was it REALLY that insane for the rulers in these tiny ass city states to simply concede and unite together for mutual protection? Was it really that bad if a king had to give up being a king and instead became a very high noble??? Like Castile and Aragon? Like what are the chances lucca or siena stay independent being that small? Mantua? I just dont understand why they didn't see their tiny status as a threat to their existence, and why they didn't seek protection or some type of pact with each other, even if it meant giving up concessions. Surely being ruled by fellow Italians was better than being ruled by Austrians, french, or Spaniards???they should have all united with florence and created a central italian super power, and that isn't even getting into the question of how florence ended up so politically insignificant in Europe relative to their good leaders and immense wealth...
>>17104001Because they were already united under a single ruler - the Emperor, who was legaly required to defend the rights of the small city states against external foes such as France or the PopeSure they weren't always happy and often allied together or with the Pope against him, but that was the norm in Medieval Europe. Italy would only leave the Empire in the early modern period after degree of consolidation when tiny city-states had been succeded by duchies
>>17104001fortune never last forever. we enjoed ruling france with caterina de'medici and that's more than enough. florence was also the capital of italy for five years. then i think natural limitations like hills fostered the development into a metropolis like milan, same fate of venice
>>17104001Best italy we ever got
>>17104001bumpIt was a wild ride, but nowhere as destructive as the 30 years war.
>>17104001>florencewer all speak dante's language anyway, which is italian
>>17104939Funny people use this as evidence of Venician perfidiousness
>>17104001are you stupid? they had a united ruler called the Holy Roman Emperor, ever heard of him?
