This book was convenient, but didn't move me toward a sense of understanding something deeper, as I'd hoped. It's called The Shortest History, so you can't expect consummate investigation, but it could have refined its priorities a little. It felt like a list of every famous person and event in the history of Italy -- perhaps what you expect in the shortest history of a place, although its self-imposed obligation to such a list felt ironically verbose, at the expense of deeper understanding. Sometimes the narrative even jumped briefly back in time, as though the author realized he forgot to mention someone who has a Wikipedia page and felt a pang of completionist guilt at the omission. Given the same number of pages, I would rather hear more about what EXPLAINS and UNITES the history of Italy than hear every notable Italian-sounding proper noun I'll never remember. As such, the "shortest history" could have been shorter, or, at the same length, could have been more interesting.
I get why everyone talks about the "great men" of history: it's easier to understand history when it's personified, and in most of the cultures we learn about around here, it's men in leadership positions. I am getting tired of it though -- not just the fixation on the male leader, but the fixation on individuals at all, as opposed to broader trends. Renaissance Florence wasn't an illumination because Leonardo lived there; he's just a personification of the illumination; it's Renaissance Florence itself that bred Leonardo. Fascism didn't take over because Mussolini took over, Mussolini took over because the time and place were ripe for him; in fact, they MADE him. These "great men" spur history on, but they don't make it. The wheel of history is always rolling; perhaps they kick it and it speeds up a little, or yaws one degree in a new direction, but that wheel is steadfast. It rolls without them. The history of Italy is not Caesar-Leonardo-Mussolini, they're just some of the most famous and memorable blips, since we as humans like thinking in terms of humans, especially in terms of superhuman personalities.
The author makes an effort to comment on the influential women throughout history, but typically at the end of a chapter, too easily suggesting it's an afterthought, which is bitterly contrapuntal.
He's a solid writer, not a great one. There were lots of clunky passages, of the kind I would write, only I don't get paid for this. It can't be easy, cramming so many facts while sustaining a flow. It gets clunky and overloaded. But again, I feel like he could have omitted some facts and actually ended up with a richer vision of Italian history, through more focus on the threads comprising the garment instead of the many flashy features of the garment.
One of the most thought-provoking things I learned was hardly about Italy at all. It was that the Normans descended from the Vikings (supposedly?), which shot me down a rabbit hole of Norman/Norseman/Northman.
Another interesting thing: Northern Italians were prejudiced against the Southern, like Union states might be against Confederate; in fact, Southern Italy was an entirely separate kingdom for quite a while, so the divide is probably not just ethnic but sociological -- the Kingdom of Naples was probably genuinely different from the kingdoms of the North, and so it wasn't pure racism or anything like that that caused that tension. As a side note, most of the Italian immigrants to the US were Southern Italians, and that's also where the mafia originated.
I'll stop before I offend any Italians with my juvenile grasp of their history. (I guess that juvenile grasp doesn't reflect well on this book)