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

Who was more responsible for the success of Italian Unification up to 1861? Cavour, Garibaldi, Victor Emmanuel or Napoleon.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Who was more responsible for the success of Italian Unification up to 1861? Cavour, Garibaldi, Victor Emmanuel or Napoleon. After the numerous failures of the revolutions, leading up to 1860 the many leaders had eventually made enough compromises and reforms so that unification could go ahead. Each leader had their own impact on the eventual success and all to an extent were needed for the decisions and actions, which they made. The unification of the North marked a significant event, which would lead to the unification of the whole of Italy. Cavour leading Piedmont had implemented many reforms and instigated the unification through Piedmont which being the most prosperous state was the state, which had to lead. The south as far as we know without Garibaldi will not have been unified with the North. Victor Emmanuel was the figurehead of the state of Piedmont, although not the man pulling the strings he was the man to be seen as leading the process, a poster boy rather than someone whose actions actually had an influence. Napoleon was crucial in the early stages of unification where his much superior army was required to oust the Austrian army, later though he was not to play such a significant role. ...read more.

Middle

Cavour therefore sent his army to stop the revolutions, the two sides met and peace was brokered with Garibaldi greeting Victor Emmanuel as "I salute the first King of Italy." Garibaldi was not the most important figure in the beginnings of the unification of the North and during the actual process. He was a fighter not a organizer, however without him the revolutions of the Southern states would not have begun and the intervention of Cavour would not have happened resulting in the unification of both North and South. Therefore Garibaldi we could say was the key player in the final unification of the whole kingdom. Victor Emmanuel II succeeded from, his father Charles Albert in 1840. He followed on from a father who had been a prominent figure in the attempted revolutions of 1848 and before. Unfortunately Victor Emmanuel was not to live up to his father's footsteps. His role was that of a figurehead, never really getting involved in politics, his only role was to be seen as the future King of Italy. Saying that though he did have a contributory role in which would trigger a snowball effect in the process of receiving foreign support. The King was said to be "Always happiest in either the barracks, the stables or the hunting field." ...read more.

Conclusion

The result was that in the end the whole of Italy was united. It was not as Cavour had wanted it to be "Cavour however envisaged only an enlarged Piedmont, which would include Lombardy and Venetia." However Cavour was willing to adapt and this shows his content for the unification. If we look at Cavour's role we can see that without him the circumstances for unification would not have evolved and unification may not have happened. A quote from the English poet George Meredith sums up the achievements of the leaders; "We think of those Who blew the breath of life into her frame: Cavour, Mazzini, Garibaldi: Three: Her Brain, her soul, her sword; and set her free From Ruinous discords." In summary if we look at the different figures and their achievements Cavour set up the Piedmont to lead the unification, Napoleon helped defeat the Austrians, Victor Emmanuel acted as the much-needed figurehead and Garibaldi brought the South into the equation. Therefore in essence each one needed each other as much as themselves, without one the process would not have worked. However saying that it is clear that Cavour stands out amongst the rest. Without Cavour many of the circumstances, which enabled the other leaders to come into play would not have been set up. Cavour organized and then led Piedmont to establish the lead state for the unification process. Joshua Heugh ...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)

    Because of being a revolutionary, he was arrested in 1831. The events that strongly influenced a great part of his youth created a great patriot in him and awoke the thoughts of the Unification. He clearly did not trust the government to introduce any changes and believed that the Italian

  2. Reasons for Napoleon's Success (to 1807).

    to keep Britain out of the Baltic. * Although the assassination of the Tsar in march 801 and Nelson's bombardment of Copenhagen the following month brought the League to a speedy end, the new Tsar, Alexander I, despite his anti-French sympathies, showed no signs of wishing to form an Anglo-Russian alliance.

  1. What were the obstacles to German Unification immediatly before the 1848 Revolutions

    It would be easily to say that because every state was part of the Bund, Germany was partially united, this is simply not true because the Bund made Austria the guardian of the German states and it was not an assembly to govern Germany.

  2. To what extent did Italian Unification owe its success to international aid?

    Instead he wished for a federated Italy with an enlarged Piedmont in the north acting as a benevolent ally: a united Italy was rejected as it could act as a threat to France. Also, Napoleon abandoned Italy during the war with Austria and left Cavour and Garibaldi to unite Italy by themselves.

  1. Did The Legacy Of The 1848 Revolutions Play a Major Role In The Eventual ...

    This led to Cavour striving to gain an ally. This encouraged him to join the Crimean War and eventually sign an alliance with France. Unification could not have happened without the revolutions, as Cavour and Piedmont would not have the international role that they developed and they would not have been able to make unification an international issue.

  2. Why did the early revolutions fail to unite Italy?

    Without a leader the revolutionaries had little time to organise before Francis came back in to the state and in the end, strong forces were taken by the Duke to stamp out the ?flame of rebellion? amongst the people. For many revolutions there was a clear lack of outside and popular support.

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

    The question on which I am writing this essay specifically asks me to focus on whether Cavour was the most significant contributor to Italian unification and acted as a sole, coherent, energy behind a period of long-term planning that would bring about Italian unification.

  2. To what extent was Austria responsible for the failures of the Italian revolutions in ...

    much force by Austria was due to their need to keep Italy divided, so that Austria ? and only Austria ? could be the dominating power. One of the main ways that Austria ensured Italy remained in its Empire was by using military force to put down the revolutions and keeping control.

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