Why Italy Was Never a Superpower After Rome 

If you’re interested in early access to videos and live chats with the creator of Intrigued Mind, consider subscribing to our Patreon. Your support will greatly help us keep the channel producing more intriguing content. www.patreon.com/intriguedmind

Great question. How could Rome have dominated the entire known world 2000 years ago while Italy today is a mid-level regional player in Europe with minimal power and dominance. Could the same thing happen to the US centuries from now? Scary to consider.

Actually Italy for a tiny nation that is, since it's industrial revolutuon until 1994 it was the World's 4th economy and still today they have the third world gold reserve behind usa and germany. So IT ACTUALLY WAS a Superpower during the 60's until 2000. The if we want to talk about Italy as Italics, they ruled the world multiple times after the Romans. Firstly with Papacy, secondly with the Maritime Republica of Genoa, Pisa and Venice, that litterally had all the worlds trade routes for their own. For example, the Byzantine Empire was highly dependant from the Genoese fleet, for market and naval wars. Not counting also how Genoese Crusaders conquered Jerusalem...twice.

6:59 When the Kingdom of Italy was declared, fewer than one in forty of its inhabitants spoke the language we now describe as Italian.

Italy just went from a political superpower to a religious one. "Inter Caetera" aka the "American Experiment" + Ordo Ab Chao = "Novus Ordo Seclorum." All roads still lead back to Rome. Dan.2:39-44

The balance of power, a failure to change the culture of the Italian military (particularly the army) and jumping in to World War 2 on the losing side. Funnily enough, I think that Italy could have emerged as one of the worlds leading powers (top 5 and even 3 if the EU isn’t being counted as a group). All it would take is for Mussolini to sell of neutrality and join the Allies once Hitler was being thrown back by the Soviet Union and the Wallies had liberated France. They already had the largest Navy in the Mediterranean and their crews were generally well trained. With the French fleet scuttled and the British broke, it would leave the Italians to assume the leading role in their region. No country could ever and would ever control the Mediterranean as thoroughly as the Romans did, but the Italians could have been dominant there. Their empire was also sparsely populated outside of Ethiopia, so it would be easier to hold on to and it had vast energy reserves and untapped mineral reserves. They were also the heart and brain of an ideological movement that was incredibly popular before world war 2 and the holocaust tainted it. Spain and Portugal had similar regimes and good population growth until around a decade after those regimes fell (in part due to their isolation). The Italians were in the perfect spot to exploit the absence of more developed countries from international markets and profit from the war. Japan did just that in WW1 and their economy grew by 40%. The 1939-1945 period would have been a great time for the Italians to expand their industry. If Mussolini had played his hand smarter, he could have come away from the table with a sparsely populated Empire at least around the size of India, the worlds 2nd strongest Navy after the US and Britain, the worlds largest economy after the US, the Soviet Union and Britain, one of the leading creditor nations like Japan after World War 2 and at the head of a smaller and weaker bloc of fascistic states with the support of the US and her allies as a roadblock to the spread of communism. Churchill briefly mentions what a good position he’d have been in after the war if he’d been more patient and he’s not the only one. They were playing with a deceptively good hand and he botched it. Someday I might make a video about that. Great video btw!😁👍

The affirmative is just wrong. "Italy" as a whole, modern piece is a new thing that was invented in 1870. What was there before were cities, regions separated by geography, like other parts of Europe. Rome wasn't Italy as a superpower, it was the city of Rome as a superpower, and this status was mainly achieved through the Mediterranean. After the Roman Republic and Empire new superpowers emerged in the peninsula. We had, first of all, Rome as the Catholic Church, which was in several ways the center of Europe and the seat of greatest power, specially through the 12th to 17th centuries, it was the richest most powerful city in Europe - Constantinople aside - until the 13th century, being challenged only by Venice after that. And there were several extremely powerful duchies and republics, such as Florence, which dominated European banking, Genoa and Venice, two of the most powerful cities in Europe for a long period of time - let's not forget that south Europe was richest before the Atlantic world trade was open -, Milan, Siena, Lucca, Pisa, Naples and many others which deserve their place as superpower. Until the 18th century the Catholic Church was the main driver of world colonization, so one could argue that Rome was even at the center of the world at one point. Hadn't watched the video till this point. The video was good and likable, and you brought good arguments. But the premise of seen Italy as a bloc is wrong in the first place, this is a view that doesn't fit the territory's history at all. Its like thinking of the Balkans as Yugoslavia. For some reason it worked out in Italy, most likely because of the rich regions in its north and the papal authority and extreme power in Rome, something that was not allowed to exist in the Balkans after the fall of the Ottoman and Austrian empires.

Never? What do you think it is Italy today? 🤣🤣🤣

Giovanni Giolitti..

Mi chiamo Grifyn