Root of Italian Disunity after Roman Collapse?

[Queequeg]

What were the reasons that Italy, at least north of the Papal States, spent such a long period of it's history in complete disunity?  I'm kind of amazed this went on so long-between Barbarossa and the Italian Wars I can't even think of an outside power attempting to assert control over the area.  I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that northern Italy is possibly the most strategic area of Western Europe, and Italian disunity was in some sense advantageous to competing Holy Roman, Spanish and French interests.

[Josquius]

It was the way of the HRE in general and north Italy in particular was very urban. Cities naturally look out for themselves.

[Razgovory]

What were the reasons that Italy, at least north of the Papal States, spent such a long period of it's history in complete disunity?  I'm kind of amazed this went on so long-between Barbarossa and the Italian Wars I can't even think of an outside power attempting to assert control over the area.  I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that northern Italy is possibly the most strategic area of Western Europe, and Italian disunity was in some sense advantageous to competing Holy Roman, Spanish and French interests.

I don't think the Italians were as united behind the Roman empire as it sometimes appears.  After all, many of the Italians cities and tribes attacked Rome when they got the chance during the Social war.  In Northern Italy at least there was a strong Gaulish element to the population, so they may not have identified as much with the Latins of Rome.  The people of Northern Italy weren't all the same people either.  Many had their own languages, so they probably didn't get along that well.

[PDH]

Because there wasn't a Rome to unite them?

[Ideologue]

Just guessing: foreign support of disunity, the thalassocracies' ability to maintain independence and power in the face of the peninsular and foreign powers--or at least Venice's ability--and the idiosyncratic form and influence of the Papal Roman state.

[Valmy]

What were the reasons that Italy, at least north of the Papal States, spent such a long period of it's history in complete disunity?  I'm kind of amazed this went on so long-between Barbarossa and the Italian Wars I can't even think of an outside power attempting to assert control over the area.  I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that northern Italy is possibly the most strategic area of Western Europe, and Italian disunity was in some sense advantageous to competing Holy Roman, Spanish and French interests.

It was already like that during the late Roman Empire.  It was why Constantine's invasion during the Milvian Bridge campaign was seen as a miraculous victory.  Quite a few Roman Emperors were broken trying to control the fortified cities of Northern Italy.

[Siege]

Two inventions: Crossbows and gunpowder, mixed with the ability of city-states to support small but professional armies through trade profits.

[Valmy]

What were the reasons that Italy, at least north of the Papal States, spent such a long period of it's history in complete disunity?  I'm kind of amazed this went on so long-between Barbarossa and the Italian Wars I can't even think of an outside power attempting to assert control over the area.  I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that northern Italy is possibly the most strategic area of Western Europe, and Italian disunity was in some sense advantageous to competing Holy Roman, Spanish and French interests.

I don't think the Italians were as united behind the Roman empire as it sometimes appears.  After all, many of the Italians cities and tribes attacked Rome when they got the chance during the Social war.  In Northern Italy at least there was a strong Gaulish element to the population, so they may not have identified as much with the Latins of Rome.  The people of Northern Italy weren't all the same people either.  Many had their own languages, so they probably didn't get along that well.

But the Social War was a war to get ROman citizenship....it hardly counts as a chance to attack Rome.  I think the big change was building of city walls during the crisis and the political problems that caused disunity everywhere in the late Empire than some sort of nationalism.

[Zoupa]

can't even think of an outside power attempting to assert control over the area.

A bunch of french kings made a decent attempt to control the whole of the boot. Napoleon springs to mind. Charles the Eighth also.

[Faeelin]

Two inventions: Crossbows and gunpowder, mixed with the ability of city-states to support small but professional armies through trade profits.

I don't see why gunpowder promotes the independence of city states. Rather the opposite, I should think.

[Razgovory]

But the Social War was a war to get ROman citizenship....it hardly counts as a chance to attack Rome.  I think the big change was building of city walls during the crisis and the political problems that caused disunity everywhere in the late Empire than some sort of nationalism.

Eh, it more a war against an overbearing ally.  The Italian states were nominally independent, but they lost a great deal of power to Rome.  Rome pacified some of their allies with offers of citizenship (which further eroded those states power), but not all of them.

[Razgovory]

Two inventions: Crossbows and gunpowder, mixed with the ability of city-states to support small but professional armies through trade profits.

I don't see why gunpowder promotes the independence of city states. Rather the opposite, I should think.

Or Crossbows.  Romans had encountered crossbows before amongst the Picts.  I think another problem was the flaws of the Holy Roman empire of which much of Northern Italy was still part of.  I imagine that would have made a war to unify Northern Italy somewhat tricky.

[jimmy olsen]

Two inventions: Crossbows and gunpowder, mixed with the ability of city-states to support small but professional armies through trade profits.

I don't see why gunpowder promotes the independence of city states. Rather the opposite, I should think.

Or Crossbows.  Romans had encountered crossbows before amongst the Picts.  I think another problem was the flaws of the Holy Roman empire of which much of Northern Italy was still part of.  I imagine that would have made a war to unify Northern Italy somewhat tricky.

Really, I was under the impression that military grade hand held crowsbows didn't reach Europe until the Crusades. Am I wrong?

[Sahib]

What were the reasons that Italy, at least north of the Papal States, spent such a long period of it's history in complete disunity?  I'm kind of amazed this went on so long-between Barbarossa and the Italian Wars I can't even think of an outside power attempting to assert control over the area.  I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that northern Italy is possibly the most strategic area of Western Europe, and Italian disunity was in some sense advantageous to competing Holy Roman, Spanish and French interests.

I don't think the Italians were as united behind the Roman empire as it sometimes appears.  After all, many of the Italians cities and tribes attacked Rome when they got the chance during the Social war.  In Northern Italy at least there was a strong Gaulish element to the population, so they may not have identified as much with the Latins of Rome.  The people of Northern Italy weren't all the same people either.  Many had their own languages, so they probably didn't get along that well.

I think you blind hatred of Rome somehow blinded you to the fact that half a millennium passed between the Social War and the fall of Rome.

[Razgovory]

I think you blind hatred of Rome somehow blinded you to the fact that half a millennium passed between the Social War and the fall of Rome.

And plenty of civil war in between.