Any Idea how to butterfly nationalism?

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Do you have any POD that would result of this idea never becoming dominant or never existing?
Nationalism is one of those thing that's hard to prevent but probably doable if you go back far enough. I think the French Revolution must be prevented from happening at minimum. Not usre of the American one, on one hand it was kinda sorta nationalistic, on the other hand there wasn't an American national identity yet when it happened.
 
Nationalism is one of those thing that's hard to prevent but probably doable if you go back far enough. I think the French Revolution must be prevented from happening at minimum. Not usre of the American one, on one hand it was kinda sorta nationalistic, on the other hand there wasn't an American national identity yet when it happened.

There was definitely a state identity though and for the purpose of this prompt probably counts as popular nationalism.
 
Personally I think a good PoD - at least in terms of buying time and using the "I am a citizen of Rome" line of thought would be a Successful Majorian - if only because any victory there would require the assimilation and integration of the Foederati, and through that develop better solutions for immigration pressures (not that they'd be called that) in the long term.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't a magic bullet - but you've got time. Your next big contentions (at least from a European perspective, as there were other nationalities that could develop seperately) - are a "Roman" vs "Persian" idea. (Much like the Greek vs Persian) - or West vs East.

You'll probably, assuming good things and no disintegration, have a situation where again "I am a Gaul, but I am Roman", "I am a Greek but I am Roman", "I am a Frank but I am Roman". Etc.

As to the effects, this might be the effect of larger states but I imagine you'd have some more vast projects to improve certain situations, like the Netherlands Delta works (heck, the Netherlands themselves). If only for grandeur and sheer resource capacity.

I also think that you'd likely have much bigger wars, as anationalistic Empires are capable of wielding much larger armies. As a result, you need larger armies to oppose them. However, these armies are not guaranteed to scale 1:1, in fact, you may have a smaller percentage of the population in field armies, and garrisons combined - simply because there are fewer external borders to fight along.

Alternatively, you have a solution where the state actively breaks down nations, especially freshly conquered ones in favour of their preferred nation. I've discussed this with the idea of Janissaries before, but that idea could be applied in any period. It would be brutal, but you invade, capture the residents, settle the region with the soldiers that conquered it, distribute the captive residents in the far corners of the Empire and brainwash the kids.

So yeah, you've got a form of unified multiculturalism of a different era, or... state-built mono-cultures. Neither are exactly pretty.

(Nobody said that butterflying nationalism was prettier than nationalism).
 
Personally I think a good PoD - at least in terms of buying time and using the "I am a citizen of Rome" line of thought would be a Successful Majorian - if only because any victory there would require the assimilation and integration of the Foederati, and through that develop better solutions for immigration pressures (not that they'd be called that) in the long term.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't a magic bullet - but you've got time. Your next big contentions (at least from a European perspective, as there were other nationalities that could develop seperately) - are a "Roman" vs "Persian" idea. (Much like the Greek vs Persian) - or West vs East.

You'll probably, assuming good things and no disintegration, have a situation where again "I am a Gaul, but I am Roman", "I am a Greek but I am Roman", "I am a Frank but I am Roman". Etc.

As to the effects, this might be the effect of larger states but I imagine you'd have some more vast projects to improve certain situations, like the Netherlands Delta works (heck, the Netherlands themselves). If only for grandeur and sheer resource capacity.

I also think that you'd likely have much bigger wars, as anationalistic Empires are capable of wielding much larger armies. As a result, you need larger armies to oppose them. However, these armies are not guaranteed to scale 1:1, in fact, you may have a smaller percentage of the population in field armies, and garrisons combined - simply because there are fewer external borders to fight along.

Alternatively, you have a solution where the state actively breaks down nations, especially freshly conquered ones in favour of their preferred nation. I've discussed this with the idea of Janissaries before, but that idea could be applied in any period. It would be brutal, but you invade, capture the residents, settle the region with the soldiers that conquered it, distribute the captive residents in the far corners of the Empire and brainwash the kids.

So yeah, you've got a form of unified multiculturalism of a different era, or... state-built mono-cultures. Neither are exactly pretty.

(Nobody said that butterflying nationalism was prettier than nationalism).

How is that not nationalism?
 
It seems like it would be more like "civic nationalism", instead of the ethnic, linguistic, or religious-based nationalism that's become dominant OTL.

Maybe dominant in Europe and Asia but iAmerica civic nationalism is the dominant form of nationalism. And nobody would say that America is not nationalistic.
 
A stronger Russian Empire would be a good start, I think. Before Russification policies really began, the Russian imperial bureaucracy was heavily influenced by the German bureaucrats that made up a fifth of the positions. From what I've read, K.V. Nessel'rode was the Foreign Minister from 1816 to 1856 (40 years!) and hardly spoke any Russian at all. Nicholas the First's secret police department was so staffed with German professionals that it was called the German department. I view it all as probably a result of serfdom, which served to artificially restrict the number of Russians who could be educated to fill in these roles. A stronger imperial state that manages to even more effectively oppress the Russian serfs and continue importing foreign professionals for its clerks and intellectuals would be an awful nightmare for the majority of the people living under it, but would be surprisingly cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic.

I also believe that the Ottoman Empire was somewhat similar as well during the 19th century.
 
How is that not nationalism?

As others have said, it is probably more akin to civic nationalism than anything else.

However, I'm not so sure self-identification as part of a group is easy to destroy. So I focused on ensuring that the nation-state is never created, and have the Roman world defined not by the nation you belong to, but the state you belong to.
 
As others have said, it is probably more akin to civic nationalism than anything else.

However, I'm not so sure self-identification as part of a group is easy to destroy. So I focused on ensuring that the nation-state is never created, and have the Roman world defined not by the nation you belong to, but the state you belong to.

Which as an American is the only nationalism that I know. I figured that everyone would identify with where they live and the state they are a part of.
 
Maybe dominant in Europe and Asia but iAmerica civic nationalism is the dominant form of nationalism. And nobody would say that America is not nationalistic.

Though I don't want to veer too much into politics, American nationalism has always been deeply entangled with an ever-expanding racial "whiteness". Non-whites were de facto prevented from full participation in the body politic until the 1960s, at least.

I don't think you can stop the idea of nationalism from ever existing but you can certainly stop it from being dominant. A muted Protestant Reformation, either through a Luther who is eliminated early on or compromised with by Church forces probably results in dynastic, Catholic monarchies tied by familial bonds staying in power much longer. Without a Thirty Years' War and a Peace of Westphalia to formally acknowledge that states have independent rights and powers I would think you'd reduce national impulses.
 
Personally I think a good PoD - at least in terms of buying time and using the "I am a citizen of Rome" line of thought would be a Successful Majorian - if only because any victory there would require the assimilation and integration of the Foederati, and through that develop better solutions for immigration pressures (not that they'd be called that) in the long term.

Whilst that might well butterfly modern nationalism, I think a POD roughly 1300 years before the desired effect seems a bit like overkill.
 
Popular Nationalism in my view is a reaction to the penetration of the state into the personal life of people. Before 1800 this penetration was very limited. After 1800 statecontrol rised dramaticaly through the increase of communication and infrastructure technology. A measure or law from the capital couldn't be ignored because of distance or remoteness. The peoples response was twofolded, either they got influenced by the state (through education and military service) to take over the message of bonding to the state or they rejected the states message. So popular Nationalism is therefore conected to technological developments and in my view unavoidable.
 
Top