Habsburgs vs Bourbons

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

They were both absolute trash (proud Italian, normal)
I only vote Habsburgs because the Grand Dukes of Tuscany were Habsburg-Lorraine, and they did some good things.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

What about the Spanish Bourbons in Southern Italy? Charles III of Spain did a lot of good in Naples and Sicily, countries that had previously been ignored and neglected under the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs.

You answered it yourself: "Spanish Bourbons in Southern Italy". All anti-unification forces are inherently trash. Also I have a special hate for neo-bourbonists (nostalgic knuckleheads who think the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was some very advanced nation and other revisionist swill).

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

What about the Spanish Bourbons in Southern Italy? Charles III of Spain did a lot of good in Naples and Sicily, countries that had previously been ignored and neglected under the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs.

You answered it yourself: "Spanish Bourbons in Southern Italy". All anti-unification forces are inherently trash. Also I have a special hate for neo-bourbonists (nostalgic knuckleheads who think the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was some very advanced nation and other revisionist swill).

I will tell you what a friend from Sicily told me about the italian reunification:
"Naples and Palermo were among the most developed cities in the world pre unification. Look what they are now."

The post-unification was also riddled with disasters, a lot of disasters, but to say that Naples and Palermo were among the most developed cities in the world is quite absurd.
In any case, true neo-bourbonists (which your friend likely isn't) are unpatriotic charlatans.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

What about the Spanish Bourbons in Southern Italy? Charles III of Spain did a lot of good in Naples and Sicily, countries that had previously been ignored and neglected under the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs.

You answered it yourself: "Spanish Bourbons in Southern Italy". All anti-unification forces are inherently trash. Also I have a special hate for neo-bourbonists (nostalgic knuckleheads who think the Kingdom of Two Sicilies was some very advanced nation and other revisionist swill).

One needn’t be a neo-Bourbonist to recognize the simple fact that the Bourbons were far preferable to the despotic rule of the House of Austria. I’m curious as to what you think of the rest of my post as well, besides the brief mention of Italy. And please don’t call it the “Kingdom of Two Sicilies”; that name makes no sense and is merely 19th century drivel.

I didn't read the rest of your post, because I was only answering to the part where you were replying to me. And I don't know what to say, it was the last name of the country before it was annexed, if you think it is a stupid name, you can complain with Ferdinand I.
Now that I've read the rest of your post, I find it very interesting, although I can't really comment on your Middle Eastern analogy.
Something on which we might weirdly agree on is that in my frame of reference both houses were not as bad as the Church State (Pius IX).

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Could all the Habsburg voters please explain themselves?

I did that as you've seen. Of course I don't think anyone else voted based on Risorgimento concerns.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Could all the Habsburg voters please explain themselves?

I did that as you've seen. Of course I don't think anyone else voted based on Risorgimento concerns.

I must say, in my opinion it's a bit short-sighted to base your view solely off the role the two dynasties played in opposing 19th century Italian unification. In the centuries-long history of the royal families, the little Italian states they ruled for 50 years in the 19th century barely matter. Why not judge them on the extraordinary impact they had in shaping European and world history as leaders of the powerful states of France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire in previous centuries? I get that Italy matters more to you for obvious reasons but still; the Bourbons weren't even ruling France yet when the Valois and Habsburgs carved up Italy together in the 16th century so I think it's safe to say the Habsburgs did more damage.

Because:
1. I like to play identity politics on this forum
2. I don't like actually having to do a comprehensive research before answering this kind of polls - I'm not as much of a history nerd as you are
3. Mine was a vote for the Habsburg-Lorraine

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I have no love lost for the Bourbons post-Louis XIII, but the Habsburgs were one of the most consistently evil force throughout European history (the Hohenzollerns got even worse once they became prominent, but that happened late enough that they probably still rank behind overall), so it's not a hard choice at all.

And yeah, Southern Italy has a lot of legitimate grievances to voice against their Northern brethren, but neo-Bourbonists are utter clowns.

Do you know who historian Alessandro Barbero is? He once had a debate with some neo-Bourbonist "leaders" and absolutely destroyed them.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

What exactly is a "Neo-Bourbonist"?

People who spout pseudohistorical takes about the supposed incredible technological advancement of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and have Bourbon nostalgia, basically.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I have no love lost for the Bourbons post-Louis XIII, but the Habsburgs were one of the most consistently evil force throughout European history (the Hohenzollerns got even worse once they became prominent, but that happened late enough that they probably still rank behind overall), so it's not a hard choice at all.

And yeah, Southern Italy has a lot of legitimate grievances to voice against their Northern brethren, but neo-Bourbonists are utter clowns.

Do you know who historian Alessandro Barbero is? He once had a debate with some neo-Bourbonist "leaders" and absolutely destroyed them.

Holy sh*t. If I know him? I listen to every single talk by him that comes up on my Youtube feed! The guy is a legend, I've learned a lot from him. I'm even following a Barbero meme page on Facebook lmao

And yeah, I've seen him epically own that neo-Bourbonist with facts and logic. Fascinating stuff. The audience was stacked against him though.

BEAUTIFUL!

I think I have watched all the videos of his conferences at Festival della Mente in Sarzana (Sarzana notoriously being just 10 km or so away from La Spezia, I have actually never went to the festival live). I also watched a still video that was a registration of his radio lessons about the Ottoman Empire... man, that was fascinating. Although probably nothing is as fascinating as the chronicle of Salimbene de Adam, what a f***ing legend.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

My absolute favorite is his talk on Marc Bloch. I was more or less familiar with Bloch's political views and his role in the resistance, and vaguely familiar with his historiographic contributions, but he paints such a vivid picture of the man that has turned him into a personal hero of mine. In a similar vein I love what he had to say about Garibaldi - again I was broadly familiar but my understanding didn't scratch the surface of what a legendary badass he was. I've been promoting Garibaldi Day as an alternative to Columbus Day for years, and now I feel it more strongly than ever.

His series on the medieval mind is excellent too. It really got me into medieval history, which had long been a blind spot for me. I love the installment on Fra' Salimbene, but the other two are fascinating as well. It's a really well-done trilogy.

And yeah his radio series are excellent too - probably the most in-depth historical material you'll find anywhere on Youtube. I loved the one on the Ottoman Empire, but the one on Charlemagne and Frederick the Great Asshole were excellent as well.

I'd never thought about this before long ago because, well, literally who cares about Columbus Day in actual Italy, but in the last months (spent with a lot of browsing of a United States centric site) I've started believing that as well. GARIBALDI DAY! GARIBALDI DAY!

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I have no love lost for the Bourbons post-Louis XIII, but the Habsburgs were one of the most consistently evil force throughout European history (the Hohenzollerns got even worse once they became prominent, but that happened late enough that they probably still rank behind overall), so it's not a hard choice at all.

And yeah, Southern Italy has a lot of legitimate grievances to voice against their Northern brethren, but neo-Bourbonists are utter clowns.

Do you know who historian Alessandro Barbero is? He once had a debate with some neo-Bourbonist "leaders" and absolutely destroyed them.

I believe I've already read one of his books actually, but on an entirely different subject, the barbarian invasions and conquest of Western Rome

HOLY MARY. The immensity of Barbero going international. His main subject is actually the Middle Ages, in any case.