“Rome” referred to the city and the surrounding province IIRC. (Not a history student) They expanded to take over the rest of the peninsula, then took on Carthage, the middle east, Gaul, etc. until they had expanded to its final size. But just because they went first, does not mean the Sicilians, for example, were any more Roman than Carthaginians or Albanians (nor were they considered “part of Rome”).
When things fell apart, the various city-states were independent, or occupied variously by other powers including foreign powers. “Italy” as a coherent state was a construct of late 1800’s politics and revolution.
I assume part of the choice for the name “Italy” was to emphasize the whole, rather than make it seem like it was “New Rome” of outlying regions colonized and dominated by the center all over again. (From what I understand Italian has as varied a set of regional dialects as pre-industrial England did. Imposing a standard language was one of the processes that promoted unification.)
As for Rome itself, the city and surrounding province, I suppose they are considered by themselves and others to be the continuation of “ancient Rome” as much as Greeks or Egyptians might be.
Mostly true, especially in the early days. The various parts of Italy were considered (and considered themselves) separate entities to the extent that Rome could fight the Social War in the first century BC against its Italian allies.
Eventually, though, something like an “Italian” identity did seem to develop. Actually, the Social War is part of it. The Italian allies fought Rome not for independence, but to gain the right to full Roman citizenship and political representation, which Rome had to grant them. The Italian peninsula. including Cisalpine Gaul, was a single administrative division from the time of Augustus, with Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia added over time. It enjoyed a special status that included tax breaks and other benefits, as it was considered the heart of the Empire (well, at least it did until the time of Diocletian and his more “decentralized” Empire, and then the shift of the center to the east and Constantinople).
Naah, I’m not suggesting that at all. Like I said, I wasn’t being entirely serious. Just pointing out that it wasn’t just the hinterlands of the peninsula that had long periods of outside influence. We’re good.
They certainly styled their Empire on the Roman Empire. Although the Ottomans were a Muslim ‘force’ they started off, when they finally conquered Istanbul, with importing Jews for their business knowledge, and many other races, creeds, religions etc as manpower to grow and strengthen the Empire.
And they accepted the best practices of civilizations they conquered, giving those technical abilities (like public baths) to all areas of the Empire. Many of those advancements were actually Roman, but hadn’t spread to Arabia (including Mecca and Medina in now Saudi) or parts of southern Europe (the Balkans, I think).
Cite: A three-part documentary by the BBC called ‘The Ottoman empire’.
A topical point of interest; there was no fighting between Muslim nations until Iran (Sunni) picked a fight with the Ottomans (Shia):smack:. The rest, as they say, is history.
Eh, I’m afraid that’s in error. Particularly the last sentence. Muslims have been fighting Muslims even before the First Fitna broke out. Sadly warfare is endemic to human nature. Christians fight Christians, Buddhists fight Buddhists, Hindus fight Hindus.
Beyond that I’m not sure which Iranian state you are referring to, but the Ottomans’ main sparring partner from 1514 was Safavid Iran, which was indeed Shi’a in leadership. Now it could be said that in the 16th century chunks of the Anatolian, especially eastern Anatolian, Ottoman Turkic constituency was in fact Shi’a and initially much of the settled population ( but not the Safavid military cadres ) of Safavid Iran was Sunni, but the leadership was just the opposite ( and both populations shifted towards the dominant ruling ideology over time ). You also might be conflating the Bektashi order of Sufis who much like the Safavids started out as relatively heterodox Shi’a and became over time strongly associated with the Janissary corps. But the Ottoman ruling establishment was pretty much always self-consciously Sunni. Iran starting with the Safavids were governmentally Shi’a. Earlier Ottoman opponents that controlled Iran in part or whole like the Aq Qoyonlu or the Timurids were more or less nominally Sunni, but they usually aren’t referred to as Iranian states per se - Iran tended not to be the heartland of their military power.
You’re absolutely correct; it isn’t the first time I’ve mixed up the two. Thanks for the correction. The rest was from the BBC doc, and it was definitely worded to cause the least offence possible although it did offend my Saudi, military students a little - many walked out, very unusual behavior although it was the last day of a grueling course for them - and the few that stayed vocally objected to the way the last part about the Ottomans and Iran fighting was portrayed. Also Yemen was about to be more central to their lives as they are all officers. They were sort of satisfied, or couldn’t wait to fly back to their home towns - after being away from their families for seven months - when I tried to explain that the BBC has to be seen as being impartial.
I try not to get into complex discussions with them about religion or conflict as a) there’s a language barrier and b) I tend to put my foot in my mouth too often and c) history is not my strong point and d) I’m living in Riyadh. There are many topics here we (the university faculty) have to avoid or be very delicate about, and misunderstandings can be a problem. Plus there are external threats close to the borders so keeping everything on an even keel is necessary. I try not to become too involved and welcome your insight.
Nope :). I mean you’re right, but it was also true of Ancient-era Rome.
For example, dates in the Roman empire were calculated by some chroniclers as AUC, Ab Urbe Condita, “from the foundation of The City”. And of course that’s also the title of Livy’s massive history of Rome.
Just to add that “Italy” dates back only to November 3, 1918.
A process of consolidation that took something like 200 years, and was mostly completed by 1871. So there were Italians in 1818, but they certainly didn’t think of themselves as continuous from the Roman empire.