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