Conclusion
Angioy failed in his effort to reform and change the social and economic structure of Sardinia, despite enjoying a great support initially. With hindsight, his views were probably too radical and too advanced for the times and the context where he was acting. On the one hand, the Sardinian nobility that started the revolt was not interested in implementing any real change to the economic and social structure, as they were mainly interested in being allowed to have a share of the power. As a matter of fact, some decades later the "five requests" were issued, the House of Savoy eventually agreed to some of these requests but the Sardinian nobility gathered their parliament, the Stamenti, to decline the concessions offered by the House of Savoy: in fact, by that time the Sardinian nobility was being given an increasing role in the administration of Sardinia and had thus reached their goal already. On the other hand, the Sardinian people were too suspicious of the radical changes and ideas that Angioy expressed: certainly the excess of the French Revolution, contemporary to the Sardinian events, were driving many potential sympathisers away. Throughout the events that shaped the history of Sardinia, Angioy demonstrated a high sense of duty and willingness to work for improving the conditions of the people in Sardinia.
|
| Persondata | |
|---|---|
| Name | Angioy, Giovanni Maria |
| Alternative names | |
| Short description | |
| Date of birth | 21 October 1751 |
| Place of birth | |
| Date of death | 22 February 1808 |
| Place of death | |
Read more about this topic: Giovanni Maria Angioy
Famous quotes containing the word conclusion:
“I have come to the conclusion that the closer people are to what may be called the front lines of government ... the easier it is to see the immediate underbrush, the individual tree trunks of the moment, and to forget the nobility the usefulness and the wide extent of the forest itself.... They forget that politics after all is only an instrument through which to achieve Government.”
—Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)
“We must not leap to the fatalistic conclusion that we are stuck with the conceptual scheme that we grew up in. We can change it, bit by bit, plank by plank, though meanwhile there is nothing to carry us along but the evolving conceptual scheme itself. The philosopher’s task was well compared by Neurath to that of a mariner who must rebuild his ship on the open sea.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)