Unity in Italy

Without the individuals who fought for a united Italy in their different ways it would not have been possible in my opinion. However I think that some methods were more effective than others.

Firstly there was Mazzini who was an ideologist and he basically inspired the whole of Italy. Mazzini helped achieve unity throughout Italy as he had the idea of ‘education and insurrection’ which we see was effective in 1822 when there were uprisings in Naples and Piedmont. Also in the 1820’s we see Mazzini encouraging nationalism whilst inspiring and circulating, which was essential in order to spread the cause of Italian unity. Another example of Mazzini acting on his ideas was when he set up Young Italy in 1831; this helped achieve unity as he gained popular support and made people aware of the cause which was vital. Lastly we see how effective Mazzini was in trying to achieve unity through how he ran a republic in Rome with Garibaldi which showed his commitment to the cause, however even though they failed in governing the city it took the pope a month to get them out which shows extreme popular support. In my opinion I think that Mazzini was essential to the unity cause as he had the ideas for it and helped form a path towards the goal.

On the other hand though Mazzini’s ideology alone wasn’t enough wasn’t enough to achieve unity as it took time, shown through how we don’t see Italy united until 1871, which suggests there was a need for political backing from other individuals as Mazzini didn’t have this. I think that without this political help on the initial ideology Italian unity would never have been achieved in their lifetimes at least. Therefore I do not think Mazzini was they key individual who made Italian unity happen.

Another individual who helped in the early stages of unification was Pope Pius IX, who provided a very liberal outlook as he had an amnesty for political prisoners and reformed aspects of policies. He helped achieve unity throughout Italy as he inspired nationalists with neo-guelph beliefs (a united Italy lead by the Pope), which therefore shows how he also spread the cause like Mazzini. We also see the Pope taking action for unity and fighting the barriers of it in 1847 when he protested against Austrian troops in Ferrara. Finally a most important aspect which helped unity was how he brought Italy to French attention in 1849; this helped achieve unity as he was gaining foreign support which we see is vital for ousting the Austrians, who are a major barrier to unity, through Magenta and Solferino compared to Custoza and Navara.

Yet there was a major drawback to a potentially successful leader which was how he was a coward shown through the Papal Allocution in 1848, this shows how he actually hindered unity as he allowed the Austrians to remain. He was also a hindrance as since he was against unity it meant all Catholics and Catholic countries were too which was very dominating so Italy was restricted in spreading their cause. In my opinion the Pope was a bigger barrier to unity than what he contributed as perhaps if he hadn’t fought against unity then it would have been achieved before 1871 as we still don’t see him agree until 1929.

Another smaller role in the early stages of unification was by Charles Albert who was the King of Piedmont at the time, he made Piedmont a strong base for Italy as he strove for independence, which aided unity as it helped Italy fight for what it wanted. This is shown in 1848/9 in the battles of Custoza and Navara when he fought against Austria. Even though they lost it was a beginning which led to overall unity. We also see a positive effect on unity from Charles Albert as trade and industry grew under his rule and he seemed liberal through new developments of roads/rail and tariffs being reduced, this all helped aid unity as he developed connections with other countries/cities and gave the people hope that they would have independence which made them more willing to fight for it.

However we find out that his motives were never unity, which were exposed early on resulting in abdication. He only had self-interest and wanted all the glory showing that he wasn’t fighting for the people of Italy. This hindered unity as it meant a new King was needed which made Piedmont weaker at first and also dampened people’s hopes which lost all vital popular support gained. In my opinion Charles Albert was a complete failure as he managed to lose everything he had built up because of his own selfishness and stupidity.

After Charles Albert’s abdication we see a clear base for leadership which Victor Emmanuel takes and hope for unity seems to grow, he is another individual who is perhaps more important to some than people in the earlier stages. He helped achieve unity as he wanted it and allowed it to happen. We see the importance of Piedmont being kept a strong base from when he continues it. We also see Victor Emmanuel achieveing unity later on as he seems to let others do the initial work, which is positive in achieveing unity as they have common aims and methods. We see his political work help Italy in 1858/9 at Plombiere and in 1860 at Teano when he secures the north and south which was a major victory for Italy. Also after Cavour’s death we see Victor Emmanuel take more action especially in 1866 when he gained Venice during the Austro – Prussian war and in 1870/71 when Italy gains Rome during the Franco – Prussian war; this majorly helps unity as he is tying the country together with no political backing from Cavour. Without this action unity would never have been achieved as Italy needed someone to actually seize the opportunity to gain the states.

Despite this some people may see him as Cavour’s puppet and say that credit has been replaced at times for actions made, perhaps at Plombiere as Cavour was the lone with the political ideas and backing. We also see another downfall to Victor Emmanuel in 1864 at the September convention as he is quite unpopular after this and therefore loses some popular support which is evidently essential to unification. In my opinion I think even though Victor Emmanuel did tie the ends together for unity, the initial work was not his and he gained the glory for actions which were not his. He was essential to bring everything together but anyone could have done that and he was just lucky with the wars that were happening.

In my opinion Cavour was more important to Italian unification than Mazzini because of the reasons above and I think that his diplomacy played a vital role in securing unity through foreign support. We see Cavour contribute significantly to helping secure a united Italy from the beginning of the Crimean war in 1854/5 until he died. Cavour’s specialty was securing foreign support which greatly helps unity. By Cavour suggesting Italy aid Britain and France, he brought them and their cause to their attention and gained treaties with them both. Again we see how Cavour helped unity through ensuring Italy had support to help oust Austria, which we can identify as a main barrier to unity. This is shown through how the outcome of Plombiere in 1858/9 which was that if Austria attacked Italy then France would assist Italy in defeating them. Finally we see the outcome of unity in 1860/1 through the treaty of Turin and Teano, this resulted in the unity of the north, Emilia and the south, obviously this shows the importance of his role in achieveing unity as without him these areas would not have been united.

However these were all achieved through the military which Victor Emmanuel led, suggesting that Cavour didn’t have a military back-bone and had to rely on Victor Emmanuel to actually perform the deed even though it was his idea. Another downfall to Cavour was how he tried to stop Garibaldi entering mainland and how he didn’t help others as he only wanted Piedmont power. Even though Cavour was a great diplomat he did make mistakes which should have been identified first. Therefore even though I believe he was essential for unity his role was not as great as others because I feel he sometimes didn’t consider consequences.

We see another individual rise from Cavour’s actions which is Napoleon III. I think he was fundamental for unity because he provided foreign support and helped through intervention which gave Italy a major confidence boost and enlarged their military strength. From the beginning of Napoleons help we see a massive impact on unity and where it is heading. When he agreed to help Italy at Plombiere in 1858/9 no one could have predicted how essential he actually was. This was because of his extreme power. Through this we see Italy gain foreign support, Marches and Umbria, Venice and Rome which led to the whole of Italy being united. Aswell as this he made his own decisions and set the structure for unity in Italy in my opinion. His role exceeds any other so far as I feel without him Italy wouldn’t have had any connections to depend upon and allow them to unite.

Yet we also see how Napoleon hindered unification as it was Cavour’s diplomacy that achieved this support from him. Also there are examples of how he prevented unity because of deceit resulting in a great diplomat resigning. Also we see a flaw that prevented Cavour being a great leader in Napoleon which is he didn’t realise the results of his actions as he stopped Garibaldi in 1867. This shows that his role in achieving was not as successful as some in my eyes because I think he needed to accept that other people were fighting for the same cause and it would be better to work together than apart.

Finally the last major individual who I feel contributed the most to unity was Garibaldi. I think this because of his great military gain and how he inspired so much popular support as I think that this was the most important barrier to overcome in order to achieve unity. Garibaldi was passionate about the cause and this is essential as he fought until the end for what he believed in shown through the battles of Marsala, Castelfidardo, Calatafami and Volturno. This was very important as he gained tremendous amount of popular support 40 times the amount of troops he started with and there would have been people unable to fight who he had gained the respect from. I also believe that Garibaldi played the biggest role in unity as he tried to work with others, for example: Rome 1849 and at Teano in 1860 when he handed the south to Victor Emmanuel. I believe that this man had no self interest and was fighting for the people not just himself. Even though earlier battles showed weakness I believe that he overcome these and fought against his imperfections and gained the political and foreign/popular support that was needed overall to make Italy a united country. For these reasons I believe that Garibaldi was the individual who contributed the most to unity and without him I don’t think that it would have ever been achieved.