Lombardy but not Venetia
5. Cavour resigns, and the northern half of the job is left unfinished until 1866

Cavour against Garibaldi

In 1860 Cavour was openly suspicious of Garibaldi, and Cambridge sets this as its own 6 mark part. The reasons are specific:

• Garibaldi was a republican, and Cavour wanted a kingdom under Piedmont and Victor Emmanuel.
• Cavour feared Garibaldi would set up a republic in the south.
• He regarded him as an agitator with no serious plans, acting outside Piedmont's control.
• Above all he feared Garibaldi would march on Rome, which would bring French intervention, since France defended papal power. That would have undone everything Cavour had built.

Arguing it both ways

Cavour helped. Without a strong state there was nothing to unify around, and he built one. Without a great power ally Austria could not be shifted, and he bought one. Lombardy, Tuscany, Parma, Modena and much of the Papal States came to Piedmont through his diplomacy. Cambridge's own top band exemplar on a later question says Garibaldi finished a process that Cavour had made possible, and that without Cavour's groundwork the conquest of Naples might not have mattered.

Cavour hindered. He was not trying to unify Italy. He wanted a strong and enlarged Piedmont, and at Plombières he agreed to a divided Italy in four parts. He gave away Savoy and Nice. He was suspicious of the man who actually took the south, and he only annexed it once Garibaldi had made it unavoidable.

6. Focus point: how important was Garibaldi's contribution to unifying Italy?

This is the single most examined argument on the topic. Of the 34 Italian unification questions in the set read, 10 named Garibaldi in the 10 mark part: against Mazzini, against Cavour, as "the creator of the Kingdom of Italy", as "the most important individual", and as "the crucial factor". Several more set him in the 4 or 6 mark parts. If you prepare one argument on this Key Question thoroughly, prepare this one.

1860: Sicily and Naples

There had been uprisings in Messina and Palermo in April 1860. Garibaldi gathered about 1000 volunteers, the Thousand, often called the Redshirts, sailed from Genoa and landed at Marsala on 11 May 1860. He was helped by the British navy and joined by Sicilian rebels, and he declared himself dictator of Sicily in the name of Victor Emmanuel, which matters: he was a republican acting for a king from the first week.

The campaign, in Cambridge's own sequence: first victory at Calatafimi; the siege and surrender of Palermo; a peasant rebellion put down; the march to Messina and the battle of Milazzo; the whole of Sicily taken by the end of July. In September he crossed the Straits of Messina and entered Naples with 24 000 men. While he was fighting the Battle of Volturno, the Piedmontese army arrived, and he handed over everything he had conquered in the name of Victor Emmanuel II. A plebiscite in October transferred Sicily. In November he rode into Naples beside Victor Emmanuel, and then retired.

Arguing it both ways

Garibaldi was decisive. The Kingdom of Naples was by far the largest state in Italy: the whole southern half of the peninsula plus Sicily. Italy could not be called united without it, and Cavour had no plan to take it. Garibaldi destroyed it, and then, despite being a republican, handed it to a king rather than keeping power. That single decision put north and south under the same monarch and made the Kingdom of Italy possible in 1861. He was also an inspirational figure who converted people to unification and made the Italian cause famous abroad.

Garibaldi was not decisive. He could never have governed Naples, and Cambridge's own top band exemplar says so. The state that absorbed the south existed only because Cavour had spent a decade making Piedmont strong and had removed Austria from Lombardy with French help. Garibaldi took territory; Cavour created the thing that could hold it. On this reading Garibaldi finished a process rather than starting one, and the earlier step was the larger one.

And the third option, which the "which was more important" questions want. Victor Emmanuel II mattered because he was the one person both sides would accept: king of the strongest state, willing to back Garibaldi's expedition, and willing to stop him marching on Rome in 1862. He won France's support by sending troops to the Crimea, liberated Lombardy, became the first King of Italy in 1861 and sent troops into the Papal States in 1870. He is set on his own as a 10 mark question, so do not treat him as scenery.

1. Garibaldi takes the south as a republican
2. hands it to a monarchy rather than keeping it
3. the two halves fall under one crown in 1861
4. the argument about "who unified Italy" is really an argument about whether taking land or building a state matters more

7. Focus point: how important for other European countries were moves towards Italian unification?

This focus point is the least intuitive of the four and the one candidates prepare least. It runs in both directions: what Italy meant to other powers, and what other powers did to Italy.

Austria

Covered in section 3. Italy mattered to Austria because Lombardy and Venetia paid a third of the Empire's tax revenue, because losing them would have been a blow to morale, and because a defeat in Italy would have encouraged the Hungarians and everyone else inside the Empire who wanted out. Austria's stake was the survival of the Empire, which is why it fought so hard and why it took two foreign wars to prise Italy loose.

France and Napoleon III

Napoleon III is set as a 10 mark question in his own right, twice: "Did Napoleon III help or hinder the cause of Italian unification?" and "Napoleon III contributed more to Italian unification than any other individual". His motives, as Cambridge lists them:

• To weaken Austria and replace Austrian influence in Italy with French influence.
• To gain Savoy and Nice.
• Personal glory, and the ambition to match his uncle.
• Genuine sympathy: he had fought with Italian patriots when young.
• The belief that a friendly Italian state would be a natural ally of France.
• But also, from Plombières, a preference for Italy divided into a federation of weak separate states rather than one strong neighbour.
• And, for French Catholic opinion, keeping a garrison in Rome to protect the Pope. It was French troops who crushed the Roman Republic in 1849.

That last pair is why "help or hinder" is a real question. France made 1859 possible and then guaranteed that Rome stayed out of Italy for another eleven years.

Prussia, 1866 and 1870

Italy's last two pieces were won by other people's wars. Say what Italy gained and leave the rest to the How was Germany unified? notes.

1866. Italy agreed that if Prussia and Austria went to war, Italy would declare war on Austria, and that if Prussia won, Italy would be given Venetia as a reward. Italy was beaten by Austria on the battlefield. Prussia won anyway, and in the Peace of Prague Venetia was handed to Italy. It is one of the few episodes in the whole topic where Italy gained something without winning anything, and a 6 mark part has been set on exactly that: "Why was the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 important for Italian unification?"

1870. The Franco-Prussian War forced Napoleon III to withdraw the French garrison from Rome. That is what made September 1870 possible.

1. Italy loses its own battles in 1866
2. Prussia wins the war
3. Venetia arrives by treaty
4. only Rome is left, and it takes another foreign war to remove the garrison guarding it

Britain

A smaller thread, but Cambridge credits it: Garibaldi's landing in Sicily was helped by the British navy, and Mazzini won considerable support for the Italian cause in Britain during his exile.

8. Completing unification, and the question the focus points do not name

Alongside the four focus points, Cambridge repeatedly sets a fifth argument: how united Italy actually was. It has appeared as "How united was Italy in the years 1861 to 1870?", "How united was Italy by 1861?" and "Is it surprising that it took until 1870-71 to unify Italy?". None of the four focus points names it, and it is worth preparing separately.

What was and was not achieved in 1861

Victor Emmanuel II was proclaimed King of Italy in 1861, and his kingdom included Piedmont, Naples and Sicily. It did not include Venetia, held by Austria, or Rome, protected by Napoleon III. Foreign powers still held Italian territory, which is exactly why "Why was Italy not unified by 1861?" is a 6 mark question.

Venetia, 1866

Won through the Austro-Prussian War, as in section 7.

Rome, 1870 to 1871

Garibaldi made two failed attempts to take Rome, and in 1862 Victor Emmanuel stopped him. The French garrison held Rome until 1866 and again from 1867 to 1870.

Then, in 1870: Napoleon III withdrew his soldiers; there were demonstrations in Rome demanding the Italian government act; Victor Emmanuel sent the Pope a letter asking to enter peacefully, on the pretence of protecting him, and the Pope refused; in September the Italian army broke the defences and took the city; in October a plebiscite annexed Rome to the Kingdom of Italy. The Pope declared himself a prisoner in the Vatican, refused to recognise the Kingdom or its authority over Rome, and had already excommunicated Victor Emmanuel. In July 1871 the capital moved from Florence to Rome.

The case that Italy was still not united

This is where the 10 mark marks are, and Cambridge's own exemplars supply it:

• Most people in Italy did not think of themselves as Italian. They identified with their state, town or village.
• Only a minority spoke Italian. Most spoke local dialects not understood elsewhere.
• The south was rural and poor, the north richer and industrial, and the north regarded the south as backward.
• Many Italian states were suspicious of Piedmont's ambitions.
• The Pope refused to recognise the kingdom, which left Italian Catholics with divided loyalties between their king and their Pope.

9. Judgement sentences for this Key Question

The tenth mark is a separate act, and the shapes are in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes. These are the versions that fit this content. Each states a position and attaches a reason, which is all Level 5 asks.

• "Garibaldi took more territory, but Cavour mattered more, because there had to be a state capable of holding what Garibaldi took."
• "Cavour helped more than he hindered, because even the plan he agreed at Plombières, which was designed to leave Italy divided, ended by removing the one power that made unity impossible."
• "Mazzini contributed least in the short term and most in the long term, because the men who did the practical work had been recruited by his failures."
• "Foreign influence was the greater barrier, because Italian divisions were survivable and an Austrian army was not."
• "It is not surprising that it took until 1871, because the last two pieces could only be won by other countries' wars, and Italy had to wait for them."
• "Italy was unified on the map by 1871 and not in fact, because the state existed before the nation did."

10. What the papers actually ask, family by family

Drawn from the 34 Italian unification questions in the mark schemes read. Prepare the recurring items rather than everything.

The 4 mark families

Almost always a narrow, dated episode. Real examples set: "What were the Carbonari?", "What were the aims of the Young Italy movement?", "Describe Mazzini's activities before 1848", "What was Pope Pius IX's Allocution of 1848?", "Describe Austria's role in Italy before 1848", "Describe Austria's role in crushing the 1848-49 revolutions in Italy", "Describe what happened when Charles Albert delayed his decision to invade Lombardy", "Describe events in Rome in 1849", "Describe how Piedmont was reformed during the 1850s", "What did Piedmont gain from its involvement in the Crimean War?", "What was agreed between Cavour and Napoleon III at Plombières in 1858?", "Describe Garibaldi's campaign in Sicily and Naples in 1860", "Describe how Rome became part of the Kingdom of Italy in 1870".

Four separate facts, and stop. The single most reliable revision here is a dated list for each of: 1848 to 1849 in Italy, Piedmont's reforms, Plombières, Garibaldi in 1860, and Rome in 1870.

The 6 mark families

Overwhelmingly "Why was X important to Italian unification?", where X has been Garibaldi, Cavour, Mazzini, Victor Emmanuel II, Piedmont, Napoleon III, the Plombières agreement, the Allocution, the Crimean War and the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Also set: "Why was Cavour suspicious of Garibaldi?", "Why was Cavour concerned about the activities of Garibaldi in 1860?", "Why did Cavour resign in 1859?" (twice), "Why did Mazzini fail to unify Italy?", "Why did Charles Albert declare war on Austria in 1848?", "Why was Austria unpopular in Italy in 1848?", "Why was Austria able to crush opposition to its power in Italy in 1848-49?", "Why did events in Italy matter to Austria?", "Why was Italy not unified by 1861?"

Be able to give two explained reasons for the importance of every one of the six named figures and for Piedmont. That is most of the 6 mark bank.

The 10 mark families

Four recurring shapes:

1. One individual against another. Mazzini against Garibaldi, Garibaldi against Cavour, Cavour against everyone, Napoleon III against everyone, Victor Emmanuel II on his own.
2. Individuals against structural forces. "Which was more important: the contribution of individuals or Italian nationalism?", "The power of Piedmont was the decisive factor", "Rome or Piedmont?"
3. Obstacles. "The greatest obstacle to Italian unification was Austria", "Foreign influence in Italy was the greatest barrier", "The Pope was the biggest obstacle in 1848-49", "How great a threat was Austria?", "France was a more important threat than Austria", "Factors external to Italy rather than internal factors explain why unification took so long".
4. Completeness and timing. "How united was Italy by 1861?", "How united was Italy in the years 1861 to 1870?", "Is it surprising that it took until 1870-71?"

Family 3 is the one to notice. Several of these ask you to weigh external against internal obstacles, which means you need Italy's own divisions, from section 8, as ready material and not as an afterthought.

11. What examiner reports say candidates get wrong on this content

A warning about the evidence first, because it is unusual. Of the 39 Paper 1 sections in the 18 Principal Examiner reports on disk for 2018 to 2024, 37 say there were too few responses to Questions 1 to 4 for meaningful comment. Option A is a small entry worldwide. Only two reports comment on it at all, and both of them happen to comment on the Italian unification question. So the topic-specific evidence below is thin, but it is real, and it is unusually direct.

Answering about the person rather than the question. On a part asking why Cavour's relationship with Napoleon III mattered, examiners recorded candidates describing who Cavour was. On a part asking what happened when Charles Albert delayed the invasion of Lombardy, a significant number wrote about Charles Albert's actions generally.

Attributing one man's work to another. On a part on why Garibaldi mattered, examiners recorded candidates writing about Mazzini and crediting his contribution to Garibaldi. This is the trap of the topic. Four men, overlapping years, and a story where a republican serves a king: keep the columns separate.

Narrating Garibaldi instead of explaining him. On the Mazzini against Garibaldi question, examiners noted lengthy descriptions of Garibaldi's campaigns which needed to be developed into explanations linking them to their importance in moving Italy towards unification. The 1860 campaign is exciting and it narrates itself, which is precisely why it slides into a Level 2 list.

Ignoring the place and the dates. On "Describe what happened in Rome in 1848-9", examiners noted candidates answering in very general terms and reminded them that points must be specific to the place and dates given.

Two more that follow from the content itself, rather than from a report:

• Confusing 1859 with 1866. Two different Austrian defeats, two different peace settlements, two different provinces. Lombardy came to Piedmont after the 1859 war; Venetia came after the 1866 Austro-Prussian War.
• Treating Plombières as a unification plan. It was the opposite, and saying so is worth a mark.

The faults that apply to every question on the paper, such as overwriting part (a), listing instead of explaining and never stating a judgement, are in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes.

12. Quick revision

• Key Question: How was Italy unified? Four focus points: 1848 to 1849, Garibaldi, Cavour, and the other European powers.
• Where it sits: Question 1 or Question 2, never later. 34 of 48 mark schemes read set it, 22 at Q1 and 12 at Q2.
• Dates to revise: 1820 to 1871, not 1848 to 1870. The Carbonari and Rome as capital both sit outside the option heading.
• Austria: holds Lombardy and Venetia, which pay one third of the Empire's tax revenue. Radetzky, the Quadrilateral, Metternich, censorship.
• Mazzini: Carbonari, Young Italy 1831, republican, revolts in 1833, 1834, the 1840s and the 1850s, all failed. Roman Republic 1849. Ideas, not victories.
• Pius IX: Pope from 1846, reforms, then the Allocution of April 1848. Fled to Gaeta November 1848. Never recognised the Kingdom of Italy.
• Charles Albert: constitution, war March 1848, 60 000 men, delay, Custoza 1848, Novara 1849, abdication, 65 million franc indemnity.
• Cavour: Siccardi laws, railways, Genoa, free trade, Il Risorgimento; Crimean War then the Paris conference of 1856; Plombières 1858; 1859 war, Solferino, Lombardy; Villafranca, resignation, Savoy and Nice to France.
• Garibaldi 1860: the Thousand, Redshirts, Genoa to Marsala 11 May, Calatafimi, Palermo, Milazzo, Sicily by end of July, Straits of Messina, Naples with 24 000 men in September, Volturno, hands everything to Victor Emmanuel II.
• 1861: Kingdom of Italy, without Venetia or Rome. 1866: Venetia by the Peace of Prague after Italy loses its own battles. 1870: French leave, army enters Rome in September, plebiscite in October, Pope a prisoner in the Vatican. July 1871: capital moves from Florence to Rome.
• The 10 mark habit: one individual against another, or foreign obstacle against Italian division. Have both sides and one judgement sentence ready for each.

Where these facts come from

Taken from Cambridge's own published 0470 materials, meaning the 2027 and 2028 syllabus, the 48 Paper 1 mark schemes for March, June and November 2018 to 2024, the Paper 2 question papers, and the 18 Principal Examiner reports:

the Key Question, focus point and specified content wording; the Section A question distribution rule; the 2028 Paper 2 prescribed topics; every question stem quoted in sections 2 and 10 and the counts drawn from them; Austrian control of Lombardy and Venetia and the one third of tax revenue; Metternich, the secret police, censorship and the Habsburg marriages into Parma and Modena; Radetzky and the Quadrilateral; the Carbonari and the revolts of 1820 and 1831; Young Italy's founding in 1831, its age limit, its aims and its failed revolts including Milan in 1853; Mazzini's coups of 1833 and 1834 and his risings in Mantua, Milan and Genoa; Pius IX's reforms, the Allocution of April 1848, Durando's papal troops, the flight to Gaeta in November 1848, the appeals to France, Austria, Spain and Naples, the excommunications and the return in 1850; Charles Albert's constitution, his 60 000 men, the delay, Custoza, Novara, the abdication, the 65 million franc indemnity and the 20 000 Austrian reinforcements; the Roman Republic, its triumvirate, its reforms, the French siege and the entry into Rome in July 1849; the Siccardi laws, civil marriage, the railways, the cotton industry, the port of Genoa, the free trade treaties and Il Risorgimento; the Crimean War, the Paris conference of 1856, the Orsini bomb plot of 1857 and Orsini's letter, Jacques Bixio and the proposed marriage; every clause of the Plombières agreement listed in section 5; Solferino, Villafranca, Cavour's resignation and return, the provisional governments in Tuscany, Parma and Modena, and the transfer of Savoy and Nice; the uprisings in Messina and Palermo in April 1860, the Thousand and the Redshirts, Genoa to Marsala on 11 May, the British navy, the dictatorship in Victor Emmanuel's name, Calatafimi, Palermo, Milazzo, the October plebiscite, the Straits of Messina, the 24 000 men, Volturno, the handover and the November entry into Naples; Cavour's stated reasons for suspecting Garibaldi; the 1861 proclamation and the absence of Venetia and Rome; the 1866 bargain, Italy's defeat and the Peace of Prague; the French garrison in Rome to 1866 and 1867 to 1870; Garibaldi's two failed attempts on Rome and Victor Emmanuel stopping him in 1862; the whole 1870 sequence and the move of the capital in July 1871; and the divisions of language, region and loyalty used in section 8.

Where Cambridge's own materials disagree with each other. Three cases. Do not try to reconcile them, and do not build an answer on the disputed detail.

• The Peace of Prague. Two mark schemes print a Level 3 exemplar saying Piedmont defeated Austria in 1859 and "took control of Lombardy in the Peace of Prague". Two others place the Peace of Prague in July 1866 as the settlement that gave Venetia to Italy. The 1859 settlement was Villafranca. If you need to name a treaty, name Villafranca for 1859 and Prague for 1866, and if you are unsure, write "the peace settlement" and spend the words on the explanation instead.
• When Pius IX became Pope. A question stem from 2018 says "the election of a new Pope in 1846", and a 2023 mark scheme exemplar says "When he became Pope in 1846". A 2019 mark scheme exemplar says "He was elected Pope in 1848". The weight of Cambridge's own material is on 1846.
• A mark scheme that answers a different question. One November 2022 paper sets "Why was there tension between Austria and some Italian states by 1848?" and then prints indicative content about Charles Albert's defeat, the Piedmontese army moving slowly and the Pope withdrawing support. Only its Level 1 example addresses the question asked. Cambridge's own general instructions say that exhaustive lists of facts are not given and that examiners use professional judgement, so answer the question printed, not the mark scheme.

Not asserted here, because it could not be checked against the corpus. The dates of Pellegrino Rossi's appointment and murder, which two Cambridge mark schemes place inconsistently; the exact date in September 1870 on which the Italian army entered Rome; the size of the Austrian army at Custoza or Novara; the terms of the Treaty of Zurich; the population or revenue of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies; and the exact month Garibaldi's two attempts on Rome were made. None of them is needed for a top answer, which is why they have been left out rather than guessed.

Not the topic you were looking for? Describe what you are stuck on in your own words and we will take you to the notes that answer it.