With the French Revolution, revolutionaries in France wanted democratic ruling and the ability to contend with the first and second estates. Middleclass men rose violently through the French revolution to become oppressive rulers themselves, simply as the tables became turned. Garibaldi and Mazinni were seen as liberals who wanted democracy through an extent of peace in the Italian fight for unification. Mazinni was the original peacemaker that brought about a following that Garibaldi came to rule afterwards. The unification of Italy was successful to an extent; however, the Papal States continued to isolate Northern Italy from Southern Italy. French revolutionaries achieved democracy and an overturn of the government, but many hardships were met following the success. Overall, Mazinni’s and Garibaldi’s search for peace lead to a tension bound nation that still exists today, while Robbes Pierre and others from France created a revolution that does not extend to the present. Eventhough, the French revolution was horribly violent, the stricter, more organized rule over a people in a revolution is more beneficial in comparison to the peacemaking the Mazinni and Garibaldi cherished in Italy.
In the French revolution, Robbes Pierre and his men from the National Assembly began in the lower class, but as their power came they took advantage of the authority. Millions of innocent French people were killed in the French revolution and in the aftermath of the war, there were still countless riots. Several constitutions were made and remade but the country was still in turmoil and the distinction of classes was also present. This was not worth the loss of millions of people, but the French did come to find more unification in the Napoleonic era and generations to follow. Today, France is a wealthy, transient city that does not have apparent effects that came from the French revolution.
Italy, on the other hand, still experiences a split of classes between the North and the South, and many stereotypes come from this that are rooted from the period of Emanual Victor, Mazinni, and Garibaldi. Mazinni and Garibaldi wanted unification of Northern and Southern Italy with mindsets that are similar to today’s liberal terms. Austria was quite powerful over Italy in this time, however, and it was grueling to get out of the clutch of Metternich’s powers. Mazinni and Garibaldi were able to unify with Lombardy, Peidmont Sardinia, and the southern provinces, but the Papal States were kept out of the unification, as the pope did not want to be given power. This isolation from the unified pieces of Italy caused for a makeshift peace that has not fully solidified even until today. Relatively less violence was used with Mazinni and Garibaldi, but the job of unification was not done like in France.
If each of these nations had seeked unification in a way that meets equilibrium of violence and peace, then the nations could have unified more smoothly. Robbe’s Peirre did not have the right to kill random French people who somehow rubbed him the wrong way. If he had divided the people who were proven to be against his ideas from the bystanders of the revolution, then a large fraction of people may not have died. The second estate of the French revolution had gotten too much power and became the exact people that they despised enough to start the revolution in the first place. With Mazinni and Garibaldi, however, they’re non violent mindset was too weak in comparison to the strength of Austria-Hapsburh and the authority of the pope. Violence is never the answer but unfortunately, it did does not always finish the mission when people like Garibaldi are up against Metternich.
Killing innocent people is always going to be inhumane but at least Robbes Pierre found control over the French; meanwhile, and Mazinni and Garibaldi were innovative in their ideas, but in the realist era, they should have sacrificed some peace to fulfill future unification. The French revolution eventually paid off, while the Italian unification was less harmful but has still left strings undone; therefore, it should be learned that peacemaking could not be the optimum plan to succeed at this large task. Robbes Pierre, however, was past a realist, maybe a surrealist, because he killed people that would not help his position in any way. Ultimately, there is a place for making peace and there is a time for violence, but an infusion of both may be the best solution in many of these historical events.