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

"Cavour was the most important and the most successful of the exponents of Italian Unification" How far do you agree with this assertion?

Extracts from this document...


"Cavour was the most important and the most successful of the exponents of Italian Unification." How far do you agree with this assertion? Italian unification had been achieved after decades of revolution interspersed with differing political ideas and agendas. Cavour, it would seem, had brought about the prestige and power Italy needed in the form of a powerful Piedmont, therefore realizing the pre 1848 notion of unification via the leading state of Piedmont. However despite the effects of his political and diplomatic activities, his motives were far from nationalistic in the true sense of Italy. Cavour was concerned mainly with his ambitions for a dominant Piedmont in Northern Italy indifferent to the situation in the South hoping not to be hindered by its inherent social and economic inadequacies. This inadvertently aided the wider drive for unification, benefiting from Cavour's diplomatic tact in achieving a vital French alliance and embarking on a successful foreign policy aiding the removal of foreign rule in Italy. ...read more.


Mazzini consistently deplored that, despite introducing liberal reforms, Cavour and most politicians in Turin suspected or even disliked the objective of national unification. Such fears were well founded since Cavour had a very narrow form of patriotism, preoccupied by the ambition of dominating an enlarged state in northern Italy1. This ambition however saw the modernization of the state, with improved infrastructure, and economic reforms vital in putting Piedmont ahead of other Italian states and subsequently advancing military power, inevitably furthering the cause for unification. Cavour was in effect a political opportunist intent on power for he disagreed greatly with Mazzini's principles with the argument that Italians could not achieve independence by themselves, tactfully omitting the fact that if they did attempt a dangerous 'levee en masse'2, Piedmont's conservative constitution and her dominant position in Italy would be greatly threatened and possibly destroyed. In order to ensure his position, he adopted certain underhand tactics such as falsely abetting with some of Mazzini's party in order to undermine their efforts and exploit any success that they might achieve. ...read more.


In conclusion it seems that Garibaldi was the most important and successful exponent in the unification of Italy. His combination of political adeptness, charismatic leadership and military competence played a major role in first conquering and unifying the South then prompting the unification of Italy as a whole. In 1860 Garibaldi set sail for Sicily with his 'thousand', volunteer army in the name of Victor Emmanuel II in order that the unrest created would provoke Piedmont to commit to the impoverished South, which Cavour had failed to address previously. Garibaldi's capture of Palermo, as well as arousing immense enthusiasm in public opinion, was proof that the Mazzinian idea of national unification might no longer be a utopian dream3. Cavour was not an exponent of Italian unification. He was merely pressurized into thinking on a broader more national level by Mazzini and Garibaldi who were vigorously intent on unification. If it were not for the sharp actions of Garibaldi and the legendary 'thousand' the north and south may not have been tied to form a unified Italian state so soon. ...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 Politics 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 Politics essays

  1. How successful was the government of King Philip II of Spain?

    The corregidors had full jurisdiction and conducted a vista once a year to determine the success of local government. This system worked successfully except in times of war (considerable in Philip's reign) and the increased need for the corregidors to raise money provided resistance in Valladolid (1588) and Seville (1590).

  2. How has the role and impact of military rulers and civilian politicians differed in ...

    The problem also lies with politicians. Majority of politicians have feudal backgrounds. They are least concerned about the democratic institutions or giving power to people or even resolving the problems of people. All they are concerned about is that how can they increase their status and their person wealth.

  1. How far were Gandhi's actions after 1920 responsible for Indiagaining her independence in 1947?

    When the civil disobedience was recommenced, it was met with severe repression. Formally called off in 1934, Gandhi woke up to the realisation that the people as a whole were tired of conflict, and the masses which had supported him were more concerned with the realities of increasing cost of

  2. How far is it true to say that 'having made Italy', Italian governments were ...

    Moreover, it is unfair to generalise and say that all Italians were idle as there were certain sections of society that worked harder than others. For example, women had an incredibly tough time under Mussolini's fascist government. Not only were they encouraged to be the perfect housewives, looking after the

  1. How far do you agree that it was Cavour's diplomacy rather that Garibaldi's ideas ...

    Another point to acknowledge when considering this source was that it was a British newspaper and Garibaldi was loved, in Britain nearly as greatly as in his native Italy4 Nonetheless, Garibaldi became the vital link between the masses and the politicians, with his legendary adventures making him a focal point for patriotic nationalist sentiment.

  2. Why did Britain have no '1848 revolution'?

    Liberals felt only property owners were responsible enough and would make choices for the 'common interest'. To those who were disenfranchised this 'common interest' seemed more like the interests of property owners. In 1837 the people's charter was formed by six radical MPs and six working-class activists.

  1. Civil Service Reform.

    �219 million of Social Fund expenditure to be covered by loan recoveries. �557 million saved through the detection and prevention of fraud. �54 million of benefit overpayments to be recovered. To manage the Agency's resources to deliver its Business Plan within the gross budget allocation.

  2. Nationalism Was More Important As A Product Rather Than A Cause Of National Unification ...

    Even absolute monarchs did not rule absolutely, supposedly ruling through a council of ministers and feudal legislatures, but as their actions were not subject to a parliament, free will often had a part to play. In Prussia especially, the council of ministers paradoxically claimed to be the true servants of

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