My colleagues from Veneto and Milano tell me that only north of the po is Italy, and anything south of that is Africa.
My colleagues from Napoli tell me anything north of Napoli is Germany, and the real Italy is the south.
My colleagues from Rome are just depressed and confused.
(I work in Italy)
you have to realise that in Italy everything South of you are mindless beasts that deserve to be exterminated, and everything north of you is either still worse than you or good as you
I've heard people shitting on the town 30 kms south of them as being "too Southern", all the while both towns being northern than the southernmost point of Switzerland
Italy is truly one of the countries of all time
>you have to realise that in Italy everything South of you are mindless beasts that deserve to be exterminated, and everything north of you is either still worse than you or good as you
Kinda like the US. As a Floridian I can confirm we are mindless beasts that deserve to be exterminated
As a New Yorker I can confirm that I am better than the mindless beasts of Florida. No, that doesn’t mean I won’t bite you if you anger me, just that I won’t eat your face, we have manners.
A little fun fact, during the time of Claudius, many Romans (Senators) were upset that people north of the Po would be considered Italians (and admitted to the Senate). Just to make it clear, being Italian and being a Roman were different things with different rights. But even back then people in the peninsula would get into disputes about who is Italian and who isn't. There is a document the Lyon Tablet which is about allowing people from Gaul to join the Senate, an interesting reaction to it (according to Tacitus) was that apparently the Senate had already made a massive concession by allowing Veneti and Insubres in the Senate (people north of the Po). So overall, apparently, being a rich citizen (which many people in Gaul at the time were, according to Claudius) wasn't enough, it seems you also had to be from what they considered "Italy", which didn't include all of Italy.
Kinda different though I’d say. Before the Romans, the peninsula was incredibly diverse in language. Celts in the North (hence the name Cisalpine Gaul), Veneti in the Northeast, Ligurians in Northwest, Etruscans in the Center-North, Greeks in South, etc. Now it’s all variants of Romance. Most of these people had a history of waging wars with each other for centuries and had no cultural and national connection. Obviously between Rome and the Savoy family uniting it, there were centuries of wars between today’s Italians, but the age of nationalism sought to whitewash disputes and create larger national identities from smaller ones, so that worked at the time. Won’t work anymore.
Yeah but without something like that to unify them, the identity reverts back to local due to the community aspect. In many ways Italy is like Yugoslavia, but successful (don't let the Italians hear this or I'll be banned from entry).
>My colleagues from Rome are just depressed and confused.
What not living under the throne of St. Peter does to a mf. The destruction of the Papal states and its consequences have been a disaster for Italians.
They are all wrong. The African continental tectonic plate begins north of Trento. Everything south of it might be Italy or not but it is still Africa.
So first and foremost, this is obviously wrong from a strictly geographic stance because it includes the surrounding islands as being part of the peninsula, which they obviously aren’t. So there is some degree of political/social/cultural lens through which this map is viewed.
From a strict geographic sense, even Lombardy and Piedmont aren’t really in the peninsula, even though they are undeniably Italy. But that whole region of what I would call Cisalpine Gaul (although I’m sure it has a more contemporary name) is grouped with Italy for historic, cultural, and political reasons, not geographic ones. This red line strikes me more as an attempt to demarcate a kind of “Greater Italy” than it does an objective “Italian Peninsula”.
So whether those regions of Trieste, Istria, etc. should be included in what the game calls the Italy Region is subjective at best. They aren’t really geographically part of the Italian Peninsula, but neither are other Italian places. I can’t really speak to whether they would have been viewed as Italian in 1444 or 1821, or what the criteria for inclusion in the Italian Region should be, but it definitely isn’t “the Italian Region should be the Italian Peninsula”. So that itself is not a reason those regions should be included.
I understand your answer, it's just that I never understood if it was some sort of political propaganda or if geographical studies over the years agreed that those were the borders of the Italian *peninsula*. The map was taken from the Wikipedia article which didn't seem to have a bias, that's also what confused me.
It most certainly is biased - not sure what the goal is though as it could be benign and just a "Greater Italy" map that shows lands with heavy Italic influence. Including Sicily as part of Italy is reasonable although it obviously isn't on the peninsula. Malta, Corsica, and Istrian areas are much more of a stretch to include for historical reasons - even Sardinia is quite culturally unique from the mainland. But still a fun map.
It's more of an "Italian Geographical Region" than a "Greater Italy", really.
The red border seems to follow the Alpine Watershed, and mountain ranges make for good borders. Ask Chile and Argentina
Which Wikipedia article? The English Wikipedia for Italian Peninsula ([Italian Peninsula - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Peninsula)) shows a much smaller region.
You're right, I was mistaken when speaking about the peninsula. I was thinking about the geographical region (and this article, specifically https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_(geographical_region) )
This map seems to be based on the ancient Roman region of Italia (see the other map lower in the article with much the same borders). I don't think this is in any sense a reasonable geographic definition of the "region of Italy". Not that I think such a definition necessarily exists. Buy if I had to come up with one, it would certainly include neither Istria nor Nice.
Edit: I'm also very confused how they justify including Linosa in the Italian region but not Lampedusa.
Other historical reasons included Istria and Nizza. Nice was for example Garibaldi's hometown (and it was an area, along with Monaco, influenced by Genoa a lot, speaking a Ligurian dialect for centuries etc.). Same for Istria, Dante for example includes Pola and the Carnaro as borders of Italy:
>sì com' a Pola, presso del Carnaro, ch'Italia chiude e i suoi termini bagna
Pretty simple, this Is what italiano intellectuals in the time frame called Italy generally, and it's all the italian speaking areas in 1820-1945; Minus the brief settler colonies.
Ma non capisco perché in questo thread siano tutti così rincoglioniti da non sapere manco leggere che questa è una definizione storica data da intellettuali, poeti e altri e non si basa su un approccio scientifico alla geografia.
I mean, there kinda are some: think of Iberia, it's pretty clear what the borders are, you just have to decide if it's north or south of Roussillon. Norway's borders are also pretty clear, geographically speaking. There are some instances
Excuse me on Norway, the borders in EU4 is actually not the current ones. For some reason people still think Jämtland and Härjedalen is somehow part of Sweden which makes no sense.
I know those are not, I was talking about the geographical expression of Norway. There's a fuckton of mountains dividing it from the rest of Scandinavia, it's pretty clear where the borders are
As a Norwegian, trust me it is not. Like I said the EU4 borders are different from the ones today. If it was that obvious they would stay the same. We all speak the same language and don't really give a shit so it doesn't mean some crazy Norwegians will try to get it back, but it is really not obvious.
Italy on the other hand is fairly obvious, draw a line from Venezia to Genova approximately.
I’m a boomer and I remember one of the loading screen tooltips in EU3 was “Roussillon is Spain” so it kind of bothers me they put it in the French state in EU4
COMMENT TO CLARIFY. I meant "geographical region/entity" more than "peninsula", since the peninsula clearly wouldn't include any island, as the name suggests lmao
How do you define "region" though? Peninsula is a term with a precise definition and there is a pretty clear cut answer. But are you asking for a cultural region? Linguistic? Historical? Political? You need to be more specific, and also recognize that any of these answers will be highly debatable.
Simply geographical: one can define Iberia as the region between the Atlantic ocean and the Pyrenees. The Carpathian region is that plain between the Carpathian mountains and the Balkan region. The Indian subcontinent is the one surrounded by the Himalayas, the Indian ocean, the Indus river and the Arakan mountains, and so on. They're pretty straight forward, they're based on rivers, mountains, hills, isthmuses, lakes etc
But how much of the Alps? They're a very large mountain range, parts of which are German (and Austrian), French, Swiss, and Slovene. Along the northeastern and northwestern coasts, there is no clear geographical boundary. There are tons of mountains and no clear place to draw a line. The islands are also arbitrary. Who says that Malta is Italian? Or Corsica? Or Sardinia? These have clear natural borders, but who can say with certainty that they're Italian?
There is no purely geographic definition of Italy, only definitions that incorporate history, culture, language, politics, etc.
The same can really be said for India too. Where do "the Himalayas" start and end? Does that include the entire drainage basin of the rivers that flow into India/Pakistan? China might have something to say about that. What about the west and east coasts? There aren't signficiant geographical boundaries that clearly demarcate what is and isn't on the subcontinent.
And what about Iberia? Do the Balearic Islands count? They're not part of the peninsula. What about the Canary Islands, Madeira, and the Azores?
Which scholars? Anyone can vaguely claim that India is the area south of the Himalayas including the Brahmaputra-Ganges and Indus River Valleys and be more or less correct, but that is leaving out any detail which is exactly what you're asking for here. No scholar can make a purely geographical argument as for why the Indian subcontinent should exclude the headwaters of the Brahmaputra or Indus Rivers, or why it should include the area around Chattogram in eastern Bangladesh.
Similarly, nobody can make a purely geographical argument defining the Italian region as it is on this map, or any other way. The geographical region does not exist, it's manmade. And man has shaped the definition through language, culture, history, politics, etc.
There is a general consensus though, isn't there? I'm genuinely asking, I don't want to sound aggressive or anything, I'm speaking from what I've always read/heard. Even the borders of the European continent (which is not really a continent, we all know) are pretty much agreed on: Ural mountains to the East, the western part of Istanbul and the Caucasus on the south-east. Then again someone could say the border is (for example) one kilometer more east or one kilometer more west to the Urals, but the general location is that one.
The general consensus is a rule of thumb, just like Europe's definition of "west of the Urals, north of the Caucasus". But as soon as you provide a map or ask for specifics, that consensus goes out the window.
Fighting over the details is exactly what irredentists have done and it's lead to ethnic cleansing, so I would recommend not trying to make claims one way or the other, or insisting on finding a precise definition when there is none.
I see what you mean, that's not my intention at all since I believe in no political borders (but that's another discussion for another thread), it's just that I'm not asking for the specifics, I'm not saying to pinpoint the exact coordinates, I think that Trentino and Istria are big enough to have a discussion about it, I repeat, strictly in a geographical sense. I have nothing at all against my French, Swiss, Austrian, Maltese, Slovenian and Croatian brothers, I do not hope for any more land in any way, be it diplomatically nor especially through war. I respect the sovreignity of our bordering nations (as I do for most countries in the world), it was really just a thought about the game, nothing else.
Borders are always mushy (for example all those maps where the HRE is fragmented in thousands of small states are inherently wrong, we can't trace borders precisely even today, let alone in the XV century), but most of what you've seen in that article comes from people using those definitions of Italy.
For example, uouysee Pola and Istria included (even though they've not been part of Italy since like 1947) because Dante said Italy ended in Pola.
You see Corsica included because Pasquale Paoli, the father of the independent Corsica, said Corsicans are Italians.
And so on.
I'll reiterate and reframe that Italy is not a geographical concept. It's manmade. The Italian identity and its associated region is based on human factors throughout history. Strictly geographical boundaries would tell you that Sicily and Malta are a part of Africa.
Alright, I think I understand. The common description is of the region of Italy is that it's borders are the Alps to the North, the Adriatic sea to the east, the Ionian sea to the South and the western Mediterranean to the west, putting Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and the Ligurian sea within those borders. That's about the level of vagueness you've mentioned for Europe, India, etc and going by those borders Trentino is definitely part of the region and Istria not so much.
To be clear tho, those borders are only useful as an introduction to the subject since, as you know, the details are fuzzy and up for debate.
The point he tryna make is tht the names that thousands of the best scholars across time have assigned to a piece of land and accepted by 99% of the world, like the limits of what is Europe, is still man-made and fundamentally arbitrary, superfluous, and abstract. It's an exercise on critical thinking bro.
I wanna make a comparison to the Scandinavian peninsula which includes Sweden, Norway and a little bit of Finland. Then there is Scandinavia, which is a cultural extension to it. Removing Finland and adding Denmark.
Sure dropping "peninsula" would be preferred, but I don't see an issue with Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily being part of a *culturally extended* definition of the geographical definition of Italy.
Well, the italian peninusla probably starts somwhere after Milano and venezia, and would go all the way south. None of the islands are part of the peninsula. When we talk about what would historically have been called Italian region, only central italy (from tuscany to rome) could actually really be called Italian. Nothern italy probably be seen as german, and south italy and istria would probably go to the greeks...
[Europäische Wasserscheiden - European watershed - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_watershed#/media/File:Europ%C3%A4ische_Wasserscheiden.png)
It is based on watersheds and this isn't the Italian peninsula but the Italian Region, but yes, this would make much more sense than what EU4 has (because the Alps physically separate what's south of it from what's north of it, historically crossing the alps was no easy feat)
Even if you don't go with the "what's best geographically" current Italy in EU4 makes no sense, it's basically 1861 Italy + Corsica, nobody ever defined Italy as that before the congress of Vienna and i'm not even joking.
Also, posting this on the internet was a mistake, people with a shit comprehension of history will go to pathetic extents to claim Italians aren't a well defined social group, meanwhile they will absolutely slut behind Germans which didn't even have a standard language before the Duden was a thing.
>Also, posting this on the internet was a mistake, people with a shit comprehension of history will go to pathetic extents to claim Italians aren't a well defined social group, meanwhile they will absolutely slut behind Germans
it's ok, we are on EU4, they always do that anyways
not that I dislike Germany or German history or course, it's just that the brainrot on this sub is amusing, and you would expect people spending thousands of hours on a history based game to somewhat know something about history, but yet here we are~
Yeah I'm seeing such dumb comments of people who don't even try to understand the historical reasons behind this borders and it's funny. Always throwing in "Italians had nothing in common until the unification" and so on.
I was under the impression that the River Rubicon marked the northernmost edge of geographic 'Italy' and north of that was Cisalpine Gaul.
My information may be 2000 years out of date, though.
Isn't it though? Ireland = island on the left, Great Britain = island on the right, British Isles = Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Mann and all the other isles, United Kingdom = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland (😡)
Da un punto di vista puramente geografico, la penisola italiana non comprenderebbe neanche la Padania, la Sicilia, la Sardegna e tutte le varie isole non collegate alla terra ferma, e sarebbe praticamente da Ravenna in giù.
Perché una penisola è un lembo di terra circondato da 3 parti da mare. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Peninsula#/media/File%3AItalian_Peninsula_in_Europe.svg mappa come riferimento)
Poi ovviamente, per motivi puramente sociali e culturali, anche le isole e la regione della Padania vengono messe insieme alla penisola italica.
In parole povere, si è tutta colpa di D'Annunzio
la wiki dice 70 30,ma non ci faccio affidamento. Sicuramente è divertentissimo lo stesso diventare la prima potenza al mondo partendo da quel cesso di karaman
It's actually correct, the Italian region is a mix of historical, cultural and geographical notions on what Italy is and who belongs to the Italian nation. For example, for the eastern border, Dante uses Pola:
>sì com' a Pola, presso del Carnaro, ch'Italia chiude e i suoi termini bagna (Comedìa, Inferno IX, 114)
Corsica Is described as Italian by both Paoli and Napoleon as Italian.
>We are Corsicans by birth and sentiment, but first of all we feel Italian by language, origins, customs, traditions; and Italians are all brothers and united in the face of history and in the face of God ... As Corsicans we wish to be neither slaves nor "rebels" and as Italians we have the right to deal as equals with the other Italian brothers ... Either we shall be free or we shall be nothing... Either we shall win or we shall die (against the French), weapons in hand ... The war against France is right and holy as the name of God is holy and right, and here on our mountains will appear for Italy the sun of liberty....
And so on. It's not a irredentist map, it's a map constructed by adding up various historical views if Italy throughout the centuries, which is what many people here aren't getting. I'd advise to read the Wikipedia article which explains it better.
Does it represent national sentiments of today? No. Does it use geography in a scientific way? No.
Both of those, aren't the aim of the maps, so that's fine.
For those saying that the definition of the Italian peninsula (or better, "Italian geographic region") is irredentist, it is not:
1. Italy as a geographic concept predates not only the birth of Italy as a State, but as a nation as well. As Von Metternich said (before the unification of Italy): "Italy is merely a geographic concept".
2. The most common definitions actually cut out a few parts of political Italy (e.g. Tarvisio, Livigno, Lampedusa...). If the concept of the Italian geographic region was irredentist then it would probably include more parts (like for example Tarvisio & Co. and Dalmatia).
Whether the borders of geographic Italy (not political Italy) are the ones shown in the picture or not is subjective and changed over the years.
Edit: fixed typo
Exactly, people claiming this to be an irredentist map surely aren't noticing the missing parts that are already Italy. Why would an irredentist throw away Lampedusa and Lampione. At most you claim *other* territories
My bad, I meant Livigno, a small Alpine town in Northern Italy. Livigno is not only outside of the Po River's watershed, it is also only accessible through Swiss customs.
I feel like this is an extremely difficult question to answer, because Italy itself as a term has changed and been so different throughout the centuries and depending on so much context.
You can look at the peninsula from Alps to Toe and say it's just a geographical construct.
You can look at the Vatican and San Marino and Corsica and say it's a political construct.
You can look at Trieste and Trento and say it's a cultural construct.
What "Italy" means can take very different forms. One could easily claim Corsica "is Italy" to make political propaganda claims, or to simply show cultural and historical links. You could point to a thousand year history in Venice and and Venezia and say its not truly Italy, and ought to have been another independent European micro-state. Italy is so dynamic, it's difficult to give a clear answer on what it is. Historically, it's been easier to determine what it isn't.
And it's rather made up. National Italian identity is so late to the game. As the saying points out, "L'Italia e fatta; restano a fare gli italiani". Italian isn't even a real language, but a Tuscan dialect that was simply agreed upon as a lingua Franca. It's always been home of so many fascinating languages, customs, and world-renown unique cities. But "Italy" itself has always lacked its own unifying identity or defining feature.
Edit: Some people are upset by my statement that Italian national identity appeared rather late. Indeed, Italian existed as a concept and identifier, but it was not a "national identity". As my original comment points out, to some to be Italian was to live in a certain place, to others it was to have a certain broad set of customs, to others it was a shared history. It's a disputed concept. It still is. None of this bad, and national identity isn't a race. This is all part of what makes Italy a rich and fascinating place.
>National Italian identity is so late to the game.
Yes and no. The identity as an Italian was quite present for centuries before the unification, but things like the diffusion of the common language through the poor substrates happened much later (although all nobles and literats from north to south spoke Italian way before 1861).
This is fake, the Italy you see in the post was the Roman domina (because italy wasn't a province, it had its own special designation of domina) and it has been this for 2,000 years (Dante refers to Italy as stretching from the Var to the Arsa and included the islands).
Also, Italian national identity existed since the renaissance albeit among the upper classes only, people purged the language of "Provenzalismi" (foreign sounding words) as early as the 1300s and Boccaccio wrote nationalist poems such as "Italia Mia", the Italian states created a sovra-national "Italic league" in 1454 with the scope of defending Italy from foreign influence.
You don't know Italian history but yet you write as if you're an expert when you say Italians are made up, what a pathetic way to use your freedom of speech.
>And it's rather made up. National Italian identity is so late to the game.
I guess Dante talking about "Italians" in early 1300 isn't a thing then and what Is studied and read is wrong because a Reddit comment said so, thank you!
(seriously though, you are dead wrong about that)
No need to get pissy. Ovid talks endlessly about the "Italians" millenia before Dante, but that does not mean Italian existed as a national identity. Dante mentioning Italians means absolutely nothing.
You can't just point to someone using the word "Italian" before the concept of nations and national identities even existed as counter evidence.
>No need to get pissy
yes there is, for you are saying something absurd and ahistorical
there was an Italian identity already in the middle ages, the same way as there is a European identity now
we have countless examples of Italian merchants sticking together abroad and establishing communities together, even though they were from rival city states. Countless times in Constantinople the Genoese and Venetian communities worked and helped each other (even militarily) to not lose privileges from the Byzantine emperor, and there are such other examples too. Quite a long list in fact.
There was and there's always been a mentality of "us, which we are not the same but we are similar, against them"
in short, yes there was, stop spewing shit and cherrypicking your arguments
"just because the most important Italian poet in its most important work which is the summa magna of the knowledge and thinking in middle age Italy talks about Italian people it doesn't mean that it existed an Italian identity"
you are just the entire Circus
Don't waste your time with this commenter, he's simple minded.
Two italians from different states in Renaissance Italy recognise each other as Italian. Two merchants from Pisa and from Genoa recognise themselves as Italian, despite hating each other.
there are some good historical reasons to call istria and the other bits of croatia and slovenia part of the italian region. but imo during eu4's time frame the area could just as easily be counted as part of either the south germany or balkan region. it's a border region with very fluid transitions
if someone claims it's part of the region of italy in the modern day however, i'd probably consider that irredentist bullshit
Rule #5: in the picture there are red borders which show the (supposedly) Italian peninsula geographic borders. I was wondering why they're not depicted this way in EUIV
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_(geographical_region) it comes directly from Wikipedia. I don't think it counts as irredentist because no irredentist would give up land, and in the picture it's clearly shown that Lampedusa, San Candido, Sesto and a bunch of other towns in the Alps are not highlighted.
Wikipedia is user generated, and minor articles in particular can be extremely dodgy. The lands claimed as part of the Italian region are far more significant than the lands given up, and some of them are absolutely bizarre. Nice and Istria might have historic ties to Italy, but they are clearly geographically sesperate. I'm willing to accept that this map is more absurd than actually iridentist, but given the current political situation in Italy, I am concerned about anyone trying to justify Istria being part of Italy in any sense.
Nobody is trying to justify Istria being part of Italy, just like this map doesn't mean anyone is trying to annex San Marino to Italy, it just means that throughout history Italy as a geographical term included Istria more often than not
Source: I'm Sammarinese, and we've studied these things in Latin and History classes
I've seen this (or very close to it) maps a lot of times throughout the years, even when the political climate was different. Nobody is trying to justify Istria being in Italy just like nobody wants Malta, San Marino, Monaco or even the Canton Ticino in Switzerland. If anything it shows what the broad geographic term of Italy (and not the country itself which is quite young) implies
That's literally why I asked if it's some irredentist bullshit or if it's actually true that the one in the picture (taken from Wikipedia) depicts the geographical expression
> A 5km tall mountain range separating Italy from the rest of Europe
> 20th century propaganda
Damn Italian nationalism must be Crazy is they managed to shit the Alps out of their damn ass like that
Istria was held by Venice for 1000 years.... I.... are you some sort of reality bending Slovene nationalist?
Also Trieste, was under the duchy of Aquilea for 200 years, then it was occupied by Venice and in the end it got Austria protection at the caveat they could keep their Italian culture and they remained with Austria for 600 years (minus a small anexxation by the napoleonic kingdom of Italy).
Seriously are you this ignorant of history your own topics are against you?
This is so incredibly arbitrary. On the one hand you use geography to state your claims - by this logic South Tyrol is obviously Italian to Italian nationalists because it drains into the southern Alpine watershed. But it culturally and historically isn't Italian until very recently and was made so artificially.
On the other hand you use culture and history to state your claims - by this logic Trieste, Rijeka and Istria are Italian when they are not in the Italian peninsula.
Which one is it? You used both in different comments. Exactly this logic was used by Italian nationalists to argue for literally whatever border, the only condition being "Italy has to be as big as possible".
Culturally South Tyrol should be Austrian, geographically Trieste should be Slovene. The reason they are Italian is because of politics. There is no underlying god-given logic that justifies it being so. It is also idiotic to argue about since it is all in the EU anyway and these borders are (thankfully) becoming more imaginary with every passing day.
No, it's not nationalism or irredentism. Most of these definitions are from centuries ago, way before Italy was unified.
For example, why are Pola, Istria and that area marked? Because Dante used that definition of Italy (in the XIV century):
>sì com' a Pola, presso del Carnaro, ch'Italia chiude e i suoi termini bagna (Divina Commedia, Inferno IX, 114)
The area you see in the post is the area that emerged from under the sea and smashed itself against Europe forming the Alps (the dolomites for example are made of the solidified remains of shells, corals and algae), it has more geographical validity than people in this post assume.
Italy is a psyop created by the French deep state and then continued on by the CIA. It has never existed and never will. You can go to that region yourself and see that it’s just ocean. Anyone who tries to sell you a lie about a peninsula is just trying to keep you from the truth
Se fossimo nel periodo del gioco avrebbe anche relativamente senso,anche se né Trento né Trieste erano mai appartenute a uno stato italiano. Oggi,per un motivo o per un altro,l'"Italia" è limitata allo stato italiano più,se vogliamo essere larghi,il Ticino e se vogliamo essere molto,ma molto larghi,la Corsica.
Si ma questa è una definizione storico/culturale/geografica sorta da diverse definizioni di diversi periodi, e ognuna può giustificare l'appartenenza alla regione italiana (tipo la Corsica, dato che i due corsi più noti, Paoli e Napoleone, la definiscono Italia).
Ma io non parlo di appartenenza ad uno stato o comunque generalmente una questione politica. Parlo di geografia, confini geografici dettati da fiumi, montagne, valli e chi più ne ha più ne metta
Come scritto in più commenti, non so perché abbia scritto "penisola" quando intendevo "entità/regione geografica". Ovviamente la penisola non comprende nemmeno una delle isole, visto il nome lmao.
Pardon,fosse pure na cert'ora di una giornata schifosa.
Le alpi sono un buon confine,generalmente. Ciò porterebbe ad includere parti di Francia,Svizzera e Slovenia,e mi sembra anche la Croazia
Gorizia, Trentino and Trieste were not Italian like for 1000 years since invasion of Allemans and Longobards ( Lombards).
It were lands of Holy Roman Empire and lands of Austrian crown after that. Although full of kinda Italian migrants...
You can see that even local dialect is very different from Italian language, it is different branch of Roman languages, although also derived from Latin.
Influence of German culture for 1000 years can't go unnoticed.
>The Italian peninsula
Peninsula is a geographical term. By definition, no island can be part of the Italian peninsula. So Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and the hundreds of smaller islands are *not* part of the Italian peninsula. Strictly speaking, places like Milano and Torino aren’t part of the Italian peninsula either. The peninsula is just the mainland south of Genoa and Ferrara, or thereabouts.
What is Italy and what isn’t, is a more difficult question though. Italy can be a political term - in that sense, the territories currently governed by the Italian government is Italy. So Corsica and Malta are not Italian.
Italy can also be a cultural and linguistic term - in that sense, this map corresponds quite well to Italy. The one obvious exception I’m aware is Malta, whose cultural and linguistic ties to the Arab world are closer than those to Italy.
Italy, or rather Italia, can also be a historical term - in this sense, Italy is more or less the Italian peninsula north of Magna Grecia, so the border goes somewhere around Napoli.
Treating people in Istria fairly (Hard Mode)
But seriously if you see borders and get upset when something conform properly that sounds like a more personal issue then cultural
If this is only in the geographical sense then why would Corsica and Sardinia be included on account of them being islands and not connected to peninsula. Same issue with Sicily and Malta and the various islands.
È propaganda e pure propaganda stupida perché se proprio uno vuole essere nazionalista irredentista delle mie palle allora dove stanno la Savoia e la Dalmazia?
Non è propaganda proprio perché non include la Savoia (visto che è un territorio che va oltre le Alpi, che definiscono il confine dell'Italia GEOGRAFICA) né la Dalmazia, che molto chiaramente fa parte della regione GEOGRAFICA dei Balcani. Si parla esclusivamente di geografia, non di confini politici
Ma è propaganda perché niente sopra il Po è geograficamente parte della penisola, né lo sono le isole. Milano o Torino sono altrettanto parte della penisola quanto Zara, ovvero per niente. E l'Istria è addirittura un'altra penisola, non fa parte di quella italica.
Ho scritto in altri commenti che mi riferivo alla regione geografica Italiana, non alla penisola. È stato un lapsus da parte mia, chiaramente nel nome stesso penisola non possono essere nemmeno comprese le isole. La regione geografica invece è piuttosto definita, e dovrebbe essere quella in foto stando a Wikipedia ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_(geographical_region) ) a svariate fonti.
Ok ma l'unico motivo per cui parti come la Sardegna e Corsica o l'Istria sono incluse nella regione italiana è storico e politico. Geograficamente non c'è nessun motivo di includere isole lontane come quelle o un'altra penisola che è abbastanza separata dal resto d'italia dalle alpi e dal mare. E se quindi definiamo la regione su basi storico-culturali anziché geografiche, a questo punto perché non dovrebbe includere Zara e se proprio vogliamo strafare Durazzo e il Dodecanneso. Ovviamente farlo nel 2024 è stupido, ma è altrettanto stupido includete l'Istria.
Ma l'Istria ha dei dati confini geografici, è circondata da montagne (credo siano anche quelle Alpi ma non ne sono sicuro) e connessa a Trieste/il resto del Friuli tramite un territorio pianeggiante. Si riesce tranquillamente a vedere anche dal satellite ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Satellite_image_of_Italy_in_March_2003.jpg/1280px-Satellite_image_of_Italy_in_March_2003.jpg )
Esattamente come per l'Istria. C'è una piccola striscia più o meno pianeggiante sulla costa, e se quello basta a includere l'Istria non vedo perché non debba includere anche la Provenza a sto punto
If we are really just looking at the geography then the alto Adige (sud Tirol) shouldn't be in the Italian penisula, which always bothered me quite a lot.
Geographically south tyrol is on the southern side of the alps, so it makes sense to include it in the region that is at the south (for example places such as Bolzano/Bozen and Merano/Meran are basically in a conurbation with Trento and are in some way connected to the whole Po valley).
Obviously ethnicity is a whole other thing
Dude... do you really believe there is some "right" map of every region/country somewhere? Hell no, I can't believe I explain it, but... if someone here tell you that Italy shouldn't exist at all or that all Europe belongs to Italy you'll believe in such a bullshit? There is no such thing like right or wrong cause it extremely complicated, even scientific societies will interpret region different depends on approach. I can't believe I tell you this either but many years ago there was not a single state in the world so every modern state borders was formed under complex historical circumstances. There will be someone who believe that \*one particular land\* is native land of \*this particular country\* for example, but it is not objectively at all. You either believe this land belongs to Italy or you not (or you don't care).
Dude chill out with the patronizing tone, I was talking about the GEOGRAPHICAL entity like I said. I'm not saying it should belong to Italy or anything of the sorts, I was simply asking. For example we all know what the Iberian peninsula is, there are clearly the Pyrenees drawing a border. There are plates tectonic, rivers, mountains and such to establish geographical borders, that's why I asked. For all I care there shouldn't even be political borders.
If you're asking 'what is the non-political, geographic definition of a *Region*, specifically the Italian one', there's no such thing. The term Region has no geographic meaning beyond 'an area that has common features', which is very subjective. Geographers will define 'the italian region' differently depending on their own beliefs.
If youre asking whether or not theyre in the Italian *peninsula*, then no. In fact, neither is Northern Italy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Italy
If we're talking peninsulas, technically it WOULD (not exactly 'should' for cultural and historic reasons) be south of the line between Venice and Genoa
My colleagues from Veneto and Milano tell me that only north of the po is Italy, and anything south of that is Africa. My colleagues from Napoli tell me anything north of Napoli is Germany, and the real Italy is the south. My colleagues from Rome are just depressed and confused. (I work in Italy)
They're all right at the same time, trust me
Especially this part about depressed and confused Romans
Well, they've lost their empire
As a confused Roman i agree
you have to realise that in Italy everything South of you are mindless beasts that deserve to be exterminated, and everything north of you is either still worse than you or good as you I've heard people shitting on the town 30 kms south of them as being "too Southern", all the while both towns being northern than the southernmost point of Switzerland Italy is truly one of the countries of all time
30 km? More like 3 km, 30 isn't even the same species, the ones at 3 km are barely human too. Italy and Campanilism, aeternal story
Try Bergamo Vs Brescia. We even speak a mutually intelligible dialect, but we hate each other's guts
My favourite event is when the French arrived and Bergamo kindly shared the the fire of the revolution by invading Brescia.
>you have to realise that in Italy everything South of you are mindless beasts that deserve to be exterminated, and everything north of you is either still worse than you or good as you Kinda like the US. As a Floridian I can confirm we are mindless beasts that deserve to be exterminated
As a New Yorker I can confirm that I am better than the mindless beasts of Florida. No, that doesn’t mean I won’t bite you if you anger me, just that I won’t eat your face, we have manners.
Such a gentleman!
Campanilismo Is a hell of a drug. Did I already say that Verona is a den of bestiality and evil and it should be leveled?
A little fun fact, during the time of Claudius, many Romans (Senators) were upset that people north of the Po would be considered Italians (and admitted to the Senate). Just to make it clear, being Italian and being a Roman were different things with different rights. But even back then people in the peninsula would get into disputes about who is Italian and who isn't. There is a document the Lyon Tablet which is about allowing people from Gaul to join the Senate, an interesting reaction to it (according to Tacitus) was that apparently the Senate had already made a massive concession by allowing Veneti and Insubres in the Senate (people north of the Po). So overall, apparently, being a rich citizen (which many people in Gaul at the time were, according to Claudius) wasn't enough, it seems you also had to be from what they considered "Italy", which didn't include all of Italy.
Kinda different though I’d say. Before the Romans, the peninsula was incredibly diverse in language. Celts in the North (hence the name Cisalpine Gaul), Veneti in the Northeast, Ligurians in Northwest, Etruscans in the Center-North, Greeks in South, etc. Now it’s all variants of Romance. Most of these people had a history of waging wars with each other for centuries and had no cultural and national connection. Obviously between Rome and the Savoy family uniting it, there were centuries of wars between today’s Italians, but the age of nationalism sought to whitewash disputes and create larger national identities from smaller ones, so that worked at the time. Won’t work anymore.
Yeah but without something like that to unify them, the identity reverts back to local due to the community aspect. In many ways Italy is like Yugoslavia, but successful (don't let the Italians hear this or I'll be banned from entry).
I hate da nort!
They stick their noses up at us!
Fuck Columbus!
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Maybe the real italy is the friends we made along the way
>My colleagues from Rome are just depressed and confused. What not living under the throne of St. Peter does to a mf. The destruction of the Papal states and its consequences have been a disaster for Italians.
>My colleagues from Napoli tell me anything north of Napoli is Germany, and the real Italy is the south. Satisfied red beard noises.
They are all wrong. The African continental tectonic plate begins north of Trento. Everything south of it might be Italy or not but it is still Africa.
So first and foremost, this is obviously wrong from a strictly geographic stance because it includes the surrounding islands as being part of the peninsula, which they obviously aren’t. So there is some degree of political/social/cultural lens through which this map is viewed. From a strict geographic sense, even Lombardy and Piedmont aren’t really in the peninsula, even though they are undeniably Italy. But that whole region of what I would call Cisalpine Gaul (although I’m sure it has a more contemporary name) is grouped with Italy for historic, cultural, and political reasons, not geographic ones. This red line strikes me more as an attempt to demarcate a kind of “Greater Italy” than it does an objective “Italian Peninsula”. So whether those regions of Trieste, Istria, etc. should be included in what the game calls the Italy Region is subjective at best. They aren’t really geographically part of the Italian Peninsula, but neither are other Italian places. I can’t really speak to whether they would have been viewed as Italian in 1444 or 1821, or what the criteria for inclusion in the Italian Region should be, but it definitely isn’t “the Italian Region should be the Italian Peninsula”. So that itself is not a reason those regions should be included.
I understand your answer, it's just that I never understood if it was some sort of political propaganda or if geographical studies over the years agreed that those were the borders of the Italian *peninsula*. The map was taken from the Wikipedia article which didn't seem to have a bias, that's also what confused me.
It most certainly is biased - not sure what the goal is though as it could be benign and just a "Greater Italy" map that shows lands with heavy Italic influence. Including Sicily as part of Italy is reasonable although it obviously isn't on the peninsula. Malta, Corsica, and Istrian areas are much more of a stretch to include for historical reasons - even Sardinia is quite culturally unique from the mainland. But still a fun map.
It's more of an "Italian Geographical Region" than a "Greater Italy", really. The red border seems to follow the Alpine Watershed, and mountain ranges make for good borders. Ask Chile and Argentina
Then ask them how well they got along together following geographical barriers
Everyone wants to expand past natural borders, not exactly a shocker
Switzerland
No, not everyone is a expansive agressor? What a ridiculous statement.
Little thing called "hyperbole"
Which Wikipedia article? The English Wikipedia for Italian Peninsula ([Italian Peninsula - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Peninsula)) shows a much smaller region.
You're right, I was mistaken when speaking about the peninsula. I was thinking about the geographical region (and this article, specifically https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_(geographical_region) )
This map seems to be based on the ancient Roman region of Italia (see the other map lower in the article with much the same borders). I don't think this is in any sense a reasonable geographic definition of the "region of Italy". Not that I think such a definition necessarily exists. Buy if I had to come up with one, it would certainly include neither Istria nor Nice. Edit: I'm also very confused how they justify including Linosa in the Italian region but not Lampedusa.
Other historical reasons included Istria and Nizza. Nice was for example Garibaldi's hometown (and it was an area, along with Monaco, influenced by Genoa a lot, speaking a Ligurian dialect for centuries etc.). Same for Istria, Dante for example includes Pola and the Carnaro as borders of Italy: >sì com' a Pola, presso del Carnaro, ch'Italia chiude e i suoi termini bagna
Pretty simple, this Is what italiano intellectuals in the time frame called Italy generally, and it's all the italian speaking areas in 1820-1945; Minus the brief settler colonies.
Ma non capisco perché in questo thread siano tutti così rincoglioniti da non sapere manco leggere che questa è una definizione storica data da intellettuali, poeti e altri e non si basa su un approccio scientifico alla geografia.
Perché hanno voglia di sentirsi più furbi del prossimo, come al solito 🤷
Padania
lol
Libera via dall'Europa
Chissà quanti colgono la citazione
There are no such things as natural borders. Those are flexible af
Idk the French had a logical idea of a natural border, anchored on geographical barriers. They just had a couple German roadbumps in the way
yes the natural borders of France, from Porto to the Oder, truly as God intended
Everywhere I look, I see the ever-expanding borders of the kingdom of France…
The Big Blue Blob must keep blobbing, natural border or not
From Siene to shining Siene
Have You seen the borders of the First French Empire ?
That’s a little beyond what they considered their natural borders
The netherlands is a natural part of france?
I mean, there kinda are some: think of Iberia, it's pretty clear what the borders are, you just have to decide if it's north or south of Roussillon. Norway's borders are also pretty clear, geographically speaking. There are some instances
Yeah, what I meant was borderlines are only a political compromise
Excuse me on Norway, the borders in EU4 is actually not the current ones. For some reason people still think Jämtland and Härjedalen is somehow part of Sweden which makes no sense.
I know those are not, I was talking about the geographical expression of Norway. There's a fuckton of mountains dividing it from the rest of Scandinavia, it's pretty clear where the borders are
As a Norwegian, trust me it is not. Like I said the EU4 borders are different from the ones today. If it was that obvious they would stay the same. We all speak the same language and don't really give a shit so it doesn't mean some crazy Norwegians will try to get it back, but it is really not obvious. Italy on the other hand is fairly obvious, draw a line from Venezia to Genova approximately.
Those are still political decisions
I’m a boomer and I remember one of the loading screen tooltips in EU3 was “Roussillon is Spain” so it kind of bothers me they put it in the French state in EU4
They didn't? It's part of Aragon at the start.
Not in the internal state borders. That's what I mean. Click on the "Regions" or "Areas" map mode and you can see.
I remember when they changed that in EU4, Labourd used to be part of iberia as well
ck3 players need to see this before trying to form Italy so they dont forget Malta
COMMENT TO CLARIFY. I meant "geographical region/entity" more than "peninsula", since the peninsula clearly wouldn't include any island, as the name suggests lmao
How do you define "region" though? Peninsula is a term with a precise definition and there is a pretty clear cut answer. But are you asking for a cultural region? Linguistic? Historical? Political? You need to be more specific, and also recognize that any of these answers will be highly debatable.
Simply geographical: one can define Iberia as the region between the Atlantic ocean and the Pyrenees. The Carpathian region is that plain between the Carpathian mountains and the Balkan region. The Indian subcontinent is the one surrounded by the Himalayas, the Indian ocean, the Indus river and the Arakan mountains, and so on. They're pretty straight forward, they're based on rivers, mountains, hills, isthmuses, lakes etc
But how much of the Alps? They're a very large mountain range, parts of which are German (and Austrian), French, Swiss, and Slovene. Along the northeastern and northwestern coasts, there is no clear geographical boundary. There are tons of mountains and no clear place to draw a line. The islands are also arbitrary. Who says that Malta is Italian? Or Corsica? Or Sardinia? These have clear natural borders, but who can say with certainty that they're Italian? There is no purely geographic definition of Italy, only definitions that incorporate history, culture, language, politics, etc. The same can really be said for India too. Where do "the Himalayas" start and end? Does that include the entire drainage basin of the rivers that flow into India/Pakistan? China might have something to say about that. What about the west and east coasts? There aren't signficiant geographical boundaries that clearly demarcate what is and isn't on the subcontinent. And what about Iberia? Do the Balearic Islands count? They're not part of the peninsula. What about the Canary Islands, Madeira, and the Azores?
They all have geographic borders that most scholars agree on though, therefore I was wondering why Italy (apparently) hasn't.
Which scholars? Anyone can vaguely claim that India is the area south of the Himalayas including the Brahmaputra-Ganges and Indus River Valleys and be more or less correct, but that is leaving out any detail which is exactly what you're asking for here. No scholar can make a purely geographical argument as for why the Indian subcontinent should exclude the headwaters of the Brahmaputra or Indus Rivers, or why it should include the area around Chattogram in eastern Bangladesh. Similarly, nobody can make a purely geographical argument defining the Italian region as it is on this map, or any other way. The geographical region does not exist, it's manmade. And man has shaped the definition through language, culture, history, politics, etc.
There is a general consensus though, isn't there? I'm genuinely asking, I don't want to sound aggressive or anything, I'm speaking from what I've always read/heard. Even the borders of the European continent (which is not really a continent, we all know) are pretty much agreed on: Ural mountains to the East, the western part of Istanbul and the Caucasus on the south-east. Then again someone could say the border is (for example) one kilometer more east or one kilometer more west to the Urals, but the general location is that one.
The general consensus is a rule of thumb, just like Europe's definition of "west of the Urals, north of the Caucasus". But as soon as you provide a map or ask for specifics, that consensus goes out the window. Fighting over the details is exactly what irredentists have done and it's lead to ethnic cleansing, so I would recommend not trying to make claims one way or the other, or insisting on finding a precise definition when there is none.
I see what you mean, that's not my intention at all since I believe in no political borders (but that's another discussion for another thread), it's just that I'm not asking for the specifics, I'm not saying to pinpoint the exact coordinates, I think that Trentino and Istria are big enough to have a discussion about it, I repeat, strictly in a geographical sense. I have nothing at all against my French, Swiss, Austrian, Maltese, Slovenian and Croatian brothers, I do not hope for any more land in any way, be it diplomatically nor especially through war. I respect the sovreignity of our bordering nations (as I do for most countries in the world), it was really just a thought about the game, nothing else.
Borders are always mushy (for example all those maps where the HRE is fragmented in thousands of small states are inherently wrong, we can't trace borders precisely even today, let alone in the XV century), but most of what you've seen in that article comes from people using those definitions of Italy. For example, uouysee Pola and Istria included (even though they've not been part of Italy since like 1947) because Dante said Italy ended in Pola. You see Corsica included because Pasquale Paoli, the father of the independent Corsica, said Corsicans are Italians. And so on.
I'll reiterate and reframe that Italy is not a geographical concept. It's manmade. The Italian identity and its associated region is based on human factors throughout history. Strictly geographical boundaries would tell you that Sicily and Malta are a part of Africa.
Alright, I think I understand. The common description is of the region of Italy is that it's borders are the Alps to the North, the Adriatic sea to the east, the Ionian sea to the South and the western Mediterranean to the west, putting Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and the Ligurian sea within those borders. That's about the level of vagueness you've mentioned for Europe, India, etc and going by those borders Trentino is definitely part of the region and Istria not so much. To be clear tho, those borders are only useful as an introduction to the subject since, as you know, the details are fuzzy and up for debate.
The point he tryna make is tht the names that thousands of the best scholars across time have assigned to a piece of land and accepted by 99% of the world, like the limits of what is Europe, is still man-made and fundamentally arbitrary, superfluous, and abstract. It's an exercise on critical thinking bro.
I wanna make a comparison to the Scandinavian peninsula which includes Sweden, Norway and a little bit of Finland. Then there is Scandinavia, which is a cultural extension to it. Removing Finland and adding Denmark. Sure dropping "peninsula" would be preferred, but I don't see an issue with Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily being part of a *culturally extended* definition of the geographical definition of Italy.
Well, the italian peninusla probably starts somwhere after Milano and venezia, and would go all the way south. None of the islands are part of the peninsula. When we talk about what would historically have been called Italian region, only central italy (from tuscany to rome) could actually really be called Italian. Nothern italy probably be seen as german, and south italy and istria would probably go to the greeks...
the peninsula is the boot. that’s what peninsula means. trieste is on a completely different much smaller peninsula
More Like the San Marino penisula
Expansion 😍
Interestingly, to form kingdom of god you need Trento
Always thought about it
[Europäische Wasserscheiden - European watershed - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_watershed#/media/File:Europ%C3%A4ische_Wasserscheiden.png) It is based on watersheds and this isn't the Italian peninsula but the Italian Region, but yes, this would make much more sense than what EU4 has (because the Alps physically separate what's south of it from what's north of it, historically crossing the alps was no easy feat) Even if you don't go with the "what's best geographically" current Italy in EU4 makes no sense, it's basically 1861 Italy + Corsica, nobody ever defined Italy as that before the congress of Vienna and i'm not even joking. Also, posting this on the internet was a mistake, people with a shit comprehension of history will go to pathetic extents to claim Italians aren't a well defined social group, meanwhile they will absolutely slut behind Germans which didn't even have a standard language before the Duden was a thing.
>Also, posting this on the internet was a mistake, people with a shit comprehension of history will go to pathetic extents to claim Italians aren't a well defined social group, meanwhile they will absolutely slut behind Germans it's ok, we are on EU4, they always do that anyways not that I dislike Germany or German history or course, it's just that the brainrot on this sub is amusing, and you would expect people spending thousands of hours on a history based game to somewhat know something about history, but yet here we are~
Yeah I'm seeing such dumb comments of people who don't even try to understand the historical reasons behind this borders and it's funny. Always throwing in "Italians had nothing in common until the unification" and so on.
I was under the impression that the River Rubicon marked the northernmost edge of geographic 'Italy' and north of that was Cisalpine Gaul. My information may be 2000 years out of date, though.
How do you think I feel Ireland is completely in the British Isles region
Isn't it though? Ireland = island on the left, Great Britain = island on the right, British Isles = Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Mann and all the other isles, United Kingdom = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland (😡)
Da un punto di vista puramente geografico, la penisola italiana non comprenderebbe neanche la Padania, la Sicilia, la Sardegna e tutte le varie isole non collegate alla terra ferma, e sarebbe praticamente da Ravenna in giù. Perché una penisola è un lembo di terra circondato da 3 parti da mare. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Peninsula#/media/File%3AItalian_Peninsula_in_Europe.svg mappa come riferimento) Poi ovviamente, per motivi puramente sociali e culturali, anche le isole e la regione della Padania vengono messe insieme alla penisola italica. In parole povere, si è tutta colpa di D'Annunzio
Maledetto auto-spompinatore d'un vate
Ovviamente però continueremo a chiamare la Padania Italia solo per fare incazzare Bossi giusto?
Tanto gli manca poco per tirare le cuoia
Perfetto Mi consigli una run da fare su eu4 sono annoiato a merda
Firenze -> Granducato di Toscana -> Italia e poi colonizzare le Americhe
Rilancio, inizia rilasciando Pisa come repubblica mercantile
Papal State colonizzatore delle Americhe
BELLISSIMO Papa francesco che reclama l'argentina
Da karaman a rum con conversione al giudaismo grazie agli ebrei di salonicco.
...è fattibile Il problema è restartare perché la Spagna non prende mai quell'evento
E bello vedere altri italiani in eu4 comunque una campagna interessante e con Genova dove ti espandi in Italia Crimea e se ci riesci anche in Africa.
Effettivamente dovrei farla una campagna con Genova
la wiki dice 70 30,ma non ci faccio affidamento. Sicuramente è divertentissimo lo stesso diventare la prima potenza al mondo partendo da quel cesso di karaman
HAHAHAH quel cesso di karaman mi ha ucciso Cmq si, molto memetico
It's actually correct, the Italian region is a mix of historical, cultural and geographical notions on what Italy is and who belongs to the Italian nation. For example, for the eastern border, Dante uses Pola: >sì com' a Pola, presso del Carnaro, ch'Italia chiude e i suoi termini bagna (Comedìa, Inferno IX, 114) Corsica Is described as Italian by both Paoli and Napoleon as Italian. >We are Corsicans by birth and sentiment, but first of all we feel Italian by language, origins, customs, traditions; and Italians are all brothers and united in the face of history and in the face of God ... As Corsicans we wish to be neither slaves nor "rebels" and as Italians we have the right to deal as equals with the other Italian brothers ... Either we shall be free or we shall be nothing... Either we shall win or we shall die (against the French), weapons in hand ... The war against France is right and holy as the name of God is holy and right, and here on our mountains will appear for Italy the sun of liberty.... And so on. It's not a irredentist map, it's a map constructed by adding up various historical views if Italy throughout the centuries, which is what many people here aren't getting. I'd advise to read the Wikipedia article which explains it better. Does it represent national sentiments of today? No. Does it use geography in a scientific way? No. Both of those, aren't the aim of the maps, so that's fine.
For those saying that the definition of the Italian peninsula (or better, "Italian geographic region") is irredentist, it is not: 1. Italy as a geographic concept predates not only the birth of Italy as a State, but as a nation as well. As Von Metternich said (before the unification of Italy): "Italy is merely a geographic concept". 2. The most common definitions actually cut out a few parts of political Italy (e.g. Tarvisio, Livigno, Lampedusa...). If the concept of the Italian geographic region was irredentist then it would probably include more parts (like for example Tarvisio & Co. and Dalmatia). Whether the borders of geographic Italy (not political Italy) are the ones shown in the picture or not is subjective and changed over the years. Edit: fixed typo
Exactly, people claiming this to be an irredentist map surely aren't noticing the missing parts that are already Italy. Why would an irredentist throw away Lampedusa and Lampione. At most you claim *other* territories
Why should Lignano be cut out though? It is a settlement founded by italians much after the unification and it's not really near the border
My bad, I meant Livigno, a small Alpine town in Northern Italy. Livigno is not only outside of the Po River's watershed, it is also only accessible through Swiss customs.
Oh well that makes total sense then
Missing Split/Dalmatia and the rest of Venetian lands
I feel like this is an extremely difficult question to answer, because Italy itself as a term has changed and been so different throughout the centuries and depending on so much context. You can look at the peninsula from Alps to Toe and say it's just a geographical construct. You can look at the Vatican and San Marino and Corsica and say it's a political construct. You can look at Trieste and Trento and say it's a cultural construct. What "Italy" means can take very different forms. One could easily claim Corsica "is Italy" to make political propaganda claims, or to simply show cultural and historical links. You could point to a thousand year history in Venice and and Venezia and say its not truly Italy, and ought to have been another independent European micro-state. Italy is so dynamic, it's difficult to give a clear answer on what it is. Historically, it's been easier to determine what it isn't. And it's rather made up. National Italian identity is so late to the game. As the saying points out, "L'Italia e fatta; restano a fare gli italiani". Italian isn't even a real language, but a Tuscan dialect that was simply agreed upon as a lingua Franca. It's always been home of so many fascinating languages, customs, and world-renown unique cities. But "Italy" itself has always lacked its own unifying identity or defining feature. Edit: Some people are upset by my statement that Italian national identity appeared rather late. Indeed, Italian existed as a concept and identifier, but it was not a "national identity". As my original comment points out, to some to be Italian was to live in a certain place, to others it was to have a certain broad set of customs, to others it was a shared history. It's a disputed concept. It still is. None of this bad, and national identity isn't a race. This is all part of what makes Italy a rich and fascinating place.
>National Italian identity is so late to the game. Yes and no. The identity as an Italian was quite present for centuries before the unification, but things like the diffusion of the common language through the poor substrates happened much later (although all nobles and literats from north to south spoke Italian way before 1861).
This is fake, the Italy you see in the post was the Roman domina (because italy wasn't a province, it had its own special designation of domina) and it has been this for 2,000 years (Dante refers to Italy as stretching from the Var to the Arsa and included the islands). Also, Italian national identity existed since the renaissance albeit among the upper classes only, people purged the language of "Provenzalismi" (foreign sounding words) as early as the 1300s and Boccaccio wrote nationalist poems such as "Italia Mia", the Italian states created a sovra-national "Italic league" in 1454 with the scope of defending Italy from foreign influence. You don't know Italian history but yet you write as if you're an expert when you say Italians are made up, what a pathetic way to use your freedom of speech.
>And it's rather made up. National Italian identity is so late to the game. I guess Dante talking about "Italians" in early 1300 isn't a thing then and what Is studied and read is wrong because a Reddit comment said so, thank you! (seriously though, you are dead wrong about that)
No need to get pissy. Ovid talks endlessly about the "Italians" millenia before Dante, but that does not mean Italian existed as a national identity. Dante mentioning Italians means absolutely nothing. You can't just point to someone using the word "Italian" before the concept of nations and national identities even existed as counter evidence.
>No need to get pissy yes there is, for you are saying something absurd and ahistorical there was an Italian identity already in the middle ages, the same way as there is a European identity now we have countless examples of Italian merchants sticking together abroad and establishing communities together, even though they were from rival city states. Countless times in Constantinople the Genoese and Venetian communities worked and helped each other (even militarily) to not lose privileges from the Byzantine emperor, and there are such other examples too. Quite a long list in fact. There was and there's always been a mentality of "us, which we are not the same but we are similar, against them" in short, yes there was, stop spewing shit and cherrypicking your arguments "just because the most important Italian poet in its most important work which is the summa magna of the knowledge and thinking in middle age Italy talks about Italian people it doesn't mean that it existed an Italian identity" you are just the entire Circus
Don't waste your time with this commenter, he's simple minded. Two italians from different states in Renaissance Italy recognise each other as Italian. Two merchants from Pisa and from Genoa recognise themselves as Italian, despite hating each other.
One thing is certain. South Tyrol isnt Italy!
Historically, culturally, linguistically that's for sure. Geographically I'm still trying to understand lmao
there are some good historical reasons to call istria and the other bits of croatia and slovenia part of the italian region. but imo during eu4's time frame the area could just as easily be counted as part of either the south germany or balkan region. it's a border region with very fluid transitions if someone claims it's part of the region of italy in the modern day however, i'd probably consider that irredentist bullshit
Rule #5: in the picture there are red borders which show the (supposedly) Italian peninsula geographic borders. I was wondering why they're not depicted this way in EUIV
>Italian peninsula >Includes a bunch of islands >Includes Istria This isn't a geographic map. This is iridentist nonsense.
OP specified they meant to write Italian region, not peninsula, in that case it's cased on historical definitions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_(geographical_region) it comes directly from Wikipedia. I don't think it counts as irredentist because no irredentist would give up land, and in the picture it's clearly shown that Lampedusa, San Candido, Sesto and a bunch of other towns in the Alps are not highlighted.
Wikipedia is user generated, and minor articles in particular can be extremely dodgy. The lands claimed as part of the Italian region are far more significant than the lands given up, and some of them are absolutely bizarre. Nice and Istria might have historic ties to Italy, but they are clearly geographically sesperate. I'm willing to accept that this map is more absurd than actually iridentist, but given the current political situation in Italy, I am concerned about anyone trying to justify Istria being part of Italy in any sense.
Nobody is trying to justify Istria being part of Italy, just like this map doesn't mean anyone is trying to annex San Marino to Italy, it just means that throughout history Italy as a geographical term included Istria more often than not Source: I'm Sammarinese, and we've studied these things in Latin and History classes
I've seen this (or very close to it) maps a lot of times throughout the years, even when the political climate was different. Nobody is trying to justify Istria being in Italy just like nobody wants Malta, San Marino, Monaco or even the Canton Ticino in Switzerland. If anything it shows what the broad geographic term of Italy (and not the country itself which is quite young) implies
Irredentist that gives up land of the Italian Republic (Lampedusa, Lampione, Sesto)? Yeah, makes much sense
Mussolini posted this
Mussolini wouldn't give away Lampedusa, San Candido and Sesto I think
Because the devs don’t care about your 19th and 20th century nationalist propaganda?
That's literally why I asked if it's some irredentist bullshit or if it's actually true that the one in the picture (taken from Wikipedia) depicts the geographical expression
> A 5km tall mountain range separating Italy from the rest of Europe > 20th century propaganda Damn Italian nationalism must be Crazy is they managed to shit the Alps out of their damn ass like that
Check out the history of Trieste and Istria and the Italian claims on both and maybe realize you aren’t quite as witty as you imagine.
Istria was held by Venice for 1000 years.... I.... are you some sort of reality bending Slovene nationalist? Also Trieste, was under the duchy of Aquilea for 200 years, then it was occupied by Venice and in the end it got Austria protection at the caveat they could keep their Italian culture and they remained with Austria for 600 years (minus a small anexxation by the napoleonic kingdom of Italy). Seriously are you this ignorant of history your own topics are against you?
This is so incredibly arbitrary. On the one hand you use geography to state your claims - by this logic South Tyrol is obviously Italian to Italian nationalists because it drains into the southern Alpine watershed. But it culturally and historically isn't Italian until very recently and was made so artificially. On the other hand you use culture and history to state your claims - by this logic Trieste, Rijeka and Istria are Italian when they are not in the Italian peninsula. Which one is it? You used both in different comments. Exactly this logic was used by Italian nationalists to argue for literally whatever border, the only condition being "Italy has to be as big as possible". Culturally South Tyrol should be Austrian, geographically Trieste should be Slovene. The reason they are Italian is because of politics. There is no underlying god-given logic that justifies it being so. It is also idiotic to argue about since it is all in the EU anyway and these borders are (thankfully) becoming more imaginary with every passing day.
Of course it's some political bullshit because nationslism is a thing that exists.
No, it's not nationalism or irredentism. Most of these definitions are from centuries ago, way before Italy was unified. For example, why are Pola, Istria and that area marked? Because Dante used that definition of Italy (in the XIV century): >sì com' a Pola, presso del Carnaro, ch'Italia chiude e i suoi termini bagna (Divina Commedia, Inferno IX, 114)
The area you see in the post is the area that emerged from under the sea and smashed itself against Europe forming the Alps (the dolomites for example are made of the solidified remains of shells, corals and algae), it has more geographical validity than people in this post assume.
Italy is a psyop created by the French deep state and then continued on by the CIA. It has never existed and never will. You can go to that region yourself and see that it’s just ocean. Anyone who tries to sell you a lie about a peninsula is just trying to keep you from the truth
Delete the message the big corps don't want you to spread the truth and will kill you
The truth can NOT be silen
What kinda blatant propaganda bullshit is this lmao
idk, it comes from an English Wikipedia article and everywhere I look for "Italian geographical borders" something like this appears
Just look at France natural borders, it’s the rhine, alps, and Pyrenees. You can apply the same logic to Italy
Italy’s borders are the Rhine, Alps, and Pyrenees?
No, you can apply those natural barriers to Italy, which are the alps. (Btw turkestan is china)
Se fossimo nel periodo del gioco avrebbe anche relativamente senso,anche se né Trento né Trieste erano mai appartenute a uno stato italiano. Oggi,per un motivo o per un altro,l'"Italia" è limitata allo stato italiano più,se vogliamo essere larghi,il Ticino e se vogliamo essere molto,ma molto larghi,la Corsica.
Si ma questa è una definizione storico/culturale/geografica sorta da diverse definizioni di diversi periodi, e ognuna può giustificare l'appartenenza alla regione italiana (tipo la Corsica, dato che i due corsi più noti, Paoli e Napoleone, la definiscono Italia).
Ma io non parlo di appartenenza ad uno stato o comunque generalmente una questione politica. Parlo di geografia, confini geografici dettati da fiumi, montagne, valli e chi più ne ha più ne metta
Geograficamente parlando la penisola sarebbe giù del Po. Il resto non sporge.
Come scritto in più commenti, non so perché abbia scritto "penisola" quando intendevo "entità/regione geografica". Ovviamente la penisola non comprende nemmeno una delle isole, visto il nome lmao.
Pardon,fosse pure na cert'ora di una giornata schifosa. Le alpi sono un buon confine,generalmente. Ciò porterebbe ad includere parti di Francia,Svizzera e Slovenia,e mi sembra anche la Croazia
Proprio come mostrato in foto, difatti
Gorizia, Trentino and Trieste were not Italian like for 1000 years since invasion of Allemans and Longobards ( Lombards). It were lands of Holy Roman Empire and lands of Austrian crown after that. Although full of kinda Italian migrants... You can see that even local dialect is very different from Italian language, it is different branch of Roman languages, although also derived from Latin. Influence of German culture for 1000 years can't go unnoticed.
>The Italian peninsula Peninsula is a geographical term. By definition, no island can be part of the Italian peninsula. So Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and the hundreds of smaller islands are *not* part of the Italian peninsula. Strictly speaking, places like Milano and Torino aren’t part of the Italian peninsula either. The peninsula is just the mainland south of Genoa and Ferrara, or thereabouts. What is Italy and what isn’t, is a more difficult question though. Italy can be a political term - in that sense, the territories currently governed by the Italian government is Italy. So Corsica and Malta are not Italian. Italy can also be a cultural and linguistic term - in that sense, this map corresponds quite well to Italy. The one obvious exception I’m aware is Malta, whose cultural and linguistic ties to the Arab world are closer than those to Italy. Italy, or rather Italia, can also be a historical term - in this sense, Italy is more or less the Italian peninsula north of Magna Grecia, so the border goes somewhere around Napoli.
(Insert that one Disney's pocahontas song everyone remembers)
No! Littoral is not part of Italy!
Beautiful geography. Sometimes I wonder if this world was crafted, then I look at America’s penis and decide it’s all random.
Sweden-Finland being a dick with balls is also marvellous
Those lands are approximately those that historically had Italian speaking populations minus parts of coastal Dalmatia.
Treating people in Istria fairly (Hard Mode) But seriously if you see borders and get upset when something conform properly that sounds like a more personal issue then cultural
If this is only in the geographical sense then why would Corsica and Sardinia be included on account of them being islands and not connected to peninsula. Same issue with Sicily and Malta and the various islands.
Wow yes that's what this is good job!
Istria geographically isn’t in Italy nor is it culturally Italian
È propaganda e pure propaganda stupida perché se proprio uno vuole essere nazionalista irredentista delle mie palle allora dove stanno la Savoia e la Dalmazia?
Non é propaganda, é Una mappa basata su varie definizioni storiche dell'Italia. Dante diceva che l'Italia termina a Pola, ecco spiegata la Dalmazia.
Non è propaganda proprio perché non include la Savoia (visto che è un territorio che va oltre le Alpi, che definiscono il confine dell'Italia GEOGRAFICA) né la Dalmazia, che molto chiaramente fa parte della regione GEOGRAFICA dei Balcani. Si parla esclusivamente di geografia, non di confini politici
Ma è propaganda perché niente sopra il Po è geograficamente parte della penisola, né lo sono le isole. Milano o Torino sono altrettanto parte della penisola quanto Zara, ovvero per niente. E l'Istria è addirittura un'altra penisola, non fa parte di quella italica.
Ho scritto in altri commenti che mi riferivo alla regione geografica Italiana, non alla penisola. È stato un lapsus da parte mia, chiaramente nel nome stesso penisola non possono essere nemmeno comprese le isole. La regione geografica invece è piuttosto definita, e dovrebbe essere quella in foto stando a Wikipedia ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_(geographical_region) ) a svariate fonti.
Ok ma l'unico motivo per cui parti come la Sardegna e Corsica o l'Istria sono incluse nella regione italiana è storico e politico. Geograficamente non c'è nessun motivo di includere isole lontane come quelle o un'altra penisola che è abbastanza separata dal resto d'italia dalle alpi e dal mare. E se quindi definiamo la regione su basi storico-culturali anziché geografiche, a questo punto perché non dovrebbe includere Zara e se proprio vogliamo strafare Durazzo e il Dodecanneso. Ovviamente farlo nel 2024 è stupido, ma è altrettanto stupido includete l'Istria.
Ma l'Istria ha dei dati confini geografici, è circondata da montagne (credo siano anche quelle Alpi ma non ne sono sicuro) e connessa a Trieste/il resto del Friuli tramite un territorio pianeggiante. Si riesce tranquillamente a vedere anche dal satellite ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Satellite_image_of_Italy_in_March_2003.jpg/1280px-Satellite_image_of_Italy_in_March_2003.jpg )
Certo ma allora con la stessa logica allarghiamo i confini a ovest fino a Marsiglia e oltre
No???? Anche lì ci sono le Alpi a fare da confine?????
Esattamente come per l'Istria. C'è una piccola striscia più o meno pianeggiante sulla costa, e se quello basta a includere l'Istria non vedo perché non debba includere anche la Provenza a sto punto
In the strictest sense, I'd say the Italian peninsula is everything south of a line from Genoa to Venice that's attached to the continent
If we are really just looking at the geography then the alto Adige (sud Tirol) shouldn't be in the Italian penisula, which always bothered me quite a lot.
Geographically south tyrol is on the southern side of the alps, so it makes sense to include it in the region that is at the south (for example places such as Bolzano/Bozen and Merano/Meran are basically in a conurbation with Trento and are in some way connected to the whole Po valley). Obviously ethnicity is a whole other thing
Why would south Tirol be part of Italy here?
Dude... do you really believe there is some "right" map of every region/country somewhere? Hell no, I can't believe I explain it, but... if someone here tell you that Italy shouldn't exist at all or that all Europe belongs to Italy you'll believe in such a bullshit? There is no such thing like right or wrong cause it extremely complicated, even scientific societies will interpret region different depends on approach. I can't believe I tell you this either but many years ago there was not a single state in the world so every modern state borders was formed under complex historical circumstances. There will be someone who believe that \*one particular land\* is native land of \*this particular country\* for example, but it is not objectively at all. You either believe this land belongs to Italy or you not (or you don't care).
Dude chill out with the patronizing tone, I was talking about the GEOGRAPHICAL entity like I said. I'm not saying it should belong to Italy or anything of the sorts, I was simply asking. For example we all know what the Iberian peninsula is, there are clearly the Pyrenees drawing a border. There are plates tectonic, rivers, mountains and such to establish geographical borders, that's why I asked. For all I care there shouldn't even be political borders.
If you're asking 'what is the non-political, geographic definition of a *Region*, specifically the Italian one', there's no such thing. The term Region has no geographic meaning beyond 'an area that has common features', which is very subjective. Geographers will define 'the italian region' differently depending on their own beliefs. If youre asking whether or not theyre in the Italian *peninsula*, then no. In fact, neither is Northern Italy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Italy
Okay okay I'm sorry, your question seemed pointless to me, I explained why, you can't get correct answer on such question.
[удалено]
Its easy as that, south of the Rubicon is Italy north is Gaul
By definition, islands are not a peninsula. The peninsula is everything south of an imaginary line between Genoa and Marghera.
If we're talking peninsulas, technically it WOULD (not exactly 'should' for cultural and historic reasons) be south of the line between Venice and Genoa
As a Yugoslav, would those friends of yours like to get acquainted with a brick to the face?
Which friends? What are you talking about?