How far do you agree that Garibaldi played a more important part than Cavour in the Unification of Italy? Garibaldi and Cavour were two very influential people in the unification for Italy and without them the unification may not have occurred. Although they both ultimately wanted the same thing, the unification of Italy, they went about it in different ways.
Cavour was a highly intellectual man, who orchestrated things from a political stand point ensuring good relations with countries like France, of which without the unification may never have succeeded.Garibaldi on the other hand was more of people’s person, a leader of men who was very direct and his actions such as the taking of Naples and Sicily allowed Italy to unite properly and not remain just an extended Piedmont. Cavour’s main contribution to the unification of Italy would probably be the fact he had gotten France and Napoleon on side and without this it is very doubtful that the Risorgimento would have succeeded. Cavour did this through politics and this also got Italy recognised at a world stage, gaining a seat the peace conference held in Paris after the Crimean war held in 1856.This conference allowed Cavour to become friends with Napoleon, and this was a very important part in the unification of Italy as it would foreshadow things to come. However how much Cavour wanted Piedmont to enter the war is questionable and was probably more down to Victor Emmanuel.
Cavour’s role as Prime minister was very important as it allowed him to make these ties with France and show his political cunningness, e. g. at the meeting in Plombieres where he gained the support of France against Austria.It also allowed him to act through the king Victor Emmanuel, and while Cavour himself wasn’t such a popular public figure he could ensure the King was by writing such speeches for him as the ‘Grido di dolore’ something which became a catch phrase amongst Italian people. Possibly it was best for Cavour that he wasn’t such a hero in the eyes of the public as he needed the king to be the one for the people to believe in as this would be the person to ultimately rule Italy, so Cavour was very clever in sidestepping the limelight.
This is one area where he differed from Garibaldi, as there was a point where Garibaldi’s popularity threatened the Risorgimento itself. However there is no doubting that Cavour was a brilliant politician and improved Piedmont as a whole, making them modernised and by doing this it may have created the possibility of Piedmont being a viable ally to France in Napoleons eyes. He also stirred up anti-Austrian beliefs in Piedmont and this helped make the state rally as a whole.If there is one downfall of Cavour it is the fact that most of what he done was for Piedmont, and seemed to rather extend Piedmont than make a united Italy, he perhaps could not appeal to the impoverished states of the south. So in terms of looking at things as a whole his impact was limited and although he made Piedmont very powerful in terms of uniting the whole of Italy it is questionable just how important he was.
But without him there wouldn’t have been a friendship with France that ultimately allowed Austria to be driven out, and without this unification wouldn’t have been possible. Garibaldi on the other hand made his fame more through military exploits, showing himself to be a great military leader and creating an image in the Italian people’s mind of a true hero in which everyone could get behind. He appealed to the people especially that of the south through his rough upbringing which many people could relate to and is one of the things that made him so likeable.Another thing which shows the significance of Garibaldi in the Italian unification was the fact he had been there since the Roman Republic and this is where his legacy had begun, by the way his wife had died but he carried on, gave hope to many Italians and installed the sort of belief that would allow them stand against Austria in the future. But more than anything the most important thing that Garibaldi had done was the taking over of the southern states, as without this Italy would not have been able to unite as truly unified country.
Even though his impatience could have led to disastrous consequences in other scenarios his talent as a military leader and his ability to galvanise the troops led to an unexpected success. Without Garibaldi it is doubtful that the army would have succeeded against the 20,000 strong army; his leadership skills and tactics in war were vital, as well as his popularity to gain more support combining to achieve victory.This victory allowed the further acquisition of Naples, and at the end he showed that he remained loyal to Victor Emmanuel by simply handing over the states. This was key as at this point a joining with the south didn’t look likely and Garibaldi’s directness allowed this to happen. However Garibaldi’s weakness was also his directness, and he could have made many vital mistakes which would have set the unifications backwards such as his plan to take back Nice, even though it was under French control which would have upset them and perhaps lost them as an ally.He was also only able to show significance through his doings on the battlefield, and not politically, and so was not able to show any significance here.
His background and upbringing probably would have limited him here. Another thing to mention is that Garibaldi’s own popularity could have got in the way as people may have wanted him as a leader rather than Victor Emmanuel; however he did show his loyalty ensuring it wouldn’t get in the way of the revolution.So although Garibaldi sped up the Risorgimento he didn’t have as great of an importance as some might think. Overall the decision on who was more important is a contentious one, while Garibaldi did his talking on the battlefield, Cavour battled on the Political front opting for a more diplomatic approach than his counter-part. However looking at the situation as a whole, Cavour was probably more influential and important even if it wasn’t in the people’s eyes.
His acquisition of France as an ally played a huge part in dismissing Austria and without this Garibaldi couldn’t achieve his most influential action of uniting the north and the south. For the unification to happen as quickly as it did, they needed both men, but for the possibility of it even occurring, Cavour was vital, using Victor Emmanuel he managed the people in Piedmont together as one. Although the south may have not joined, there is a possibility this would have happened anyways as time progressed and the south, became more modernised.However Garibaldi was the one who swung the views of the people of Naples and Sicily to join Piedmont which they were reluctant to do.
However Garibaldi could have had a detrimental effect had he attacked Rome or Nice, and it was Cavour’s diplomacy and practicality that perhaps even stopped Garibaldi. If Victor Emmanuel was almost a puppet of Cavour and Garibaldi was loyal to him Cavour could almost control Garibaldi like he did when he stopped him marching into Rome. I feel that the Italians needed Cavour more than they needed Garibaldi.
