Southern Italy base tax too low?

[Heliocon]

The important thing is the method, when we are talking about history, there is no space for campanilism or things pro-south or pro-north however to give an answer to the open post, we can't say "the south was poor becouse was poor" to answer, is a tautology. however the south loss during centuries is prominency, like other parts of the world during human history, the correct way to answer is a neutral historical analysis.

Modern Age, Discovery of the atlantic routes, expansion of the Ottomans, in a context where Italy lost its centrality, becoming a noble periphery of Europe, the south suffer this condition more acutely, also due to historical situations dating back to the Norman conquest. The clientelism within a rigid feudal society, caused a weak development of the bourgeoisie. to worsen the situation, the Spanish domination , not only made ​​the south only a periphery of an huge empire, but caused also a further legitimization of feudal relations and economic arrears. (In fact, problems due to feudal arrears and bad economic doctrines, appeared also in Spain). The aftermath of this continued de facto also in the contemporary age, and of course also had its effect on the history of our country post-unification.

So in game terms:

Naples deserve prestige, as center of prestige and royal power, vivid enough to be a center of the renaissance, connected enough to not be totally foreign to the Enlightenment (also spain invested on this directly, and indirectly also with the kingdom of sicily post 1734)

the rest of southern Italy while being economically inserted into a wide-ranging agricultural circuit, was penalized by the fossilized remain of this "feudal" view of the economy, with all the consequences about the society (consequences appeared, with the obvious differences, in all the areas that suffered a static feudal economy), that ignored his large potential about the industrial plants, to continue with an ill-planned economy.


The consequences of this evolution, reflected on every other sector, a spontaneus middle class remained an exception and the intellectual bearer of foreign or original ideas was without audience.

Every economic activity, concerning fishing, agriculture, mining, etc.. or was under foreign influences little interested in the development of the area, or was influenced by centuries of political, economical and social stagnation.

so, like other part of world, the historical context and the contingent policies, can justify a not central economic position of southern italy during the EUIV timeframe.

Yes, but poor enough to have 1 base tax provinces? Why not 2-3, thats STILL poor, 1 is just atrocious and unjustified. Also those effects you described were the same/similar for siciliy which has 8 tax...

 

[EUTony]

Jeez, southern and northern Italians do not seem to like each other. Then again, I don't enjoy the hicks from the south of the USA either (just kidding my southern brothers, y'all aren't too bad).

 

[muki]

The problem with 1 base tax provinces in Europe, not just Southern Italy, is that they're basically equal to sparsely populated islands which is absurd. I cannot remember which islands are represented as provinces in the demo, but I know Aland, Shetland are, and probably Iceland, Greenland also give you more income than some core land provinces in Europe.

 

[hannibal_barca]

Hello,

Well, after the Renaissance in northern Italy, the South WAS piss poor, and sparsly populated so I guess it's only accurate that they get a small taxbase.

Wrong my friends. Southern Italy began its sharp decline to tijuana-like conditions after 1861. Before that Naples was one of the great cities of Europe and had more industrial development than Lombardy. Do the rrresearch. Piedmontese administrators deindustrialized the region after the conquest. Don't listen to the 'leghesti"

 

[Checco]

The problem with 1 base tax provinces in Europe, not just Southern Italy, is that they're basically equal to sparsely populated islands which is absurd. I cannot remember which islands are represented as provinces in the demo, but I know Aland, Shetland are, and probably Iceland, Greenland also give you more income than some core land provinces in Europe.

I have to agree on this.

Fresh-made colonies or very small islands cannot compare income with any land province's, unless there is gold in the former.

It is not justifiable by any other game mechanic imho, as trade system teaches us that two equal base-tax provs can be very different according to the good they produce, while tax system tells us revenues are based on population.

I think they'll correct this sooner or later, after all the game is still in its infant stage .

 

[Alerias]

I guess it would be alright to bump all the southern Italian provinces by 1.

 

[Elusivehonor]

Southern Italy was poor for a number of reasons, most notably because the Spanish, French, and Austrian nobility fought over the the region for a few centuries, which led to several hundred years of occupation by the Habsburgs, which further led to over half the land being owned by the church in 1750. That said, I understand the reasoning behind the low base tax; e.g., balance issues. However, Southern Italy was wealthy enough to fight over, so a permanent 1 base tax for many of its provinces (sans Naples) is far too harsh.

Instead, I think national modifiers should be in place for Naples at the start of the game, and possibly province modifiers as well. These modifiers will give malus to base tax, discipline, and revolt risk. However, they will go away with time as long as there is a stable, innovative, independent, and centralized government in place with a boost to MTTH if they are strong enough to secure Sicily, build province improvements, and generally improve their political situation.

I think this is a more elegant solution, and far better models the political/economic situation Southern Italy was in. Perhaps a Sicily resurgent DLC could focus on turning backwards Southern Italy into a more prosperous nation, which in-turn could be bundled with other minor/mid-range nation event/idea DLC.

 

[FredricBastiat]

I'm not a great expert on the economic history of Italy, but making all of southern Italy worth about as much as one random province in the middle of Anatolia seems a bit harsh.

 

[hannibal_barca]

Southern Italy was poor for a number of reasons, most notably because the Spanish, French, and Austrian nobility fought over the the region for a few centuries, which led to several hundred years of occupation by the Habsburgs, which further led to over half the land being owned by the church in 1750. That said, I understand the reasoning behind the low base tax; e.g., balance issues. However, Southern Italy was wealthy enough to fight over, so a permanent 1 base tax for many of its provinces (sans Naples) is far too harsh.

Instead, I think national modifiers should be in place for Naples at the start of the game, and possibly province modifiers as well. These modifiers will give malus to base tax, discipline, and revolt risk. However, they will go away with time as long as there is a stable, innovative, independent, and centralized government in place with a boost to MTTH if they are strong enough to secure Sicily, build province improvements, and generally improve their political situation.

I think this is a more elegant solution, and far better models the political/economic situation Southern Italy was in. Perhaps a Sicily resurgent DLC could focus on turning backwards Southern Italy into a more prosperous nation, which in-turn could be bundled with other minor/mid-range nation event/idea DLC.

Southern Italy was not "poor". During the EUIV timespan most of it was not as industrialized as Milan and the northern states. But agriculture still ruled the day back then not proto-cottage industry. Sicily had a near monopoly on sulphur and citrus. Southern Italian soil is very rich. Southern Italy is poor today for the same reason south america is. Corruption and stagnation. Southern Italy was a powerhouse. It supplied most of Spain's soldiers and its galley fleet during this time span. Furthermore Southern Italy did not fall under Spanish dominion until way after the start of EUIV. I don't blame paradox, this is just a decision based on balancing and historical veracity.

 

[Sun_Wu]

I understand Southern Italy wasn't rich, but Salzburg has about half the tax base of Naples by itself.

 

[Natte]

I understand that southern Italy was poorer than its northern counterpart for a number of reason, but one base tax is the same as any random Atlantic island, Greenland, Iceland, Lapland, Kola... hell I would not be surprised if some of those have a higher base tax. So while it should not be comparable with northern Italy on a province to province basis (Naples, Messina etc being exceptions) they sure should not be as poor as frozen wasteland.

 

[Delta107]

At the time most of the area Naples control, was swampy and generally very poor (And unpopulated). All of these are reflected in the poor base tax the area receives. You're going to have to cope or find other means of revenue (Like trade or conquest - It's a big area once you rid yourself of your shackles)

Yes, those shores will allow more naval buildings=> bigger navy===>better trade, colonization, so trade is an option.

 

[Galaahd]

Wrong my friends. Southern Italy began its sharp decline to tijuana-like conditions after 1861. Before that Naples was one of the great cities of Europe and had more industrial development than Lombardy. Do the rrresearch. Piedmontese administrators deindustrialized the region after the conquest. Don't listen to the 'leghesti"

:rofl:

Two Sicilies was in a horrible condition even before the conquest. If it wasn't, why would have it fallen after an invasion of 1000 volunteers?
Sure, there were some industries, there was the railroad and so on, but they were mostly some tokens just to show off how "modern" the nation was, kinda like when in Africa they built one modern hospital in the capital, while in the rest of the nation they starve to death. Outside Naples (which was a parasitic city) the people pretty much lived as medieval servants in huge feudal estates. Like someone else said, it was like Russia.

 

[Delta107]

[gets popcorn, Italian north-south rivalry show] It gets especially interesting when things take this form.

 

[Galaahd]

Southern Italian soil is very rich.

Sorry, but no. Far from it.

 

[Knab]

Jeez, southern and northern Italians do not seem to like each other. Then again, I don't enjoy the hicks from the south of the USA either (just kidding my southern brothers, y'all aren't too bad).

[gets popcorn, Italian north-south rivalry show] It gets especially interesting when things take this turn.

[OT]
Well, actually both "North" and "South" are divided inside. Every region/city has its rival neighbour in Italy. North vs South is very approximate and recent as rivalry.
[/OT]

I'm not an expert of the Kingdom of Naples, but I think that reshaping its provinces (making a smaller and richer one for the city of Naples only, with a trade node nearby) might be a solution.
But I guess we'll have to wait for some mods; the vanilla already needs some serious reworking (cultural and religious conversions for example).

 

[Marco Dandolo]

[gets popcorn, Italian north-south rivalry show] It gets especially interesting when things get this turn.

Hello!

...

Not so much north vs. south rivalry in here, the best commentary in this thread was made by Te. Kenzo, who resides in Palermo. Besides that, 3 base tax would be ok for southern Puglia and Calabria (as mentioned, 1 base tax would be more an atlantic island or Greenland). The gap between Naples and Sicily on the one side and the rest on the other was rather huge. It's worth mentioning, that Sicily is an exception, the island remained noteworthy rich. When Savoy had to trade Sicily for Sardinia, Sicily had a revenue of more than 60 mio. lire; Sardinia had less than 10 mio.* And that was in 1720. Calabria and Puglia couldn't be compared to that, as Sicily and Naples played in another league.

There are many different motives for that. Beginning with the 15th century, there were whole cities which were devasted by Barbarary pirates, ruining the economy. Tenthousands were enslaved. The kings and later the spanish viceroys were more concerned about strategic positions - like Messina, Palermo or Naples - from which they operated/ruled. The first phase of the Italian Wars took place in this region. The authorities were much more interested in gaining taxes and manpower, instead of cultivating the lands (the "Spanish road" began in Southern Italy, before troops were moved by ship to Northern Italy, and through Savoy to Flanders). That changed a bit under the Bourbons, but the centres remained Naples and the sicilian cities, not the provinces of the boot.

________
*Luigi EINAUDI: La finanza sabauda all’aprirsi del secolo XVIII e durante la guerra di Successione spagnola, Torino 1908, S. 415-416.
Antonello MATTONE: La cessione del Regno di Sardegna dal trattato di Utrecht alla presa di possesso sabauda (1713-1720), in: Rivista Storica Italiana 104 (1992), S. 5-89.

 

[VeneziaIstanbul]

Wrong my friends. Southern Italy began its sharp decline to tijuana-like conditions after 1861. Before that Naples was one of the great cities of Europe and had more industrial development than Lombardy. Do the rrresearch. Piedmontese administrators deindustrialized the region after the conquest. Don't listen to the 'leghesti"

First of all, it's "leghisti".
Second of all, I highly doubt these three people that commented poorly on the conditions of south Italy do it for political reasons. Please avoid this kind of inference; if you can't discuss rationally, don't discuss.
"Piedmontese" -meaning italians- didn't "de industrialize" anything, even if such a thing is possible.
What happened is that Sardinia Piedmont started printing money without having the gold to back it up (yes, everybody was still in the gold standard) thus becoming the butt of every joke in Europe because they basically invented deficit and money devaluation before exiting the gold standard, which is just pants on head. So what they did is they started a campaign to make up for the money they printed but don't actually have by using the french as a ram to invade and topple the states that existed around them, in exchange for pieces of land and generally becoming their bitch here on after.

Now for the reign of Two Sicilies:
they got invaded and annexed by the italians because they were rich in coin, not rich in resources. At least not the valuable ones, given how things were fastly industrializing and generally speaking you cannot base your whole economy on oranges and wheat. Their "thing" was having coin: foreign coin that is, but can still be smelted and made into a reserve that justifies Sardinia-Piedmont's (Italy) shady banking decisions.
So yeh, Italy was build out of public debt and that is the only reason it exists.

Two Sicilies was in a horrible condition even before the conquest. If it wasn't, why would have it fallen after an invasion of 1000 volunteers?

That is an historical fallacy: the mercenary Garibaldi, funded by the banker Cavour in cahoots with the mason Mazzini didn't lead an army of 1k mercenaries.
He was indeed very much supported by the anglo and the french navy, which became of great use when the reign of Two Sicilies failed to ambush him, telling him "ye ye come along, we're all italians here" but waiting for him on the coast with as many infantry they could get, to put an end to his subversion. Also all things considered, his mercenaries were generally thugs, think japanese army in China, so basically ANYBODY, not just for political reasons, was justified in resisting him.
Can you imagine their neapolitan faces when they saw the anglo-french marine open up and a silly stupid ship with that bastard Garibaldi on it proceed towards them from their midst?

Anyway, on the subject of southern economics, this book might be of some help to sort out through the neo-borbonic propaganda and the general italian campanilism.


Edit: varda quanti veneti. Ora me méto de novo el léon, me gavì risvejà el nazionalismo. )))

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Jeez, southern and northern Italians do not seem to like each other. Then again, I don't enjoy the hicks from the south of the USA either (just kidding my southern brothers, y'all aren't too bad).

Says the guy from Michigan.

 

[Fdurke]

well, as i said the game doesnt take place in that era, in 1450 the land wasnt very rich... it produced a lot of food but that was all. and it's commercial relevancy was sinking faster than the titaninc

i'm not arguing with that... i'm arguing with those who said that south italy was poor at the end of the time spawn of the game... wich was incorrect at best

i'm actually quite ok with it's state at the start of the game.. well, maybe it shouldnt be poor like albania.... but still its ok and plausible

People here tend to be very biased historically wise, to remind them of the contrary is a shot in the foot. Russia is full of zerglings, France was strong but economicaly weak (which is as stupid as it gets as it was the more populous european country on the game time frame), Prussia was always strong, England is inherently better than anyone, the Norsemen were always advanced (which is just not true) in the east is full of dirt poor savages.