Talk:History of the Republic of Venice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Article I Think Should Be Merged[edit]

This article shares much information with the article Republic of Venice. It's kind of silly having to go to another article that is very, very closely related when it would work just fine within Republic of Venice. Even though it is longish, I suggest that it would be more useful if it was merged into Republic of Venice. Estridaldrea 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section of "History" in "Republic of Venice" seems to be extracted from this article. This article can be simply merged into the section of "History". --原子力の熊 (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one is already too long to merge, but perfectly capable of plenty of expansion. The section at the Republic article is perhaps 50% of the length of this. The real problem is there is very little else at the Republic article, which should include more on the system government, the territories ruled, mention art & architecture etc, & generally at least link to many other articles we have on Venetian topics. Further overloading the emphasis on history is not the way to go. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it simply a historic theme? --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Republic of Venice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 15th Centurty[edit]

From the article:

"By 1410, Venice had a navy of some 3,300 ships (manned by 36,000 men)"

This makes no sense, however, I don't have the actual numbers. Can someone correct this, please? Khayyam 77 (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of Venice[edit]

This gives a rather simplistic and dated view of the decline of the Republic, which does not take into account the fact that the late Republic was actually quite economically, culturally, and politically vibrant.

The policy of neutrality was a rational one in the face of bigger and militaristic powers that would have gradually drawn the Venetian Republic into conflicts which it could ill-afford. The War of Candia and the early eighteenth-century brief reconquest of Morea were hugely costly exercises that left the Venetian state with fiscal problems that militated against future conflicts if they could be avoided.

It is clear, however, that despite the limitations of the Venetian oligarchic system it continued to function with some bureaucratic efficiency and maintained the loyalty of much of the population. Jean Georgelin's work Venise au siècle des lumières 1669–1797 (Paris: Mouton, 1978) demonstrated the exaggerated view of economic decline. Trade never again attained the dominance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but this was more to do with the rise of the Atlantic economy than of the competition of Genoa, Livorno, or the Habsburgs' Adriatic rival Trieste.

Giovanni Scarabello in Gaetano Cozzi, Michael Knapton, Giovanni Scarabello, La Repubblica di Venezia nell'età moderna : dal 1517 alla fine della Repubblica (Turin: UTET, 1992) reveals a more complex picture of the political system than the usual narrative of decline. To give one example, the ecclesiastical reforms initiated in the 1760s by Tron were more radical than those of Pombal in Portugal or Joseph II in the Habsburg lands.

The fall of Venice and its loss of independence had almost nothing to do with any sort of decadence or decline. They were the simple product of the unparalleled aggression of the French revolutionary army of Italy led by the young Napoleon Bonaparte, and his unscrupulous dealings with the defensively minded Austrians when they made peace. As David Laven has remarked (Venice and Venetia under the Habsburgs, 1815–1835 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), the Republic did not commit a slow suicide, but was murdered by Bonaparte. (It might be noted that he similarly vanquished many supposedly stronger states as well.)

W (˜˜˜˜) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venetianist (talk • contribs) 22:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a Reliable Source that supports your statements to discuss for the improvement of the article? If not, refresh WP:FORUM. 104.169.24.168 (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

It is simply not true to say that eighteenth-century Venice largely depended on the tourist trade to survive. There was extensive industry (for example, candles, glass, book publishing in Venice itself, textiles in Vicenza). See Georgelin (1978). The numbers of foreign visitors were not sufficient to maintain a population of around 100,000 in Venice itself. Also this statement regarding tourism disregards the fact that the Venetian lands (both the Stato da Mar and the Terraferma) were part of the Republic and obviously NOT dependent on tourism.

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venetianist (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of the Mongols[edit]

Numerous RS's are out there of Subotai's involvement with the Venetian republic's outposts in Russia, as well as Marco Polo's account. 104.169.24.168 (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

only one mention of plague[edit]

and it is not the onset of the notorious black death - october 1347. 65.95.195.193 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Republic_of_Venice&oldid=1204149365"