Comparison Of Garibaldi's Ideas And Italian Unification

Cavour's Diplomacy and Garibaldi's Ideas and Italian Unification

The historical view of Italian Unification like other revolutionary processes of the nineteenth century has become a mix of both exaggerated myth and fact. With hindsight historians can now detach themselves sufficiently from events to distinguish, objectively which figures in the Risorgimento allowed it to result in the United Kingdom of Italy in 1870. Any historical movement is a culmination of events and combination of different figures. Both Giuseppe Garibaldi and Count Camillo Benso di Cavour emerge as leading figures in the movement. Garibaldi is celebrated as a hero, a natural leader and military genius who inspired men to

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 Italy[4]

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. This was partly because Garibaldi could win around political figures, for example when in June 1849 he entered the Triumvirate Assembly with a bent sword, as a symbol of the combat he had been involved in, he was made dictator of the Roman Republic. Although, throughout the Risorgimento it is Cavour who is commended for being pragmatic and flexible, Adriana Stiles comments that Garibaldi was also willing to be flexible, but unlike Cavour he would only change in order to increase the chances to liberating Italy:

'He had come under the influence of Mazzini in 1831…he

This reiterates the point that Garibaldi was a poor military strategist. Garibaldi's ideas were somewhat anachronistic in that 'his political doctrines like his militant tactics belonged to the age before the machine gun'[14]. To some extent Garibaldi's heroic, romantic image was a superficial mask, which was only able to deceive the ill-educated peasants, as he appeared more transparent to the politicians. It was Cavour who persuaded Napoleon that the capture of the South was legitimate by making excuses about pacifying Garibaldi and holding plebiscites in Sicily, Naples and the Papal States. This instance illustrates how Cavour was a great leader in that he was able to adapt to dangerous situations by taking control.

Cavour was a political master; it can be argued that the full extent of his talents was not truly acknowledged till after his death:

'Cavour's former colleagues succeeded him as Prime Minister. All claimed to follow Cavour's policy. All were honourable men… But none lasted very long, none had the vision, the courage, the strength of character possessed by their predecessor. Not one of them had