History questions not worth their own thread

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well Milan also had somewhat of a claim to the right of being capital; Mediolanium was the capital before Ravenna was, hence the famous Edict of Milan. I imagine it was because the Italians had made powerful ( ) enemies in Austria-Hungary, and Milan was too close to the border. Also, Rome, being in the middle of the peninsula, occupied a good position to claim to represent both the uban north and the rural south, and of course it really stuck it to the Papacy who insisted on trying to rule the city itself. And it was the last city taken in the whole unification campaign, it was close to the line between Garibaldi's and Victor Emmanuel's respective controlled territories pre-unification, etc etc Rome was just the choice that made more sense and was easier.

 

[Dachs]

Milan would've been a terrible choice before 1866 due to security concerns and the fact that the Po River wouldn't be all that useful while the Habsburgs still held Venetia anyway. And it was far too obviously a northern-aligned city for the inhabitants of the late Kingdom of the Two Sicilies to be interested in being ruled from there...things were bad enough down south as it was without having the capital up north away from the action. It didn't house a significant administration center either (unlike Berlin in 1866 and 1870) so there wasn't much use in trying to set up a whole new capital there. Turin was similarly deficient in bureaucratic machinery - it had governed a single, relatively small state, not half of Germany as Berlin did. So Florence was a better choice than either of them until Rome opened up, and by then it was the obvious selection.

 

[Masada]

I don't think that the Spree has historically been particularly important for riverine commerce and travel, and its position certainly doesn't help a Brandenburger who would have wanted to travel from one part of the electorate's domains to the other.

Except the area around Berlin is flat and prime farmland isn't all that far away.

 

[Dachs]

Except the area around Berlin is flat and prime farmland isn't all that far away.

If I were responding to you, I wouldn't have said something that doesn't address your point.

 

[say1988]

Dachs and Cheesy:
That is what I meant when it was a political decision. The south wouldn't allow it to to be in the North and the North wouldn't have allowed it to be in the south (though I don't know if there was anywhere near acceptable in the south). I am somewhat surprised there wasn't more of an effort to maintain the Piedmontese capital, though (of course I know little of the politics or what went on in the South of Italy in this period).

 

[Dreadnought]

If I were responding to you, I wouldn't have said something that doesn't address your point.

Well, that statement best explains why I respect you, Dachs.

As for Turin, would its proximity to the French border also be a factor? I'd certainly believe so, compared to the much more secluded Rome (secluded from other nations, that is).

 

[Dachs]

Dachs and Cheesy:
That is what I meant when it was a political decision. The south wouldn't allow it to to be in the North and the North wouldn't have allowed it to be in the south (though I don't know if there was anywhere near acceptable in the south).

Nothing south of Rome was really under consideration at all.

I am somewhat surprised there wasn't more of an effort to maintain the Piedmontese capital, though (of course I know little of the politics or what went on in the South of Italy in this period).

Meh. Turin was kind of a dump.

Well, that statement best explains why I respect you, Dachs.

As for Turin, would its proximity to the French border also be a factor? I'd certainly believe so, compared to the much more secluded Rome (secluded from other nations, that is).

Well, France wasn't an ancestral enemy. Austria was. I mean, that mighta played a role, but I figure with almost zero real knowledge of Italian post-unification politics that it was more because Turin was lame and located in a national extremity.

 

[Dreadnought]

heh, no sarcasm.

Well, France wasn't an ancestral enemy. Austria was. I mean, that mighta played a role, but I figure with almost zero real knowledge of Italian post-unification politics that it was more because Turin was lame and located in a national extremity.

That would make sense. Turin lacks any sort of centralized location and seems a little "far out there".

 

[say1988]

But it was the capital of the largest/most powerful unifying force in Italy, and the King.

Also, by this time I suspect the French were likely viewed as a potential enemy, as until the Franco-Prussian war any attempt to take Rome by force would involve direct confrontation with French troops.

Another major difference when compared to Germany is that Rome presented a viable historic capital, the only major historic capitals of the HRE (or what was closes to a capital) I can think of are Aachen and Vienna, one a backwards city on the border with their enemy, the other not a part of Germany. Meanwhile Rome has its place as the capital and beginnings of the Roman Empire.

 

[Dachs]

heh, no sarcasm.

Oh, okay. Thanks!

But it was the capital of the largest/most powerful unifying force in Italy, and the King.

The largest and most powerful unifying force in Italy at the time was the French Empire. Piedmont-Sardinia barely held the kingdom together after 1860. Turin was out of the way, and it really only was the nexus of government for a relatively small part of the Italian peninsula before unification. The Piedmontese were vastly outnumbered by the other Italians, unlike the Prussians. Would've been too easy to paint a Turin-run Italy as just Piedmontese imperialism, even more so than it was historically.

Also, by this time I suspect the French were likely viewed as a potential enemy, as until the Franco-Prussian war any attempt to take Rome by force would involve direct confrontation with French troops.

Fair enough. But the capital shift to Florence from Turin only came after the Italians concluded the September Convention with the French in 1864, temporarily lessening the French threat - it was one of the terms Napoleon insisted on.

Another major difference when compared to Germany is that Rome presented a viable historic capital, the only major historic capitals of the HRE (or what was closes to a capital) I can think of are Aachen and Vienna, one a backwards city on the border with their enemy, the other not a part of Germany. Meanwhile Rome has its place as the capital and beginnings of the Roman Empire.

Germany coulda gone with Frankfurt or Regensburg in theory if they wanted Reich or Bund historical ties. Aachen hadn't been an imperial city in a millennium and wasn't in the running.

 

[mitsho]

Oh, I didn't know what discussion I would spawn with that little innocent comment (of one that doesn't know jack about italy). But interesting discussion, keep going ;-)

 

[D.Durand]

What would you say are the most familiar battles to people that aren't well acquainted with history?

Certainly Waterloo and Stalingrad. Likely also Marathon, Pearl Harbor, D-Day, and Hastings; maybe also Cannae, Gettysburg, Tours, Agincourt, the Tet Offensive, Bunker Hill, Austerlitz, and Verdun. Am I missing any?

For frenchs, it's probably (in not particular order) :

Austerlitz, Pyramids and Waterloo ;
Marathon (Grecs vs Persians) ;
732 Poitier (Charles Martel against a gigantic muslim raiding party. God, how come some peoples can say it was a "little" battle when even MUSLIM or the era said it was enormous ?) ;
Alesia (of course) ;
Pear harbor, because all the movies ;
Dien Bien Phu ;
Kolwezi (because the Legion jump onto) ;
14-18 Verdun, la Marne, la Somme (but more Marne than Somme) ;
The campaign of France (how can we forgot...) ;
The fall of the city of Quebec ;

 

[say1988]

Huh? I am surprised the French would pay much attention to their failed overseas Empire. Except for politicians making a statement (i.e. de Gaulle in '67).

The campaign of France being 1940?

 

[Steph]

And Trafalgar, Marignan, Gergovie (we don't know where Alesia is), DDay, Stalingrad...

And many others but I won't fit the non acquainted with history part.

Camerone, Crecy, Agincourt, Narvik, Bir Hakeim, Leipzig, Iena, Borodino, Bérésina, Solferino, Marengo...

 

[LightSpectra]

When and why did Philip II of France take the title "Augustus," and why did no other monarchs of France title themselves as emperor after that?

 

[Cynovolans]

I thought Augustus was part of his name, not a title.

 

[flyingchicken]

When and why did Philip II of France take the title "Augustus," and why did no other monarchs of France title themselves as emperor after that?

Maybe being a pompous ass wouldn't get back in style until a few more generations after, but by then the French would have been so dazzled by themselves that they won't stoop down to using the meager title of Augustus.

 

[D.Durand]

Not long ago I realized that all the major European capitals are by a river, but away from the sea: London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Berlin, Moscow and above all Warsaw. Could there be a common reason for this? I guess I could go into history of these cities and try to find out, but I'm too lazy.

More exactly, they are often at the better crossing of commercial way in the region.

London is on a big river, at the limit of the estuary. The city is where the land road can still cross the river, but the sea ships can come AND the river boat are still protected against the sea.

Paris is on a big river (the Seine river), where you can cross the river by land, and were a lot of commercial ways by the river need to cross : Lower Seine (Normandy and the sea), Oise (all the North of the country), Upper seine and Yonne (Yonne is the master river) (South and West of the country), Marne (East of the country, Bourgundy)... If you look at a map, you see the city is just between the crossings of theses ways.
And with the swamps AND the islands, that was a protected position.

Roma was at the only real location where you can cross the river Tibre by land.

Madrid is an exception : It was a fortress build by Muslims and conquered by Spanishs, located on a shelf. Why choose this location for build a capitals ?
Probably because the muslims build not only a fortress here, but a palace ;-)

 

[Dachs]

When and why did Philip II of France take the title "Augustus," and why did no other monarchs of France title themselves as emperor after that?

Wasn't a title, but IIRC a posthumous epithet. Usually the title comes before the name, not after.

 

[LightSpectra]

Wasn't a title, but IIRC a posthumous epithet. Usually the title comes before the name, not after.

"Augustus" was Latin for emperor (though not literally, but obviously the French would've been aware of this connotation). Strange that it became a posthumous epithet, if that's the case; though I suppose it's not much different than U.S. presidents continually promoting George Washington so that other generals don't outrank him, and so Washington can immediately take charge the moment the zombie apocalypse begins.