The case of Italy.

[unmerged(17798)]

The best that Italy does after the fall of Rome was the Renaissance for sure.
Richness, abundance, culture, scientific, social and economical develop at the top of the world.

The power of Renaissance was, for me, the power of the micro-management of the Italian Regions/States.
And of course the wonderfull position in the heart of Mediterranean sea, between Asia, Africa and Europe.

Mostly for this reason, I think that the best for Italy, and the italian people, would been better to be united under a federalist republic of aristocratics (at the begining) as some thinkers of that period (I don't remember the names...) said.

 

[unmerged(9524)]

I think it was Balbo who proposed a Confederacy of the Italian States headed by the Pope.

That could be a possibility in the game.

Saluti

 

[unmerged(2619)]

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine
I think it was Balbo who proposed a Confederacy of the Italian States headed by the Pope.

That could be a possibility in the game.

Saluti

Gioberti and Cattaneo too. Federalism was an option. A regressive option I think in a so socially, culturally and economically divided country where a man from Calabria and a man from Piedmont spoke a different language and they didn't understand each other. Result would not be a national state but a sum of states. Much closer to CIS then to USA or federal republic of germany.

 

[unmerged(17798)]

Originally posted by Depaz
Gioberti and Cattaneo too. Federalism was an option. A regressive option I think in a so socially, culturally and economically divided country where a man from Calabria and a man from Piedmont spoke a different language and they didn't understand each other. Result would not be a national state but a sum of states. Much closer to CIS then to USA or federal republic of germany.

I like this kind of discussion.

Anyway, you say right when you say that without a language unity there can't be a national unity. But I'm sure you know that at start of 1861 Italy has a language unity only on the paper. We can start to speak about language unity only after the First World War. Also, today in Italy if you put a country man of Bergamo (a city of Lomabrdy) in a room with a country man of Siracusa (a city of Sicily) they don't understand each other!
That just to say that today there are a lot of dialects in Italy yet.

When I speak about federalism I don't want to say every state is free do do what it want to do!
I think Balbo, Gioberti, Cattaneo and many others want for Italy the same lenguage, the same army, the same instruction, the same currency, the same law... But to give more power to the regions, than centralization or, better, "Northification" (you know what I mean...).
Also Milan and Venice were penalized at the begin.

The important to understand is that the italian regions were ready to be administrate by themself, and to comunicate eachother by the medieval or, also, by the Roman Empire!

 

[unmerged(17798)]

Right I'm here I wanna say another thing.

Carefulness: speculation is starting!



I think that if there would been the Italian Federation and it would worked good as I think, in half a century all Europe would been unity under a federation of regions!!

Why?
Here I am for this.

If the italian federation would worked as good as I think, the richness, the technology and the culture of this country would grown a lot.
Remember that during the Renaissance Italy created the first Banks of the world (Florence), just for an example. The best armors of Europe arrived from Milan, an other example. In Italy, during that period, there were men as Caravaggio, Michelangelo and, not last, Leonardo Da Vinci!
In that period Venice and Genova were city so rich and commercials that we can say were the richest city(s) of the world. Also they were richer than others whole Nations! The 4 Italian marine republics built the best ships of that period... and so on.

Now, all of you know that in the North of Italy there are the tall mountains Alps. With a simply Army good fit in defence on that mountain none Army could pass! Would been easy for the Italian Federation to prepare such army. Besides Italy has only the north to be protect...
By the sea? Simply IMPOSSIBLE. As I say with such unification Italy would had the best fleet ever.

So, Rich + Strong in Culture + Perfect Defence (in particular vs kingdoms) + Advanced Technology + Base of Comercials between Europe, Asia and Africa + Republic (that means Freedom for People in that period) >>> Italy would been the light of Europe.

I'm sure that quickly lot of european politicians, thinkers and middle-class people would started to change their country (also with the help of Italy: that mean more with money, than with army).

Anyway, in half a century Europe would be united under a community of federation of regions.

Thesis proved.

 

[unmerged(9524)]

LOL

I think you are going too far with your imagination

But it surely would have been a nice thing , we would have had a EU some 50-60 years earlier.

-----------

Anyway, I think that a Federal Italy could have worked very well, as it would have allowed the various cities to keep their administration, but at the same time they would have started a process of "Italianization" of their citizens, by teaching them Florentine Italian, and educate them. And each region would have helped each other in case of need.

But the problem was that such a Federation (or Confederation) was not possible, because the various prince, king and dukes (and popes) in Italy did not want to give up their power on behalf of an Italian federation.

That's one of the main reason Italy never united in the past as well.

Saluti

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Depaz
Gioberti and Cattaneo too. Federalism was an option. A regressive option I think in a so socially, culturally and economically divided country where a man from Calabria and a man from Piedmont spoke a different language and they didn't understand each other. Result would not be a national state but a sum of states. Much closer to CIS then to USA or federal republic of germany.

Living in a country where language is not uniform I have to say that while one language/culture would make it easier for the nation to be cohesive it is not a necessary prerequisite.

 

[unmerged(17798)]

Originally posted by crazy canuck
Living in a country where language is not uniform I have to say that while one language/culture would make it easier for the nation to be cohesive it is not a necessary prerequisite.

Interesting.

 

[unmerged(15723)]

I'm sure a unified Italy would have been strong and all that but the powers of Europe wasn't very keen on having a new strong neighbour right? Specially not a democratic Republic.

Italy succeded in unifying first when Austria and Spain was quite week and unable to defend their interests in Italy. And France was a weaker power too btw. So unity was possible first when noone else could interfere.

My thesis is that Italy couldn't form much earlier then it did because at that time other strong nations was involved in Italian affairs. Any truth in this?

Anyway, EU didn't form because it was economically superior or anything like that. It formed to stop Germany and France from fighting each other. And coherent with the Public Choise School it grew to the EU we have today.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Hive
They were given the city after the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The old and proud merchant republics of Genoa and Venice, who was invaded by Napoleon, never emerged again after the Napoleonic Wars.

Yep. It was hoped that a strong Sardinia would prevent french meddling in Italy, and help the austrians defend it.

Somewhere, Talleyrand is laughing.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Txini
Gibe me an example of that??

I wanted to drag this back into the discussion. Specifically William I of England was William IV (or something) of Normandy. More relevantly, Frederick I of Prussia changed his number when he became King (there were several Frederick's of Brandenburg), and finally, (!) Victor Amadeus II of Savoy became Victor Amadeus I of Sicily and subsequently Victor Amadeus I of Sardinia.

Anyway Germany had a very federalist constitution from 1870. It worked well, but didn't exactly lead to utopia.

 

[Txini]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I wanted to drag this back into the discussion. Specifically William I of England was William IV (or something) of Normandy. More relevantly, Frederick I of Prussia changed his number when he became King (there were several Frederick's of Brandenburg), and finally, (!) Victor Amadeus II of Savoy became Victor Amadeus I of Sicily and subsequently Victor Amadeus I of Sardinia.

Anyway Germany had a very federalist constitution from 1870. It worked well, but didn't exactly lead to utopia.

A) There was no Union between Normandy and England, he couldn't be William IV of England by no way.

B) A Kingdom is not a Electorate, and neither a Duchy.

C) According to my sources he didn't take the name Vittorio Amedeo I in any moment as King of Sardinia, think he saw it as a marge between his Duchy of Savoy, Princedom of Piemonte and Kingdom of Sardinia, under the line of Savoy.

 

[unmerged(9524)]

I'm sure a unified Italy would have been strong and all that but the powers of Europe wasn't very keen on having a new strong neighbour right? Specially not a democratic Republic.

Italy succeded in unifying first when Austria and Spain was quite week and unable to defend their interests in Italy. And France was a weaker power too btw. So unity was possible first when noone else could interfere.

My thesis is that Italy couldn't form much earlier then it did because at that time other strong nations was involved in Italian affairs. Any truth in this?

It's all very true, but not only that, also the various italian city-states prevented Italy from unifying. Because when one Italian power was getting too strong, the others always formed an alliance in order to bring it down, often asking for intervention from France, Austria or Spain. Not to mention the Pope, who was absolutely against the idea of an Italian state.

The fact is, that only after the Napoleonic conquest of Italy, the Italians found themselves as "Italians", and worked in order to achieve independence. Before it was not possible because the people living in Italy did not considered themselves Italians, but Florentines, Sicilians, Lombards, Piedmontese, Venetians and so on. (and we could say that to a certain degree even today is a still like this).

Saluti

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine
The fact is, that only after the Napoleonic conquest of Italy, the Italians found themselves as "Italians", and worked in order to achieve independence. Before it was not possible because the people living in Italy did not considered themselves Italians, but Florentines, Sicilians, Lombards, Piedmontese, Venetians and so on. (and we could say that to a certain degree even today is a still like this).Saluti

I'm not sure how true this is. Certainly renaissance italians thought they were one people. The Swiss were called barbarians, for example. They didn't get along, but they were aware of their similarities.

I suspect that an Ottoma invasion and sack of Rome would've made them aware real quick.

 

[unmerged(9524)]

Well, depends on which classes you are refering to.

Generally intellectuals and nobles did considered themselves as Italian (Macchiavelli comes to mind), and many writers wrote in Florentine Italian, in the hope to spread the language. but the rest of the people did not felt Italian, and only spoke their native dialects.

And surely enough those people would have considered the rule of another Italian state as a foreign rule, just like if it was Austria or Spain. (not that it did matter much to those people).

What I'm saying is that only after Napoleon, nationalism and Italian identity was spread to the masses.

Saluti

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine
Well, depends on which classes you are refering to.

Generally intellectuals and nobles did considered themselves as Italian (Macchiavelli comes to mind), and many writers wrote in Florentine Italian, in the hope to spread the language. but the rest of the people did not felt Italian, and only spoke their native dialects.

What I'm saying is that only after Napoleon, nationalism and Italian identity was spread to the masses.

You're not alone in this. Everywhere east of the rhine, aside from the russians and poles, felt the same way.

 

[draco]

The reason that Vittorio Emanuele II would have changed his name is that it would have shown that he was creating a unified Italian state. But by leaving his name the same it implied that he was not out to create Italy for the sake of uniting the Italian people but simply the rest of Italy was being incorporated into Sardinia-Piedmont who thus because of the conquests was able to take the Name Kingdom of Italy.

In addition, when using the Title King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy implies the Ancestors were at least as far back as Vittorio Emanuele I were the true and rightful kings of Italy, which could be viewed as highly arrogant.

 

[unmerged(16421)]

the thousend

i want to ask about how will the thousend expedition handled: the garibaldinians born by nothing, and grew up battle after battle, day after day. how will it be handled? and ho about the chanches of Garibaldi to stand in his ground at Teano?

regarding the other powers interests in italy: the british helped the expedition of the redshirts, and they enjoyed the being of a not so friendly state at france and austrian borders!

 

[unmerged(16421)]

i forgot, onore a bresci!

 

[Kaeso]

I hope that Garibaldi will be able to settle a Republic instead of the Savoia Kingdom.