On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
> I don't see why it would support the "colonization" argument,
because the period of Italy's decline corresponds pretty exactly with the
period of its colonization by outside nations.
> except in the sense that wars and invasion disrupted economic
> activity.
Wars and invasions between the independent city states were a constant
feature of Italy's economic golden period.
One could argue that event of those wars led to colonization by outsiders.
But then it would be military dynamics, and not economic dynamics, that
determined the relative economic place of Italy.
> Either way, the debate on the decline of Italy is something I know
> next to nothing, but my inclination is that Italy declined mainly for
> internal reasons
That's what I'm suggesting can't be presumed. I'm not saying Williams
can't make a case that accidental factors outweighed the effects of
colonization. But he can't make a case if he ignores it. And on the face
of it, if a country's economic path changes drastically after its been
colonized, doesn't it seem like the likeliest explanation, which would
have to be argued away before you offered another?
And while we're on the subject, the Reformation -- and the subsequent huge
decline of monies to going Rome -- also played a pretty big role after
1520.
In short, my inclination is that technology and economic tradition played
relatively small roles in the relative fall of Italy.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________
Michael Pollak................New York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
