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

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

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Contrast The Contribution Made By Mazzini, Cavour The unification of Italy was a complicated process that started from the 1790s and lasted until the conquest of Rome by the Italian troops in 1871. The Napoleonic Era, however, did not forecast such an outcome of things: at the beginning of the XIX century Italy consisted of separate states that were ruled first by the French, then by the Austrians who did not think about the unity. The 1820s and 1830s signalized the urging need of Italy to change ? people missed the partial freedom that Napoleon gave them and wanted to participate in governing, which was impossible as long as Austria held so much influence within the peninsula. The revolutions of 1820-1 (Piedmont) and 1831-2 (Papal States) showed the citizens that a change is possible. The revolution of 1848 and 1849 gave more hope to the Italian patriots all over the country, for they saw that Milan was able to hold back Austria for some time and for Piedmont was beginning to gain the position of a leader within the States. The shrewd policies of the Piedmontese government and the significant conquests at the South of the Peninsula led to the creation of The Kingdom of Italy in 1861 and then connection of Rome and Venetia. ...read more.

Middle

After 1849 he supported Garibaldi in his attempts to conquer Rome but his role in the unification was coming to the end. The contribution made by Giuseppe Garibaldi was a military one. He engaged himself into the Unification in 1833 when he joined the Young Italy inspired by the idea of an united Italian state. As Mazzini, after the failure in Piedmont in 1834 he escaped to South America. What s important, the time spent by Garibaldi in America was not a wasted period: he learned how to fight at the land, because before, due to his marine origins, he was used to fight on a ship. Like Mazzini, he also gained an important political feature that was recognition in America. When he heard of the planned revolutions during the Spring of Nations, he came back to his motherland with a guerilla called the Red Shirts and helped Mazzini with defending Rome. The actions of Garibaldi were not successful, due to the fact that he was not fully educated in terms of militia and war and once again he fled to America to come back in 1854 and take part in an Austro-Piedmontese war. ...read more.

Conclusion

He even had a conflict with Mazzini: they both disliked each other and did not try to understand the other?s position. He stood in opposition to the figures of nationalists and their ideas. When it came to military actions, Cavour was not taking part with them, he only planned them and as a Prime Minister did accept some military decisions or did not ? for example the decision of taking part in the Crimean War. As a long and complicated process, the Unification of Italy needed the devotion of many people, but it was also in need of leaders that would make the right decision at the right time and be aware of the consequences. Although the contribution made by Garibaldi, Mazzini and Cavour were not equal, together they built an important base for the future of a united Italy. They actions were often ambiguous, but each one of them was the most important person in one field: Mazzini ideologically, spreading the spirit of nationalism all over the country and making attempts to unite the state; Garibaldi militarily, defending Rome, conquering the South and showing the people that victory is not possible; Cavour politically, rationally planning every step of Piedmont and giving up his aims for the greater good. ...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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

This is a knowledgeable response which devotes equal weighting to each of the three figures and uses comparison to explore their strengths. There is a strong amount of detail throughout, although sometimes the author's points are weakened by poor grammar; proof-reading is essential. 4 out of 5 stars.

Marked by teacher Natalya Luck 22/05/2013

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

    Assess the successes and failures of Mussolini's domestic policy.

    5 star(s)

    It provided entertainment such as cheap holidays, public libraries, free lecture, and theatres much appreciated by the industrious working-class. Major sports were also used to project an image of superiority onto the world; Italy won both the World Cups in 1934 and 1938, and Primo Carrera was World Heavy Weight

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that Napoleons Empire ...

    5 star(s)

    Showing that both interpretations have the same view of Napoleon only benefiting subject states in order to increase their wealth and therefore taxation or ability to supply troops. Which interpretation C also describes, ?Indeed one can... had not struck deep roots? the more useful the nation was to Napoleon; the further it was amalgamated into the Empire.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Major Causes of French Revolution

    4 star(s)

    led to the sudden and violent breakthrough of the forces of change and to the overthrow of the old regime of privilege and inequality in the most powerful state in Europe. France having stretched its resources in the war, was left financial crippled and this was the first flames of revolution in France.

  2. Did napoleon betray the Revolution?

    The old letters de cachets were reintroduced to deny trials to extreme political offenders. Napoleon also betrayed the revolution in reintroducing Roman law, which portrayed the ideal that women "should stick to knitting", which went against the equality which was a main factor in the revolution.

  1. What impact did war have on the French Revolution 1789-1799?

    This made the Revolution much more violent and dramatic, and it became extremely radical. Greater centralisation was put into place after the attempts made at decentralisation by the Assembly 1789-1791, and government authority was much stronger than ever before. The effective power in France was moved to Paris inside the CPS, and the power of Paris increased.

  2. To what extent had Napoleon betrayed the French Revolution in his domestic policy by ...

    However, this did take away more power from the people, including black people, as Slavery was reintroduced. Even though other countries had slaves and it was seen as normal, the concept of Slavery in itself is the greatest way of taking the rights of man away.

  1. To what extent was Napoleon an enlightened despot?

    D.G Wright comments, "In this way, Napoleon rules from above, with only those loyal to him in positions of influence..." Wright is saying that Napoleon was keeping total power by only having those who were devoted to him making decisions of any magnitude.

  2. How Successful was Napoleon III's Domestic Policy?

    It was in fact the work of Baron H that truly showed rapid advancements in France, After the works on Paris, one could truly say that there was a new modernised France under Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, the rebuilding of Paris was a remarkable achievement which added greatly to the stature of

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