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

To what extent does Cavour deserve his reputation as the architect of Italian Unification?

Extracts from this document...


Adam Wright Monday 17th February 2003 To what extent does Cavour deserve his reputation as the architect of Italian Unification? Plan Intro Line of argument-Hypothesis Explore question, architect, reputation etc? Reference to historical authorities Signals Direction Yes Foreign policy Successful diplomacy Public statement No Falsifications of evidence to "make Italians" The extent of Cavour's role in the process that finally brought about Italian Unification is much debated among modern historians. Many notable contemporary historians have their own school of thought on the extent of Cavour's role in Italian unification. Opinions range from the likes of Mack smith who powerfully believe that Cavour had little impact on Italian amalgamation to historians such as Derek Beales who believe Cavour's impact on Italian Unification was significant. The question on which I am writing this essay specifically asks me to focus on whether Cavour was the sole, coherent, energy behind a period of long-term planning that would bring about Italian unification. Ultimately Cavour was neither the above, nor anything near this but he was the sole provider of a unique set of catalyst that allowed a unified Italian Nation to become a reality not an idea held dear by a small number of mainly rich upper class radical thinkers. Cavour's foreign policy certainly raised the status of Piedmont on an international stage. ...read more.


The aim of this governmental scheme was to tie together all of the loose threads that would have to make Italy. Italians needed more in the history of unification than there really was. Italians needed to believe that unification came from a gradual rise in the Risorgimento, an alternative history based on Piemontese expansion would be damaging to the young, culturally divided country. This mass cover-up is instrumental in understanding if Cavour deserves his almost mystical reputation as the architect of Italian unification. This cover up leads me to believe that there were many documented occasions when Cavour did not fully back Italian unification that for the sake of unification needed to be 'altered'. It is true that Cavour did make several references to the state of Italy under Austria in his publication 'il risorgimento' that was published for the first time under Charles Albert. This was never a publication with Italian unification as its theme neither was it ever seriously discussed within its pages. So in the 1830's it is secure postulation that Cavour didn't harbour any nationalistic desires. So in a long-term perspective Cavour was not a committed nationalist from an early age. Cavour at several points in the 1850's describes Italian unification as manifestly "rubbish" (Stile p46). ...read more.


The above sources prove this part of my hypothesis. In relation to the essay question the above sources inform the modern historian that Cavour had neither any long term plans, by this I mean beliefs, desires and plans held dear fro a period of decades, or short term plans, in the years building to the activities at Plombieres. I am positive that Cavour did not harbour any long-term desire to unite the whole of the Italian peninsula. A number of sources taken from different points in Cavour's time before and during the time he held a position of power indicate that he certainly did not have the detailed planning which would require the title and reputation as an 'architect of Italian unification.' Cavour's attitude to Italian unification whenever it appears to be positive was merely a veil for his main, and well-planned objective, thus being Piemontese expansion. Older historians such as AJ Whyte believe that Cavour was following a 'master plan' to Italian unification are in light new analysis and evidence incorrect. Cavour's support of the ceding of Savoy and Nice against the wishes of Victor Emmanuel indicates that Cavour was not really a committed Italian Nationalist nor the true architect of Italian Unity. Ultimately Cavour "considered unification of the entire peninsular neither possible or desirable" and chose not to work towards an unified Italy using his immense political and diplomatic skills. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE International relations 1900-1939 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 GCSE International relations 1900-1939 essays

  1. How and why did Piedmont-Sardinia play an important part in Italian Unification

    Following this, Sardinia sent a delegation to Piedmont asking for similar treatment and reforms and to be a part of the customs league. In return, they were prepared to give up their own laws and administrative system. On November 30 1847, upon the acceptance of the delegation's request, Sardinia and Piedmont were annexed.

  2. To what extent was Cavour a leader of the unification of Italy?

    Cavour was highly intelligent and a skilful diplomat, he learned from the failures of the 1848 revolutions, as he accepted that internal strength and external aid were necessary for Italy's success. Therefore he manipulated the outbreak of the Crimean War in 1854 to his advantage, as he seized this as

  1. To what extent was Austria the main obstacle to the unification of Italy in ...

    Therefore Austrian military might was overwhelming and hence is a more significant factor as an obstacle to unification. If there was no Austrian influence then it would have meant that the revolutions would have succeeded and more liberal governments in power would have had a greater chance in unifying the state.


    He believed in individual liberty and national liberation. He once said "I love my country for I love all countries". He believed that all Europeans should be equal and fraternal and live within their natural boundaries. He turned his thoughts to politics when he was 16 because he witnessed how, after the revolution in Piedmont in 1821, he

  1. Describe the Different Stages to Italian unification between 1856 - 1871.

    that year Napoleon invited Cavour to confer with him and in July a secret meeting took place at Plombieres; 'an agreement for a defensive alliance in case of attack by Austria'. After victory the King of Piedmont-Sardinia was to receive Lombardy and Venetia, so that his kingdom would extend from the Alps to the Adriatic.

  2. Evacuation of Children

    Although this gives information, it does have limitations. She is only a teacher in one of thousands of schools in Britain, different children, different feelings. This is a negative view on the evacuation; other schools might have a positive view on the evacuation. So therefore this portrays evacuation wasn't a success.

  1. AMR essay

    and would make him more likely to be open to trade with America. After the Cultural Revolution in China the issue of their seat in the United Nations Security Council arose. After World War two the UN was created and five of the powerful, victorious countries were placed into permanent seats on the Security Council.

  2. History - International Relation Coursework

    the legacy of the Treaty of Versailles; (iii) Hitler's foreign policy." Do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer, referring to (i), (ii) and (iii). [10] 17 (a) What were the successes of the League of Nations in the 1920s? [4] (b) Explain why the agencies of the League of Nations were successful.

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