How Far Do You Agree That Garibaldi Played a More

1262 words 6 pages
How far do you agree that Garibaldi played a more important part than Cavour in the Unification of Italy?
Garibaldi and Cavour were two very influential people in the unification for Italy and without them the unification may not have occurred. Although they both ultimately wanted the same thing, the unification of Italy, they went about it in different ways. Cavour was a highly intellectual man, who orchestrated things from a political stand point ensuring good relations with countries like France, of which without the unification may never have succeeded. Garibaldi on the other hand was more of people’s person, a leader of men who was very direct and his actions such as the taking of Naples and Sicily allowed Italy to unite properly and
…show more content…
But more than anything the most important thing that Garibaldi had done was the taking over of the southern states, as without this Italy would not have been able to unite as truly unified country. Even though his impatience could have led to disastrous consequences in other scenarios his talent as a military leader and his ability to galvanise the troops led to an unexpected success. Without Garibaldi it is doubtful that the army would have succeeded against the 20,000 strong army; his leadership skills and tactics in war were vital, as well as his popularity to gain more support combining to achieve victory. This victory allowed the further acquisition of Naples, and at the end he showed that he remained loyal to Victor Emmanuel by simply handing over the states. This was key as at this point a joining with the south didn’t look likely and Garibaldi’s directness allowed this to happen. However Garibaldi’s weakness was also his directness, and he could have made many vital mistakes which would have set the unifications backwards such as his plan to take back Nice, even though it was under French control which would have upset them and perhaps lost


  • The Difference Between Common Intention Constructive Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel Has Been Described as ‘Illusory’ (Hayton). Do You Agree with This Statement? Consider How the Case Law Has Developed and Give Reasons for Your Answer.
    1970 words | 8 pages
  • How Far Do You Agree with the View That in the 1920’s the Kkk Possessed Neither Sizable Support nor Significant Influence?
    2052 words | 9 pages
  • In the short stories in ‘The Bloody Chamber’, Carter is excessively interested in violent instincts’. How far do you agree with this view?
    953 words | 4 pages
  • How Important and Applicable Do You Feel Segmentation Was for Gillette
    993 words | 4 pages
  • ‘the Separation of Powers Hinders Effective Government in the Usa!’ Do You Agree?
    1000 words | 4 pages
  • Commercial hospitality is just extension of hospitality in the home. Do you agree?
    1933 words | 8 pages
  • How Far Do You Agree That Hitler’s Regime Was a ‘Consensus Dictatorship’?
    1476 words | 6 pages
  • How far would you agree that Educating Rita depicts a clash of classes and cultures?
    1363 words | 6 pages
  • Do You Agree with the View That by 1940 the Main Obstacle to Indian Independence Was Not British Imperialism but Divisions Within India?
    992 words | 4 pages
  • Do You Agree with the View That in the Years 1515-1525 Henry Viii Wholly Surrendered Power in Government to Cardinal Wolsey?
    909 words | 4 pages