Why is Italy so weak compared to her predecessors,the Roman Empire?

So you'd think "most people" took the concept of France seriously in the 1940s because Vichy.
Vichy wasn't a defection.If a large part of the French army defected during the Battle of France than you convince me of your argument.
Gotcha. "Most people" in the Arab world in the early 20th century didn't take Islam seriously because they collaborated with the Great Power Mandates. What a revelation.
Don't know about the Arabs because I don't study Middle East.
 
Italy after the Roman Period saw a successive wave of barbarians sweeping into the peninsula and leaving their marks which combined with Christianity wiped away the last vestiges of Roman culture (Art, History, Traditions, Knowledge, Identity, PRIDE). What was left over was even more fragmented than Pre-Roman Unification of the Peninsula in antiquity, tied together only in a rapidly diverging Latin.

The Post Rome Italy has nothing in common with Roman Italy bar geography and genetic pool.
That's just mostly incorrect. How would you even measure pride?
 
Because etruscans, far more than romans/latins, were the people of arts and feast among the italian peoples.

Because present italian is etrurian.
That doesn't even make any sense. All evidence shows that the Etruscans were as war like as any other powerful state in Antiquity and how does that connect to modern Italy? Modern Italians have inherited their language, religion, script, laws and so much more from the Romans.
 
Not gonna comment on this.Plenty of people have answered this in the whether the ERE is the Roman Empire thread.

This is correct,but doesn't excuse how pathetic the Western Romans were in their last years compared to the Eastern Romans in theirs.

Chinese Empires are dynastic states.In the minds of the people,there's no China,but X Dynasty.The Song Dynasty and the Ming Dynasty were in particular highly pathetic.

X=name of the dynasty of the day.
Didn't the Venetians sack Byzantium and by the end weren't they reduced to a client state of Venice dependent on them for protection from the Ottomans?
 
Didn't the Venetians sack Byzantium and by the end weren't they reduced to a client state of Venice dependent on them for protection from the Ottomans?
Yes,but so?There's a major fundemental difference between the ERE and the WRE.Konstantinos XI went down fighting even though he was given the chance to escape.What did Romulus Augustus or Julius Nepos do?
 
Last edited:
Yes,but so?There's a major fundemental difference between the ERE and the WRE.Konstantinos XI went down fighting even though he was given the chance to escape.What did Romulus Augustus or Julius Nepos do?
Not much. They were very weak, but that's irrelevant. The WRE was Latin. Rome between 200 BC to 200 AD was essentially a Latin Empire and the Byzantine Empire never matched it's glory. Now when you talk about the Byzantine Greeks superiority over the Latins, remeber that the Latins reduced the Byzantines to a vassal state and that the Byzantines were dependant on the Venetians to protect them from the growing Turkish threat. They were dependant on the Latins you're running down.
 
Not much. They were very weak, but that's irrelevant. The WRE was Latin. Rome between 200 BC to 200 AD was essentially a Latin Empire and the Byzantine Empire never matched it's glory. Now when you talk about the Byzantine Greeks superiority over the Latins, remeber that the Latins reduced the Byzantines to a vassal state and that the Byzantines were dependant on the Venetians to protect them from the growing Turkish threat. They were dependant on the Latins you're running down.
No mate.The ERE was never a vassal state of the Latins.It was the Ottomans who rendered the ERE a vassal state.The actual Latin aid provided was also extremely meager. I am 'running down' the Western Romans of 476-480,not these Latins you are talking about.The Latins of 1453 are a totally different group of people from the Western Romans of 476-480.
 
A friend of mine told me its because Italians lacked the qualities that made the Roman people create the one of if not the greatest civilizations in the history of the world:

1)Industriousness
2)Stoicism
3)Frugality
4)Toughness
5)Discipline
6)Militarism
and above all:
7)Willingness to sacrifice everything(including one's self and one's entire family) for the country.

Is my friend right?If not,then what are the reasons why Italy not able to replicate its former glory upon unification as a country? Why does the center of the former uncontested champion of Europe today such a weak country?

Population estimates 1AD (stolen from wikipedia)
Italy 14 million
Gaul 5 million

When a country did well in the past, it's always a good idea to look at their demographic history compared to their neighbours.
 
No mate.The ERE was never a vassal state of the Latins.It was the Ottomans who rendered the ERE a vassal state.The actual Latin aid provided was also extremely meager. I am 'running down' the Western Romans of 476-480,not these Latins you are talking about.The Latins of 1453 are a totally different group of people from the Western Romans of 476-480.
No mate. The ERE became dependant on the Latins, primarily Venice and Genoa for it's security. They provided about 30% of the soldiers and most if not all of the ships.

How are these Latins an entirely different people? What year did they become a different people?
 
That doesn't even make any sense. All evidence shows that the Etruscans were as war like as any other powerful state in Antiquity and how does that connect to modern Italy? Modern Italians have inherited their language, religion, script, laws and so much more from the Romans.

Where did I wrote that etruscans were not war like ?

Modern italian has no more in common with latin than spanish or french.

Modern italian is etrurian (not etruscan) of the Middle Ages.

Christianism, except the use of latin for centuries, has almost nothing to see with romans (unless you consider that Constantine and Theodosius were romans from Italy like Augustus or Cicero) and much more to see with hellenized jews and greeks.
 
"Strength" is always relative. Rome, relative to most of its neighbors was stronger (At least where Europe and the Mediterranean was concerned). Modern Italy, not so much.
 
Here is why the Kingdom of Italy and Mussolini's "Roman Empire" failed:

1. Back in Roman times they were the largest and only unified state in all of Europe. All Empires who could surpass or match Rome were thousands of miles away from Italy. 19th and 20th century Italy had to deal with the powerhouses of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, United States etc.
2. Rome was the top industrious nation in ancient times and saved several technological innovations of the greeks. During Italy's time they were almost entirely agrarian with no natural resources to build the foundation of a heavy industry on. During the 19th century all of the leading scientists/inventors in the world mostly resided in Germany, Britain, United States.
3. Unlike Rome who had a large amount of political unity until the 5th century, Italy was filled with political infighting due to the conflicting needs of monarchists, nationalists, republicans, socialists, Catholics, etc.
4. Back then Rome could simply conquer any area with no consequence, Italy couldn't expand without facing the wrath of the Great Powers.
5. In Rome Latin was the dominant culture and all conquered peoples were forced to assimilate into it. At the time of Unification, Italy had so many different cultures and dialects that there really wasn't even a common Italian culture to exist in the first place. It took decades for these people to come to the idea of the Italian culture or even share a common language. In my opinion they should have never unified in the first place.
6. With advanced organization and weaponry Rome was the premier military power of its time. Italy's military just plain sucked so bad that they lost to Ethiopia. ETHIOPIA!! They had shit generals *cough* CADORNA *cough*, no advanced military tactics or technology, they made the stupidest battle plans, the nation had so many socialists that a good number of the population was always opposed to its wars. Granted modern military is decent but they are far from best in the world.
7. Every single one of their conquests made no sense and was just invaded for prestige. Oh yeah lets launch an invasion of Greece even though the country has no valuable resources, no Italian peoples, has a poor economy, and will only suck up troops when we're trying to conquer Egypt. 10 OUT OF 5 WORST IDEA EVER!
 
Italy is NOT the Roman Empire.Period.


Well, it's certainly not the early Roman Empire, let alone the Republic. Perhaps not so unlike the later RE, though.

And of course there's the same problem Rome itself had. The peoples beyond the Alps are getting more numerous, and organised into bigger political units, than they used to be. Italy just hasn't the demographic or military edge over its neighbours which it would need to be a Rome. The Barbarians have caught up.
 

scholar

Banned
Italy after the Roman Period saw a successive wave of barbarians sweeping into the peninsula and leaving their marks which combined with Christianity wiped away the last vestiges of Roman culture (Art, History, Traditions, Knowledge, Identity, PRIDE). What was left over was even more fragmented than Pre-Roman Unification of the Peninsula in antiquity, tied together only in a rapidly diverging Latin.

The Post Rome Italy has nothing in common with Roman Italy bar geography and genetic pool.
The Medieval Historian would strongly disagree.
 
Bashing the ERE based on it's last 200 years is a bit unrealistic (as well as a bit off topic). The ERE did pretty good compared to the WRE: holding of the various Turkish states more effectively than any entity in the west (except the Franks)
 
Top