‘The most important contribution to the creation of a united Italy in 1861 was made by Cavour.’ How far do you agree?

This question is rooted in broader debates about historical causation. Such debates can be identified in most A Level questions and can essentially be boiled down to assessing the most important agents of change in history. The question we are being asked is: is history made by great men (Cavour), mass movements (‘Italian nationalism’), economic self-interest (the ambitions of elites), or is it just a random succession of events (perhaps best to avoid arguing this - it will upset most historians!)?As always, it is key to remember that there is no ‘correct’ answer. As long as you have shown the relative importance of the themes with clear use of relevant examples, you will reach the top mark brackets. In this respect, it is crucial that you identify and focus on what you believe to be the ‘the most important’ factor, as this is an essential requirements for answers that reach the top mark brackets. Below are are some potential themes and relevant examples you could use for this question. Remember - you are not telling a story! You need to be critical in your assessment and establish the criteria against which to judge the different contributions. (1) Agree with the proposition in the question. Cavour made important diplomatic decisions (e.g. alliance with the French at Plombiers. It could also be argued that he developed a powerful ‘vision’ of a unified Italy in the ‘Il Risorgimento’ (the Resurgence’) newspaper at a time when only 2.5% of the population spoke Italian. (2) Following on from point (1) - was Cavour just taking advantage of geopolitical tensions between Austria and France which were, fundamentally, the most important contributions to a united Italy? Detail the growing tensions between Austria and France, which developed throughout the nineteenth century as Austria declined in strength and power and gave way to Prussia, France and the ‘new’ Italy. (3) Or was Cavour just a figurehead for popular Italian nationalism? This touches on a key debate as to whether nations are formed by states and leaders or by popular movements. In order to argue for this proposition you should focus on the Young Italy movement and Garibaldi’s popularity in the south of the Italian peninsula, which contributed to the national movement when allied with Cavour. However, this movement wasn’t really ‘popular’ or ‘national’ - indeed, when Garibaldi stormed a Bourbon-ruled city the people of the city shouted ‘long live Italy’, but apparently the residents thought that ‘Italy’ was the name of Garibaldi’s wife!So, here you have three potential themes. There are, of course, many others you could select. It is up to you to decide which is most important and use evidence to support your claim. Your prioritisation of one factor (in this case either Cavour’s leadership, wider geopolitical tensions between Austria and France, or the ‘irresistible’ force of popular nationalism) should be clear in the introduction, as well as at the end of each paragraph and in the conclusion.