Nationalism on a smaller scale

In the 19th century, the nationalis movement focused on the importance of large racial groups and language groups. Even though some of the movements wanted to break up empires, they all desired a farily large state.

So, what if a movement was estabolished at the same time that focused on regional culture, and looked towardes county/town/city/countryside increased power instead of grand old nationalism movements. Other than keeping Germany un-unified, what else would it do?

Well Italy would have remained fractured too. France, Britain, Spain, Austria-Hungry all would have disintegrated. Suspicion and fear of the other would have been more rampant I think, It would be a more insular and limited world.

Probably China would have conquered the world. Or perhaps Turkey would have been the preeminent power in Europe and would have harnessed that continents' wealth to dominate the Near East and beyond.

I think the national units already established at the end of the Napoleonic Wars (ie. Britain, Spain and France at least) would continue. Those places already ravaged and divided by the Wars could spliter further. However, one would always have the example of the United States to draw upon as a successful nation state to be emulated.

I'm not saying that the nation state would crumble. . . just grow weaker in favor of locals.

Also, the papal states would probably break up, Prussia would become very unpopular, and alot of great art and music would probably never be created. Education may also dwindle in Europe do to provincial isloation.

The US would probably respect states rights, and stay Jefersonian, possibly leading to a northern revolt at some point.

State imperialism would probably hault, but the already estabolished colonial bussinesses would still be up and at it.

Its probably to late for China and Turkey. Anyhow, if a provincial movement hits the Turkish Empire, they're doomed.

I think I've achieved the impossible: I've found a POD where the greatest world power is. . . . the british east india company?

The tricky thing here is the military dimension. By c. 1800, the problem of raising and deploying armies of a few hundred thousand men had been solved, and were available to the large European states of the time, allowing them to quell breakaway movements and threaten smaller neighbors. Industrialization only makes it worse. The force of "localism" would have to be extremely strong, and operating everywhere, to make fragmentation sustainable.

Notice that in contemporary times things may have changed. Any political unit able to deploy a few nuclear weapons has an effective deterrent against much larger enemies.

But to get dominant localism, I think you need a POD in the 15th century, before France and Castile became proto-national states. One possibility would be earlier development - by just a few decades - of the "trace italienne" or artillery fortress, the ancestor of the Vauban fort, with low thick walls behind a ditch. The standard rap is that local fragmentation was doomed once royal artillery trains could blast down a castle. But an artillery fortress with even a few bronze culverins was a very tough nut to crack, and probably no more costly to build and support than a conventional castle.

Is this viable? Can you get a situation by 1500 where French duchies and Castilian towns have provided themselves with artillery fortresses and scaled down versions of early modern semi-professional armies?

-- Rick

reformer said:

I'm not saying that the nation state would crumble. . . just grow weaker in favor of locals.

Also, the papal states would probably break up, Prussia would become very unpopular, and alot of great art and music would probably never be created. Education may also dwindle in Europe do to provincial isloation.

The US would probably respect states rights, and stay Jefersonian, possibly leading to a northern revolt at some point.

State imperialism would probably hault, but the already estabolished colonial bussinesses would still be up and at it.

Its probably to late for China and Turkey. Anyhow, if a provincial movement hits the Turkish Empire, they're doomed.

I think I've achieved the impossible: I've found a POD where the greatest world power is. . . . the british east india company?

Click to expand...

I think the 19th century, particularly after the Napoleonic Wars, is way too late for such provincial thought and identity. As mentioned above you've had national armies raised. Also, and I think more importantly, the technology and means to 'bind' a nation together is appear like the railroad and the telegraph.

The POD would probably have to be at the very begining of the enlightenment. If there are enough supporters of localism, I don't see why its so impossible for them to win out. . . after all, many armies crumbled and muntinied in the age of revolutions. Cities would have a strong isolationist movement as well. The trick is to do this before steam becomes widely used.

Some nations will still continue. Once you are past, say 1100 (I would go 950) England is so defined as a concept its difficult to really see the rise of regionalism, same is true for Scotland though the islands could still seperate. I would also say that Denmark is clearly defined as a nation by 1100 and China, well the concept of China as one nation (within changing boundaries) is fixed since the 4th Century AD, perhaps earlier?

Nations like Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc if you go back far enough could remain divided.

Though if we don't get Nationalism and the expansionism that goes with it, do we still see the rise of overseas empires?