If Italy had the mindset of the early Romans, how different would the World Wars have been?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Griffith

Banned
Inspired by a thread I made previously.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-to-her-predecessors-the-roman-empire.396253/

So I am curious if Italy had the qualities we associate with the Romans of the Early Republic in particular nationalism and militarism, how different would the World Wars have played out? Italy is always bashed as a pathetic military force in its history with its debacles in Africa (esp. Ethiopia) and incredible crappy performance in the World Wars. Hell a common comment is that Italy should not have fallen so fast in the war with its mountainous terrain and decently trained and equipped army (even if its poor compared to other superpowers in the war in particular the Americans and Germans).

At the very least Italy should have been able to defeat the other European countries they attempted to invade with moderate difficult at worst (excepting France and Russia). Or so I see frequently claimed in internet discussions and debates at recreational places such as restaurants. In particular its always pointed out how Italians got their asses kicked hard in Albania and Greece and had to call German reinforcement.

That if Italian soldiers had the disciplined, bloodthirst, organization (esp in logistics) , and above all patriotism that defined their forefathers in the Roman legions, they should have handled Greece and Albania with no problem thus in turn conquer Yugoslaia on their own and thus not force the Germans to have to send reinforcements that could have been used for Operation Barbarossa.

I even seen claims that had the Italian people had Roman qualities, they could have defended Italy with its mountainous terrain and German aid with such tenacity that D-Day would be delayed and the war extended several years by the bare minimal. At least a few posts on other sites even state with the Roman personality, the Italians-provided they are aided by German supplies- would haave not only handled the British on their own but even defeat them after a protracted conflict in North Africa (as eventually German reinforcement will give new life after both sides battered each other's nose bloody).

How legit are these claims? Is it an incredible simplification as my friend's claim on the other link about Italy being so weak in the modern era due to being hedonistic and self-centered lazy cowards?

I seen some people even extend Italy would not have been on the defensive in World War 1 and would actually even take the initiative and attempt to invade the Austrian-Hungary Empire thus changing the entire WWI as we know it!
 
Last edited:
Err, the point of fascism was to bring back nationalism and militarism in a big way, no? That was a big part of the fascist image. The problem is that patriotism doesn't win wars, so even the biggest patriots will lose handily if their supply lines are awful, if their equipment is subpar, if terrible commanders are appointed based on personal favors, and if their leaders are blind to anything but success. Roman qualities would also seem rather outdated in 20th century war, and I'm highly skeptical that it'd have made a major difference.
 
World war one was a meat grinder, it didn't matter how brave you were, you died all the same. The Italians would exit the war with a reputation for doomed martial valor. World war 2 ends with them fighting the allies to the end....this is a bad thing, the allies simply overwheilm them with superior logistics, numbers and suppplies until Italy is conqured.

Seriously the only winning move for Italy during the world wars was not to play.
 
Kid, you don't enter world war one and fight 11 battle of the Isonzo (among other things), without much materials and equipment due to the fact that your nation can't basically afford it and at the same time e being subjected at one of the most sensless harsh and brutal military discipline ever adopted without patriotism, bravery and militarism.
Not considering that while the terrain was very good for defense (on both way)...Italy was the attacker as there were basically no way to go around the Austro-Hungarian line and so was forced to launch direct attack that basically give every advantages to the enemy...and btw at least we not be knocked out of the war as other nations
Regarding WWII, well the basic thing is that Benny love talking loud about italian military capacity...but an efficient armed forces was the last thing he wanted due to the conflicted loyalty (not considering the military program used to basically buy out the loyalty of the big industrialist and so forcing the army and the air forces to get subpar material) but in the long run started to believe his own propaganda about the invincible fascist army.
 
It is perhaps worth recalling that the most famous battle in the minds of the average military history buff of the Roman Republic was Cannae and they did not win that one.

Then there is the whole concept of Pyrrhic victory which again recalls a series of Roman defeats.

Perhaps on this forum you have seen reference to what might have happened if the Battle of Carrhae went the other way...oh yes that is another Roman defeat.

Don't get me wrong I too think the Romans are awesome but the fact remains that just like every other power in the history of the planet when they came up against equals they struggled a bit...the Italians in the 1940s did not face equals, they were frequently pitched against enemies with far more industrial power and other resources strengthening their military arms. Where they lost to a nation such as Greece who should have been their inferior militarily well that was Mussolini interfering to send inadequate forces to do the job for political reasons...the Republic had form on that too else that Starz TV series would really have struggled to find material for a third season about Spartacus :p
 
No it wouldn't work the example is Japan they had all the martial spirit in the world and couldn't beat off a modern well supplied army

Martial spirit only works for ancient battles... modern battles follow Lanchester's Square law. Individual training and morale matters a lot but mostly in poor conditions and when troops are not acclimatised... for example, the British after Montgomery came and boosted morale with intensive training. If you are fighting on home turf or near home turf, "martial prowess" doesn't matter as long as your soldiers are "good enough"

France with their firepower heavy and modern infantry divisions should have stalemated Germany in WW2... the fact they left the Ardennes open and invested all their resources into the Maginot line is political and strategic blunder not because heavy divisions don't work... just a few heavy divisions would have held the German advance long enough for reinforcements... when Churchill came to France he couldn't believe that they didn't have a strategic reserve, since that's what saved France in WW1

So forget Maginot Line, have normal firepower heavy infantry divisions and you can definitely hold the line even against an armored advance we are not talking Tigers or Panthers here but PzII that could be shot with an anti-tank rifle or normal field artillery

Then keep a massive reserve around Paris (several hundred thousand men) to push out when the main axis of advance becomes clear

Add in just-enough and good-enough monoplane metal fights to hold off the Stukas, and you have just enough to stalemate Hitler

In sum martial prowess, Eagles, naming your divisions after Roman Legions, and so on doesn't make up for heavy firepower and infantry doctrine... you don't need Rome, just numbers, good enough, good to very good dispositions and working chain of command

The individual soldier could be awful, but have all the above and you can stalemate the best

P.S. The Italian Soldier performed admirably in WW2... when faced with the British... and were abandoned by the Germans on more than one occasion... they fought until their bullets ran out... so more martial would achieve precisely nothing, because individually they were great fighters but were let down by their allies and commanders
 

BlondieBC

Banned
You need Italy to have more diplomatic prowess. The Romans would have waited until later in WW1 to enter, and they would get a better deal from the winning side.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Inspired by a thread I made previously.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-to-her-predecessors-the-roman-empire.396253/

So I am curious if Italy had the qualities we associate with the Romans of the Early Republic in particular nationalism and militarism, how different would the World Wars have played out? Italy is always bashed as a pathetic military force in its history with its debacles in Africa (esp. Ethiopia) and incredible crappy performance in the World Wars. Hell a common comment is that Italy should not have fallen so fast in the war with its mountainous terrain and decently trained and equipped army (even if its poor compared to other superpowers in the war in particular the Americans and Germans).

At the very least Italy should have been able to defeat the other European countries they attempted to invade with moderate difficult at worst (excepting France and Russia). Or so I see frequently claimed in internet discussions and debates at recreational places such as restaurants. In particular its always pointed out how Italians got their asses kicked hard in Albania and Greece and had to call German reinforcement.

That if Italian soldiers had the disciplined, bloodthirst, organization (esp in logistics) , and above all patriotism that defined their forefathers in the Roman legions, they should have handled Greece and Albania with no problem thus in turn conquer Yugoslaia on their own and thus not force the Germans to have to send reinforcements that could have been used for Operation Barbarossa.

I even seen claims that had the Italian people had Roman qualities, they could have defended Italy with its mountainous terrain and German aid with such tenacity that D-Day would be delayed and the war extended several years by the bare minimal. At least a few posts on other sites even state with the Roman personality, the Italians-provided they are aided by German supplies- would haave not only handled the British on their own but even defeat them after a protracted conflict in North Africa (as eventually German reinforcement will give new life after both sides battered each other's nose bloody).

How legit are these claims? Is it an incredible simplification as my friend's claim on the other link about Italy being so weak in the modern era due to being hedonistic and self-centered lazy cowards?

I seen some people even extend Italy would not have been on the defensive in World War 1 and would actually even take the initiative and attempt to invade the Austrian-Hungary Empire thus changing the entire WWI as we know it!
Exactly WHERE did you see these claims?

Right now I am seeing a rather unfounded attack on an entire ethnic group.

You have references from professional historians or military professionals, cite them. Right now.
 
Mussolini is not so clever like Hitler, he can dress his Italians up only to look like thieves, cheats, murderers, he cannot like Hitler, make them feel like that. He cannot, like Hitler, scrape from the conscience the knowledge that right is right and wrong is wrong, or dig holes in their heads to plant his own ten commandments: steal from thy neighbor, cheat thy neighbor, kill thy neighbor.

Giuseppe from _Sahara_ 1943

Italians were fighting the wrong War, for the wrong reasons.
And they knew it.

And the poor leadership didn't help, either.

Now Italians, I believe, would have fought hard keeping Hitler from getting past the Alps.
 
Italy, like Japan, should have stayed out of the War to have a chance at winning. Once they sided with Germany they were Lost.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Inspired by a thread I made previously.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-to-her-predecessors-the-roman-empire.396253/

So I am curious if Italy had the qualities we associate with the Romans of the Early Republic in particular nationalism and militarism, how different would the World Wars have played out? Italy is always bashed as a pathetic military force in its history with its debacles in Africa (esp. Ethiopia) and incredible crappy performance in the World Wars. Hell a common comment is that Italy should not have fallen so fast in the war with its mountainous terrain and decently trained and equipped army (even if its poor compared to other superpowers in the war in particular the Americans and Germans).

At the very least Italy should have been able to defeat the other European countries they attempted to invade with moderate difficult at worst (excepting France and Russia). Or so I see frequently claimed in internet discussions and debates at recreational places such as restaurants. In particular its always pointed out how Italians got their asses kicked hard in Albania and Greece and had to call German reinforcement.

That if Italian soldiers had the disciplined, bloodthirst, organization (esp in logistics) , and above all patriotism that defined their forefathers in the Roman legions, they should have handled Greece and Albania with no problem thus in turn conquer Yugoslaia on their own and thus not force the Germans to have to send reinforcements that could have been used for Operation Barbarossa.

I even seen claims that had the Italian people had Roman qualities, they could have defended Italy with its mountainous terrain and German aid with such tenacity that D-Day would be delayed and the war extended several years by the bare minimal. At least a few posts on other sites even state with the Roman personality, the Italians-provided they are aided by German supplies- would haave not only handled the British on their own but even defeat them after a protracted conflict in North Africa (as eventually German reinforcement will give new life after both sides battered each other's nose bloody).

How legit are these claims? Is it an incredible simplification as my friend's claim on the other link about Italy being so weak in the modern era due to being hedonistic and self-centered lazy cowards?

I seen some people even extend Italy would not have been on the defensive in World War 1 and would actually even take the initiative and attempt to invade the Austrian-Hungary Empire thus changing the entire WWI as we know it!
You were afforded time to provide documentation to support you rather outrageous claims and slurs about modern day Italians. You failed to do so. You have since doubled down in other threads taking pot shots at various ethnic groups that seem to have failed to live up to some "standard", generally related to religion.

This is unacceptable here. I am sorely tempted to simply Ban you for trolling straight out of the gate, but let's try a step lower.

Kicked for a week
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top