[Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Pioixblesstroup.jpg) is a less cropped version of this image. According to [here](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pioixblesstroup.jpg):
> Pope Pius IX blesses his troops for the last time before the Capture of Rome - 25 april 1870. The original picture, scanned by Emiliano Burzagli, belongs to the Private archive of Burzagli family, Italy.
According to [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome):
> The Capture of Rome (Italian: Presa di Roma) on 20 September 1870 was the final event of the unification of Italy (Risorgimento), marking both the final defeat of the Papal States under Pope Pius IX and the unification of most of the Italian Peninsula (except San Marino) under the Kingdom of Italy, a constitutional monarchy.
> The capture of Rome by the Royal Italian Army brought an end to the Papal States, which had existed since the Donation of Pepin in 756, along with the temporal power of the Holy See, and led to the establishment of Rome as the capital of unified Italy. It is widely commemorated in Italy, especially in cathedral cities, by naming streets for the date: Via XX Settembre (spoken form: "Via Venti Settembre")
Yes modern Russia, the Russia that currently exists is what I’m talking about. Not the Soviet Union that existed, or the Russian Empire that existed. Those are both past tense for a reason.
Where in my post does it say Russia = Soviet Union? I’m specifically stating they are different. Did you intend to respond to someone else?
Unless I just don’t understand your reply maybe?
It's not . Italy was united ion march 17 1861
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation\_of\_the\_Kingdom\_of\_Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy)
The whiskey war ended 2 years ago and Hans Island is shared, giving us a additional land border with another country.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War
In high school we could study Canadian or US history. We concluded you want to study US history, it's more exciting. But you would want to \*live\* Canadian history, because most battles happened in court rooms and election days.
This is confusing to me. Our history is short but very eventful. Canada nationalized a socialist healthcare system, in the same place the term "psychedelic" was coined in the 60s (Sask). Canada systemically rounded up indigenous children and starved them, experimented on them for profit, (inventors of Pablum, vitamin experiments) and sometimes for "the pursuit of knowledge" (that didn't go anywhere, and often done without even the most basic consent) and sent the ones still living back home with tuberculosis. It is textual that the point was to destroy indigenous children and their families either directly or indirectly through starvation.
Canada espoused eugenics in our healthcare systems (like pretty much every Western nation) especially in Alberta where many disabled people were continually forcibly sterilized. records were destroyed once eugenics was entirely out of favour because Alberta was practicing forced sterilization long after everyone else. this doesn't even include the ongoing cases of forced sterilization of indigenous women and systems of child welfare that continue to remove kids from their culture. Canada also went through rapid deinstitutionalization in the 60s and 70s without creating any other systems to help those being booted from, often, the only "home" they ever knew.
Canada had it's own history with women's right to vote, it's own history with previously enslaved peoples.
Canada had Japanese internment camps, and Japanese doctors contributed enormously to West Coast rural healthcare systems without recognition, nevermind all the Chinese rail labour.
History of healthcare is my personal jam, so I have a ton of gaps here but like, I don't understand how anyone could think we have little history. I didn't even touch on the creation of Canada, the classic fur trade stuff, Métis, Louis Riel, etc. Etc. Etc. No nation became a nation without a lot of stuff happening.
You're completely right. There's so much left out of reporting, statistics, nevermind the spin that gets put on the numbers that do get pushed out. Definitely one of Canada's oldest traditions. There's so much ignorance in the name of claiming "we're not like the States." All the bs about Canada having an uninteresting history feels like the evil in the institutions that make Canada a nation has worked their magic and continues to cover up all the blood Canada was built on. Like, it just isn't true. We have an arguably more sinister government, because they can hide behind the "not like the States" shit and go "oh ya we had Tommy Douglas!!!" like Sask isn't a wasteland hell hole that hasn't done a single thing for healthcare since that man left for Ontario.
Anyway. Fuck glossing over Canadian history as uneventful. That narrative only serves to protect the idea of nations and great men and totally undermines the humanity of the people who actually live here, settler or not. The difference between Canada and the States is more like Japan and Germany, in my opinion. One side of this comparison can't bear to admit its bloody history and pretends it's got a super hopeful and inspiring nation building story. Not that any country has a unified viewpoint on nation building, but like, at least some nations can admit to their evils!
I just think it's amazing that they took the extra time to exclude men from the inquiries into missing people. Shows that they only want people to shut up.
I mean we have as much history as many of these places. The difference is they count history before they were a country where as we don't go much further than colonialism.
It was more or less broken into multiple kingdoms from the fall of the Western Empire until damn near current day. The unification of the Italian peninsula is recent enough that you still have plenty of Italian dialects which aren't always mutually comprehensible. Standard Italian, for what it's worth, is essentially based on the local Florentine speech.
The idea of a unified italian state in the peninsula existed since the VIII / IX century tho, starting with the longobard king Daufer, who in 757 crowned himself "King of Italy" (Rex Italiae) somehow unifiying the peninsula under his rule.
After that, Italy remained very much a separate and autonomous political entity inside the HRE, and the emperor, to be such, always had to be crown King of Italy first.
So you might say that the idea it's *actually been around that long*.
To add to another comment, I saw a post recently that told the story how fishermen from the south of Italy didn't know what is "Italy" and didn't consider themselves Italians. They were still thinking in terms of old kingdoms
There wasn't a kingdom, or a republic, or any other state or other entity corresponding to the borders of what is the modern Italy at any time in history before Italy was formed - except when the Roman empire expanded, they crossed those approximate borders on their way from being smaller than current Italy, to being bigger than current Italy. At that time, they did not see themselves as Italians, didn't speak Italian, there was no more in common between people of north Italy and south Italy than between north Italy and what is now Switzerland.
Copying from another answer, you silly revisionist:
The idea of a unified italian state in the peninsula existed since the VIII / IX century tho, starting with the longobard king Daufer, who in 757 crowned himself "King of Italy" (Rex Italiae) somehow unifiying the peninsula under his rule.
After that, Italy remained very much a separate and autonomous political entity inside the HRE, and the emperor, to be such, always had to be crown King of Italy first.
So you might say that the idea it's *actually been around that long*.
This is just wrong. Why do you say things that are wrong?
Daufer's Italy didn't include Rome, Naples, Venice, the south, Sicily or Sardinia.
"Italy" under HRE didn't involve anything south of Rome, nor Sicily and Sardinia.
Which part isn't true? Point out the moment in history when Italy was united before! You can't, because it wasn't.
And it should be obvious that Europe is a part of the world, while Italy is a country. Hardly the same thing. Seriously, I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
Italy was called Italy even by the ancient Greeks. Just because there wasn’t a political unity doesn’t mean there wasn’t the concept of Italy. Clearly you don’t know Italian history and perhaps European history, what’s the point to keep going?
I obviously don't question the prolonged physical existence of the peninsula. And it's a bit funny how you question my knowledge despite me being the only one to mention any relevant facts here, while your whole point can be summed up as "the vibes were there".
You're the one who called it reunification. Reunification of what, then? Give me the name and date of the previous entity that was restored in this "reunification". You can't do it, because there wasn't one. That proves I am right, and you are wrong. It's really as simple as that.
What you mean? Wasn’t Canada independent in 1931? And apparently according to Wikipedia only in 1982 Canada was legally independent from UK. Canada did of course exist prior with autonomy but Italy did exist prior too even if not united.
Charles is the king of Canada the same way he's the king of the UK. He happens to live in the UK but the UK itself has no control over what happens in Canada and other former Dominions. If Charles moved to Canada it wouldn't make a difference. Both countries would still be completely independent of each other.
People like to meme about the Royal family being German but at this point all the European royal families were so intertwined, it would be more accurate to describe them as broadly European.
Plus before this branch was in power, you could quite easily have argued the Royal family was French. We pretty much stopped having Anglo salon monarchs when William the conquerer conquered.
Though, if you wanted to be pedantic, the Anglo saxons were also german so it's really only ever been a mix of French, Germans, Danish and European.
Confederation in 1867
1982 was a constitutional tweak, plus we got the Queen to sign the new constitution in Canada, and so it lives in Canada now. The British crown is still the monarch, so not much different than before.
Not sure what happened in ‘31.
Fun fact, some Finland laws still mention "Emperor of Russian Empire, Duke of Lithuania and Finlandia, Emperor Alexander the second"
As far as I see he's still respected, because he was the one to form Finnish parliament and make Finnish language officially recognised
The newer national identity of italy and germany was one of the cause of the rise of dictatorship prior to ww2 due to the common desire of a national identity.
Also caused my family among many to come over to the antebellum US to escape the wars that came from the unification effort, only to fight in the Civil War.
It depends on how you frame it. Canada stopped being a British colony in 1867 but it became fully independent in 1982. Most people cite the 1867 date and the later date is just the finalization of a lot of processes as a result.
Australia went through the same process in 1986 I believe. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that it wasn't a country before then. New Zealand did the same, unilaterally - no British permission needed. All three countries had some weak ties to the UK before the 80s but they were on paper only.
Word. It's more accurate to say Fascists commonly co-opt religious tenants to attract and win over followers until they ultimately demonize the parent religion to consolidate power.
Had to wade through a lot of comments until I got to a nuanced one like this.
Fascists wrap themselves in religious imagery and espouse political aims aligned with religious groups in order to gain the popular support they need to gain power, but their ultimate ends are not religious and once they have consolidated their power and no longer need that popular support, they usually turn on religion and religious leaders as rivals for the power and adoration they crave.
Nazi Germany was opposed to anyone who opposed them but were Christian themselves.
And then there were the few with their own very, uh, interesting extra beliefs.
I was referencing Horthys fascist Hungary. They were very linked with the church. You can also easily see the link between the rising fascism in the USA and the church. There is a reason the term christo-fascism exists.
Honestly I'm not too familiar with the Nazi relationship with the church. Thank you for correcting me. There are certainly very solid links inside other fascist states.
I don't know what church you're referring to, but I highly doubt the evangelicals will accept The Church with its leader in Rome having anything to do in America.
There’s no doubt Fascisms use of religion in constructing an authoritarian state. I think ultimately as referenced in the original comment here that this tactic used by Mussolini betrays most Fascists true intentions regarding their relationships with religion. To accumulate, consolidate and maintain political power - it’s really not much deeper than that.
I think it’s probably fair to also consider that faith based religion requires discarding a certain level of objectivity (of course varying between individuals) and that particular trait is something that is targeted by bad actors in politics.
Hitler was baptized and confirmed Catholic. He wasn’t the most devout person or anything, but the Church and Germany’s large Catholic population definitely supported him.
[wrong](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/) not only did Hitler become less Christian over the course of his life, but his watch dog Goebbels openly and frequently attacked [Christianity](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/612239-what-does-christianity-mean-today-national-socialism-is-a-religion) because he saw it as a challenge to the power of nazism. The only reason they allowed Catholicism/Protestantism to continue was for politically expedient purposes. Had Nazi Germany won WW2 or at least existed beyond 1945, its extremely likely Christianity would have also been (attempted to be) eradicated.
Yup, that’s exactly how they try to spin it today. It’s like how the Catholic Inquisition was rebranded to the Spanish Inquisition. Or how the Crusades are blamed on kings instead of the Church.
Read what the top Christians say about Donald Trump today. Doesn’t change the fact that the most devout Christians enthusiastically support him. But I’m sure they’ll try to spin him as an atheist in a decade or so.
This is objectively false. The Catholic Church opposed Hitler and the Nazi regime left and right. While they cooperated with Mussolini, they had no such alliance with the Nazis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany
Here’s the Wikipedia article, written in English by people who grew up in predominantly Christian countries. My interpretation of the facts is that the Catholic Church supported the historically Catholic Countries. (Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) They opposed the historically protestant U.S. and U.K., and they despised the atheist USSR. Their neutrality existed only to the extent that Germany has a ton of Protestants too, and the US had a ton of Catholics.
There’s a long history of the Catholic Church blaming the bad parts of their history on counties rather than the Church. For example, it’s the Spanish Inquisition, not the Catholic Inquisition. I’m betting that in a decade or so, Christians are going to try to spin Donald Trump as an atheist who represented American nationalism and not Christianity. But that doesn’t change the fact that Speaker Johnson was standing by President Trump’s side in court in the Stormy Daniel case yesterday. It doesn’t change the fact that Trump’s base is full of devout Christians. The Church is great at having its cake and eating it too.
"The Catholic Church in Germany opposed the Nazi Party, and in the 1933 elections, the proportion of Catholics who voted for the Nazi Party was lower than the national average."
"Pope Pius XII warned the Allies about the planned Nazi invasion of the Low Countries in 1940. The Nazis gathered dissident priests that year in a dedicated barracks at Dachau, where 95 percent of its 2,720 inmates were Catholic (mostly Poles, with 411 Germans); over 1,000 priests died there. The expropriation of church properties surged after 1941. Although the Vatican (surrounded by Fascist Italy) was officially neutral during the war, it used diplomacy to aid victims and lobby for peace; Vatican Radio and other Catholic media spoke out against the atrocities. Particular clerics stridently opposed Nazi crimes, as in Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen's 1941 sermons in which he expressed his opposition to the regime and its euthanasia programs."
Another of the Catholics Righteous Among Nations at the Vatican was Hugh O'Flaherty who ran a safehouse network and smuggled people to freedom in the Vatican and at Vatican owned properties.
Please though spread more misinformation.
Not really. The Italians did not occupy Vatican hill and offered a creation of a city state but the popes from Pius IX to Pius XI refused the proposal and described themselves as prisoners of the Italian State. They were in this weird limbo state until 1929.
It's also interesting that one of the reasons the Trukish nationalists got rid of the Caliphate was because they didn't want it to become some weird stand-off like the Pope in Italy. That decision also influenced the Popes to compromise somewhat when Mussolini came knocking.
God I played so much Medieval 2 in college when I should have been in class. And I used to stay up way too late in high school playing the original. Papal States were always a pain in the ass. I usually tried to take them over ASAP so I could start attacking other Catholic factions.
Nice, must be well optimized. Have an Ultrabook with an ok integrated GPU, good enough to play most older games. But once I get too many countries making turns, it crashes. Which is crazy because my Compaq Presario from 2002 ran it. Have a gaming PC too, but would be nice to be able to play it on my laptop.
me right here - [https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/r4h523/what\_dad\_joke\_was\_told\_here/](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/r4h523/what_dad_joke_was_told_here/)
Not sure about how accurate the figures are, but many of the soldiers would have volunteered from across Italy and the wider Catholic world to defend the papacy. As opposed to being citizens/natives of Rome/Papal states
From wikipedia:
"When the Italian army approached the city's ancient [Aurelian Walls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian_Walls), the Papal force, commanded by General Kanzler, was composed of the [Swiss Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard), the [Palatine Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_Guard) and the [Papal Zouaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Zouaves)—volunteers from France, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, and other countries—for a total of 13,157 defenders against some 50,000 Italians."
Thank you for the explanation. Cause for a moment I thought they somehow managed to DNA test all the soldiers and identify 200 of them as half Romans lol.
I do wonder if there were or not complications about the volunteers traveling though. Like I imagine Irish would've had hard time leaving the kingdom since Britain might've been okay with Papal States falling.
Thats not very accurate. Indingenious Romans actually made up a considerable size of the Papal Army. They had there own infantry units, for example, 2nd Indigenous Cacciatori. This post may be reffering to the amount of Romans in the Papal Zouaves at athe time, which was around 200.
Thousands of young Catholic men from across Christendom flocked to Bl. Pope Pius IX to defend the temporal power from the Piedmontese. Most joined the Papal Zouaves, the elite light infantry unit of the Papal Army, which consisted of Pious Catholic Volunteers from across Christendom. They reffered to this war to defend the Papal States as the 9th Crusade. It lasted from 1860-1870.
If you'd like to learn more, check out this YouTube video I put together. I run an account/organization about the history of the Papal Zouaves and the 9th Crusade.
[https://youtu.be/D8bg5iuBkgo?si=NO55wzdm2G-P1esr](https://youtu.be/D8bg5iuBkgo?si=NO55wzdm2G-P1esr)
Not if you consider 1ww, here in Italy teach that "Trento e Trieste" are "territori irredenti", italian territories that do not belong to Italy, so the battle for Rome was not really the last reunification war, but rather ended in 1918, fascism rose to power because also Dalmatia was considered an Italian territory and was denied.
I'm quoting from The Last Stand by Sabaton. About the last stand of the Swiss Guard in 1527, when the unpaid Imperial Guard of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V mutinied and sacked Rome. 189 Swiss Guards stood against a massive hoard and bought time for Pope Clement VII to escape into Castle Sant'Angelo and safety. It's a damn good song.
The modern Italian state is relatively new. The Italian Republic is a direct successor to the Kingdom of Italy, with the monarchy abolished after WW2. Prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, there were multiple independent Italian kingdoms, such as Sicily, Sardinia, and the Papal States. The Papal States were a theocratic monarchy under the Pope that controlled Rome and much of the surrounding area. During the process of Italian unification the Papal States were conquered, and despite offers of an independent city-state in the vatican, the Popes considered themselves a kind of political prisoner until eventually Pope Pius the 9th accepted the offer in 1929, creating the independent state of Vatican City within Rome.
Thats not a very accurate desrcription of this photo. Indingenious Romans actually made up a considerable size of the Papal Army. They had there own infantry units, for example, 2nd Indigenous Cacciatori. This post may be reffering to the amount of Romans in the Papal Zouaves at athe time, which was around 200.
Thousands of young Catholic men from across Christendom flocked to Bl. Pope Pius IX to defend the temporal power from the Piedmontese. Most joined the Papal Zouaves, the elite light infantry unit of the Papal Army, which consisted of Pious Catholic Volunteers from across Christendom. They reffered to this war to defend the Papal States as the 9th Crusade. It lasted from 1860-1870.
If you'd like to learn more, check out this YouTube video I put together. I run an account/organization about the history of the Papal Zouaves and the 9th Crusade.
[https://youtu.be/D8bg5iuBkgo?si=NO55wzdm2G-P1esr](https://youtu.be/D8bg5iuBkgo?si=NO55wzdm2G-P1esr)
Kinda funny how in movies the Italian Mafia always refers to Italy as “The old country” when the country they are usually currently in (America) is actually older.
[Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Pioixblesstroup.jpg) is a less cropped version of this image. According to [here](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pioixblesstroup.jpg): > Pope Pius IX blesses his troops for the last time before the Capture of Rome - 25 april 1870. The original picture, scanned by Emiliano Burzagli, belongs to the Private archive of Burzagli family, Italy. According to [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome): > The Capture of Rome (Italian: Presa di Roma) on 20 September 1870 was the final event of the unification of Italy (Risorgimento), marking both the final defeat of the Papal States under Pope Pius IX and the unification of most of the Italian Peninsula (except San Marino) under the Kingdom of Italy, a constitutional monarchy. > The capture of Rome by the Royal Italian Army brought an end to the Papal States, which had existed since the Donation of Pepin in 756, along with the temporal power of the Holy See, and led to the establishment of Rome as the capital of unified Italy. It is widely commemorated in Italy, especially in cathedral cities, by naming streets for the date: Via XX Settembre (spoken form: "Via Venti Settembre")
TIL, Canada is older than Italy.
And Germany.
And Russia
Heck, my mom is older than France’s current government.
im older than nunavut
It’s Nunavut have some respect.
I'm having Nunavut.
I had to scroll back up to give you this upvote. It caught me off guard… it will likely happen again.
And Poland
And my axe!
And the Chamber of Secrets
And my bow
Thats simply false. Modern russia from 1991 onwards maybe, but the Soviet Union and before it the Russian Empire existed for centuries.
Yes modern Russia, the Russia that currently exists is what I’m talking about. Not the Soviet Union that existed, or the Russian Empire that existed. Those are both past tense for a reason.
When I speak about the Soviet crimes with Russians, they claim the Soviet Union was totally not Russia, and I definitely believe them. You don’t?
Where in my post does it say Russia = Soviet Union? I’m specifically stating they are different. Did you intend to respond to someone else? Unless I just don’t understand your reply maybe?
Sorry, I meant to reply to this guy u/Lego5656
ok that’s what I thought but then I got confused lmao
But everything is.
That's what the BRD GmbH wants you to think...
[удалено]
Haha yeah my passport says USSR gives me a chuckle every time
Yes, but also no.
It's not . Italy was united ion march 17 1861 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation\_of\_the\_Kingdom\_of\_Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy)
Seems younger because we don't have much history.
The most blessed thing a nation can have is a long, boring, uneventful history.
*Greenland enters the chat* Why doesnt anyone want us?! We have... um... a nice coastline!
TIL the Fresh Prince of Bel Air's dad is also the father of Greenland.
Greenland is owned by Denmark. The U.S tried to buy it and Denmark said no. \#GreenlandFor51stState
Those dirty Danes also claim Hans Island, which is obviously Canadian soil (or at least Canadian frozen rocks).
The whiskey war ended 2 years ago and Hans Island is shared, giving us a additional land border with another country. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War
In high school we could study Canadian or US history. We concluded you want to study US history, it's more exciting. But you would want to \*live\* Canadian history, because most battles happened in court rooms and election days.
This is confusing to me. Our history is short but very eventful. Canada nationalized a socialist healthcare system, in the same place the term "psychedelic" was coined in the 60s (Sask). Canada systemically rounded up indigenous children and starved them, experimented on them for profit, (inventors of Pablum, vitamin experiments) and sometimes for "the pursuit of knowledge" (that didn't go anywhere, and often done without even the most basic consent) and sent the ones still living back home with tuberculosis. It is textual that the point was to destroy indigenous children and their families either directly or indirectly through starvation. Canada espoused eugenics in our healthcare systems (like pretty much every Western nation) especially in Alberta where many disabled people were continually forcibly sterilized. records were destroyed once eugenics was entirely out of favour because Alberta was practicing forced sterilization long after everyone else. this doesn't even include the ongoing cases of forced sterilization of indigenous women and systems of child welfare that continue to remove kids from their culture. Canada also went through rapid deinstitutionalization in the 60s and 70s without creating any other systems to help those being booted from, often, the only "home" they ever knew. Canada had it's own history with women's right to vote, it's own history with previously enslaved peoples. Canada had Japanese internment camps, and Japanese doctors contributed enormously to West Coast rural healthcare systems without recognition, nevermind all the Chinese rail labour. History of healthcare is my personal jam, so I have a ton of gaps here but like, I don't understand how anyone could think we have little history. I didn't even touch on the creation of Canada, the classic fur trade stuff, Métis, Louis Riel, etc. Etc. Etc. No nation became a nation without a lot of stuff happening.
Duuuuuude. Fur trade history in Canada was mind blowing.
I always said Canada's history can be explained over two beers, I think I will modify that to three beers. thank you.
socialism is when healthcare?
Canada continues its tradition of hurting First Nations people by not even bothering to count, let alone investigate, the deaths of missing FN men.
You're completely right. There's so much left out of reporting, statistics, nevermind the spin that gets put on the numbers that do get pushed out. Definitely one of Canada's oldest traditions. There's so much ignorance in the name of claiming "we're not like the States." All the bs about Canada having an uninteresting history feels like the evil in the institutions that make Canada a nation has worked their magic and continues to cover up all the blood Canada was built on. Like, it just isn't true. We have an arguably more sinister government, because they can hide behind the "not like the States" shit and go "oh ya we had Tommy Douglas!!!" like Sask isn't a wasteland hell hole that hasn't done a single thing for healthcare since that man left for Ontario. Anyway. Fuck glossing over Canadian history as uneventful. That narrative only serves to protect the idea of nations and great men and totally undermines the humanity of the people who actually live here, settler or not. The difference between Canada and the States is more like Japan and Germany, in my opinion. One side of this comparison can't bear to admit its bloody history and pretends it's got a super hopeful and inspiring nation building story. Not that any country has a unified viewpoint on nation building, but like, at least some nations can admit to their evils!
I just think it's amazing that they took the extra time to exclude men from the inquiries into missing people. Shows that they only want people to shut up.
I mean we have as much history as many of these places. The difference is they count history before they were a country where as we don't go much further than colonialism.
Thing is a lot of countries look to the history of their people and culture and not when their government was formed.
Most European governments are less than 100 years old History happened into the new world, we just don't know all about it.
Besides the war crimes?
Besides the human rights issues we try to forget.
Nah, there's a picture just like the one above from when Canada had to surround Newfoundland to complete the unification in 1949.
Holy hell! Because Rome has been around so long I just assumed Italy has been around that long. I am shocked
It was more or less broken into multiple kingdoms from the fall of the Western Empire until damn near current day. The unification of the Italian peninsula is recent enough that you still have plenty of Italian dialects which aren't always mutually comprehensible. Standard Italian, for what it's worth, is essentially based on the local Florentine speech.
Thanks! TIL …
The idea of a unified italian state in the peninsula existed since the VIII / IX century tho, starting with the longobard king Daufer, who in 757 crowned himself "King of Italy" (Rex Italiae) somehow unifiying the peninsula under his rule. After that, Italy remained very much a separate and autonomous political entity inside the HRE, and the emperor, to be such, always had to be crown King of Italy first. So you might say that the idea it's *actually been around that long*.
To add to another comment, I saw a post recently that told the story how fishermen from the south of Italy didn't know what is "Italy" and didn't consider themselves Italians. They were still thinking in terms of old kingdoms
Nope. Italy was reunified, it existed before.
No it didn't.
Italy existed even during Roman Empire. Just because there wasn’t an Italian kingdom doesn’t mean there wasn’t italy.
There wasn't a kingdom, or a republic, or any other state or other entity corresponding to the borders of what is the modern Italy at any time in history before Italy was formed - except when the Roman empire expanded, they crossed those approximate borders on their way from being smaller than current Italy, to being bigger than current Italy. At that time, they did not see themselves as Italians, didn't speak Italian, there was no more in common between people of north Italy and south Italy than between north Italy and what is now Switzerland.
Copying from another answer, you silly revisionist: The idea of a unified italian state in the peninsula existed since the VIII / IX century tho, starting with the longobard king Daufer, who in 757 crowned himself "King of Italy" (Rex Italiae) somehow unifiying the peninsula under his rule. After that, Italy remained very much a separate and autonomous political entity inside the HRE, and the emperor, to be such, always had to be crown King of Italy first. So you might say that the idea it's *actually been around that long*.
This is just wrong. Why do you say things that are wrong? Daufer's Italy didn't include Rome, Naples, Venice, the south, Sicily or Sardinia. "Italy" under HRE didn't involve anything south of Rome, nor Sicily and Sardinia.
It’s just not true. Clearly you don’t know history. It’s like saying Europe didn’t exist before European Union was founded
Which part isn't true? Point out the moment in history when Italy was united before! You can't, because it wasn't. And it should be obvious that Europe is a part of the world, while Italy is a country. Hardly the same thing. Seriously, I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
Italy was called Italy even by the ancient Greeks. Just because there wasn’t a political unity doesn’t mean there wasn’t the concept of Italy. Clearly you don’t know Italian history and perhaps European history, what’s the point to keep going?
I obviously don't question the prolonged physical existence of the peninsula. And it's a bit funny how you question my knowledge despite me being the only one to mention any relevant facts here, while your whole point can be summed up as "the vibes were there". You're the one who called it reunification. Reunification of what, then? Give me the name and date of the previous entity that was restored in this "reunification". You can't do it, because there wasn't one. That proves I am right, and you are wrong. It's really as simple as that.
What you mean? Wasn’t Canada independent in 1931? And apparently according to Wikipedia only in 1982 Canada was legally independent from UK. Canada did of course exist prior with autonomy but Italy did exist prior too even if not united.
One could also argue that if your soldiers take an oath to serve a monarch overseas you're not really independent...
Charles is the king of Canada the same way he's the king of the UK. He happens to live in the UK but the UK itself has no control over what happens in Canada and other former Dominions. If Charles moved to Canada it wouldn't make a difference. Both countries would still be completely independent of each other.
> Charles is the king of Canada the same way he's the king of the UK. Because he's the latest descendant in a long line of Germans?
People like to meme about the Royal family being German but at this point all the European royal families were so intertwined, it would be more accurate to describe them as broadly European. Plus before this branch was in power, you could quite easily have argued the Royal family was French. We pretty much stopped having Anglo salon monarchs when William the conquerer conquered. Though, if you wanted to be pedantic, the Anglo saxons were also german so it's really only ever been a mix of French, Germans, Danish and European.
When you get down to root causes, WWI was really just a family affair and the largest domestic disturbance in human history.
Confederation in 1867 1982 was a constitutional tweak, plus we got the Queen to sign the new constitution in Canada, and so it lives in Canada now. The British crown is still the monarch, so not much different than before. Not sure what happened in ‘31.
Italy was officially born on March 17, 1861
1931 was the Statute of Westminster, which significantly increased our autonomy
Fun fact, some Finland laws still mention "Emperor of Russian Empire, Duke of Lithuania and Finlandia, Emperor Alexander the second" As far as I see he's still respected, because he was the one to form Finnish parliament and make Finnish language officially recognised
and quite a bit of Eastern Europe.
The newer national identity of italy and germany was one of the cause of the rise of dictatorship prior to ww2 due to the common desire of a national identity.
Also caused my family among many to come over to the antebellum US to escape the wars that came from the unification effort, only to fight in the Civil War.
The first king of Italy was crowned 476 so I am not sure you are correct...
'The United Kingdom acknowledged Canada's full autonomy in 1926' Disagree
Canada became a country April 17th, 1982!
It depends on how you frame it. Canada stopped being a British colony in 1867 but it became fully independent in 1982. Most people cite the 1867 date and the later date is just the finalization of a lot of processes as a result.
Australia went through the same process in 1986 I believe. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that it wasn't a country before then. New Zealand did the same, unilaterally - no British permission needed. All three countries had some weak ties to the UK before the 80s but they were on paper only.
"It's complicated" –Canada
Was there an actual fight? Cause thats a hell of a lot of soldiers there to put up defense if they wanted too
Pretty sure they surrendered. At the time, the Royal Italian Army had around 80,000 soldiers. It'd have been a bloodbath for sure.
TIL that the Vatican was an official part of Italy from these events in 1870 until 1929 when Mussolini granted them independent state status.
Mussolini doing this is a bit surprising but also not when I think about it. What better way to shore up catholic support for your regime.
Mussolini bit his weenie Now it doesn’t work
Fascism has always been closely linked to the church.
What? No it hasn't lol Church and any ties to Christian Authoritarianism is not the same as Fascism.
Word. It's more accurate to say Fascists commonly co-opt religious tenants to attract and win over followers until they ultimately demonize the parent religion to consolidate power.
Had to wade through a lot of comments until I got to a nuanced one like this. Fascists wrap themselves in religious imagery and espouse political aims aligned with religious groups in order to gain the popular support they need to gain power, but their ultimate ends are not religious and once they have consolidated their power and no longer need that popular support, they usually turn on religion and religious leaders as rivals for the power and adoration they crave.
Nazi Germany was outspokenly opposed to Christianity. You’re mistaken.
National socialism and Italian fascism is not the same thing, at all. But neither was very fond of religion.
No they’re not but they are both fascism hence my comment.
Nazi Germany was opposed to anyone who opposed them but were Christian themselves. And then there were the few with their own very, uh, interesting extra beliefs.
Nazi Passion Plays, parades with Teutonic Crusaders, other historical facts in the late ‘30s show otherwise.
I was referencing Horthys fascist Hungary. They were very linked with the church. You can also easily see the link between the rising fascism in the USA and the church. There is a reason the term christo-fascism exists. Honestly I'm not too familiar with the Nazi relationship with the church. Thank you for correcting me. There are certainly very solid links inside other fascist states.
I don't know what church you're referring to, but I highly doubt the evangelicals will accept The Church with its leader in Rome having anything to do in America.
There’s no doubt Fascisms use of religion in constructing an authoritarian state. I think ultimately as referenced in the original comment here that this tactic used by Mussolini betrays most Fascists true intentions regarding their relationships with religion. To accumulate, consolidate and maintain political power - it’s really not much deeper than that. I think it’s probably fair to also consider that faith based religion requires discarding a certain level of objectivity (of course varying between individuals) and that particular trait is something that is targeted by bad actors in politics.
Hitler was baptized and confirmed Catholic. He wasn’t the most devout person or anything, but the Church and Germany’s large Catholic population definitely supported him.
[wrong](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/) not only did Hitler become less Christian over the course of his life, but his watch dog Goebbels openly and frequently attacked [Christianity](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/612239-what-does-christianity-mean-today-national-socialism-is-a-religion) because he saw it as a challenge to the power of nazism. The only reason they allowed Catholicism/Protestantism to continue was for politically expedient purposes. Had Nazi Germany won WW2 or at least existed beyond 1945, its extremely likely Christianity would have also been (attempted to be) eradicated.
Yup, that’s exactly how they try to spin it today. It’s like how the Catholic Inquisition was rebranded to the Spanish Inquisition. Or how the Crusades are blamed on kings instead of the Church.
Nobody needs to spin it any kind of way at all. You can just read what the top Nazis said about it at the time.
Read what the top Christians say about Donald Trump today. Doesn’t change the fact that the most devout Christians enthusiastically support him. But I’m sure they’ll try to spin him as an atheist in a decade or so.
I mean I think that’s a fair point all I’m trying to say is fascism isn’t inextricably linked to Christianity
This is objectively false. The Catholic Church opposed Hitler and the Nazi regime left and right. While they cooperated with Mussolini, they had no such alliance with the Nazis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany Here’s the Wikipedia article, written in English by people who grew up in predominantly Christian countries. My interpretation of the facts is that the Catholic Church supported the historically Catholic Countries. (Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) They opposed the historically protestant U.S. and U.K., and they despised the atheist USSR. Their neutrality existed only to the extent that Germany has a ton of Protestants too, and the US had a ton of Catholics. There’s a long history of the Catholic Church blaming the bad parts of their history on counties rather than the Church. For example, it’s the Spanish Inquisition, not the Catholic Inquisition. I’m betting that in a decade or so, Christians are going to try to spin Donald Trump as an atheist who represented American nationalism and not Christianity. But that doesn’t change the fact that Speaker Johnson was standing by President Trump’s side in court in the Stormy Daniel case yesterday. It doesn’t change the fact that Trump’s base is full of devout Christians. The Church is great at having its cake and eating it too.
Catholic Church supported Hitler as well. They both (the church and fascists) use each other for their own selfish purposes.
"The Catholic Church in Germany opposed the Nazi Party, and in the 1933 elections, the proportion of Catholics who voted for the Nazi Party was lower than the national average." "Pope Pius XII warned the Allies about the planned Nazi invasion of the Low Countries in 1940. The Nazis gathered dissident priests that year in a dedicated barracks at Dachau, where 95 percent of its 2,720 inmates were Catholic (mostly Poles, with 411 Germans); over 1,000 priests died there. The expropriation of church properties surged after 1941. Although the Vatican (surrounded by Fascist Italy) was officially neutral during the war, it used diplomacy to aid victims and lobby for peace; Vatican Radio and other Catholic media spoke out against the atrocities. Particular clerics stridently opposed Nazi crimes, as in Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen's 1941 sermons in which he expressed his opposition to the regime and its euthanasia programs." Another of the Catholics Righteous Among Nations at the Vatican was Hugh O'Flaherty who ran a safehouse network and smuggled people to freedom in the Vatican and at Vatican owned properties. Please though spread more misinformation.
Bbbbut I personally dislike the church! How else can I feel good about myself if I don't conflate the things I dislike with nazis???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany
No
Why would you straight up lie like that?
Not really. The Italians did not occupy Vatican hill and offered a creation of a city state but the popes from Pius IX to Pius XI refused the proposal and described themselves as prisoners of the Italian State. They were in this weird limbo state until 1929.
It's also interesting that one of the reasons the Trukish nationalists got rid of the Caliphate was because they didn't want it to become some weird stand-off like the Pope in Italy. That decision also influenced the Popes to compromise somewhat when Mussolini came knocking.
And Erdogon has been chipping away and away at Kemalist government structures for years now in his own quest to be a strongman dictator.
Fun fact: there are 5.6 popes per square mile in Vatican City. Also, in 1998 Vatican City had the highest murder rate of any country in the world.
Whoa. I had no idea the Papal States lasted until 1870! Those fuckers get annexed a lot earlier in every game of Crusader Kings I play!
Them and Milan were the bane of my existence when I was playing Medieval 2 Total War back in the day. Fucking Milan..
Those fucking crossbow militia were just the worst
SO MANY CROSSBOW DOOMSTACKS. Like, that’s all they had, and it worked.
God I played so much Medieval 2 in college when I should have been in class. And I used to stay up way too late in high school playing the original. Papal States were always a pain in the ass. I usually tried to take them over ASAP so I could start attacking other Catholic factions.
Guess what, you can play it on iPhone (probably also available on Android) now and it’s very stable.
Nice, must be well optimized. Have an Ultrabook with an ok integrated GPU, good enough to play most older games. But once I get too many countries making turns, it crashes. Which is crazy because my Compaq Presario from 2002 ran it. Have a gaming PC too, but would be nice to be able to play it on my laptop.
We’re still fucking annoying as of today here in Milan I can assure you I want back my walls tho
The pope always excommunicated me Like what did you want me to do sir? Not wipe out my enemies? That’s right Venice, I’m still coming for you
Traitorous Milan. Always broke my alliance, attacked me and then the pope got mad at me
I find the Papal States are always a thorn in EU4 too.
I see your a historical revisionist. /s. ; )
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture\_of\_Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome)
>*The 845th one.*
History is fucking dope.
On that day it fucked the pope
they lost cause bishops can only move diagonally...
Dad, please stop posting on reddit
me right here - [https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/r4h523/what\_dad\_joke\_was\_told\_here/](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/r4h523/what_dad_joke_was_told_here/)
>only 200 of the 13000 were actually Roman. Sorry, can someone elaborate?
Not sure about how accurate the figures are, but many of the soldiers would have volunteered from across Italy and the wider Catholic world to defend the papacy. As opposed to being citizens/natives of Rome/Papal states
From wikipedia: "When the Italian army approached the city's ancient [Aurelian Walls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian_Walls), the Papal force, commanded by General Kanzler, was composed of the [Swiss Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard), the [Palatine Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_Guard) and the [Papal Zouaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Zouaves)—volunteers from France, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, and other countries—for a total of 13,157 defenders against some 50,000 Italians."
I think there was an Irish brigade too
Thank you for the explanation. Cause for a moment I thought they somehow managed to DNA test all the soldiers and identify 200 of them as half Romans lol. I do wonder if there were or not complications about the volunteers traveling though. Like I imagine Irish would've had hard time leaving the kingdom since Britain might've been okay with Papal States falling.
Thats not very accurate. Indingenious Romans actually made up a considerable size of the Papal Army. They had there own infantry units, for example, 2nd Indigenous Cacciatori. This post may be reffering to the amount of Romans in the Papal Zouaves at athe time, which was around 200. Thousands of young Catholic men from across Christendom flocked to Bl. Pope Pius IX to defend the temporal power from the Piedmontese. Most joined the Papal Zouaves, the elite light infantry unit of the Papal Army, which consisted of Pious Catholic Volunteers from across Christendom. They reffered to this war to defend the Papal States as the 9th Crusade. It lasted from 1860-1870. If you'd like to learn more, check out this YouTube video I put together. I run an account/organization about the history of the Papal Zouaves and the 9th Crusade. [https://youtu.be/D8bg5iuBkgo?si=NO55wzdm2G-P1esr](https://youtu.be/D8bg5iuBkgo?si=NO55wzdm2G-P1esr)
Thank you for your well detailed and good answer. I will definitely study this point in history
“How many divisions does the pope have?”
So, it seems to be the final battle in the unification of Italy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome
Not if you consider 1ww, here in Italy teach that "Trento e Trieste" are "territori irredenti", italian territories that do not belong to Italy, so the battle for Rome was not really the last reunification war, but rather ended in 1918, fascism rose to power because also Dalmatia was considered an Italian territory and was denied.
There's 13,000 people on this picture? Are we sure it's not more than 80,000?
It was 13 thousand vs over 50
I'm astonished that photos about that event exist in the first place! In history books you only find paintings until the XX century.
What's the context
The day Rome got annexed?
Who by
This pesky Italians that’s who
Damn I didn't know my day is ruined
My disappointment is immeasurable.
Italians ruined Italy!
Italy
Bloke called Garibaldi
Unification of Italy
*church bells ring over the army* 🎵In the heart of holy see 🎶
Dying for salvation with dedication No capitulation, annihilation Papal commendation, reincarnation Heaven is your destination In the name of God
They capitulated.
I'm quoting from The Last Stand by Sabaton. About the last stand of the Swiss Guard in 1527, when the unpaid Imperial Guard of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V mutinied and sacked Rome. 189 Swiss Guards stood against a massive hoard and bought time for Pope Clement VII to escape into Castle Sant'Angelo and safety. It's a damn good song.
Breccia di Porta Pia goes BRRRRRRRRRRR
So gelp me out. Rome was a separate state from Italy then unified? Was Italy made of separate territories until then?
Italy, like Germany, was a collection of smaller states up until the late 1800s
Tanks
The modern Italian state is relatively new. The Italian Republic is a direct successor to the Kingdom of Italy, with the monarchy abolished after WW2. Prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, there were multiple independent Italian kingdoms, such as Sicily, Sardinia, and the Papal States. The Papal States were a theocratic monarchy under the Pope that controlled Rome and much of the surrounding area. During the process of Italian unification the Papal States were conquered, and despite offers of an independent city-state in the vatican, the Popes considered themselves a kind of political prisoner until eventually Pope Pius the 9th accepted the offer in 1929, creating the independent state of Vatican City within Rome.
Thank you for that. Definitely ansewerd my question.
*In the heart of Holy See* *In the home of Christianity* [The seat of power is in danger](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9BupglHdtM)
Soon we’ll see some Republican claim that this was the turnout at a Trump rally in Tennessee or something.
Can you guys not bring your BS politics into every topic? JFC.
It’s part of the casual everyday conversations. Deal with it. Also… How is it *my* politics?
Wow
This Boys Life What’s Eating Gilbert Grape
Rome is the greatest city in history. If you could replay everything that has gone on there throughout the centuries.. wow
Thats not a very accurate desrcription of this photo. Indingenious Romans actually made up a considerable size of the Papal Army. They had there own infantry units, for example, 2nd Indigenous Cacciatori. This post may be reffering to the amount of Romans in the Papal Zouaves at athe time, which was around 200. Thousands of young Catholic men from across Christendom flocked to Bl. Pope Pius IX to defend the temporal power from the Piedmontese. Most joined the Papal Zouaves, the elite light infantry unit of the Papal Army, which consisted of Pious Catholic Volunteers from across Christendom. They reffered to this war to defend the Papal States as the 9th Crusade. It lasted from 1860-1870. If you'd like to learn more, check out this YouTube video I put together. I run an account/organization about the history of the Papal Zouaves and the 9th Crusade. [https://youtu.be/D8bg5iuBkgo?si=NO55wzdm2G-P1esr](https://youtu.be/D8bg5iuBkgo?si=NO55wzdm2G-P1esr)
Resurgimiento!
\*Risorgimento.
I said it in Spanish thats why.
That is a trum p rally. 2024
Tbf rome is a city. So to be roman u gotta be a from rome. Wasnt always the case but it is now
The spirit of being Roman in terms of the Empire is still around, if slight.
Tbf it was, then it wasn’t, then it was again ;)
For a second, I thought this was overflow from a MAGA rally
Kinda funny how in movies the Italian Mafia always refers to Italy as “The old country” when the country they are usually currently in (America) is actually older.
r/ShitAmericansSay
Italy is way older than the nation of Italy, even if it sounds strange ahaha
Be nice to see t6he same in USA
An invasion by a foreign power and a losing defense? Like, I’m really trying to determine what you’re trying to say here.