Compare & Contrast the contributions of Cavour and Garibaldi in the unification of Italy by 1871.

Compare & Contrast the contributions of Cavour and Garibaldi in the unification of Italy by 1871.

Cavour and Garibaldi, are two of the most recognisable figures of Italian unification, and for the cause of a united Italy, both did much good. Although their methods were greatly different, their results were similarly impressive; in comparing their influence, military, political and diplomatic avenues might be explored, with the help of examples.
In terms of politicking and diplomacy, it was Cavour who took a greater lead – his work in this area was more hands-on. He set up free trade treaties with European powers, and also used the army as a means to ally himself with his contemporaries. By committing the Piedmontese to the Crimean war, Cavour enabled himself to get close to other leaders and therefore, give Piedmont a seat at the table when the spoils were being shared. In this way, he strengthened the province hugely through his politicking. It is here that his relationship with Napoleon went from strength to strength (eventually leading to the war against Austria), and this was significant. It was significant because Cavour gave Piedmont a strong footing, allying the province with the French (and others) – and this foreign support was absolutely key in establishing the base from which Italy could unify. With foreign support – as gained in the Congress of Paris, 1858, and other such meetings - Cavour could create all the machinations of a nation, and this, too, was significant in giving the people the sense of shared purpose and unity. In aligning the province with other nations, Cavour began to forge national identity; and so, too, did Garibaldi with his subversive outpourings, as his passion struck a chord with citizens.
Garibaldi was unimpressed with the notion that Nice and Savoy be handed back to France, and this set the tone for a tempestuous relationship with authority. He and Cavour did clash, and rarely saw eye-toe-eye; their differing approaches wrangled with one-another. Garibaldi’s support was valuable because he had such a following and such charisma, and he gave his support to Victor Emmanuelle in 1859. However, his changes of heart were dangerous – Garibaldi inspired the masses, but in then switching tack he jeopardized Cavour’s stable work, and the foreign support Italy was attracting.
Cavour was the more cerebral of the pair; this was shown in all of his work, but militarily, perhaps is the most effective example. He was not so much the brute force of the operation, but the cunning diplomat – Cavour forged a close working relationship with Napoleon, culminating in meetings (July 1858), where the twosome discussed the problem of Austria. We know this from a letter written by Cavour (to Victor Emmanuelle) 3 days after the meeting on 24 July, “A matter of war between France and ourselves on the one side and Austria on the other,” Cavour asserts. This finds Cavour at his most persuasive, matter-of-factly stating that Austria will be the enemy, and through his association with Napoleon, engineering this war. When making Austria appear the aggressor became a problem, Cavour maneuvered the situation, so as to force Austria’s hand – the Austrian army could not afford to keep forces in Northern Italy indefinitely, while Piedmont could not lose face and demobilize its army. Therefore, the standoff that ensued was the spark that ignited war – and all the justification Cavour needed to proclaim Austria the aggressor, “I fight for the right of the whole nation!” he hollered to the citizens. This best shows Cavour’s role in the military, and is important because Cavour affects change, and creates a united faction of Italians, willing to unite against a common enemy in 1859. By engineering this war, Cavour brings together the Piedmontese on 29 April 1859, and his intelligent dealings with Victor Emmanuelle, Napoleon and then the citizens bode well for his political dealings. His manipulative qualities served his purposes well.
This was in contrast to Garibaldi, the swashbuckling talisman of Italian unification. Where Cavour worked industriously behind the scenes, Garibaldi worked heroically in the public domain – most notably to start with, in the military arena against the Austrians in this very war. Garibaldi first offered to recruit and train volunteers, harnessing his showmanship for this cause. He went on to gain plaudits for his work in battle, and was awarded with the Gold Medal for valour, the highest military decoration in Piedmont by Victor Emmanuelle, which demonstrates his impressive ability in battle. Garibaldi was just as effective in motivating others, his men were a driving force in the campaign, and while he had none of the oratorical flourishes of Cavour, Garibaldi’s actions spoke just as loudly, and his work was valuable. His work on the battle-field was as important for its gladiatorial polish as for its effect in galvanizing citizens. Indeed, Garibaldi was able to unite the South of Italy in 1860! This was a massive step in uniting Italy as it brought such a large portion of the nation together, and it was done with just 1000 men to start with, which shows Garibaldi’s courage. In creating fewer factions by uniting the South, Garibaldi, here, made uniting the entirety of Italy much easier.
Garibaldi was certainly more directly involved in the fighting that enabled Italy to unify, whereas Cavour was responsible for the fighting itself.
Both were necessary, however, in that while the military would have been rudderless without the direction, support and prodding of Cavour, the military would have been impotent and feeble without the strength, the virility of Garibaldi.
Cavour was instrumental, politically speaking; he was Italy’s most gifted diplomat. Garibaldi was much more impulsive, and probably a loose cannon in strictly diplomatic terms – his real value off the battle-field was in his appeal to the masses. Here was a character who could inspire a crowd, a society, and this was hugely important.
It is difficult to compare the two, as their approaches were in such stark contrast. Their influence was similar, but perhaps in Garibaldi, Italy had found a more unique figurehead? Garibaldi was a one-off (this was a big part of his appeal), and his ability to [lead men into] battle was individual to him. A skilled diplomat, as Cavour undoubtedly was, is arguably more common, so in a sense he is the more easily replaced of the two. However, that is not to say that his work was less important; Garibaldi won battles and hearts in unifying the South, but Cavour provided direction and stability in unifying the North. In light of this, the fairest conclusion is that both were necessary, yet given that neither Garibaldi nor Cavour directly sealed the deal of unification, one could say that the final pieces of the jigsaw involved neither of them. 2 enormously influential figures in Italian unification, but for all their efforts, they were not the be all and end all.