Resurrecting ancient nations in the 19th centuries

I never said nor thought that the notion of an united italian nation existed in the middle age. But the idea of Italia as a culturally unified country existed, and the proff is that both dante, machiavelli and petrarca talked about Italia and not of a plurality of italies.
about leonardo, if you dont see that he was the incarnation of the distinctive features of the renaissance man i cant do anything about it. I wont argue with revisionist storiography that keeps tellin us that the middle ages were more progressive than any other time in history.

1) And i've never said the contrary.

2) Culture =/= country. The country of these guys were their cities and they acknowledged this. The common definition of country is "same nation or same state or land defined by many points of parallel.
As instutitionally (theocracy, merchant republics, feudal kingdoms, duchies, feudo-municipal cities, etc.), economically (based on trade, industry, agricultural production), and even linguistically (each dialect of an, acknowledged one italian, was institutionallised a part from each other), Italy was divided.

3)Well, i wait you to give elements saying Leonardo incarnated a rputure with the Middle-Ages. Proove me wrong.

4)Not only i didn't say anywhere that Middle Ages were superior on all way (just saying Renaissance never was a rupture) but you're qualifing me of revisionist because you just don't agree, without giving on valable element?
Well, i won't discuss any longer with your dickhead attitude. Not because we're disagreeing, but because of you going ad hominem.
 

Esopo

Banned
1) And i've never said the contrary.

2) Culture =/= country. The country of these guys were their cities and they acknowledged this. The common definition of country is "same nation or same state or land defined by many points of parallel.
As instutitionally (theocracy, merchant republics, feudal kingdoms, duchies, feudo-municipal cities, etc.), economically (based on trade, industry, agricultural production), and even linguistically (each dialect of an, acknowledged one italian, was institutionallised a part from each other), Italy was divided.

3)Well, i wait you to give elements saying Leonardo incarnated a rputure with the Middle-Ages. Proove me wrong.

4)Not only i didn't say anywhere that Middle Ages were superior on all way (just saying Renaissance never was a rupture) but you're qualifing me of revisionist because you just don't agree, without giving on valable element?
Well, i won't discuss any longer with your dickhead attitude. Not because we're disagreeing, but because of you going ad hominem.

Basicly my point was to oppose your thesis of "the italies" my thesis of the "one italia", in dantes' petrarca's and machiavelli's works. The political fragmentation didnt mean that there wasnt the concept of a unified italian culture. What i dont completely accept the idea of a plurality of italies, because even if the concept existed it wasnt the only one.

And your right and i beg for your pardon for me going ad hominem.
 
Basicly my point was to oppose your thesis of "the italies" my thesis of the "one italia", in dantes' petrarca's and machiavelli's works. The political fragmentation didnt mean that there wasnt the concept of a unified italian culture. What i dont completely accept the idea of a plurality of italies, because even if the concept existed it wasnt the only one.
Your point is right, concerning Italy as culture. It's not to discuss, and i completly agree that even with the formation of institutionallized dialects, it was clear for the italians of this era.

But regarding citizenship, the appartenance of an institution, there were Italies, and for this people (at the exception of Machiavelli, who is a precursor and in ruptur relativly to his time. And even here, he focused his political activity on HIS city, Firenze).

The same dichotomy existed for Germany (somewhat attenuated by the existance of the HRE) for Moldavians and Vallachians, or others cultures until the emergence of the nation's concept (for Italy, roughly the Napoleonic aera, this rupture was always observed by italian historiography).

I suggest you to read Macchiaveli's and to search about the cities crushing each other, even when they were italians. It wasn't a perpetual civil war, but wars between states with their own cultural institutions (that still perpetue up to days, as the promotion of every little dialect as a separated language) and production, their own reference (Medieval Rome more or less based on the municipal history of the ancient city, Venezia building his own legend).

If you want, it's more or less like Ancient Greece : they accepted their common hellenism, but considered as different things within with their own referents. Nothing was more different from a hedonist Athens than the rude Sparta. Culturally, linguistically, instutitionnaly and economics...too many things divided them, except a common cultural group.

Or, by using a modern comparison, it was as the European Union and the states composing it. They share the same culture (roughly) but are distinct in the same time and live their own, often in contradition against the others.

And your right and i beg for your pardon for me going ad hominem.
Okay, so we pass over it.
 
If they were going to revive any ancient Korean "state" it would probably be Mimana, which despite its highly dubious historical authenticity was propagated by Japanese historians as an example of historical Japanese dominion in the Korean peninsula (or, viewed another way, Japanese-Korean partnership). One problem with resurrecting the ghosts of the Samguk period, though, beyond the other problems of plausibility (why would they want to divide it, beyond a facile, dangerous and largely unnecessary strategy of "divine and conquer"?), is that they would also be bringing into the spotlight the problematic fact that in that period Korean control extended over a considerably broader area through Goguryeo and, later, Parhae, not to mention that they would be providing a giant defibrillating shock to forces of Korean nationalism.

Plausibility is easy enough to answer. Japan didn't go this route in OTL because it was able to take over all of Korea by dominating the Korean court. But what if it didn't happen that way. The possibility of Korea being split between a North and South is hardly implausible (see any modern map), and it could have happened in the late 1800s too if Japan invaded from the South and the Korean court (or a new dynasty) reorganized in the North, possibly under Russian protection. The northern dynasty might even revive the Koguryo name itself.

If that happened, the only question is how Japan would organize the South. Creating one or more puppet kingdoms under the old names is likely enough, and it's also possible that Japan would revive one name for a puppet state, and a rebel movement in the south would revive the other.

Arguments based on public opinion are irrelevant. Japan was going to be hated in Korea whatever it called the government it dominated, and, basically, Japan didn't care. [P.S., for comparison, check out how its troops behaved in the Far East in the Russian Civil War or in 1930s China, where it also created more than one puppet entity].

Finally, why would Japan mind if the new northern kingdom had ambitions of occupying all of old Koguro/Parhae's territory? That would mean Korean expansion at the expense of Japan's enemies in China and/or Russia.
 
If they were going to revive any ancient Korean "state" it would probably be Mimana, which despite its highly dubious historical authenticity was propagated by Japanese historians as an example of historical Japanese dominion in the Korean peninsula (or, viewed another way, Japanese-Korean partnership). One problem with resurrecting the ghosts of the Samguk period, though, beyond the other problems of plausibility (why would they want to divide it, beyond a facile, dangerous and largely unnecessary strategy of "divine and conquer"?), is that they would also be bringing into the spotlight the problematic fact that in that period Korean control extended over a considerably broader area through Goguryeo and, later, Parhae, not to mention that they would be providing a giant defibrillating shock to forces of Korean nationalism.

I heard that Mimana is Japonic speaking, according to some historians?
 
Top