ey assumed primitive having some tools they have never seen before. Have they acted traditionally and culturally by ignoring the Arab science, math and medicine of the time; would they have been the same or better off? This is a question still troubles the minds of the historians, but sociologists claim that by accepting dominance for a while they gained more as a society (3). History also showed that interactions with historical enemies could be very beneficial politically and commercially. In the eleventh century, Venetian Republic was enormously strengthened and consolidated as a result of the Crusades (4). All these examples set a profound ground that Europeans tend to find the holes in their history and fill them up to do better at present time instead of sticking to cultural cliches. Every great historical institution is composed of several ingredients and is the product of a long process of evolution. For example, Feudalism was the result of the fusion of Roman, Christian, German, and Celtic elements, although the weight of these different elements cannot exactly specified (5). In short, without knowing yours and others history there can be neither culture nor traditions. This, by itself, is the simplest answer that can be given to the debate of culture against history when building or reshaping political institutions.
             At this point, analyzing one of the model countries would be appropriate. Before getting into the institutions of Italy, let us look at the history of Italy or in this case Romans. According to legends, Romulus founded Rome in 753 B.C. The Romans began their expansion from the sixth century on and founded the Roman Republic in 509 B.C. Almost ten centuries later, in 476 A.C. the Western Roman Empire totally disappeared. From the tenth to fifteenth centuries, powerful city -states like Venice and Genoa developed. From the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, Italy was the stake in the rivalry between the Habsbur...