Italians often joke that the North and the South of the boot are different countries.
But you would've been able to spot this North/South divide centuries ago!
A 🧵 on Italy that goes from Ancient Greece to Beppe Grillo (with some food sprinkled along the way)
Starting with some history:
The south ("Magna Graecia") was settled by greeks from 8th to 5th century BC who founded cities like Neapolis (Naples).
They connected the south to their Mediterraenean network and probably surpassed the motherland in population
To this day the genetic admixture of Southern Italians is very similar to modern Greeks.
In contrast Northern Italians are much closer to Spain or Southern France as they share more of the Indo-European admixture.
Let's get a little less abstract: Northern Italians are more likely to have fair hair and eyes.
The Roman Empire united Italy politically, but after its collapse Italy would wait for unification for centuries.
The North would come under under the influence of Charlemagne's empire (the future Holy Roman empire) when it defeated the Germanic Lombards in 774.
The South saw a massive power struggle. The byzantine held major influence in the South, even well after it peaked in the 6th century under Justinian.
Arab Kingdoms also shaped those areas, especially Siciliy, with the Aghlabids Dynasty in the 9th century having a strong foothold. Even when they did not hold direct political power in those areas, Arabs impacted the aread influential through trade and razzias.
The Normans in the end ended up as the victors in the South. The Norman kingdom eventually became (after a very complicated history) the Kingdom of the two Sicilies.
In practice, the Holy Roman Empir's hold on the north was limited, and the North splintered into rival city-states.
The South however remained more politically united but was claimed by both Spain and France. In the end, Spain won the tug of war for the new Kingdom of Naples.
Fast forward to the treaty of Vienna in 1815 and there's a new North-South political divide.
Large chunks of the North now in Austrian hands, but even the duchies of Parma and Modena were indirectly under Austrian control. The Kingdom of the 2 Sicilies still holds the South.
Conditions were tough in 19th century Italy, so many Italians emigrated.
Before 1900 most emigrants came from the north, but after 1900 half came from the less populous south.
(for example in 1900 Lombardy had a population of 4 million vs 2.5 for Calabria)
The north rapidly became the industrial powerhouse of Italy, with the "industrial triangle" of Milan, Turin and Genoa.
Even to this day, the south's rail network is visibly and notoriously underdeveloped relative to the north.
Italy re-united as a Monarchy in 1861
But there's a new North/South divide in 1943 when the Allies land in Sicily: The Grand Council of Fascism arrest Mussolini while Germany carves out a puppet state in the north: the Social Republic of Italy nominally ran by a freed Mussolini.
In 1946, Italians were asked if they wanted to keep the monarchy (which had not been sidelined but not eliminated by the fascists).
The rural conservative south clearly backed the monarchy but the industrial urban north (also the ex-Social Republic) tipped it for the Republic.
A bit of an aside before we talk about modern Italian politics, but this divide on the monarchy makes me think a very interesting theory on the impact of geology and climate on conservative politics which you can read more on below:
After the war, the north-south divide continued, with the south inhospitable electoral land for the Communist Party (PCI) and the Socialist Party (PSI). Here are the results from the 1946, 1968, 1976 and 1987 general elections.
While the South was not swayed by the left in the 20th century, it became a fertile ground for populist parties in the 21st.
The 5 star movement is a very unique populist party (neither "right" nor "left"). Since 2018 it is very strong in the south.
2018/2022 general elections
But the biggest electoral phenomenon in the south isn't 5 Star's success, but rather the staggeringly low voter turnout.
A few modern non-political examples of this divide starting with the more serious ones:
The North has more immigrants, more GDP per capita, fewer gambling problems for teens and less unemployment
Map of the most valuable Italian brands also tells you a lot about the north-south divide.
Moving on to some less serious divides (courtesy of @TheLocalItaly)
-People who say they drink alcohol other than at mealtimes
-Mc Donalds
This however is a dead serious matter:
Not North-South but frankly hilarious:
Thanks for reading this far!
If you want more map and history threads like these I've compiled a few here:
I'm reading Zamoyski's history of Poland and I'm struck about how little Western Europeans are taught about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth!
In 1619, it controlled a quarter/third of Europe's landmass, with a rich culture, a strong education and a proto-democracy.
Europe's imperial political models have always been a mix of the Roman Empire, Charlemagne's/HRE, and maybe sometimes Napoleon's, but never the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was, for its time, very forward-thinking and wealthy.
I'm sure my Eastern European followers are gonna let me know that they've been annoyed by this lack of consideration for ages, but I'm genuinely curious as to why it has been seemingly wiped out from memory in the west.
Imperial borders still shape modern political frontiers.
A small thread:
The Austro-Hungarian Empire lasted for centuries, until it was dislocated post-World War I. But remarkably you'd still be able to find its borders with modern electoral results. Take Romania's 2014 parliamentary election with red and blue being Romania's nominal left and right
More generally, the Austrian empire has left its mark all across around in modern-day Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia and Italy, who all had large parts of their country under Austro-Hungarian rule.
The father of electoral geography argued that the soil had a lasting political impact, one that still pops its head in modern French politics.
A few tweets on conservatism and soils. 🧵 1/17
Siegfired published "Political Landscape of Western France under the 3rd Republic" and identifies 4 factors on electoral behavior
1) Nature of the soils
which leads to 2) Housing structures
which leads to 3) Landownership structures
which leads to 4) Social structures
2/17
Siegfried argues: "geology simultaneously controls the mode of settlement and the mode of exploitation, and in this way, will influence the mode of ownership and class relations, thus end up having a bearing on political life itself."