Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After the fall of the Roman empire have the Italians ever accomplished anything noteworthy military wise since? They sucked real hard in World War I AND World War II. And I can't thank of anything else. Just kind of crazy what they managed to accomplish with the Roman Kingdoms to the Roman Republic and finally the Roman empire. Yet it has seemingly been all downhill from there. They certainly had some REALLY stupid generals.
Who was the idiot that in World War I had like 10 battles at the same spot? Clearly he never had heard the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result lol.
I don't think the people we call Italians today have a direct link to Ancient Roman. The Roman empire was invaded by various people when it fell, and the invaders later married with the locals who later became the people we now regard as Italians. Even before that happened, Ancient Rome was a society made up of a vast number of different ethnicities ranging from Greek to North African. To make things even more complicated, the Ancient Romes brought in a huge number of slaves from other regions, some who became freed and also intermarried with so-called "Ancient Romans."
So it doesn't really make much sense to me to see today's "Italians" as being part of the same civilization responsible for the rise of Ancient Rome. Of course, we'll never know this for sure but I always got the sense that the people we tend to associate as "Romans" were of a different ethnicity completely different from modern day people in the Mediterranean, sort of like how mestizo Mexicans may have some Aztec in them but aren't Aztec themselves.
After the fall of the Roman empire have the Italians ever accomplished anything noteworthy military wise since? They sucked real hard in World War I AND World War II. And I can't thank of anything else. Just kind of crazy what they managed to accomplish with the Roman Kingdoms to the Roman Republic and finally the Roman empire. Yet it has seemingly been all downhill from there. They certainly had some REALLY stupid generals.
Who was the idiot that in World War I had like 10 battles at the same spot? Clearly he never had heard the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result lol.
Cordona! If you're interested watch "The Great War" on YouTube they have an Italy special as well as their week by week episodes go over the Details of Italy's Futility, largely to do with Luigi Cordona believing enough grit will win Battles and Tactics were for losers.
After the fall of the Roman empire have the Italians ever accomplished anything noteworthy military wise since? They sucked real hard in World War I AND World War II. And I can't thank of anything else. Just kind of crazy what they managed to accomplish with the Roman Kingdoms to the Roman Republic and finally the Roman empire. Yet it has seemingly been all downhill from there. They certainly had some REALLY stupid generals.
Who was the idiot that in World War I had like 10 battles at the same spot? Clearly he never had heard the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result lol.
'Italy' is a modern concept, so the notion that Italy as a state has gone many centuries without military success is faulty because Italy the state is less than two centuries old. On the other hand, if you want to include the various states that have existed in what is now Italy, there's plenty of military success. The Battle of Lepanto comes immediately to mind but there were many others.
I don't think the people we call Italians today have a direct link to Ancient Roman. The Roman empire was invaded by various people when it fell, and the invaders later married with the locals who later became the people we now regard as Italians. Even before that happened, Ancient Rome was a society made up of a vast number of different ethnicities ranging from Greek to North African. To make things even more complicated, the Ancient Romes brought in a huge number of slaves from other regions, some who became freed and also intermarried with so-called "Ancient Romans."
So it doesn't really make much sense to me to see today's "Italians" as being part of the same civilization responsible for the rise of Ancient Rome. Of course, we'll never know this for sure but I always got the sense that the people we tend to associate as "Romans" were of a different ethnicity completely different from modern day people in the Mediterranean, sort of like how mestizo Mexicans may have some Aztec in them but aren't Aztec themselves.
Yes, that's what I was told when I visited Italy. They spoke of the Romans almost as a different people who used to live there, different ethnicity or not.
I don't think the people we call Italians today have a direct link to Ancient Roman. The Roman empire was invaded by various people when it fell, and the invaders later married with the locals who later became the people we now regard as Italians. Even before that happened, Ancient Rome was a society made up of a vast number of different ethnicities ranging from Greek to North African. To make things even more complicated, the Ancient Romes brought in a huge number of slaves from other regions, some who became freed and also intermarried with so-called "Ancient Romans."
So it doesn't really make much sense to me to see today's "Italians" as being part of the same civilization responsible for the rise of Ancient Rome. Of course, we'll never know this for sure but I always got the sense that the people we tend to associate as "Romans" were of a different ethnicity completely different from modern day people in the Mediterranean, sort of like how mestizo Mexicans may have some Aztec in them but aren't Aztec themselves.
Sorry friend but this is quite wrong. The genetic input of all invaders and migrants is known to be quite small. You need look no further that wiki which links you to some of the studies that have been done. Italians are the same people that they have always been, and even some extremely ancient genetic lines from old Europeans are preserved in Southern Italy.
That being said, that will all change with this generation, since they are importing hundreds of thousands of Africans and Asians, and not reproducing naturally.
It is an interesting question and there is the caveat that Italy has produced some good soldiers. Someone mentioned Lepanto, and I would add Giuseppe Garibaldi off the top of my head. I am a big fan, and it was a thrill to see his statue in Milan.
Insofar as the observation is correct, it might have something to do with the fact that in the Middle Ages, Italian wars became shams faux-prosecuted by professional merceneries called condottieri who bascially pocketed the money and did little fighting. When the "professionals" later faced real armies from Europe, they were comically beaten. In a sense, I don't think Italy ever got is mojo back from getting this far behind Spain, France, England, the Holy Roman Empire, etc.
Because the Roman Empire went from an Alpha male mentality to a touchy, emotional, and more feminine Europe. It became about feelings and not conquest.
This is not true at all. Italians were considered very good fighters during the middle ages and Renaissance period. They were instrumental in the defeat of the Ottomans at the Battle of Lepanto, for instance. Italians were also deeply involved in Spanish Empire as well as the Napoleonic army.
The problem with Italy had more to do with being divided politically. Machiavelli knew this and why he wanted unification of the Italian peninsula. If unification was achieved earlier world history would have been different.
Sorry friend but this is quite wrong. The genetic input of all invaders and migrants is known to be quite small. You need look no further that wiki which links you to some of the studies that have been done. Italians are the same people that they have always been, and even some extremely ancient genetic lines from old Europeans are preserved in Southern Italy.
That being said, that will all change with this generation, since they are importing hundreds of thousands of Africans and Asians, and not reproducing naturally.
It is an interesting question and there is the caveat that Italy has produced some good soldiers. Someone mentioned Lepanto, and I would add Giuseppe Garibaldi off the top of my head. I am a big fan, and it was a thrill to see his statue in Milan.
Insofar as the observation is correct, it might have something to do with the fact that in the Middle Ages, Italian wars became shams faux-prosecuted by professional merceneries called condottieri who bascially pocketed the money and did little fighting. When the "professionals" later faced real armies from Europe, they were comically beaten. In a sense, I don't think Italy ever got is mojo back from getting this far behind Spain, France, England, the Holy Roman Empire, etc.
As soon as I saw the title of this thread I thought about Garibaldi, but it seems I am a day late.
I would add that the battle of Legnano saw a Milanese force defeat the calvary of Frederick Barbosa.
I think the real question is why Italy was so divided for so long, when other European countries became powerful nations. Part of this answer may be the strength of the Papal States.
I would point out that the German General Erwin Rommel thought that the Italians were decent soldiers, but badly equipped and often led by Generals who were better at politics than military tactics.
If you want to ruminate on the genetic component, consider this - it is something that part of me goes "No, that is stupid and impossible" and another part of me goes "I wonder...?":
One aspect of war in ancient times was that the culture was often very supportive of a warrior mentality, and the men who were most aggressive were not only most likely to become soldiers, but to die on the battlefield. If only a couple of generations were involved, then any genetic shift would probably be minimal. However... when you have multi-generational wars, and the most aggressive and warlike males are REPEATEDLY killed in battles, those who survive are the ones who might hang to the back, not be great generals, or just want to farm.
When you consider that the Italians might not match up to Romans, that is an isolated fluke. But when you consider that the home countries of the colonial empires are now radically different than during the colonization period, the French are tamer since Napoleon, the Brits are more socialist and anti-gun since the days of the empire and WWII, the Dutch are more famous for red light districts and open drug use these days, and the lands of the Vikings are now arguably the most socialist of countries, it can make you pause in drinking your Red Bull.
As I say, this is just an observation that I in no way claim is correct, but it is something to ponder and wonder why the cycle has occurred in as many different cultures as it has. If you disagree, flame away at the idea. I have my doubts as well. For all I know, the women might have just had enough of their mates getting killed and chosen the Casper Milquetoasts for mates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
