Why couldnt Italy unify until so late in history after the fall of Rome?

Why couldn’t Italy unify until so late in history after the fall of Rome?

Northern Italy at least was always wealthy, heavily populated centers of trade.

Once you’ve locked down the north, gradually pushing southwards shouldn’t be as hard

I can see Austria being a pain because they occupied a significant chunk of north Italian lands populated by Italians and would fear a unified Italy. But France would back them naturally you’d think. Both as a buffer state and for the above reason to be a thorn in austrias side.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because the south is a different race

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Justinian was the fall of Rome, both the repeated sieges turning a still largish city into a field of rubble as well as the single handedly souring of literally everyone on ideas of reunifying the peninsula

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. The Gothic Wars were more devastating to Italy than Odoacer.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This. The Gothic Wars were more devastating to Italy than Odoacer.
        Odoacer literally didn't do anything wrong. Everything attributed to Theodoric was done by him

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Many northern Italian states were quite powerful on their own and had diverging interests. They were also influenced by foreign powers and had different forms of government.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Before the Risorgimento, Italy was divided and heavily influenced by outside powers. France, Austria, the Holy Roman Empire generally, Aragon and then Spain, and the Byzantine Empire all had their fair share in keeping Italy divided. They all cordoned off their own sphere of influence from time to time that made it hard. Then of course the Pope is a giant obstacle smack in the middle of Italy. Even if you unite the north, breaking free of German and French control and influence, there’s no way you’re getting past the Pope with dire consequences. The Pope provided medieval monarchs with a lot of legitimacy and could call on other Catholic powers to help them. It’s why the Holy Roman Empire covered Italy: the Pope called Charlemagne and later Otto I to come into Italy to intervene. Going to war with the Pope would cause excommunication, a blow to legitimacy, and invite outside powers to destroy your little realm. Monarchs of course did fight wars against various Popes, but these monarches were much more powerful than a united northern Italy would be: like Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of France. Full unification would be very very difficult in an age where the Pope still held so much sway in political affairs.
    Then there’s of course the fact that Italians didn’t want to be united. The idea of a united Italy in the sense we understand is fairly modern. Italy is/was incredibly diverse linguistically, politically, and ethnically. The fact a united Italy exists at all is very impressive, and quite odd. Then there’s the political forces of many different dynasties and nobles and city states fighting back and forth along each other.
    The modern unification of Italy relied on the north a a nationalist mythos in about 1800, the support of France, a lot of propaganda to the middle and upper classes in northern cities, a monarch willing to exploit this nationalistic movement, a lot of peasants willing to just accept what happens, and a lot of luck.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good post

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm a knownothing. Was Italy divided during Roman times of 50 BC to 150 AD? I.e., a fairly loose coalition of cities and estates even then?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and no. Before Rome, Italy was obviously divided among many different tribes and city states. It was all united under Rome obviously, but the concept of Italians and Italy was very loose. The area outside of Rome in modern Italy was considered Italia and there are instances of Italia uniting against Rome or for their own interests. But the definition of Italia geographically wasn’t the same as it is today. It changed over time. None of these groups were really Italians. They had their own identities in their localities and were ultimately Romans, as Roman citizenship was eventually given to them. Obviously modern Italians are descended from these people but they’re not Italians, if that makes sense. The concept was still in its infancy and not well defined, being overshadowed by other things. So there were still political, cultural, and some linguistic divides in Italy back then.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >was Italy divided during Roman times of 50 BC to 150 AD

        No. Tho the different italian regions maintained many of the costumes and traditions of their local ancestors (like the oscans in Campania or etruscans in Tuscany).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In pre roman times Italy was extremely divided. The main group, the italics, was composed of multiple polities roughly comparable to celtic tribes in regards to unity all the way to roman conquest OR assimilation (a lot of tribes willingly became roman allies).
        In roman times italics were at first considered somewhere inbetween allies and subjects all the way to the social war, after which Rome gave full citizenship to all of Italy over a few decades. In imperial times all of Italy was pretty much as united as any country today.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Italics are just a subgroup of celts tbqh

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were the same group but Italics raped Greekoids while Celts raped Norwegian like Bell Beakers in France.

            Hence the difference.

            >Distance to: France_BellBeaker
            >0.02687495 Norwegian
            >0.02927201 Danish
            >0.02935273 Swedish
            >0.03217898 Icelandic
            >0.03264095 Dutch
            >0.03283195 Irish
            >0.03338793 Scottish
            >0.03344385 Orcadian
            >0.03346918 Shetlandic
            >0.03467601 German_Hamburg
            >0.03535105 Welsh
            >0.03611438 English

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong, neither group split off the other. Italics and celts both split off the same group, and it has been argued that italics split off first.
            Regardless, italics and celts are each other's closest relation, yes.

            Where are germanics from? Whats their relation with the celts?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Where are germanics from?
            Same group, the proto-indo-european speakers. They split off the italo-celtic line a few centuries earlier though, so italics and celtics are more closely related.
            >Whats their relation with the celts?
            Very conflictual. Most of their pre-roman history was a continuous back and forth of celtification and germanification through war, so it's pretty hard to make out which tribes were actually celtic and which germanic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong, neither group split off the other. Italics and celts both split off the same group, and it has been argued that italics split off first.
            Regardless, italics and celts are each other's closest relation, yes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/gwFB7tL.jpeg

      Why couldn’t Italy unify until so late in history after the fall of Rome?

      Northern Italy at least was always wealthy, heavily populated centers of trade.

      Once you’ve locked down the north, gradually pushing southwards shouldn’t be as hard

      I can see Austria being a pain because they occupied a significant chunk of north Italian lands populated by Italians and would fear a unified Italy. But France would back them naturally you’d think. Both as a buffer state and for the above reason to be a thorn in austrias side.

      Northern Italy more closer to HRE & later Austria

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    muslim rapebabies aren't white

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Northern states were too fragmented to out-power each other (the map you posted is from only a few decades before unification, things looked more chaotic in the XV or XVII century).
    The southern state was large, but unable to expand northwards due to the existence of the Papal States in Central Italy (which you couldn't declare war on without being excommunicated, of course)

    It's that simple

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >which you couldn't declare war on without being excommunicated, of course
      Nah, the pope got declared on a shitload of times. Nobody gave a frick about excommunication. What people gave a frick about were the pope's allies, who were motivated by political gain rather than piety.
      The papacy had numerous moments of diplomatic weakness through its existence as a temporal power, and whenever that happened it got declared and dunked on.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy_(Holy_Roman_Empire)
    It was, plenty of times. Also the south was majority Greek for most of its history

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Kingdom of Italy was not exactly a unified state like Germany (before the 13th century) was.
      > Also the south was majority Greek for most of its history
      Greek colonies were largely around Bari, Calabria and Sicily. Most of the region wasn't colonised by them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Most of the region wasn't colonised by them.
        pic rel plus all the other adriatic colonies

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's kind of proving my point?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The southron Italian cities didnt face the same demographic collapse the rest of Italy did. Those Greek cities held the majority of the souths population till the Normans and Arabs wiped them out due to religious zeal

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Normans and Arabs wiped them out due to religious zeal

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Must make you seethe when you play your map games and see the south populated entirely by Greeks, huh? lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The southron Italian cities didnt face the same demographic collapse the rest of Italy did. Those Greek cities held the majority of the souths population till the Normans and Arabs wiped them out due to religious zeal

            Greek was spoke in Southern Italy until unification. There are still small pockets of green speakers living there today. Most Italians in the south have Greek ancestry.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Those greeks are post-1453 refugees. The ancient greeks were absorbed by the latin-speaking people of rural areas by the times of the Normams

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay? There’s still Greeks speaking Greek until unification.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >till the Normans and Arabs wiped them out due to religious zeal
            This never happened. The Norman rulers didn't slaughter people nor did the Arabs, who really only had a significant presence in Sicily and even by the 11th century the majority of the island was still Greek speaking.

            no? All the densely populated areas of southern Italy are occupied by greeks except for northern apulia

            That still leaves the majority of Southern Italy non-Greek. Both in territory and in people, they weren't exactly heavily urbanised, they made up a minority of the total population compared to the rural majority.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they weren't exactly heavily urbanised
            Classical Syracuse was as populated as Athens and the inland mountanous areas were low density

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/7Hswq9q.jpeg

            OP is just seething for no reason, no one denies the south was full of Greeks. But he's some sad Italian nationalist that NEEDS this area to be always Italic even though the Greeks there were very much Italian in every way

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m OP and haven’t made any posts other than the OP. Not sure why you’re saying I have any opinions on Greeks at all

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Syracruse was not a massive metropolis in the Middle Ages so it doesn't really apply. There was no one city to skew the demographics of all of Southern Italy in this period like Constantinople and later Medieval Paris did for their regions. The closest thing to that was Palermo which was a mix of Arab and Greeks.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >appened. The Norman rulers didn't slaughter people nor did the Arabs, who really only had a significant presence in Sicily and even by the 11th century the majority of the island was still Greek speaking.

            Greekling "males" were massacred and their women used as breeding machines by the Italics BVLLS.

            >TAfter a lengthy eight-month siege which brought great hardship onto the defenders through hunger, and with parleys in progress, an Iberian captain named Moeriscus, one of the three prefects of Achradina, decided to save his own life by letting the Romans in near the Fountains of Arethusa. On the agreed signal, during a diversionary attack, he opened the gate. After setting guards on the houses of the pro-Roman faction, Marcellus gave Syracuse to plunder.[8] Frustrated and angered after the lengthy and costly siege, the Romans rampaged through the citadel and slaughtered many of the Syracusans where they stood and enslaved most of the rest. The city was then thoroughly looted and sacked.

            >The then-small band of desperados came across the walled Greek settlement of Messina built on a strategic location on the north-eastern tip of Sicily on the strait between Sicily and Italy. Together with the fort Rhegium on the toe of Italy, it was the crossing point between Italy and Sicily. Being a peaceful people, the inhabitants allowed the travelling mercenaries into their homes. After a time, the mercenaries became restless and plotted to capture the town. One night, the mercenaries betrayed their hosts and killed most of the population, who were unprepared. In this way, they claimed Messina for themselves in 288 BC. The surviving Messinians were thrown out and the property and women divided. After their victory, the mercenaries named themselves the Mamertines after the Oscan war-god Mamers.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Syracuse_(213%E2%80%93212_BC)#Conclusion

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamertines#Capture_of_Messina

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no? All the densely populated areas of southern Italy are occupied by greeks except for northern apulia

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were still limited to coastal cities, which proves that point

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was united in some sense under the Ostrogoths. The issue was that Italy was flanked by The French on one side of the Alps and the powerful German princes and emperors on the other side preventing their unification outside of Imperial authority. By the time Imperial authority waned Italy had been savaged by the Italian wars and over half the peninsula was in complete Spanish control.

    Now if for example the Lombards hadn’t been deposed by the Franks and had consolidated their power we very well might have seen a united Italy much sooner, granted they would have had a German king but they likely would have spoken and in time seen themselves as Italian.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It was united in some sense under the Ostrogoths
      they were a foreign military caste
      >Lombards
      yes before their kingdom was toppled they effectively merged with the local italians

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Lorenzo de Medici didn't frickin read the book Machiavelli made for him.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically because of the Pope. The Pope would just ally with France/Austria/Spain to put down any uppity Italian lords. The only reason Italy happened is because Freemasons took over most of Europe and the only viable option the Pope had left was Austria (useless)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Blame Napoleon III

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why couldn’t Italy unify until so late in history after the fall of Rome?
    Justinian
    >Northern Italy at least was always wealthy, heavily populated centers of trade.
    Italy was filled with wealthy, heavily populated centers of trade that were all in parity with each other
    >Once you’ve locked down the north, gradually pushing southwards shouldn’t be as hard
    This didn't happen
    >I can see Austria being a pain because they occupied a significant chunk of north Italian lands populated by Italians and would fear a unified Italy. But France would back them naturally you’d think. Both as a buffer state and for the above reason to be a thorn in austrias side.
    Not for most of their post-Roman history

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Once you’ve locked down the north
    Yeah that never happened during the city states period so you've basically answered yourself.
    The closest anyone got was Gian Galeazzo Visconti but he died like halfway into the job, didn't even make it far enough to betray his alliance with Venice and Savoy, nevermind conquering either.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Pope and the Empire did everything they could to stop Italy from being unified.
    Without them Italy would had most likely unified either during the Lombards, or during the post Charlemagne Kingdom of Italy

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Italian Unification was a mistake.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Multiple country in peninsula
      Same Korea…VGH…

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t. metternich

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its barely unified today as is.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why couldn’t Italy unify until so late in history after the fall of Rome?
    papacy. Lombards were poised to take over the entire peninsula

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If italians were real christians then the italy would have been unified under the papacy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Geopolitics has always been heavily secular. Despite being sincerely religious, rulers all over Europe prioritized matters of practicality far ahead of religion. AmericaFirst larping won't change that, especially in the post-20th century world of godless ideologies running rampant.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The medieval mindset that became the three estate system wouldn't agree, in their mind there where a class of physical warriors who would fight against physical threats who made up the traditional aristocracy and at times lower men at arms, a spiritual class who would make sure peoples soul (spiritual and psychological elements) where kept stable and defended from demons who would posses the weak minded and cause social strife, and everyone else who'd do all the building, crafting and farming, they'd either be free to move about or bound to land owned by one of the other estates. There was some mobility between the classes, but the pesants where happy with a verry local identity, as where lesser nobles who had more to gain with less unity of culture than nobles and kings they where sworn to, the priestly class usually wanted their kingdom to have more unity of identity, because they didn't want civil strife to ruin their feifs but the idea of national identity and unity isn't a strong idea most people would have until regional identities became really strong with different languages.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bring back la serenissima

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Northern Italy at least was always wealthy, heavily populated centers of trade.
    Nah, before Risorgimento south was wealthier than the north. Also unification and nationalism is a leftist moronation, all big countries must be dismantled into thousands of tiny states

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Terrone cope

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cope

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry broseph I don't speak capeletti

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >unification and nationalism is a leftist moronation, all big countries must be dismantled into thousands of tiny states

      Massively based. Bring forth a world of a thousand Liechtensteins.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was unified under the benevolent rule of the Holy Roman Emperor

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only the north

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Hohenstaufens ruled all of it except Sardinia

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *