What went wrong?
Italy seems pretty damn nice to me. So... nothing, I guess?
There are much worse states on earth.
>>1321630
Please, be more specific
Southern Italy happened. Demarcate two different countries at Rome and everything gets solved.
>cradle of western civilization
>is the historical center for education, art, architecture, sciences, and literature for the West
>dragged Europe into the Renaissance and into the Age of Enlightenment
>we're typing in an Italic script right now.
It's actually hard-pressing to walk around anywhere in the Westernized world and NOT see influence from the Italians or the Italian Peninsula. It's not a crazy statement to say that western civilization was born and blossomed in Italy.
>>1321670
Worked good for Palestine and Israel.
Southern Italy was pretty allright until the unification of Italy.
The Kingdom of the 2 Sicilies wasnt a shithole at all.
>>1321677
All of this is bullshit except the Renaissance part (which is the most overrated era ever).
>>1321677
You're thinking of France m8.
>>1322610
France were still ugga-bugga thugs for hire up until the after the Renaissance.
Source: 1. The depiction of the French in The Borgias in the episode where the Duke of Milan teams up with them.
2. Written accounts of their behaviour, compared to that of the Venetians during the Sack of Constaninople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(1204)#Sack_of_Constantinople
>>1322652
France was the centre of Western civilisation for half a millennium while Italy was an irrelevant backwater under Byzantine or German domination. Italy only had its brief moment of relevance after France destroyed itself in the Hundred Years War.
Modern banking and accounting were invented in Italy.
>>1322737
>France was the centre of Western civilisation for half a millennium while Italy was an irrelevant backwater under Byzantine or German domination.
That's like saying that Lebanon is the centre of modern-day Middle-Eastern civilisation, or South-Africa the centre of modern-day African civilisation. Western Europe prior the Renaissance was more or less a backwater anyway. inb4 the Dark Ages weren't really that Dark. Yes we know, but what was happening elsewhere outshines anything going on in Western Europe at the time.
>>1322652
Seriously, you're going to bring up the Fourth Crusade, where the vast majority of French knights went to the Holy Land, while Venetian niggers went to sack Constantinople instead because they didn't give the slightest shit about Christendom, only about their jew gold?
>>1322766
Basically, the Renaissance is what put Western Europe on the road of becoming great.
>>1322772
The Venetians were thieving cunts, I won't disagree. But at least they had the level of culture to steal whole artefacts and display them back home. The French literally melted anything valuable they could find and smashed everything else. One was worse than the other.
Also,
>majority of French knights went to the Holy Land, while Venetians went to sack Constantinople instead
That's not what I've read, source? (I'm not disputing this, just asking)
France was barbaric as fuck for a long time. They thought using forks were uncouth and needless anal surgery was popular for while because a king had it
>>1322766
The French Middle Ages produced the greatest works of Western architecture, the first great works of Western literature, the universities, the foundation of modern science, mathematics, and of the scientific revolution, and a highly civilised society ruled by the codes of chivalry and courtesy. This is when the West pulled ahead of every other civilisation in the world.
In contrast the Italian Renaissance produced corruption, religious wars and persecutions, and a regression in science. The only field in which it showed progress was art.
>>1322778
0/10, nobody on /his/ still has such babby tier pop knowledge.
This thread looks like it has gone a little off topic, btw Italy sure has its downsides but still is in the G8, so it can't be that bad
>>1322810
Forks were seen as effeminate in the Middle Ages, which they were. They were for ladies to eat fruits without getting juice on their delicate fingers. And for Italians apparently, kek. You made up the other thing.
>>1322815
>the universities
The first university was in founded in Bologna
>foundation of modern science
>scientific revolution
For those we have to wait untill the 15th century.
Btw Copernicus, Galileus, Newton don't seem very french to me
>>1322815
>>1322819
I'll admit I was baiting a little, since we obviously have a Frenchman in this thread but:
>The French Middle Ages produced the greatest works of Western architecture
Which ones? That's highly debatable and as an architect I'm inclined to disagree
>the first great works of Western literature
I'll give you that one
>the universities
Only a couple were French the rest were all Italian (majority), Spanish and Brit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medieval_universities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation#Founded_before_1500
>the foundation of modern science, mathematics, and of the scientific revolution,
I know this is simplistic but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
Ctrl+F: France, 2 results
>and a highly civilised society ruled by the codes of chivalry and courtesy.
lol
>>1322848
The most important medieval university by far was Paris, which is where every great mind of the time studied (and before that it was the cathedral school of Notre Dame). Followed by Oxford. Bologna was only relevant for law.
And it's at Paris and Oxford that modern science was born. There isn't a single law of physics in Galileo's books that wasn't already discovered by Jean Buridan and Nicolas Oresme in the 14th century.
But then came the Italian Renaissance, and the idiotic Italian worship of Aristotle and ancient Roman shit, which is why there was absolutely no advancement in science for 300 years. The only thing any Renaissance Italian "scientist" was capable of doing was translating ancient Greco-Roman books. Until the 17th century, when the cultural centre of the West shifted back to France and Britain, and people like Descartes and Newton continued the work of medieval thinkers.
>>1322874
Gothic cathedrals.
Number of universities is irrelevant, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of medieval intellectual history can tell you Paris was by far the most important.
Science and mathematics aren't the same thing as inventions, and also almost none of the medieval inventions can be pinpointed to a single country (although it could be noted that the first and most regarded medieval inventor was Pope Sylvester II, ie Gerbert d'Aurillac).
>>1322897
>Gothic cathedrals.
The greatest works of western architecture? No
Some of the greatest works of western architecture? Yes
>>1322879
Bologna might have not been the most important, but it was the first one and it was where the term "university" was firts used, so technically universities didn't come from France.
I don't doubt that in medieval ages mathematical and physical progress existed, but for the way modern day science is made we can't really talk of "science" before the scientific revolution of the 15th century. Prior that physics and astronomy were rudimental, disorganized and not always followed with a mathematical approach. Chemistry and biology didn't even exist.
Last but not least: "italian worship of Aristotle", I won't denay that it can be called "italian", but it's definitely a medieval and thomist thing.
>>1322924
I don't really see on which basis you can categorically say they aren't the greatest. I think they remain unequalled in their expression of force and direction, and in their creation of space and light. Stepping inside a beautiful Gothic cathedral is unlike anything else.
Regardless, you can't deny they're extremely impressive feats of art and engineering in the 12th century, and as such stand above anything else in the world at the time.
>>1322940
>I don't really see on which basis you can categorically say they aren't the greatest.
As with all things subjective, I can't see the basis on which you can categorically say that the are!
>I think they remain unequalled in their expression of force and direction, and in their creation of space and light. Stepping inside a beautiful Gothic cathedral is unlike anything else.
These are not measurable qualities, they are completely subjective things. I love Gothic cathedrals, I just don't think they are the end-all when it comes to Western Architecture.
>Regardless, you can't deny they're extremely impressive feats of art and engineering in the 12th century, and as such stand above and as such stand above anything else in the world at the time.
Hagia Sophia was built almost 1000 years before them.
>>1321670
Naples was leagues ahead of the North until unification
>>1322991
I know that you really would like to have fun with your b8, but as you can see this thread is already dealing with a peculiar French Anon
>>1322926
Bologna was chartered in 1158, its founding date before that is uncertain, although Paris was around since 1150. Either way it's not a huge difference or terribly important, as they grew out of cathedral schools which were around since Charlemagne. And in both cases, the most important ones were in Paris.
For science, here are the basic periods:
- 11th-13th century: scholasticism. Aristotle is used as supreme reference for science, mostly because of the prestige attributed to him for his work in logic.
- 13th-14th century: initial scientific revolution. Natural philosophers, mostly at Paris and Oxford, start to question Aristotle, and eventually reject his physics entirely. The basic principles of the scientific method (the scientific theory, empiricism, the universe as a mechanical system governed by reasonable laws, and the principle that everything can be described using mathematics) are anl explicitly accepted. Buridan lays the foundation of modern physics with his laws of motion and theory of impetus, Oresme those of calculus with the graphical representation of dynamic problems and the first calculus theorems.
- 14th-17th century: humanism. Humanists see Rome as the high point of civilisation, and everything medieval as a product of the dark ages. Medieval works are literally burned, and Aristotle once again becomes the reference for all matters of science.
- since 17th century: continuation of the scientific revolution. Galileo revives the works of Buridan and Oresme, with massive opposition from the humanist academia of his time, even though he only says what was already taught in Paris centuries earlier. Francis Bacon and Descartes explicitly formulate the scientific method, Descartes expands significantly on Oresme's calculus, and eventually Newton does the same on Buridan's laws of motion.
That period of the initial scientific revolution was long basically forgotten, and historians have only fairly recently rediscovered its huge importance.
>>1322968
I don't think the Hagia Sophia compares to the Gothic cathedrals either in art or in engineering.
>>1323009
Since I named names I should add that establishing Aristotle as the authority in the first place in the 11th century was mostly the work of the logician Peter Abelard, who became master of the Notre Dame school. That was a progress at the time though, since it established logic and reason as the basis of natural philosophy.
Oh and lastly, for those who believe Italy was more advanced or more relevant in the Middle Ages than France, look up where Thomas Aquinas went to school for example, or in which language the Travels of Marco Polo was written.
I'm not French btw as I'm being accused of, French people are usually terrible at defending their country's achievements and seem to prefer crediting others.
>>1323009
Actually, Bologna was founded in 1088, and it's where the word university was first used. By the way, these are little details.
Speaking of science (and btw, sorry but I'll be stubborn on this subject because I'm a man of science) what makes modern day science is it's method which was defined during the 15th-16th century.
The same word "revolution" came from Copernicus' book.
>>1323050
Like I said every principle of the scientific method had already found acceptance in the 14th century. Empiricism had been established by Roger Bacon. The Merton Calculators noted as something evident that the world can be described mathematically, and that principle was clearly accepted by Buridan and Oresme. The universe as a mechanism ruled by reason was already established by Abelard and the scholastics before. And the perpetual questioning of scientific theory, in fact the very principle of the theory, is ironically a product of Church intervention, most notably through the 1277 Paris Condemnations, which stated that Aristotlean laws could no longer be taught as indisputable fact.
The only difference is that it was only in the 17th century that Descartes and Francis Bacon wrapped up all those principles together into a neat package, and also that Descartes provided a secular philosophical basis for it.
>>1323011
In terms of Art, I prefer it but that's purely subjective. Two very different cultures, with very different aesthetics produced them and so they're two very different buildings.
In terms of engineering it most certainly compares given that it is the same height as the Notre Dam, was the largest church in the world until Seville Cathedral of 1500, has one of the largest domes ever built and...let me repeat..was built a millennium before the Gothic cathedrals. The Pantheon is also a close contender.
>>1323050
>>1323096
Oh and absolutely nothing came out of science in the 15th or 16th centuries. Copernicus just made a cosmological model which made no use of any scientific method, and aside from that the sum total of scientific achievement consisted in translating ancient books. The "Renaissance" was a dark age for science. Progress basically stopped in the 14th century and took off again in the 17th.
>>1322591
delete this
>>1321630
Didn't vote Leave
>>1321630
I don't know OP. Did something go wrong, or are you simply a racist?
>>1321630
populated by italians
