ITALY ENGLISH

DISCUSSION RESPONSE ITALY

Disunity – Respond to (4) discussion post in 1-3 paragraphs per (for) each response?

Must be relevant and in Q & A format with the question preceding the response in print?

After the fall of the Roman empire, Italian peninsula definitely divided into eight different states and remained this way for about 2,000 more years. As mentioned in David Gilmore, "an idea of Italy did emerge, not the Italia of the Social War but the concept of a peaceful, united, Romanticized Italy, a reconciliation of the peoples of the peninsula after centuries of warfare". The following saying answers the question indicating that the author saw the era as continuity for the Italians, others beg to differ. Virgil's laus italiae, which means "praise of Italy", had a purpose as well. It was believed that the country was a place of extraordinary variety for its strength and destiny lay in 'unity in diversity'.  Virgil also wrote that the battle was seen as a struggle not apart of the Roman empire, even though it was. Virgil, along with Cierco like the idea of diversity because it gave many advantages. Cicero did not think of Italia as a whole.  In fact, he replied that one part was the homeland and another part was citizenship. 

I see the era as both a heroic struggle along with positive changes that occurred. Events such as crucifixions and slavery, the corruption and degeneracy of its rulers, and the gladiatorial contests only revealed bad results for the people. The empire also experiences prosperity and was encouraged by free trade and a common currency that shows another side of the economy. In all, the people wanted the empire to survive. UnitDG-1

RESPONSE ONE HERE –

1. (Dis)-Unity Discussion Post MUST RESPOND TO Parts A & B

A.Do the authors we read for the course see this era more of a disintegration or continuity in the lives of Italians? RESPOND TO PARTS A & B

As author David Gilmour examines the collapse of the Roman empire within his book "The Pursuit of Italy" explains that Italy during this turbulent era was indeed extremely fragmented as varies ruling powers wrestled for control over the Italian peninsula but the lack of stability experienced within the roman empire during this time period didn't directly ignite the process of losing cohesion or strength as demonstrated on page 51 of David Gilmour's "The Pursuit of Italy: A History of land, Its Regions and Their Peoples." Within this portion of his book author David Gilmour explains how "although the Byzantines were in fact Greek and were phasing out Latin, they called themselvesrhomaioi (Which is Greek for Roman) and continued to do so for centuries to come. Author David Gilmour reveals that the Byzantines regarded themselves as the heirs of classical and Christian Rome believing they had reversed the process of decline. I believe that author David Gilmour  would come to favor the Roman Continuity Theory because even as foreign influences occupied the Italian peninsula, these influence favored the Roman identity as they looked to implement similar political structures and policies. As author Christopher Duggan examines the collapse of the Roman empire within his book "A Concise History of Italy" he also comes to explain that Italy during this turbulent era was indeed extremely fragmented as varies ruling powers wrestled for control over the Italian peninsula but the lack of stability experienced within the roman empire during this time period didn't directly ignite the process of losing cohesion or strength as demonstrated on page 32. Author Christopher Duggan states that " The invasions of Italy by the Ostrogoths at the end of the fifth century did not result in any clear break with Roman traditions." Author Christopher Duggan also examines the Lombard invasions and how they were a turning point politically but not so much in other aspects such as culture, religion, fashion, language, politics and economy which all were still dominated  by Roman influences.

B.Do you see the era as a heroic struggle to soldier on and maintain life and communities, or a period of unreliable and chaotic, even nihilistic politics and economy?

I believe that the Roman empire experienced a bit of both theories, periods of unreliable and chaotic politics and economy ignited the conditions favorable for political turnover but the Roman influence of culture, economics and politics continued to live on implementing itself within the varies reigns that came into power.Unit LM- 2

RESPONSE TWO A & B HERE –

1. Disunity

A.The era was filled with strife with sectarianism rampant following the fall of Rome. As mentioned earlier the schism created by the oppenness only help produce differing cultures in my perception not useful for a national identity. The fractured cultures and the fractured geographies only elevated the likeliness of a part of cultural wars. Syracuse’s demise in the middle ages is just such an example of regions or states becoming susceptible to falter from being in stones throw of so many rivaling factions. As stated by David Gilmour, The Pursuit of Italy, Italy had to to be conquered or dominated by others prior to the nineteenth century (pg6-12)

B. The disunity existing following the fall of Rome centers on the decay in Nativist culture created by the chasm of Rome's openness. Openness served as the united front initially, however with the creation of individual political and geographical structure boundaries led to strife with growing discontent amongst the confederations on the peninsula. UnitLC – 3

RESPONSE THREE A & B HERE -

.

1. Disunity

Gilmour starts this section by saying “a certain stability, or at least consistency, returned to Italy in the middle of the tenth century.” [1] What followed was a series of emperors and kings that attempted to rule all of Italy. The Holy Roman Empire rulers considered themselves rulers over the old Rome as well as Germany. For those at the top, there was a lot of changing and inconsistency over who was “ruling” the territory.FJ Unit

However, I believe Gilmour suggests that this era was more of a continuity in the lives of Italians. He writes that as the Holy Roman Emperor was away from Italy and elsewhere in Europe, Italians did “what they liked to do anyway: plot and switch allegiances.” [2] Italians continued on their daily lives, mostly consisting of subsistence agriculture. It was not until the development of a large surplus of cereal grains allowed for a growing of a middle class and the start of a capitalistic economy. (There is more to that discussion, so please see the graduate student section if you are interested.)

To me, the period seems to be somewhat unreliable and chaotic. As the Holy Roman Emperor was off fighting wars in Germany, Italian city-states decided to take matters into their own hands and not show loyalty to a distant ruler. They “elect[ed] their own leaders, [ran] their own courts and [raised] their own militias.” [3] That chaos was seen when Frederick Barbarossa, or Redbeard, attempted to invade the area multiple times. This led to the formation of the Lombard League, which also started some political tensions between governments, the Holy Roman Emperor and the Catholic Church.

To solve some of the chaotic issues, communes (like the one in Siena) were used in conjunction with an oligarchy structure to make “one of the most stable city-states of the Middle Ages.” [4] The blurring of the lines between public and private life seemed to be a fairly big change in the lives of Italians, and Gilmour writes that it was not a good change. The idea of communes were “predestined to fall” because of their development and conflicts between neighboring city-states. [5] Without the overarching protection of a single entity (like Rome), it ended up creating more chaos amongst the city-states.UNIT FJ- 4

RESPONSE FOUR HERE -

[1] Gilmour, David. The pursuit of Italy: a history of a land, its regions and their peoples. London: Penguin Books, 2012, loc. 1039. Kindle edition.