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 Cavour convinced himself and that he could rely on Britain’s support. Clarendon the British foreign minister distanced himself from Cavour who was never trusted by the British to such an extent.
At the Plombiers meeting between Cavour and Napoleon III in 1858, Cavour’s aims for Piedmont and became clear, to gain Lombardy and Venetia although the views of whether he attempted unification or expansion still cause disagreement. The annexation of Niece and Savoy and only gaining Lombardy and Venetia seemed to imply that he was more interested in expansion than unification. The Plombiers agreement confirms this theory of expansion. Piedmont would provoke a war with Austria and France would come to Piedmont’s aid with 200,000 troops then Italy would be divided into four. It appeared that Cavour was satisfied with this agreement showing that neither he nor Napoleon III wanted unification. In fact Napoleon may not have been willing to help if Italy wanted unification as, it would have been a threat on his borders.
The two battles at Magenta and Solferino resulted in Piedmont gaining Lombardy. At this time Cavour took advantage of the revolutions in central Italy and Austria’s inability to react to send in the Piedmontese army and set up provisional governments. Napoleon III obviously worried about these events and the opinion of the French public signed an armistice at Villafranca. Cavour was furious and resigned knowing he could not continue the war without Frances help.
The unification of Italy came a step closer in 1860 when in Tuscany, Parma, Modena and the Papal States the popular mood was unhappy and many states wanted union with Piedmont. Cavour offered Napoleon Nice and Savoy in return for the states of Central Italy. Napoleon was unsure if he could trust Cavour, who had tried to gain central Italy before and failed. The plebiscites were held and showed that an overwhelming majority wanted union with Piedmont.
There is evidence that suggests that Cavour was content to leave Italy in this stage, as he saw no benefit in uniting the south of Italy. Yet the united kingdom of Italy was proclaimed in March 1861 after the Plebiscites in which Sicily and Naples voted for union with Piedmont and Garabaldi’s relinquishment of his victories at Teano to Victor Emmanuel. It is unclear if Cavour was against Garabaldi’s expedition to Sicily and later, Naples. Although it does appear that at some stage he realised that the unification was inevitable.
Cavour was desperate to stop the creation of a rival southern state and wanting to ensure that Garabaldi would not receive the credit for the unification of Italy. After failing in his weak attempt to stop Garabaldi from crossing the Tyrrhenian Sea Cavour chose the risky tactic of invading the Papal States, which could have allowed foreign intervention, to “protect” them from Garabaldi therefore blocking his army. This prompted the historian G M Trevelyan to call it “the crowning act of Cavour’s life and the greatest example of his political genius.”
Cavour did play a role in the unification of Italy although he had seen it as realistic when he first became Prime Minister. Cavour knew he could not remove Austria from Italy without the help of a major power. Although he lost Nice and Savoy he gained France’s help (much to Mazzini’s displeasure who believed only Italians should unite Italy, but he was an idealist.) It was only after the taking of Central Italy in 1860 that unification appeared conceivable. However Cavour was prompted into action by Garabaldi’s actions in the south, the result was a “kingdom of Italy. Cavour died in 1861 so he did not live to see the final unification of Italy when Venetia and Rome were added in 1866 and 1870, but he did play an important role in Italy’s unification.
In conclusion to call him the architect of modern Italy would be too extreme as without Garabaldi’s actions in the south it is doubtful whether he would have created the kingdom. Cavour can be viewed as the architect of Italy, an opportunist or even a Piedmontese expansionist. The contribution that Cavour made is still debated over as knew evidence is examined, but I believe that the view of Arthur Whyte is too biased as without the contribution made be others the unification of Italy may not have occurred.
