Napoleon’s role however was crucial even though he did pull out.
“Whatever his motives for involving himself in Italy it can be argued that without him and him army the Austrians could not have been driven out of Lombardy in 1859.” (Years of Nationalism Cowie and Wolfson)
Thus Napoleon had triggered the unification process. However he did not set up the circumstances, from which the snowball would roll off Garibaldi. summed up the feeling at the time
“Do not forget the gratitude we owe Napoleon III and the French army, so many of whose valiant sons have been killed or maimed for the cause of Italy.”
Therefore we have to understand that Napoleon was a key piece in the puzzle and without him Unification might have not happened in such a short period of time.
Garibaldi would play a crucial role in the unification of the whole of Italy, without him there would probably be two independent states. Garibaldi was born in Nice, which at the time was part of France. He was brought up in the working class and would always remain a “People’s man.” Early on he met Mazzini and so became a republican fighting in the early revolutions for them. Garibaldi learnt to fight and this is what he did best. His impact in the unification process was one of “Doing” rather than “Thinking.”
“He represented the non-intellectual active approach to Italian Unity, a very different approach to that of Cavour” (The Unification Of Italy 1815-70 Andrina Stiles)
In 1859 Northern Italy had been united under the leadership of Cavour and with the assistance of Napoleon’s army. Garibaldi had been in exile in North America when Cavour invited him back to help in the unification of the North. At this point he had no idea that Garibaldi would then go on to unite the whole of Italy. Garibaldi and his men fought hard in the North, when all was over he returned to the south and collected a 1000 men to reclaim his hometown of Nice off the French. He set sail, however he quickly received word that revolts had started in Sicily against the King of Naples. Garibaldi diverted and asked for the help of Piedmont. Cavour however was not interested in the south.
“Cavour was not convinced that an attempt to conquer Sicily was a good idea, and might in any case be beyond Garibaldi’s capabilities to carry out. In addition in Cavour’s opinion Sicily like the rest of the south was too poor and backward to be ready for a takeover by Piedmont.” (The Unification Of Italy 1815-70 Andrina Stiles)
Garibaldi successfully conquered Sicily even though it was occupied by around 25,000 Neapolitan troops. 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. Garibaldi hoists the Italian Tricolour above Sicily to show his loyalty to Victor Emmanuel and also implements Piedmontese law in order to prepare the country for the unification with the North. Garibaldi then moved onto the mainland where he continued with his success. By this time Cavour had realised that something had to be done otherwise there would be a monarchical North and a Republican South, which would result in disruption and possible European intervention. 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.”
(Cavour Denis Mack Smith 1985)
In other words he was a man of action and was waiting for an opportunity to have some and get his name in the history books. He therefore wanted an accomplishment, which would bring him alongside his father. When the Crimean war broke out in 1853 a perfect opportunity was granted. Victor Emmanuel offered the British, French and Turkish alliance a force of 18,000 men to assist the cause, this was accepted and in return Piedmont was given a seat at the negotiating table (The treaty of Paris).
This is the limit to the king’s involvement as Cavour then operates as the negotiator.
“Perhaps because It was generally believed that he alone had defied the Austrians and maintained the constitution in 1849 the king has been given a place with the other “Heroes”. “(Andrina Stiles in The Unification of Italy 1815-70) on why Victor Emmanuel II was given such a large place in the history books.
Victor Emmanuel was therefore limited in his role in the unification however without him there would not have been a figurehead to which the people could look 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. He had the authority and prestige of a monarch to go about this.
Cavour was unlike Garibaldi born as an Aristocrat, he we an intellect and a man of great knowledge he was to prove to be the leading figure in preparing Piedmont for the unification of Italy. Cavour was born in 1811 into a well off family; particularly rebellious he was sent into the army where he spent a lot of his younger days reading. He left the army and in 1847 sent up his own publication “Il Risorgimento” used to talk about future ideas for the country. He became involved in politics and in 1852 became Prime Minister of Piedmont.
Cavour had seen how the previous revolutions had failed and was adamant about a number of points, which had to be improved before successful unification would take, place.
“There was, however no strong communal feeling throughout the peninsula.”
“People from North and South, from town and countryside, might be as foreigners to each other when they met. Moreover events since 1815 had shown that the great majority of the people had no interest in either self-government or national unification.” (Years of Nationalism Cowie and Wolfson)
These two quotes describe the situation in 1852, what no-one would believe is that within 9 years Cavour had modified the state of Piedmont enough so that it could lead the process of unification. The states were a mess and Cavour united them in their search for a unified Italy.
One of the biggest problems in the earlier revolutions was that there had been no natural leader to lead the states in unification, someone for the people to look towards. Cavour provided them this, he naturally appealed to the people with his charismatic approach to the people. Cavour then went about implementing reforms, which he saw as necessary to happen if any unification was to happen. These were to improve the government system, improve the economy and receive foreign support. Cavour then went about these points tackling them one by one. He implemented many liberal reforms, which were unheard of and not necessarily popular. He gained support from France by negotiating with them after the Crimean war and won their support for unification and he built up industry and commerce strengthening the economy.
“Cavour’s most important contribution to the liberation of Italy was that he was able to place the “Italian Question” firmly into the general context of European diplomacy.” (
All the pieces were now set for unification to go about. We have so far looked at what each figure did in their role in the unification, what we have to take into account when answering the question is that without Cavour most of the opportunities would have not presented themselves to these characters. Napoleon would not have had a role if Cavour had not brought him in to help with unification.
Cavour successfully led Piedmont in the unification of the North, with the help of Napoleon’s army. Cavour had decided that he did not want to bring the South into the unification process yet because he feared European intervention, the South’s poor economy and Cavour feared the cult status of Garibaldi. However after the efforts of Garibaldi, Cavour was forced to intervene accepting that some kind of unification would have to happen. 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.