• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Cavour put himself first while Garibaldi put Italy first" - Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Cavour put himself first while Garibaldi put Italy first." Discuss. This statement is true to a great extent. Italy finally unified at 1870. Cavour and Garibaldi were two of the main leading figure during the unification movement. Although they have the common aim in unifying Italy, they supported different principles. Cavour put himself first while Garibaldi put Italy first. Cavour was the chief architect of the unification movement. He came from well family with good education. He has the chance to travel to many other countries and learned how other countries run and administrate efficiently. He was the Minister of Commercial and Agriculture, Minister of Navy and Finance and also the Prime minister of Piedmont in 1852. Therefore he has much administrative experience. Different from Garibaldi, Cavour favored of constitutional monarchy and wanted to unite Italy under Piedmont Sardinia's leadership. He supported the idea of asking foreign help. After the uprisings during the 1848 failed, he realized that Piedmont was not powerful enough to unify by themselves. They need foreign aid and better military support. Therefore he turned to France and asked for help and joined the Crimean war in 1854, which made the great powers knew about Italy's problems. In his plan of unification, he wanted to get back Lombardy and Venetia from Austria. ...read more.

Middle

He believed in peace and stability. He did not agree with Garibaldi's conquest in the South. When Garibaldi was getting more powerful and influential after the success in the conquest of the Two Sicilies, Cavour became jealous and fear. Firstly, because if Garibaldi gained power, he might make Italy a Republic based on a system of universal suffrage and spoilt Cavour's dream of uniting Italy under Piedmont leadership. Piedmontization was more what he wanted. Secondly, it might be threatened with the lost of Napoleon III's support, with a renewal of war with Austria, and if the war endangered the pope, it might led to some sort of general European intervention. Therefore, Cavour needed to stop Garibaldi's invasion in Rome and Papal State. Thirdly, if Garibaldi succeeded in Sicily it seemed likely that Radicalism would go on to sweep Naples and the Papal Stated and threaten to divide Italy between a Radical republican south and Liberal monarchial north. He did not help Garibaldi in the conquest of the Two Sicilies in order to get him out of the way and in the hope that failure would ruin the radicals once and for all, as he could not openly opposed Garibaldi as this might arose the opposition of the nationalists. ...read more.

Conclusion

After all the conquests, Garibaldi was a loyal and patriotic servant who put Italy first. He knew that his power was not big enough to really united Italy into a Republic. If he went on to attack Rome, Cavour who supported constitutional monarchy would opposed to it and might lead to a Civil War between Garibaldi and Piedmont Sardinia in the future as they supported different political systems. He accepted advise of Cavour and did not attack Rome. By this, Italy avoid direct confrontation with France. He also retired after this incident, at the climax of his career. Handed his lands which he conquered earlier to Victor Emmanuel and retired to become a farmer in a lonely inland. He did this was just because he put Italy first. He did not want to see Italy weaken because of a civil war. Also wanted to prevent direct conflicts with Cavour. To him, as long as Italy could be unified and strong , it was not a matter that Italy became a Republic or constitutional monarchy. In conclusion, Garibaldi was really a hero, as he fought for Italy but not for himself and was not power-minded. Although Cavour put himself first, and did not aimed at unifying Italy as a whole, he did really helped in this movement. Without his plan and advise, Italy might not be unified successfully. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Contrast The Contribution Made By Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi to Italian Unification

    4 star(s)

    What is worth noticing in Garibaldi is that unlike Mazzini he never gave up and was prone to go for a compromise and fought for the united Italy, not for a vision. A great example of such a political compromise is the fact that at Teano on 18th of February

  2. Who was more responsible for the success of Italian Unification up to 1861? Cavour, ...

    This is largely though to be because the Neapolitan's believed that Garibaldi was in fact the British as there were several British ships around the island. Although this is believed to be a coincidence some believe the British did it deliberately to ward off any aggressors against Garibaldi.

  1. Goebbels was more influential than Himmler. Discuss

    Being the head of the SS was a very important role in the Third Reich. This is because although Goebbels may have had the use of propaganda perfected it was Himmler with the help of the SS and the base in Bavaria extended his control as a political police of

  2. Compare & Contrast Cavour & Garibaldi's Contributions to the Unification.

    He was not as careful in his planning as Cavour, and relied mainly on his military instinct, whereas Cavour, being highly intellectual, used his talent as a persuasive natural political leader to great effect. Cavour and Garibaldi were also very different regarding the attitude towards foreign intervention in unifying Italy.

  1. Facist Italy by John Whittam - review

    Rather, Fascism was anti-capitalist, anti-Marxist, and anti-intellectual. Fascism was considered a party of action and mass political movement. Fascism represented action. The movement was considered revolutionary because it was a complete overthrow of traditional society. The main emphasis was placed on nationalism; the belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, stressing national rather than international goals.

  2. Compare and contrast Cavour and Garibaldi's contributions to Unification.

    Essentially, Cavour was a conservative and an opponent of Mazzinian views. He was also a liberal in many respects and a socialist opposer.

  1. Fascist Italy

    OBEY! FIGHT!" painted on walls. Newspapers and radio were controlled by the MINCULPOP who insisted that editorials and news stories reflected their views and passing whims. Reporters were instructed on what to omit, what to highlight and even what photographs to use.

  2. How accurate would it be to describe Cavour as the architect of Italy?

    The result of the Crimean war was that Cavour gained a seat at the peace congress in Paris where he gained support from Britain by, as Arthur Whyte said humiliated Austria and weaned Britain from her traditional ally Austria. Yet other historians such as Dennis Mack Smith would say that

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work