Antonio Gramsci, the martyred leader of Italian Communism, provided a clue to this disharmony when he wrote in the early 1930's that the very quantity of interpretations of the Risorgimento was an indication of the "inconsistency and gelatinousness" of the movement itself-of the inner weaknesses of the forces which brought the movement to a successful conclusion and the tenuousness of objectively "national" elements that provide the basic material for the historian. For him, most of these interpretations were "immediate and ideological, not historical.
Nineteenth century movement for Italian unification inspired by the realities of the new economic and political forces at work after 1815, the liberal and nationalist ideologies spawned by the
…show more content…
For many Italians, however, Risorgimento meant more than political unity. It described a movement for the renewal of Italian society and people beyond purely political aims. Among Italian patriots the common denominator was a desire for freedom from foreign control, liberalism, and constitutionalism. They agreed on the need for unity among the various states and for constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and rights. They disagreed, however, on whether such unity should be under a confederation or a centralized form of government. There was further disagreement on whether a united Italy should be a republic or a monarchy. It was on these issues that endeavors to mesh the revolutionary initiatives of 1848-49 foundered. Radicals distrusted moderates, unitarians and federalists disagreed, republicans condemned monarchists. Such distrust and disagreement undermined attempts to create an Italian Legion, or common army, to agree on a preliminary constitution applicable to all parts of Italy, and above all to present a united front against their common enemies, embodied in the Austrian armies under Marshal Radetzky. The