At what point did Italians start being bad at war?

>>1958164
The Vandals fucked their shit up permanently, Venice tried to bring it back but ended up just dicking around.

>>1958164
I don't but I found this guy and I think he's interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Taliaferro

Venice was a power within the Mediterranean for a while. I think once the Hapsburgs beat them, that was it for any kind of military projection from the region(s) of Italy.

>>1958200
>William Booth Taliaferro (pronunciation Anglicized to "tah'-liver")

topkek how fucking wrong is that

>>1958164
WW1 was mainly due to Luigi "every stereotype about Russian generals" Cadorna
>repeated human waves
>shooting his own retreating troops
>bringing decimation back to use on units that fail

>>1958164
You forgot failing to invade Greece.

And as far as OP's question, the Italians after the Roman empire seemed much motivated when fighting each other than fighting foreigners.

>>1958164
>So.. What happened?
They gambled their reputation away in a bid for expansion.
Italy was in no way equipped to fight on a level with colonial and continental empires in the 19th and 20th century (national disunity aside, nowhere near enough economic and demographic resources), yet they still tried to expand by climbing on the shoulders of allies. Sometimes it worked (when they chose the right allies), sometimes it didn't. Of course they always performed like shit, because they were massively overreaching themselves. But their performance was not the point, their allies' was.
It didn't even work bad.

>>1958246
>topkek how fucking wrong is that
The Taliaferro/Tolliver of Virginia have actually been shilling their italo/american heritage since Jefferson's times. They even asked him to go look for their origins when he travelled to northern Italy in the 1780s.

Italy had certain elite units but the average soldier was often a humble farmers boy with no particular motivation to go warring.

File: 1474409934652.jpg (59KB, 600x608px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x608px

>>1958164
>At what point did Italians start being bad at war?
At what point were they ever good at war?

The Romans were good at war.
So good they conquered the tribes of the Italian peninsula (Umbrians, Latins, exc.) and forced them to provide men as tribute instead of gold.

The Romans trained the soldiers.
The Romans led the soldiers.
The Romans were good at war.

>>1958510
I'd like to add: imagine being a farmer from the South and being called to arms to fight in the North, for a war that you don't understand and don't even support, of course you're going to perform poorly compared to the butthurt Friulans.

Also, I don't understand why Cadorna hasn't been publicly shamed in the Afterwar, they still name streets after him.

>>1958164
I don't know the exact date but as early as the 16th century, Spain, France and Austria fought for the domination of Italy (which implies that Italians were too shitty to defend themselves against foreign rule)

>>1958164
The Italians may be bad at war but the rest of the world is shit at food compared with 'em