>>559936 They pretty much weren't a first world (equivalent) country for all the wars they fought since unification. Pre-unification italians were actually fairly good fighters, the venetians in particular.
>>559936 Just look at your own map. City state and regional powers trying to fight it out with France and Habsburgic Spain. And even after they unified, they were as much a multiethnic clusterfuck as Austria Hungary (by 1861, only 2.5% of italians spoke italian, only non mutually intelligible regional languages), minus the tradition of unity, plus a shitload of internal enmity.
>>559938 >Lombard heritage >the part of Italy that changed hands most often was Lombardy and the south >the part of Italy with the highest lombard influence was Lombardy and the south >the part of Italy that changed hands the least was Venice and the papal states >the part of Italy with the lowest lombard influence was Venice and the papal states Fuck it actually works out. What's wrong with the lombards?
>>559936 This is just wrong, Venice has a pretty fucking awesome military history, despite being so small. Italy after unification was still a notable power that managed to get a colonial empire. They were relevant in WW1 against the Austrians.
Well, they got their name when their women tied their manes in front of their face to look like beards, so their tribe could look bigger and thus stronger. They cheated the gods with that trick (thanks to a goddes), and where named the Longobardi or Long Bearded since then. They penetrated the Peninsula after the mutual anhiliation of the Byzantine-Gothic forces and ruled over the ruins of whats left.
>>560060 >wasn't it mostly Italy throwing people on the mountainous meat grinder Under Cadorna, pretty much this. But it changed under Diaz. Cadorna has to have been the most incompetent general in the history of warfare, Italy's military history in ww1 can be pretty much summarized as: >Capello/Diaz corner the austrians >Cadorna overrules theit strategy and orders some ridiculous suicidal offensive >battle lost, thousands of casualties Repeat until Caporetto.
>>560025 >2.5% of italians spoke italian, only non mutually intelligible regional languages), minus the tradition of unity, plus a shitload of internal enmity. Mein gott, the ignorance here. Italy was so culturally and homogenous that its people probably deserves more than any other area in Europe to be called a "nation"
>>560232 >Italy was so culturally and homogenous Top kek, and you call others ignorant? The only homogenous thing about Italy is its genetic stock, not certianly its culture, which has only started to unify after the united government started going full oppression on localisms. The city based, french/german influenced states of the north and the theocratic/feudal, spanish influenced south have developed completely different cultures, and one would need to be totally blind to ignore that. Also the 2.5% comes from a Tullio de Mauro research, so it's legit, and how the fuck can you tell me that a language-less country is culturally homogeneous?
>>560306 To be more specific, elite culture was very homogenous based on classical and medieval heritage (especially Dante). Elite homogeneity is always more important, especially in the case of nationalism. Your characterization of North and South is a crude meme at best. All 18th century states in Italy underwent similar enlightened absolutist projects. All shared a similar experience in the Napoleonic wars. The divergence was after 1815 and even then, the south actually had a shot at economic success except for the fact that its kings were incompetent to a tee in a time when good leadership was an absolute necessity.
>>560419 Also, I have a gut feeling that your overplaying linguistic diversity and you certainly downplay the ethnic heritage of italians. Maybe over 95% are "ethnic" italians on the peninsula and so italians never had the ethic tensions of the new "national" states formed after wwi with significant ethnic minorities, especially post austrohungarian states
>>560419 >elite culture was very homogenous based on classical and medieval heritage But not really. Literature doesn't make up the entirety of culture you know, and there wasn't much in common between the "capitalistic" nobility of the north and the aristocratic and almost feudal nobility of the south. >Elite homogeneity is always more important, especially in the case of nationalism. Yeah right, as evidenced by the decades of resistance to assimilation in the south and the still very strong localism present in the whole country. >All 18th century states in Italy underwent similar enlightened absolutist projects >18th century Nigga what? Literally only Tuscany and Savoy had an "enlightened" despot in that century. Venice, the Papal States and the Two Sicilies (aka 3/4 of the peninsula) most certainly didn't. >italians never had the ethic tensions Yeah right, aside from the south basically having to be militarily occupied for decades before being pacified, and the north east and Sardinia still to this day considering themselves more venetian/sardinian than italian, and so on..
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.