I don’t think it’s true that Germany was more unified. Bavaria is very different culturally and religiously than Schleswig Holstein. The difference I think was that Germany industrialized pretty evenly across the board, whereas industrialization in Italy initially only took off in Lombardy and the north, leaving the South to languish in poverty as it was mostly agrarian. Even today the south of Italy is much less industrialized than the north.

There was not such a pronounced wealth gap in Germany between regions until the East-West division during the Cold War.

Parts of Italy were influenced very differently by different nations and went on different routes. Northern trade powerhouses like Venice or Genoa had very different history to south which was attacked and conquered by muslims, Byzantines then part of Spain etc. Germany wasnt unified, but parts of HRE were still independent and nowhere near as influenced as some parts of Italy were.

Germany was not culturally unified at all. For one big thing, they were divided in religion. Check what Bismarck did to Rheinish Catholics

I think that a crucial element is that Italy is extremely diverse culturally; the language known as Italian is based on the Florentine dialect, which was selected for reasons of soft cultural power after unification.

The language of every country has different dialects which may rise to the level of languages, but Italian has 34 very distinct "dialects" which are really so diverse that they count as languages to the point of mutual intelligibility. I don't know about Germany (I am British) but I know that while a Shetlander and a Geordie (for example) may misunderstand one another, with good will they can make themselves understood.

But if they don't speak the official Italian and only have their own native dialect, a Barese and a Piedmontese, or a Sicilian and a Tuscan will not have a clue what the other is going on about. These days most people in Italy speak Italian (ie the official dialect) as well as their own, but it has taken time to get there.

Germany was a collective of states unified by language. Italy was a collective of city states gathered up under Roman authority.

Well, Germany wasn't that unified in that the unification of Germany as such was only achieved by cutting ties with Austria, which traditionally had been a core part of Germany.

But there had been a strong desire for unity for decades. The Prussian king had been offered an imperial crown decades earlier but didn't want a crown that was offered to him by the common rabble - if he was to be emperor and unify the country, then it had to be under his terms in a top-down approach.

One reason I've read is that the Church, a major player in Italian politics and culture, threw an absolute hissy fit over having to give up the Papal States to King Victor Emmanuel's control. Pius IX locked himself in the Vatican and claimed he was a prisoner leading to a lot of division and turmoil not only among Italy's heavily Catholic population but with Catholics worldwide. It was Mussolini who eventually signed an agreement with the Church to create Vatican City and essentially making it a country within a country.

I dont think germany was seen as much more internally unified as italy.

I think they did an overall better job post unification to bind the people together under one identity. Like universal conscription sending you across the country, or a far more integrated economic system, with railroads spanning the length of the whole country instead of just connecting important points or all leading to the capital like france.

But especially at the beginning, germans didnt see themselves as just german either. Best example there is is probably elsas. Troops that were stationed there from other parts of germany had rude derogatory terms for the populace and looked at them more like an occupied people then equalls in germany. Due to this and a huge economic issue being in the german market instead of the french one all of the sudden, lead to Elsas germans not really feeling as a core part of germany.

Remember, elsas was 80%+ german speaking when they got annexed in 1871 and after that more then 50000 people left to go to france, presumably almost all french speaking to make this german majority even more decisive. Meaning that even a region with a vast majority of german speaking people, was still not well integrated and seen as "truely german". Elsas unlike the Saarland which the french also tried annexing after WW1 and 2, didnt show major resistance to being integrated into france. These regions are right next to each other and had about the same percentage of germans, yet the desire to rejoin germany was massively apart.

Another factor that leads to bigger regional devides is geography. Italy is very mountanous. The po valley is the only continous chunk of properly usable land for mass industry, with the rest being scattered down the boot, all cut apart by pretty extreme mountain ranges, for an industrialising nation. We see it in Afghanistan, Iran/Persia, China, Spain, anywhere to mountanous basically, that regions are culturally and economically more seperated. Meanwhile all of north germany, 2/3rds of the empire was on the european flatland connected by the rhine to the south west. meaning this area is very easily traversable and not easily geographically ripped apart. The part of germany this applies the least for is Bavaria and fittingly its the most distinct part of germany, being closer to austrian dialect then a vast majority of germany.

Italys divide is north to south. The richer far more industries north seperating itself from the more rural south, economically and historically. While the seperation partys are very unlikely to win, they have a better chance at succeding then most other partys promoting breakaway nations in europe.

Germany usually also has a north south divide, protestant and flat north, vs catholic, mountainous south, though this changed with the cold war. Artifically, the biggest difference is now between west and east. One far poorer and linguisticly different with a very noticable way of speaking. This slowly fades away since the decades of reunification as generations pass, but it shows how man made circumstances can also create a divide that shouldnt usually be there. Same with austria, for as long as german is a concept its obvious austria belongs in there, yet WW1 and 2 lead to a seperation, which lead to austrians to no longer be seen as just yet another group of germans, like saxons or bavarians. They speak the same language, plenty of TV broadcasts are used for both nations, as both understand it, they are tied together throghout 95% of their history, yet these days saying austrian is german feels just a bit to brown to mention in public. Again, man made distinctions in cultural regions.

So, back to Italy and Germany. I think the difference in unifying regional cultures wasnt as big as you may think, and the advantage that was there by the germans, can be mainly lead to industrialisation and prosperity. Things like railways made the world smaller, and the more there are, the closer the people a state over feel to you. Making your country, feel like one big natural region, instead of a bunch of seperate ones artificially strung together.

Italy is still not unified really. Around the time of the 2008 election there a Lega Nord official (the 2IC I think) said that it was not the unification of Italy (in 1861 or whenever) but the separation of Africa.

I have only a slight idea of Italian and German history, however, if I had to guess I would say that Italy has a stronger degree of "cultural division" because historically it's regions had very different influences. The south of Italy remained under Spanish rule for a long time, and had more contact with the Arabs, as for the North it experimented more"freedom". They were safer from the Spanish and other influences, and were able to develop "by themselves". Central Italy was ruled directly by the pope for ages. Also, we can't forget that the sense of "cultural identity" comes from the 19th century, before then language was not a major cultural marker, but because modern Italian has very distinct dialects, they might have remained aa means to locals maintain the fragmentation that once existed. That's a wild guess tho.

Simply because it is not completely true. Most of those who present Italy in this way are usually non-Italians who tend to misunderstand the behaviors and ways of Italians. It remains true that, especially in the past, theories have been devised, even with a racial background, which tried to justify the backwardness of the south by defining the Italian south as another race, but also in Germany the population was divided into different races (Alpine and Nordic), but this is a borderline case that goes beyond what most people think. Italians tend to highlight their regional peculiarities and this, abroad, is taken as confirmation that there is a lack of a sense of national unity which, however, exists and is present. And this sense has been present since the Middle Ages, Dante, father of the Italian language, spoke of Italy as a political and cultural concept, Machiavelli in 1500 wrote essays to explain why Italy was not politically united like France and always in the 16th century Italian intellectuals debated what should be the common Italian language to be used in all Italian states, a common language in which books and laws would then be written and which would be used in universities. I could go on to give thousands of examples, but the fact is that many think that the concept of the Italian nation came out of nowhere in the 19th century, while it was already present in the minds of much of Italy.
I note that this reference to divisions is often remarked in the youtube videos of foreigners and Italians who have a superficial culture, often obtained from the vision of so-called videos. I can assure you that both at the popular level, as a man in the street, and at the academic level, in the universities, no one will tell you that the internal difference between Italians was so greater than the German one.

[removed]

Outside of cheering on their national soccer team, Italians pretty much still identify with their regions.

IIRC Germany was technically a confederal system with the non-Prussian parts of the state having representation, in contrast the North of Italy conquered the South.

Germany wasn't united and it isn't now.

Ask someone from Bavaria if they feel the same as someone from the norther regions

It's because it actually does and did have the same Problems, but they were less felt and viewed as less of a Problem. A person from North Germany and one from far east or south will have trouble understanding one another if they speak dialect.

The political structures that emerged were fundamentally different though, Germany in both its modern form and its 1871 form is a Federal State (and in the German Empire the States even had their own armies), whilst Italy is not, and has never been. (A result of the two States formation history)

Italy was unified by Force by Garibaldi and the House of Savoy, in a manner of mixed coup and conquest, but significantly unlike Germany, which whilst having a war for hegemony, ultimately formed by consensus.

As such, the cultural polarisation of "these people are enforcing their will on us" - i.e. North Italy (remember the King was from the House of Savoia in the North) over South Italy was more significantly felt. Whereas in Germany, the regions were at least somewhat represented.

[removed]

Because Bismarck had a plan. Bismark always had a plan

Germany was probably at least as divided as Italy (Germany was also divided between between protestant and catholic whereas italy was almost 100% catholic). But Germany had a much more powerful and competent state and a much better pitch to its citizens- being the richest and most dynamic european economy and all- which allowed it to paper over the differences.

Savoy-Sardinia basically conquered the rest of Italy in a relatively few years after local nationalists had weakened the despots. Prussia sort of did the same in Norths Germany , states that joined an alliances against it ceased to exist after the wars (the ones i feel worst about are Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, Frankfurt and Anhalt-Zerbst,), but it took centuries and they ran up against th e Southern and other unbreakable states. And this is probably irrelevant crap.

[removed]

Tell me your not from Europe without telling me your nit from Europe

Study the existence and wars of the Holy Roman Empire, how the Italian states broke away, how the Papal States were formed, et al.

[removed]

I'm not qualified to say that one was more culturally divided than the other, but if I were to say it I think a geographic argument might be made. Italy is thin and stratified N-S, with seas to either side and to the south. Germany is rounder, and historically has had aggressive neighbors to the E and W. Not to be a German apologist, but if you had France on one side, and Poland and Russia on the other, you'd probably do well by working together to defend yourselves. That's not to say Italy hasn't ever been invaded, but an area with coasts is easier to defend than a relatively landlocked area smack in the middle of competing empires, with little to no real geographic barriers. The more precarious German situation probably made them less able to admit cultural divisions.

bavaria?

>I'm german and never noticed us having cultural divides like that. I'm specifically talking about the first unified Germany 1871, not 1990.

Ever been to Bavaria? Tried to have a long talk with an Ostfriese? Or what about religion, even in 21st century there are differences between catholic and protestant regions (Italy still catholic). Perhaps you dont see this bc you are German and are used to it, they are more visible for non-Germans

Yes indeed my family came from a little b town between Rome and Naples.

Keep in mind Italy managed to unify with their southern half. Germany tried but failed (Austria).

Geography plays a part. The Apenines cross through all the peninsula.

Mountains even today creates difficult for transport, communication.

One nice thing about Mussolini was that during his reign, he attempted to unite Italy under a single, common Italian dialect. This attempt was thwarted by WWII.

Northern Italy, likely thanks to the seaport of Venice, has historically enjoyed greater wealth through trade and gold. The North has long yearned to separate from the South due to this division of wealth.

Stuff I learned from an introduction to Italian language and culture thanks to an Italian teacher supporting the United States Army in northern Italy in 1990.

well for about 13 years there was this nasty little Austrian in charge of Germany who pretty much killed or persecuted anyone not of Aryan persuasion

As far as Italy is concetned its unification did not begin to occur until the 20th century. With influences and vying for control from forces like The Church, Medici, Borgia and Even the Sicilian mobs keeping them separate

My only guess would be geography/topography, and local culture. Italians seem like they might kill each other over who makes the best olive oil or cheese. I don’t see many Germans arguing over which region makes the best Finkenwerder Speckscholle. Historically I think Germans are culturally more organized, disciplined, regimented, and this spills over to government.