The historical importance of the Taking of Rome (20 September 1870) goes far beyond the ephemeral and regional Italian Unification. The taking of Rome marks an epochal transition and is an event, which in importance is similar to the storming of the bastille and the taking of the winter palace.
On September 20, 1870, Italian contemporary history textbooks teach us to be the final date of Italian unification , the taking of Rome is, and represents, the last official act of the unitary process, started quietly, between revolutionary uprisings and political ambitions of Italic kingdoms, in the first half of the nineteenth century.
But September 20 is also something else, and its historical importance travels far beyond national borders, placing itself, on the international level, on the same level as events such as the storming of the Bastille and the capture of the Winter Palace in Petrograd (later St. Petersburg). in Russia.
These three events, together with the Vienna congress and the riots of 40, fully represent the entire excursus of the epochal change that brings the modern age, characterized by the political system known as the Ancient Regime , to a new political, social and cultural system, typical of the contemporary age, but let's go in order.
The storming of the Bastille, as it is known, is one of the most important symbolic events of the French Revolution , a revolution that marks the starting point of a long and slow evolutionary process that would have crossed all of Europe. As for the Bastille, the assault on this structure has often been associated with two reasons, the first, more important, of a political nature, the second, less incisive, but still important, of a military strategic nature.
The Bastille was perceived in France of the time, as one of the tangible symbols of monarchical despotism, a political prison, in which mostly opponents of the King, opponents of the monarchy, were imprisoned. The Bastille was a fortified military structure, protected by armed men and which housed, in its arsenal, a fair amount of weapons, ammunition and gunpowder, and the possibility of putting one's hand on these resources outlines the strategic / military character of the assault. to the Bastille.
As I anticipated, in reality the reason is mostly political, given that it was "protected" by about 32 Swiss guards, 82 French soldiers disabled by war, and housed about 30 guns, and the great spoils of war it could offer was courtesy about 250 barrels of gunpowder (containing about 20,000 kg of gunpowder) and about 28,000 rifles which may seem like a lot, but they are not at all, given that the weapons of the time were single-shot and took several minutes to reload before being able to reopen fire, and this means that, during an assault, while a soldier was firing , another soldier reloaded the rifles, but in the meantime, the soldier who fired, used other rifles, in case of mobility, a unit of this type had about 3 rifles, while in less agitated and more stationary situations, each soldier had average of about 10 rifles.
Returning to the numbers of the Bastille, 28,000 rifles, they could effectively arm about 3,000 men, or at most 10,000 or even 28,000, giving them, in this case, a derisory ability to fire.
Of course, it must be said that the Bastille was attacked by about 600 men, and that quantity of gunpowder and rifles, for 600 men is more than enough, however, 600 men, without any military training, can also have 1000 rifles each, and still be ineffective in combat, but that's another story.
As I said, the storming of the Bastille is a more symbolic event than anything else, it marks the clash with the monarchical authority, it marks the opening of the real conflict between the people and the aristocracy, it marks the beginning of the end of what is known as Ancient Regime .
In any case, from the French Revolution we pass to terror, then to the Napoleonic age, and for over 30 years, the ancient European political order, and in this case French, seems to crumble, at least until the Congress of Vienna, in which a sponge hand on post-revolutionary and Napoleonic transformations and Europe returns, at least on paper, to have the same appearance as it had in 1789, or before the start of the Revolution, the ancient royal houses are brought back to their respective thrones and, a concept as old as it is new, the principle of legitimacy and the concept of " divine mandate "That is, monarchical power, royal and imperial authority, derives directly from God, the Kings, Queens and Emperors of Europe are such because it is God who willed it so, and as God's vicar on earth, the pontiff is the interpreter of his will.
With the congress of Vienna the papacy becomes an absolute monarchy that extends its direct control over a large territory in central-northern Italy, this monarchy takes the name of Papal State and exists officially, and above all politically, from 1815 to 1870, more precisely, until September 20, 1870, briefly interrupted by the experience of the Roman Republic of 1848.
In 1848, the cornerstones of the europe built in the vienna congress, in particular the divine mandate, the monarchical authority granted directly by God, no longer has any value, and the principle of legitimacy, which legitimizes monarchies European changes, sinking their roots in the popular will, kings are no longer sovereigns, but simple rulers, governors who can exercise their power only and if, it is the people who delegate that authority to them. Max Weber in his essay on power he defines several methods of legitimizing power , including popular legitimacy, typical of parliamentary monarchies and republics, and traditional legitimation, which includes absolute monarchies.
These two systems of legitimation are in open contrast to each other, the king is either legitimized by God or by the People, and with the spring of the peoples which ends in 1848, the second system of legitimation replaces itself, in more or less all of Europe. , to traditional legitimation.
However, they still remain bound to the Ancient Regime , the Tsarist empire, whose reigning house, however, is not of the Catholic faith and therefore is not consecrated by the pontiff and the Roman church, and the Ottoman empire, of Islamic faith and whose reigning house, in turn, is not consecrated by the pope and the Roman church and last but not least, the papal state, this time of Roman faith, the only European theocracy, whose King Emperor is the Pope. well she is officially of the Anglican faith and the Queen / King (in this case Queen Victoria) is officially the head of the Anglican church, Victoria is in a sense of the Catholic faith, as is her husband Prince Albert and the British ruling house, although independent from the Roman church, it tends in this historical period to be very close to the Roman church and takes papal opinion into great consideration.
With 1848, history witnesses the decline of the ancient regime, but as is well known, a few hours pass between sunset and the beginning of the night itself, and in these hours the Ancient Regime it continues to exist in Europe through the absolute monarchies of the papal state, the Tsarist and Ottoman empires.
Putting Russia and the Ottoman Empire aside, the Papal State represents, in Europe, the last real bulwark of the Ancient Regime , and this brings us directly to 1870.
In 1870 the papal state fell, was completely canceled and its territories were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy. This event is yes, the final act of Italian unification, as we were taught at school, but as I said, it is much more, because it is also the final act of the Pope's political power in Europe (and outside the europa), is the true final act of the Ancient Regime.
In 1870 Italy, because in 1870 Italy had already existed politically for about a decade, it can afford to declare war on the Papal state, it can afford to attack Rome, breach its walls and even put the Pope to flight, without no repercussions.
In the past, the Pope and the Roman curia had already been attacked and put to flight but, unlike 1848 and the experience of the Roman republic which lasted less than a year because Louis Napoleon Bonaparte , better known as Napoleon III, president of the French republic and founder of the second empire, he had intervened alongside the Pope to free the city and, going even further back and pushing us until the Middle Ages, when a pope was under attack, he was threatened by forces and political currents that were always internal to the Catholic Church who saw in other men the “ true "Papal leadership. In short, in the past the pope had been attacked by high prelates who aspired to replace him with other popes, in this case instead, with the capture of Rome in 1870, the pope is simply cornered, he is kindly asked to sit outside the city of the emperors, from that city that had once been the capital of the whole world.
Someone at this point might be wondering:
Why take Rome in 1870 and not before, why not attack Rome in 1860 and let the Garibaldi army continue well beyond Teano?
The reason is political, but also military and economic, in short, it is complicated.
In 1860, the pope, although very weakened compared to the past, (weakening started after 1848 and ended in the late 1960s of the nineteenth century) he was still very influential and above all, he had many allies and they were allies of the pope, both allies and enemies of the House of Savoy. Rome in 1860 was an ally of Austria, with which the Savoy family were at war, but it was also allied with Spain, with the France of Napoleon III and with the British Empire, and if on the one hand the conflict between the Savoy and the 'Austria-Hungary was perceived abroad as something little bigger than a trivial territorial dispute and, based on what emerged from the Crimean War , in which we recall that the Kingdom of Piedmont had participated alongside France and the United Kingdom, The Kingdom of Piedmont was entitled to reclaim those “ occupied territories "From Austria, and therefore France and the United Kingdom, would not have intervened, or at least not alongside Austria, it must also be said that, for what was happening in Europe and the Mediterranean, France and the United Kingdom in the first place, were in a certain sense in favor of the idea of further weakening the Habsburg Empire.
Otherwise, however, making war on the papal state was much more complicated, it was no longer a territorial dispute in which the Kingdom of Piedmont was entitled to claim territories occupied by a foreign power, and this is because, unlike Austria, the papal state enjoyed the same historical, cultural, political and traditional legitimacy of the kingdom of Piedmont, in exercising their control over the Italian peninsula and over Italy, therefore, the principles that emerged from the Crimean war, which prevented France and the United Kingdom from intruding on the war between Italy and Austria, were not valid in a hypothetical clash between Italy and the Papal State. It should also be said that Queen Victoria in London and Napoleon III in Paris, were on excellent terms with the pontiff and without too many licenses, they had warned the House of Savoy of their possible intervention alongside the pontiff, if Italy, in its unitary process had militarily incorporated the papal state. Militarily specific because a political and peaceful annexation, which would have led to a Federal Italy composed of two or three states, was instead well received by both France and the United Kingdom.
What changed in 1870?
In 1870 everything changed, the balance changed, the alliances changed, the perception of the church changed, the weight of Rome outside the Italian peninsula changed, but above all, the role of Italy in the global asset changed.
Italy during the modern age saw its progressive decentralization, as a result of the shift of trade routes from the Mediterranean to the North Atlantic, Italy was blocked in the Mediterranean, a closed sea, isolated from the rest of the world.
In 1870 this was no longer the case because in the previous year, in 1869, construction work on the Suez Canal had been completed , financed by France and the United Kingdom, and its inauguration was the best thing that could happen to Italy, because it gave Italy a new and renewed centrality in international trade and if on the one hand Suez and Gibraltar had suddenly become, from one day to another of the obligatory passages for anyone wishing to cross the Mediterranean, and go from Europe to Asia, without circumnavigating Africa and avoiding the land passage of the Middle and Near East, on the other side, Italy, with its centrality in the Mediterranean, represented an important commercial hub that would have simplified the influx of goods into Europe, saving days and weeks of navigation, but for this to happen it was necessary that Italy was no longer divided into two states and that, papal state that split the Kingdom of Italy in two, could be incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy.
In this historical context, now devoid of political and military covers, the pope finds himself alone against the kingdom of Italy, which can therefore attack it on two fronts and in a short, very short time, be able to breach the Capitoline walls and take Rome, officially completing that unitary process begun more than 20 years earlier, absurdly, precisely in Rome, in that city where the first unitary requests had arisen and where for the first time, during the unsuccessful republican experience of 48, it was spoken, for the first time in the contemporary age, of Italy as a nation.
Bibliografia
M.Borgogni, La gloria effimera. Forze armate e volontari dalla prima guerra d'indipendenza alla breccia di Porta Pia (1848-1870)
G.Darby, The Unification of Italy by Mr Graham Darby
A.M.Banti, Il risorgimento Italiano
G.Pécout, Il lungo Risorgimento. La nascita dell'Italia contemporanea
G.Calchi Novati, Il canale della discordia. Suez e la politica estera italiana
E.Hobsbawm, Il trionfo della Borghesia
A.M.Banti, L'età contemporanea. Dalle rivoluzioni settecentesche all'imperialismo