Why has the southern half of Italy been historically poorer and less well developed than the northern half for hundreds...

Why has the southern half of Italy been historically poorer and less well developed than the northern half for hundreds of years now? This goes back to medieval times and continued throughout the industrial age. Their geographic position doesn't look too bad, so what happened?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fmwH7TOdGMA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Culture of lazy

The North is closer to civilization. The South is surrounded by sea and nothingness.

They live in an Arcadia. They have everything they need.

Northern Italy benefits from Central European geneflow

Southern Italy is hampered by Arab geneflow

The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was rich.

It should be known that North and South are culturally different, if you ever visit both Veneto and Sicily you'll get two countries in one trip.

So things that people like say are both wrong and right.
Mostly right tho.

They race mixed with the arabs

Inbreeding

>This goes back to medieval times
Source? As far as I know the difference became considerable only around the Industrial Age.
Anyway, part of the reason is that it was completely mismanaged and basically ignored by the government after Italy's unification.
Epic meme.

Arab admixture in southern italy is negligible.

youtube.com/watch?v=fmwH7TOdGMA

>As far as I know the difference became considerable only around the Industrial Age.
The difference started becoming considerable in the early modern period. Southern Italy's economy was deeply linked with Spain's, when the spaniards exited their golden age their whole empire suffered a downright massive economic downturn. And unlike northern Italy, where countries like Venice had a fairly diversified economy (there's this common idea that Venice went to shit because of the americas, but it was actually due to the massive effort required to fight the ottos; even in the late 18th century venetian economy was rather good) and were not totally reliant on transmediterranean trade, southern Italy suffered when international trade focus shifted from the Med to the Atlantic.
There's this myth that southern Italy was rich before the Savoia came. The truth is that the house of Bourbon-Two Sicilies was filthy rich, and the kingdom's coffers were full. But aside from Naples and Palermo the whole country was abjectly poor and extremely backward.

On the other hand, greek admixture isn't.
Invaders don't really change the gene pool, colonizers on the other hand do. snow and sandniggers didn't really change anything, but the deep south was very deeply colonized and it shows.

hence why arabs have the highest gdp per capita

(I know oil, I'm just avin a giggle)

All that "lets blame Spaniards for South Italian poverty" tends to forget that Milan was a Spanish stronghold too.

You may not be one of that guys who put all the blame over Spanish shoulders, but I have seen a bunch before so I am wary.

the Kingdom of Naples was the richest Italian region for a very long time

My understanding is that Southern Italy's economy was oriented towards the Mediterranean (big shock, I know), whereas the more northern areas were economically linked with Continental Europe.

Thus, the rise of the Ottoman Empire indirectly ruined Southern Italy.

Monarchy and the burgeois against communists and, guess what, other burgeois.

>Milan was a Spanish stronghold too
Yes but it was in a far better position economically to begin with, and it was much more autonomous besides.
Also of course I'm not saying it's the spaniards' fault that the south is poor today. Venice suffered massively from the austrian occupation too, yet nowadays they're one of the most productive regions in Italy and Europe. It's a compounding of factors.
The question however was when did the difference become considerable, and that's pretty much when.