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

The aims and methods of Cavour were completely different from those of Mazzini. How far do you agree with this judgement?

Extracts from this document...


Sue May S04 ?The aims and methods of Cavour were completely different from those of Mazzini.? How far do you agree with this judgement? Both Cavour and Mazzini have one main thing in common and that is their crucial contribution to the unification of Italy. However, both had had different aims and methods while undergoing this process. The first main difference was the difference in their aims. Mazzini had always been a supporter of the republican form of government and that Italy was to be ruled by a central Government that was democratically elected. He regarded a republic as the only form of government that was consistent with the dignity of the people. Cavour always believed that Italy should be ruled by a monarchy government with a parliament with Victor Emmanuel II as king. ...read more.


In this act, he only wanted to unify the Northern states under piedmonts rule. He was also willing to surrender nice and savoy for this which was something Mazzini would not even contemplate on. Next difference was through their methods. Cavour carried pragmatic reforms while Mazzini through Romanticism. Cavour brought about economic, industrial, military and political reforms. For example, he prepared Piedmont for war through the reorganisation of the army, increased the military resources and the building of railways. Mazzini contributed to the unification with a completely different method. He influenced people through his writing of poems and articles. The only limitation to this was that it only reached the middle and higher class who were literate. ...read more.


Mazzini didn?t prefer diplomacy as much. He called for a unified Italy by the efforts of Italians. He formed the Young Italy. The short-lived ?Roman Republic? episode and the Republic of St. Marks are examples of Mazzini?s use of revolutions. However, although there were difference in their aims and methods, they do share similarities of aims and methods. Both did try to expel external influence, Cavour through diplomacy but Mazzini through revolutions. Also, the Plombieres pact could be deemed a disguise. After all, Cavour was supporting Garibaldi underground through the National Committee. This was also in spite of him stopping the formation of a republic, whereas he wanted a constitutional monarchy. Towards the end, Cavour decided to go forth with complete unification seeing Garibaldi?s achievements, akin to Mazzini?s intentions. As a conclusion, although both had very different aims and methods, they finally had the same aim and that was to unify Italy. ...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)

    When it comes to ideology, the contribution of Garibaldi is great, because even though his actions concentrated on a military steps, the conquests that were achieved due to him and his Thousand gave people hope and made him a symbol of the Unification up to now.

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

    Cavour and Garibaldi also had different ideas regarding the form of government that would rule Italy once it had been created. Cavour favoured the rule of King Victor Emmanuel II (because of Cavour's monarchist leanings and the fact that he knew how to manipulate Victor Emmanuel for his own benefit), but Garibaldi suggested a Republican state.

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

    towards and so recent historians have been inclined to believe that his only real claim to fame is that he happened to be there at the right time to be the figurehead for Italian nationalism and after, unification of the new Kingdom of Italy as well.

  2. Compare and contrast Cavour and Garibaldi's contributions to 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. "In all that he did, his main aim was to secure himself in power." ...

    Due to the dictatorial style of this policy, it is obvious Napoleon was trying to ensure security in power and establish himself as leader without immediate opposition or objection from minority groups and the general public by repressing anyone opposed to the regime.

  2. How far do you agree that Cavour made the most significant contribution to Italian ...

    helped implement the modernisation of Piedmont such as the construction of a railway, improved infrastructure, a stabilized economy, raised money for possible wars and strengthened Sicily. This gave Piedmont the chance to rise up and eject Austrian power from Italy which was essential to a unified Italy.

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