why has Southern Italy never flourished in warfare historically? They are known for being strong tough people. Where did they fail?
It's a mixture of a lack of communal cohesion (namely hyper individualistic mindsets), poverty and constant abuse by much more powerful, wealthier external powers.
>>495021
But why wasnt there ever even any sort of guerilla activity? It would make sense if there was at least some historcially. But there appears to have been very little
>>495029
there have been revolts and uprisings all throughout the history of Southern Italy, though.
The peasantry has never truly cared who has ruled them and never had a desire to govern themselves. And why would they? Poor farmers tied to the land, with a mindset of high suspicion.
All parties, pre-KOI, had no interest in self rule and all believed that self-rule was against their interests.
>>495044
What were the revolts? And were they ever effective?
>>495054
Typically in the 1800's. Big one in 1848 and it failed hard.
The only effective revolution to take place in the South was undertaken by Garibaldi.
>>495064
So there was only one major one that was undertaken by the indigenous southern italian peoples?
>>495069
Major. Yes.
>>495008
>why has Southern Italy never flourished in warfare historically?
It's like you haven't even heard of the Italo-Normans
>>495091
They don't really count as Southern Italians though. Different culture, language, ethnicity.
>>495008
I don't think Southern Italy ever had self rule.
>>495008
>They are known for being strong tough people
Having a good day america?
>>495140
wut?
>>495127
I'm sure there are some who can trace their origins.
>>495168
I am not following...
>>495180
The Normans did not colonise the South. They lorded over it and thus there were always a lot more Southerners than Normans. I doubt many bred with Southerners and therefore I suggest only a fraction of Southern Italians are related to Normans,
>>495189
Interesting. What was the relationship like between the norman overlords and the people?
>>495203
Roger practiced a form of syncretism in which he attempted to use governance styles from Western Europe, Islam and Byzantium. His rule was reasonably effective but like all foreign rulers in Southern Italy it was more of a "you do your thing, we'll do ours". The relationship was never antagonistic, more indifferent.
The South has an odd stupefying effect in which the stagnancy of the people reflects on the rulers too.
![century[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UFpxhxm.jpg "century[1].jpg")
>>495008
>>495252
Isn't central Italy a geographic category? If not, this.
>>495008
>No Molise
>>495456
How did you write a blank post?
>>495484
back to facebook with your shitty memes
Lazio and Abruzzi are not southern tho
>>495008
Southern Italy "never flourished" in warfare mostly because it rarely saw the need for warfare. with only a few notable conflicts taking place in the region.
Southern Italy (hell, Italy as a whole) is blessed by being one of the most geographically defensible locations. Surrounded by water on three sides really diminishes the threat of massive invasions, seeing as any army wanting to reach the South has to fight through the North and Rome first.
But also in relation to all of Italy, the South was one of very low priority for invaders as time went on, Sicily is a trading jewel, but requires more effort than other Italian regions such as Piedmont, Tuscany, and the ever rich Veneto, which attracted most of the warfare away from regions such as Naples and Rome.
With the Italian peninsula as a whole guarded on three sides by water, and it's land route guarded by the Alps mountain range, Italy is a very privileged position to be so protected naturally, but with the Northern regions bearing most of the fighting, the South generally secure, and thus didn't have the urgency to industrialize quickly due to the low threat level, and thus remain a largely agricultural region with money to be made at the port cities.
>>495511
>implying I didn't take it from /int/
>>495102
>history of sicily
>colonized by the Carthaginians
>conquered by the romans during the first punic war becoming the first province outside of the italian peninsula taken by rome
>rome falls
>vandal king Genseric takes it over
>byzantine empire takes it from the vandals
>north african muslims conquer it from the byzantines and set up an emirate (take that rome!)
>norman mercenaries return it to Christendom and are granted rulership by the pope
>rulership passes to a german dynasty
>then a french dynasty
>then an aragonese dynasty
>inherited by Aragon
>held by the king of Spain until the war of spanish succession
>given to the fucking Savoyards of all people
>taken by austria during the war of the quadruple alliance
>conquered by France
>merged into the kingdom of two sicilies
>ruled by a french king until the formation of the kingdom of italy
being sicily is suffering
>>495008
Well consider that they voted in 1946 to keep the Savoy house, who were an north italian house and allowed Musso to drag them to war where the south was destroyed
>>495189
Wut.
Normans never lorded over any population. Wherever they went, they immediately started breeding with the locals until they were basically whatever the locals were within a couple generations. The Normans who sacked England bred with the Saxons, Scots, Irish, and Welsh. The Normans in Southern Italy/Sicily also took Italian brides.
>>495740
Sicily actually flourished under many of those lordships anon. As a Sicilian-American, the worst thing to happen to Sicily was actually Italian unification. Everything before that point was perfect. Everybody left Sicily the fuck alone.
Then Italy comes along, robs the Sicilian banks, gimps their economy, and starts killings that border on genocide. Fuck'em.
>>495740
You little shit completely ignored the Greek colonization and heritage of Sicily.
I'm an italian living in south (Campania, pizza e mozzarella) and I can tell you that we're divided. My grandfather didn't see a single sicilian until he went to war.
I tell you we're divided even in the same region.
I mean, every city works with a poleis-like system, staying isolated despite the same roots. We don't have an identity as italians, neither as south-italians because of the differences between the dominations courses.
Despite that I feel very close to the history of south-italy, mostly to the magno-grece
>>496359
By the late 12th century, the Norman kings in England were still primarily French-speakers.
>>496453
Sicilian here.
I do feel a strong bond, possibly because of the emigration to rich and boring northern cities.
>>496453
Come home Greek man
What about the Romans, Samnites, etc?
>>496359
No that doesn't happen when a foreign minority comes to rule over a local population. The foreign overlords generally avoid mingling with the locals and their genetic impact on the region is often minimal. There's a slew of genetic studies proving this with the Danish conquest of England and the Turkish migration in Anatolia.
>>495021
>poverty and constant abuse by much more powerful, wealthier external powers.
You mean, constantly getting raped and plowed by some fuckin moors?
>>496624
I wish I could! Italy (Campania specially) is the land of contradictions, odi et amo
Guineas are lazy, thats all
>>496668
the Moors were the best thing to happen to Sicily. When there was an Emirate, we were way more advanced then the rest of Europe. We had paper and gunpowder centuries before Germany.
French and Spanish rule was dramatic
>>495008
because it's isolated,only bordered in the north with papal states...
>>495008
>They are known for being strong tough people
By who? The Northern Italians?
>>497444
By Americans probably.
