Why is Italy so weak compared to her predecessors,the Roman Empire?

Lord Oda Nobunaga · Feb 3, 2017

I mean Italians didn't have a strong unified state or army but they did a lot of things, especially during the Renaissance (1300's to 1600's).

There is some guys that we know. They weren't a big deal but you may have heard of them... Dante Alighieri, Giovanni di Fidanza, Francesco Petrarca, Giles of Rome, Raffaello Sanzio, Donatello di Betto Bardi, Leonardo Da Vinci, Antonio Salieri, Michelangelo Buonarroti, several Popes, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Venetian doges, the Genoese doges, the Borgia, Visconti, Sforza, Medici, Farnese, Gonzaga etc etc.

caldrail · Feb 4, 2017

It's wrong to see Romans as a separate people with attributes much more suitable to war than later Italy. Remember that Rome was a cosmopolitan society even in its earlier days, even more so when they began accumulating an empire. It is true that Roman society favoured martial values so much that Cicero remarks how politicians like to see statues of themselves in military guise, but it is also true that he says that civil duty was harder than military career for the upper classes. It is also true that the Romans did not adopt modern style "we can turn anyone into a soldier". They most certainly did not, they actively chose those from military , labouring, or any other family background that suggested strength and virility. Sons of perfume sellers need not apply. No point. They won't recruit you.

The militaristic values of Roman society had a different effect on lower classes. Increasingly the legions were seen as not a good career move, and even though the legions of Augustus' reign are generally well thought of, by that stage the rot had set in and we see evidence of poor performance and reluctantcy, if not outright mutiny. Augustus had to take severe action when he discovered that someone had cut off his sons thumbs so they could not serve - this was later a common practice, such that Constantine ordered that such men should instead serve civic duties within their communities. Valentinian ordered such men such be burned alive. Theodosius ordered that two men without thumbs were as good as one.

In fact, Augustus had ordered Tiberius to research how many men were hiding in rural slave barracks to avoid service. By the late empire, religion or bribery were used to avoid it as well. That we should see later Italy as 'weak' isn't really suprising - the Romans had already laid that foundation beforehand. They often gloated how the effects of luxury reduced a man's strength and aggressiveness - it is rather ironic the very same effects due to long success as an empire affected them too.

taiwwa · Feb 6, 2017

I've read most of the thread and my opinion is that a big reason probably is Christianity which diverted resources in "unproductive" directions and provided moral constraints to warfare and conquest. The Roman gods likely had more a justification for vanquishing the enemy as just and righteous, while in the Christian moral system such an action is cruel and will send you to eternal hell. In time Christianity would be contorted and construed in ways to justify the secular necessity of war, but overall it would always act as a hindrance to conquest.

VHS · Feb 6, 2017

caldrail said:
It's wrong to see Romans as a separate people with attributes much more suitable to war than later Italy. Remember that Rome was a cosmopolitan society even in its earlier days, even more so when they began accumulating an empire. It is true that Roman society favoured martial values so much that Cicero remarks how politicians like to see statues of themselves in military guise, but it is also true that he says that civil duty was harder than military career for the upper classes. It is also true that the Romans did not adopt modern style "we can turn anyone into a soldier". They most certainly did not, they actively chose those from military , labouring, or any other family background that suggested strength and virility. Sons of perfume sellers need not apply. No point. They won't recruit you.

The militaristic values of Roman society had a different effect on lower classes. Increasingly the legions were seen as not a good career move, and even though the legions of Augustus' reign are generally well thought of, by that stage the rot had set in and we see evidence of poor performance and reluctantcy, if not outright mutiny. Augustus had to take severe action when he discovered that someone had cut off his sons thumbs so they could not serve - this was later a common practice, such that Constantine ordered that such men should instead serve civic duties within their communities. Valentinian ordered such men such be burned alive. Theodosius ordered that two men without thumbs were as good as one.

In fact, Augustus had ordered Tiberius to research how many men were hiding in rural slave barracks to avoid service. By the late empire, religion or bribery were used to avoid it as well. That we should see later Italy as 'weak' isn't really suprising - the Romans had already laid that foundation beforehand. They often gloated how the effects of luxury reduced a man's strength and aggressiveness - it is rather ironic the very same effects due to long success as an empire affected them too.

The military prowess of many empires often went through a few stages:
During the beginning and the expansion stage, it was the greatest.
After a while, corruption and idleness sapped the strength of the military; it was still relatively capable, but it was not nearly as formidable as its beginning.
Usually during the end of the empire, the military became more or less walking statutes, in which even minor powers might take advantage of a decadent empire.
For example, Morocco took advantage of the decadent Songhai Empire even though it lacked the capacity to conquer the whole Songhai Empire.

Lord Oda Nobunaga · Feb 7, 2017

The Italians fought plenty of wars just that many were between city states or on occasion they would team up to fight some German, Spanish or French invader or perhaps a really strong Italian state. There were also many Italians who fought on foreign soil as mercenaries or to expand the power of their respective states. Many foreigners also traveled to the Italian Peninsula to serve as mercenaries. Italy had many wars all throughout their later history it is just that they tended to be on a smaller scale, had mostly minimum gains and usually were defensive in nature with only limited offensives.

Fantasus · Jan 18, 2018

The Meditteranean countries were for millenia more of a centre of a "Civilisation", later a part only? If so, the Italian peninsula was once at the "centre" of a central Sea, and Rome at a central position on the peninsula. Today, the Meditteranean is only one of many in the more or less global community.

Naima · Jan 18, 2018

Wrangler29 said:
A friend of mine told me its because Italians lacked the qualities that made the Roman people create the one of if not the greatest civilizations in the history of the world:

1)Industriousness 2)Stoicism 3)Frugality 4)Toughness 5)Discipline 6)Militarism and above all: 7)Willingness to sacrifice everything(including one's self and one's entire family) for the country.

Is my friend right?If not,then what are the reasons why Italy is so weak today?

I am Italian andI agree to a certain degree. Unfortunately Italians after the WW2 where teached that to have a sense of the state and patriotism its bad because were valours of the fascism.
Radical leftist chic claim heritage of the communist parties partisans that, at their opinion were the ones that freed Italy from fascism.
So anything that reminds fascism even the good things are kind of stigmatized as bad.
If you dare to be proud of beeing Italian then you are a Nationalist and so a fascist.
If you speak of former regions of Italy lost in war like Istria , dalmatia , Corsica, nizza, Savoja etc and of the many exiles from those lands then you are a nationalist and a fascist.
On the language, if you dare to tell you want to protect Italian from foreign words they tell you are a fascist .
Again if you dare to say that there are too many immigrants then you are a fascist racist. This is because the government in conjunction with media developed a sort of antiitalian sentiment that labels as fascist anything that barely goes toward the interests of our own nation . Hopefully we will get a new government but will need a total brainwashing of the Italian people.

Lucius · Jan 18, 2018

Fantasus said:
The Meditteranean countries were for millenia more of a centre of a "Civilisation", later a part only? If so, the Italian peninsula was once at the "centre" of a central Sea, and Rome at a central position on the peninsula. Today, the Meditteranean is only one of many in the more or less global community.

Well said! The Roman empire was weaned on, and defined by, Mare Nostrum.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 · Jan 18, 2018

Well in classical times Rome conquered Classical Power after Classical Power gradually over a period of time, Italy by itself didn't necessarily make it a superpower. The only superpower that a solely Italian Rome managed to defeat was Carthage. Of course even after the Italian population was reunified by this point there were quite a few stronger powers in Europe. Not only did Italy have a smaller population than most other great powers, the southern part of Italy remained quite backwards compared to the northern part. Of course Italy was still powerful it just was no match for the superpowers of the 1800s and 1900s many of whom not only had larger populations and superior industrial capacity but had vast colonial empires as well. This was a huge difference between Italy and a country like France for example who Italy surpassed in population during the interwar period(France has since reversed that trend)as France had a much larger colonial empire.

David Vagamundo · Jan 18, 2018

Good question. Do we ever see an empire have a "second act"?

Valens has a comment on the thread entitled "Crisis of the Third Century" in which he points out that by the third century, the Roman Empire had outgrown Italy and the "center of gravity" had shifted from the old center to the peripheries as guarding the borders became more important. Many or most of the later Roman Emperors--as well as the soldiers-- were not Italian and the old Republican virtues---particularly military skill-- were long gone.

Commerce, the arts and religion then gradually displaced arms as the path to wealth and power in Italy.

Moreover, the Italian Peninsula plus Sicily never became a territorial state in the early modern period as did Spain, France, Britain and Austria; instead, Italy was their prey and their battleground.

Finally, until fairly recently, there was no such state as "Italy" but only a group of small principalities, each with a more or less distinct language (Greek was spoken in much of Southern Italy and Sicily until WWII, for example) and with a distinct government and allegiance to one or another of the territorial states.

Pict · Jan 18, 2018

Naima said:
So anything that reminds fascism even the good things are kind of stigmatized as bad.
If you dare to be proud of beeing Italian then you are a Nationalist and so a fascist.
If you speak of former regions of Italy lost in war like Istria , dalmatia , Corsica, nizza, Savoja etc and of the many exiles from those lands then you are a nationalist and a fascist.
On the language, if you dare to tell you want to protect Italian from foreign words they tell you are a fascist .
Again if you dare to say that there are too many immigrants then you are a fascist racist. This is because the government in conjunction with media developed a sort of antiitalian sentiment that labels as fascist anything that barely goes toward the interests of our own nation . Hopefully we will get a new government but will need a total brainwashing of the Italian people.

- If you talk about the good things of Fascism
- and if you want back regions lost in past wars
- and if you don't want foreign words in the Italian language
- and if you say there are too much immigrants in Italy
- and if you believe that the government and the media are conspiring to end patriotism in Italy
- and you hope for a brainwashing of the Italians

With all these combined at least you have to admit that even if you are not a Fascist, it is not surprising other people would see you as one.

Pict · Jan 18, 2018

David Vagamundo said:
Good question. Do we ever see an empire have a "second act"?

Maybe Chinese empires, German empires and Persian empires?

VHS · Jan 18, 2018

Modern Italy did not form until 1871; the immediate successor of the Roman Empire in Italy was an Ostrogothic kingdom.
The political system did not allow the Ostrogothic kingdom to be sustainable or strong; Theodoric did not leave a sustainable system, either.

Naima · Jan 19, 2018

EmperoroftheBavarians43 said:
Well in classical times Rome conquered Classical Power after Classical Power gradually over a period of time, Italy by itself didn't necessarily make it a superpower. The only superpower that a solely Italian Rome managed to defeat was Carthage. Of course even after the Italian population was reunified by this point there were quite a few stronger powers in Europe. Not only did Italy have a smaller population than most other great powers, the southern part of Italy remained quite backwards compared to the northern part. Of course Italy was still powerful it just was no match for the superpowers of the 1800s and 1900s many of whom not only had larger populations and superior industrial capacity but had vast colonial empires as well. This was a huge difference between Italy and a country like France for example who Italy surpassed in population during the interwar period(France has since reversed that trend)as France had a much larger colonial empire.

I believe the idea that Southern Italy was always backward compared to northern one is a myth enstablished by the time of Italian unification to justify the act of conquest from the Piedmont toward the south.
South Italy was not backward and had also many advancements , also the southern state was way more rich than the northern one and this alone was a reason for conquering, what created a divergence was the aftermath , when the north treated the south like a conquered colony in spanish style , investing all the profit gained from the conquest to repay the war and in northern cities activities, leaving the south defiled and empourished wich lead to banditism , that in its original form was called as such but in reality was a reistence military movement from previous kingdom .

Naima · Jan 19, 2018

Pict said:
- If you talk about the good things of Fascism
- and if you want back regions lost in past wars
- and if you don't want foreign words in the Italian language
- and if you say there are too much immigrants in Italy
- and if you believe that the government and the media are conspiring to end patriotism in Italy
- and you hope for a brainwashing of the Italians

With all these combined at least you have to admit that even if you are not a Fascist, it is not surprising other people would see you as one.

Its called nationalism and together or not or one by one its seen as fascist .
if you go and see other european countries they all perpetrate the same points, but are not seen as "fascist" but as a form of national identity and pride.

ITalians now day do not even feel the holiday of the republic or the unification or the national Anthem .

Pict · Jan 19, 2018

Naima said:
Its called nationalism and together or not or one by one its seen as fascist .

What does it need for this set of ideas to be considered Fascist?

Fantasus · Jan 19, 2018

Italy has so much else than the once Roman Republic and Empire. Also from the time before and when Rome expanded. The Greek cities in the south and the Etruscan in the North may not have been inferior to roman ones.

Tulius · Jan 19, 2018

Naima said:
If you speak of former regions of Italy lost in war like Istria , dalmatia , Corsica, nizza, Savoja etc and of the many exiles from those lands then you are a nationalist and a fascist.

When did Italy lost some of those regions… for instance Corsica? Are you referring to WWII, in 1943, after occupying it with the Germans in 1942?

David Vagamundo · Jan 19, 2018

Naima said:
I believe the idea that Southern Italy was always backward compared to northern one is a myth enstablished by the time of Italian unification to justify the act of conquest from the Piedmont toward the south.
South Italy was not backward and had also many advancements , also the southern state was way more rich than the northern one and this alone was a reason for conquering, what created a divergence was the aftermath , when the north treated the south like a conquered colony in spanish style , investing all the profit gained from the conquest to repay the war and in northern cities activities, leaving the south defiled and empourished wich lead to banditism , that in its original form was called as such but in reality was a reistence military movement from previous kingdom .

This is an unorthodox opinion. It would be worth a separate thread to elaborate. I simply don't see that the south of Italy was richer than the north at the time of unification.

Slak · Jan 19, 2018

Azatoth said:
Because italy is (wrongly?) most identified with roman empire and italians with romans more so than others you mentioned becuase of geographical position as Italy occupy core of roman empire including city of Rome.

There is also the composition of the Roman army. During the early Republic the legions consisted of "original" Romans from the city of Rome, while their Italian allies made up the auxiliary troops. After the Social War (91-88 BC), Italy became the main reservoir of Roman citizen soldiers and it seems to have remained so until the end of the first century AD (see for instance Pat Southern, The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History), which means that the armies that created the Roman Empire, or at least the legions, were predominantly Italian in origin.

Search

Search

Why is Italy so weak compared to her predecessors,the Roman Empire?

Lord Oda Nobunaga

caldrail

taiwwa

VHS

Lord Oda Nobunaga

Fantasus

Naima

Lucius

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43

David Vagamundo

Pict

Pict

VHS

Naima

Naima

Pict

Fantasus

Tulius

David Vagamundo

Slak

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions