Earlier rise of Nationalism

Susano

Banned
The claim that people in the middle ages couldnt identify themselves as German, French, etc. is simply ludicrous. The concept itself existed - IBC named Ottokar, and John Frederick I of Saxony in the Schmalkaldic War refused to be ceremonially captured by anybody else than a German. And the Hansa, that was in the beginning (before it became a cities league) just the collection of German (sans the Low Countries) traders, with "Hansa" itself indeed being a generic term and that particular hansa being the German Hansa. Or damn, early medieval Germany, where identities werent (yet) about being German, but about being Frankish or Saxon. Likewise, of course, in England Normann and Saxon. And Machiavellis The Prince is of course full of Italian Nationalism.

Trying to seperate "tribalism" from national identity is absurd, because its a gradual thing. For example, in ancient times, we call the single Celtic and Germanic peoples "tribes", yet they already were so large that not everybody knew everybody - which, as you claim, identifies tribes. So, instead we would have to qualify them as nations, and I would argue they were - its people surely did have a great sense of identity of who they were. (Same of course with Republican Rome, the great rhethorical speeches of that time were full of calling upon Roman identity, for another example of early national identuty). Its just that when those "tribes" settled down and started forming lasting realms that the focus shifted from "tribal"-based realms (of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Saxons, Bayuvarians, Thuringians, Langobards...) to dynastical realms.

Thus, the rise of political nationalism during the French Revolution was a return to normalcy, even, with that dynasty-based intermezzo being just that, an intermezzo.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
My comment was intended for Susano, whom I was referring to, and with whom I've had this debate on several previous occasions. Every time he will make a similar claim, that a sense of national identity has always existed, and when pressed to substantiate his claim will come up with some apocryphal anecdote. That's not good enough. I want to see that claim backed up by actual academic evidence.

As for you, if you're interested in the topic, I'll recommand two essential books I've mentioned previously: Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson and Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 by Eric Hobsbawm.

The problem are that you discuss modern nationalism, which honestly are a product of the 18th and 19th century, and while that hasn't existed forever, denying that national kinship existed before it, seem more a idealogical counter movement to the romantic movement of the 19th century and a protest against the more unpleasant national movements of the 20th century especially nazism, but also the other radical nationalistic movements of the day. National identity are mentioned as motivation for restricting peoples access to thrones often enough in history, that it seem clear that a national identity did exist.
 

Hendryk

Banned
The claim that people in the middle ages couldnt identify themselves as German, French, etc. is simply ludicrous. The concept itself existed - IBC named Ottokar, and John Frederick I of Saxony in the Schmalkaldic War refused to be ceremonially captured by anybody else than a German.
And here comes the anecdote I was expecting.

I reiterate my position: that's not good enough. If you're so sure of yourself, why don't you give us something more solid? Like actual research? Unless every single political scientist is part of a secret cabal to cover up the existence of national identity before the modern era?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
The claim that people in the middle ages couldnt identify themselves as German, French, etc. is simply ludicrous. The concept itself existed - IBC named Ottokar, and John Frederick I of Saxony in the Schmalkaldic War refused to be ceremonially captured by anybody else than a German. And the Hansa, that was in the beginning (before it became a cities league) just the collection of German (sans the Low Countries) traders, with "Hansa" itself indeed being a generic term and that particular hansa being the German Hansa. Or damn, early medieval Germany, where identities werent (yet) about being German, but about being Frankish or Saxon. Likewise, of course, in England Normann and Saxon. And Machiavellis The Prince is of course full of Italian Nationalism.

Trying to seperate "tribalism" from national identity is absurd, because its a gradual thing. For example, in ancient times, we call the single Celtic and Germanic peoples "tribes", yet they already were so large that not everybody knew everybody - which, as you claim, identifies tribes. So, instead we would have to qualify them as nations, and I would argue they were - its people surely did have a great sense of identity of who they were. (Same of course with Republican Rome, the great rhethorical speeches of that time were full of calling upon Roman identity, for another example of early national identuty). Its just that when those "tribes" settled down and started forming lasting realms that the focus shifted from "tribal"-based realms (of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Saxons, Bayuvarians, Thuringians, Langobards...) to dynastical realms.

Thus, the rise of political nationalism during the French Revolution was a return to normalcy, even, with that dynasty-based intermezzo being just that, an intermezzo.

I disagree most of those Germanic tribes based their national identity on a specific dynasty, you see it even the monarchs of questionable inherience, based their legicity on their descend from former monarchs. The distinction between the different tribes which often were tribal confederations rather unified tribes* was to small, that it could be based on national traits.

*The Langobards when they invaded Italy as a example was a mix of Gepids, Langobards (the original tribe), Ostrogoth and Romans.
 

Susano

Banned
*shrugs* I used every example that came to mind. But the fact is those examples exist plain as day, so Im not very inclined to go to the library to hunt down an obvious spectre.

I disagree most of those Germanic tribes based their national identity on a specific dynasty, you see it even the monarchs of questionable inherience, based their legicity on their descend from former monarchs. The distinction between the different tribes which often were tribal confederations rather unified tribes* was to small, that it could be based on national traits.

*The Langobards when they invaded Italy as a example was a mix of Gepids, Langobards (the original tribe), Ostrogoth and Romans.

Well, the actual migration period tribes were of course rather tribal confederation. There was quite a dynamic in that right before the Great Migration broke out - but thats possible, I never claimed after all that national identity is something neatly delineated, instead it is indeed blurry at the edges and mutable. However, I would disagree that they formed around dynasties. I would say they formed as a general trend of that time (driven by such factors as the climate change, which also fueled the Great Migration in general), and as a further trend of the time the previously more or less exclusively East Germanic institution of tribal kingships expanded to other Germanic groups, including those new tribal confederations.
 
Coming at this as an outsider who doesn't know or mind which side of the debate in question is correct, it seems a bit strange to insist, on a recreational forum which exists to enhance our knowledge of histories as amateurs and occupy our time, that all claims should be justified by academic sources while refusing to use any arguments from those sources to address the historical arguments presented by somebody else. Our board isn't a peer-reviewed journal where we advance the historical science, its a past-time where we learn more about history ourselves.

From a purely recreational and an educational perspective, I'd certainly rather people were using their knowledge (gleaned from apprpriate sources, obviously, and if it isn't, this should be noted) to debate and edify each other, rather than trading demands for better footnotes.

In physical terms, I have no access to university libraries and I just blew my whole financial resources on Balzac and Shelley. I am asking people to give me the content of peer-reviewed histories for free. :p

(I should note that the Ottokar thing was in a cited book I read by Runciman; and political science and historiography may have changed massively since he wrote it, but Ottokar is still there.)
 
Top