Ah challenge: Flip Italy's South

I'm not saying that industrialisation is dependant on external threat, only that if you were going to pick somewhere to locate your factories, you wouldn't put them in an area that was likely to be invaded.

Obviously if you're going to build a watermill, you can only build it next to a stream, but if you have one stream that's under threat from invasion and one in the south, you'd build it in the south; I think that was an attempt at a metaphor(?).

:)

No, it was just an example, not a metaphor. A metaphor would be something like "put the cookie jar or on the top shelf".

What you say is true, but that is only really possible if you have state-run economies that are willing to burn resources doing this. Otherwise, industry is invested in by the private sector, and they're not going to do it where there is a lack of manpower and resources, because they'll be unable to build competitive businesses.

I don't think Italy had the resources to subsidize industrialization of the South - and really, it's just as vulnerable as the North, and maybe more so, due to the enormous vulnerable coastline.
 
Are we going to see a tunnel or bridge built under the Straights of Messina in your Italy wank?

I did a little reading and a guy called Navone proposed a tunnel in 1870. Currently, as you may be aware, there are plans in place to build a bridge but concerns relating to the economic viability of a land-borne transport link between Calabria and Sicily have stalled such plans until now. If you have a more industrialised south then any arguments in favour of such a bridge would carry more weight.

I'm not an expert regarding Italy. However, I do find the idea of a powerful Italy with large colonial possessions quite interesting.

I found a list of Italy's natural resources online and they comprise of coal, mercury, zinc, potash, marble, barite, asbestos, pumice, fluorspar, feldspar, pyrite (sulfur), natural gas and crude oil reserves, fish, arable land, but I don't know how many of these are located in the south. If you could find out which of these resources are located primarily in southern Italy you could make these resources/industries the main ones exploited by your ATL Italy and thus the main industrial land would be dragged southwards around these areas.

Plus, I'm bumping this thread.

:)

I don't know about the bridge. I like the Idea but Cornelius is right. Also, great call on focus on exploiting these resources. As someone on the other thread (i believe) stated, I can use this along with his advice on making Africa count on the South (Italy) for $$

While thois may seem, a clichee it seems to me that the south primary problem, is weak and corrupt instrument of the state and the lack of monopol of violence, if people both need to pay bribes to the local mafia, bribes to the government official and taxes to the the state, you get a bad position develop a area.

Very, VERY true, unfortunately.

It was, because it was part of the Mediterranean trade area, and was ruled by more advanced governments than the north (Caliphate, Byzantines). But it was no suitable for industrial development and fell behind.

The Mediterranean climate zone might seem superior to Northern Europeans because it's a lot more pleasant, but it's really crappy for development because its so subject to drought. Northern Europe is actually a very, very rich agricultural zone in comparison to the semi-arid South.

Another Very true statement, however, there is some good farmland in the south. Apulia was the bread basket of Italy at one point
 
My Italian teacher used to tell me an interesting argument as to why the South is in such a state, though it sounded a bit like apologetics to me. She believed that Ancient Greek colonisation and the naval warfare it brought with it stripped the South of much of its lumber, creating poor quality soil and making the South generally resource poor with a small population.

I find it hard to believe that the South's ecology and people could not have recovered in all that time. Afterall, Sicily was arguably the most cosmopolitan kingdom in Europe for a time and the fertility of the land required farmers to be imported. I'm more inclined to blame backward rule: botched Angevin feudalisation, the raubwirtschaft approach of Spanish rule, the Spanish Inquisition and a stifling dependence on the North since the Renaissance. That's the paradox of the South - it's isolation prevented the Renaissance diffusing in its direction yet its attempts to interact with the North were always on the North's terms and sapped the South's indigenous progress. Kinda reminds me of the contemporary problem of Africa's development.

The south (and middle) of the peninsula was pretty much ruined, from an agricultural standpoint, but not just by the Greeks. The Latins and other cultures in the area used wood as a fuel and building material without any regard for the sustainability of their use so eventually (around the 1st century BC, IIRC), it ran out. The soil, without trees and plants to keep it in place, ran into the sea with run-off from the mountains that dominate the spine of the land, and you end up with thin, agriculturally useless dirt to try to grow in. It's why the areas outside Rome, known in ancient days as great sources of timber, are now empty and full of only rocks.

The same thing happened in areas like on Cyprus or at Mount Lebanon, it was endemic in the ancient world.

The Po River valley escaped this fate because, once it came under the rule of people willing to use its timber, better sources (Gaul, Hispania) were already closely available. It became the center of Italian civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West pretty much on account of this.
 
At this Time, besides unemployement, poverty, and low population (not as important), the south is suffering from extreme illiteracy, Malaria, and a major Cholera outbreak, to name a few things

...e la repressione dell'insurrezione contadina ("brigantaggio") dove la metti?
 
The south (and middle) of the peninsula was pretty much ruined, from an agricultural standpoint, but not just by the Greeks. The Latins and other cultures in the area used wood as a fuel and building material without any regard for the sustainability of their use so eventually (around the 1st century BC, IIRC), it ran out. The soil, without trees and plants to keep it in place, ran into the sea with run-off from the mountains that dominate the spine of the land, and you end up with thin, agriculturally useless dirt to try to grow in. It's why the areas outside Rome, known in ancient days as great sources of timber, are now empty and full of only rocks.

The same thing happened in areas like on Cyprus or at Mount Lebanon, it was endemic in the ancient world.

The Po River valley escaped this fate because, once it came under the rule of people willing to use its timber, better sources (Gaul, Hispania) were already closely available. It became the center of Italian civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West pretty much on account of this.

Simplistic, if not plainly wrong. Most of Calabria is a huge forest to the day, for example. And in the Po valley practically every and any forest of a size has been eradicated for agricultural space or, in recent time, real estate speculation, industrial areas and giant malls.
 
Simplistic, if not plainly wrong. Most of Calabria is a huge forest to the day, for example. And in the Po valley practically every and any forest of a size has been eradicated for agricultural space or, in recent time, real estate speculation, industrial areas and giant malls.

I'm talking about the ancient world, not the world of today. The forests of middle Italy had a thousand years in which to recover, and the people of the Po have a thousand years of changing economic circumstances to make choices within.

However, outside the ecological recovery, there were super long run effects of this impoverishment all those centuries ago. The North built up and out while the South stagnated, running more on accumulated wealth rather than any new generation.
 
Why are you wanting the south industrialised anyway? You're timeline is about a powerful Venice which is in the north of Italy therefore if I was a betting man, I would answer the question you posed in the timeline thread ("Who wants to make a guess at what'll happen next?") with, "Venice acquires, invades, annexes, buys, inherits, or is rewarded with southern Italy?"

:)
 

wormyguy

Banned
Realistically, this requires a POD going back to the Lombards or the Normans, if not the Romans.

Either that, or a Sovietwank in which N. Italy becomes a Soviet-occupied puppet state after WWII (E. Germany and Czechia were more prosperous than W. Germany prewar. Not anymore.)
 
Why are you wanting the south industrialised anyway? You're timeline is about a powerful Venice which is in the north of Italy therefore if I was a betting man, I would answer the question you posed in the timeline thread ("Who wants to make a guess at what'll happen next?") with, "Venice acquires, invades, annexes, buys, inherits, or is rewarded with southern Italy?"

:)

Noooo, this is NOT for Venice, Dawn of a New Power. I repeat, to all that think it IS for it, It is not! this is for a new TL i will most likely be starting. An Italy wank.
 
Southern Italy is poorer because it's ecology is more fragile, it's resources inferior, and its population much thinner. To reverse everything starting in 1863 would be virtually impossible. The rich and fertile plains of Northern Italy and the industrial resources of the north are what led to that area being the economic center of the country, and those are things you can't really change.

Ecology's the big one. And fragility is the word for it. Wet environments are a lot hardier than dry ones, and to make matters worse, southern Europe had a much longer exposure to intensive human use than the north of it. Deforestation was substantial in Roman times, and very, very thorough by the Renaissance. In order to have a stronger economy in the south of Italy, you need to have a larger population with a more secure food supply.

Now I wouldn't say it was something that couldn't possibly change. A reforestation effort spread out across centuries with steady, if small, contributions from the entirety of the society would be a good start. Add to that the use of crops that replenish the soil and an even larger focus on perennials (olives, grapes, and fruit trees don't cut it) over meat and grains, and you have something to work with. Hrm.... according to Jared's description, wattle trees would work pretty well....

Also, they need to stop the goat-herding. Those monsters are an ecological nightmare in dry environments, at least when your perspective is one of centuries.

Ever wonder where the green Greece of Homer went? Wheat, goats, and timber. Poof.

Back on topic: I think you can change the situation in the South of Italy if you have the manpower, will, and persistence for the project. I just think you won't. I mean, really, who's going to do it? It'd be centuries before the effect was decisive, and it's the kind of project that wouldn't even occur to a pre-modern society. If they started in 1800 and nothing interrupted the process (so no wars in Italy, okay?), it still wouldn't be done today.
 
Ecology's the big one. And fragility is the word for it. Wet environments are a lot hardier than dry ones, and to make matters worse, southern Europe had a much longer exposure to intensive human use than the north of it. Deforestation was substantial in Roman times, and very, very thorough by the Renaissance. In order to have a stronger economy in the south of Italy, you need to have a larger population with a more secure food supply.

Now I wouldn't say it was something that couldn't possibly change. A reforestation effort spread out across centuries with steady, if small, contributions from the entirety of the society would be a good start. Add to that the use of crops that replenish the soil and an even larger focus on perennials (olives, grapes, and fruit trees don't cut it) over meat and grains, and you have something to work with. Hrm.... according to Jared's description, wattle trees would work pretty well....

Also, they need to stop the goat-herding. Those monsters are an ecological nightmare in dry environments, at least when your perspective is one of centuries.

Ever wonder where the green Greece of Homer went? Wheat, goats, and timber. Poof.

Back on topic: I think you can change the situation in the South of Italy if you have the manpower, will, and persistence for the project. I just think you won't. I mean, really, who's going to do it? It'd be centuries before the effect was decisive, and it's the kind of project that wouldn't even occur to a pre-modern society. If they started in 1800 and nothing interrupted the process (so no wars in Italy, okay?), it still wouldn't be done today.

excellent post, and i agree with it all, however, i do not totally agree that last point. lets see half way and say fine, Italy' south will never be back in tip top shape, however, even with just the points you have mentioned above, it will no doubt resemble something more similar to a modern country. it will have small- moderate growth as opposed to none- negative growth. If this is the best I can have the South do, then that will be that. I believe though, that i can fuse all these ideas into something that Southern Italy can really use.
 
Top