Transcript:

Welcome to the deep dive. You got us thinking about something pretty fundamental. How do nations actually, you know, come into being? What are the forces that shape that feeling of national identity? You said some really fascinating sources and we wanted to start by uh really looking closely at a powerful image. Frederick Sora’s 1848 vision of these well democratic and social republics. Sur’s prints are yeah they’re a fantastic starting point for us to kind of get our heads around 19th century European nationalism. It’s complex stuff. Take that first print for instance. You’ve got this long line of people right representing all over Europe, America too, different ages, different classes, all marching towards the Statue of Liberty. It’s uh quite a scene. It really is. And that Statue of Liberty is so symbolic. You’ve got the torch of enlightenment, the charter of the rights of man. Exactly. It immediately ties this whole vision back to the French Revolution’s core ideas. Yeah. And then yeah, you see the rubble underfoot, the broken symbols of the old kings and emperors clearly saying that era is over, right? Shattered absolutism. So the source asks us to think about how this is utopian. Okay. Yeah. Let’s dig into that. What makes it utopian? Well, look how he shows these different groups. They’re presented as distinct nations, each with its own flag, its own traditional clothes. It’s all very orderly, very harmonious. And notice who’s at the front, the US and Switzerland. They were already established nation states back in 1848, right? Leading the back and just behind them, France naturally with the revolutionary flag. But it gets interesting when you look who’s following France. Ah, yes. The German peoples. Yeah. Carrying that black, red, and gold flag. Now, that’s interesting because as the source points out, Germany in 1848, it wasn’t one country at all. Not even close. It was fragmented. That flag, it represented the hope, the liberal dream of a unified Germany with a democratic constitution. So, he’s painting a picture of the future he wants, not the present reality. Precisely. That’s a key part of the utopian aspect. He’s showing this idealized future, a Europe of unified free nations as if it’s already here. You see others, too. Austrians, Italians from different kingdoms, Poles, English, Irish, Hungarians, Russians, all marching together and above him, Christ, saints, angels, symbolizing this uh fraternity, this brotherhood among all these nations. So the utopian vision really lies in this peaceful coexistence, this universal embrace of liberty by distinct defined nations. Okay. So, Sora gives us this incredibly optimistic almost dreamlike image. But, uh, to really grasp how these nations actually formed, we need to get into the well, the messier historical reality. Absolutely. And that’s where someone like Ernst Duran comes in. His 1882 lecture, what is a nation? Gives us a much more complex view. Yeah. He pushes back against the simple definitions, doesn’t he? He really does. Renan argues quite forcefully that you can’t just define a nation by common language or race or religion or even territory. It’s deeper than that. So what is it then according to Renan? For him it’s about having a long past of endeavors, sacrifice and devotion. Shared history basically common glories but also shared suffering and crucially a common will in the present. A common will. Yeah. Like wanting to achieve things together. Exactly. Having done great things together and wanting to do more. He talks about a large scale solidarity. And I love this phrase, a daily plebite. A daily vote. What does he mean by that? It’s like the nation’s existence depends on the ongoing consent, the continuous will of its inhabitants to be a nation, to continue the shared project. It’s not static. It’s something constantly reaffirmed. That’s a really powerful idea. The nation is an ongoing choice. And interestingly, he sees nations as vital for liberty. He thought a single world government, a single law would actually destroy freedom. How so? because distinct nations each with its own character and will act as a kind of check against that sort of global homogenization. For Renan, nations guarantee liberty. Okay, that adds another layer. So the question for us as we go through this history is how does Rena’s idea, this emphasis on shared will and history actually match up with how things unfolded in the 19th century? That’s the perfect question to keep in mind. Now the source material flag is the French Revolution 1789 as the first really clear powerful expression of this modern nationalism. Before that France was you know a kingdom ruled by a king a full-fledged territorial state yes but under an absolute monarch sovereignty ultimate power rested with the king and the revolution just flips that completely completely. It declared that sovereignty now resided with the people the citizens they were the nation. This transfer was revolutionary in itself, but they didn’t just declare it. They actively built it, right? Created that sense of being friends. Precisely. Think about the ideas they introduced. La Patri, the fatherland, and Leto, the citizen. This wasn’t about subjects of a king anymore. It was about a community of equal citizens under a constitution. And the symbols, thericcolor flag, replaced the royal standard. The estates general became the national assembly representing the nation. New hymns were written like the Marseilles. Oaths were taken. Martyrs were commemorated all in the name of the nation. It was a very deliberate effort and practical changes too. Uniform laws. Yes. A centralized administration with uniform laws for everyone. They got rid of internal customs duties that had divided France. Standardized weights and measures, which sounds boring, but it helped unify the economic space and language. They pushed Parisian French. They did. Regional dialects were discouraged. The idea was to create one national language. It was all part of forging this collective identity. And then they wanted to export it. This idea of becoming a nation. Oh, absolutely. They saw it as their mission to liberate other European peoples from monarchy, from despatism, and help them become nations too. Quite ambitious, as you said. Did it work? Did other people pick up on it? It definitely resonated. You started seeing these jackacabin clubs popping up in other cities, especially among students and the educated middle classes. They were inspired by France, kind of like fan clubs for the revolution in a way. Yeah. And these clubs often prepared the ground for the French armies when they marched into places like Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy. Later in the 1790s, the armies literally carried the idea of nationalism abroad. Okay, so that leads us straight into Napoleon. He kind of reversed the democracy part in France. He certainly did. centralized power again. But uh he kept a lot of the revolutionary principles in his administration. Why? Because they made the state more efficient. Like the Napoleonic code, the civil code of 1804. Exactly. It’s a prime example. It got rid of privileges based on birth, established equality before the law, secured the right to property. These were revolutionary ideas. And he didn’t just keep them in France. No, he exported the code everywhere his armies went. The Dutch Republic, Switzerland, Italy, parts of Germany. He also simplified administration, got rid of feudalism where it still existed, freed peasants from surfom, removed guild restrictions in towns. So making things more rational, more modern, improving transport and communication, too. Yes. All aimed at efficiency and control, but it had knock-on effects. Businessmen, small producers, they suddenly saw the benefits of uniform laws, standard weights, a common currency. It made trade easier. So initially people in places like Holland or Milan might have actually welcomed the French armies. In some places yes they were seen as harbingers of liberty bringing these modern systems. Holland, Switzerland, parts of Italy and Germany. There was definitely some initial enthusiasm. But I sense a butt coming. A big butt. This initial welcome often turned sour pretty quickly. Why? Because the administrative reforms didn’t come with political freedom. Instead, you got increased taxes to pay for Napoleon’s wars, strict censorship, and maybe worst of all, forced conscription, young men being forced into the French army to fight across Europe. Right? That wouldn’t go down well. Not at all. So, the initial liberators started to look like occupiers. Figure four, the one called planting of tree of liberty, really captures that shift, showing French soldiers looking more like oppressors. And figure five, the courier losing letters after Leipig. Yeah, that shows the tide turning, the resistance growing, Napoleon facing losses. The initial appeal wore off fast when the costs became clear. Okay, so if we rewind a bit before the revolution and Napoleon really shook things up, say mid- 18th century, Europe wasn’t made up of nations like we think of them now. Not at all. It’s crucial to remember that. Look at a map from say 1750, no unified Germany, no unified Italy. Switzerland was a confederation, but not quite a nation state yet. Just lots of smaller kingdoms, duchies. Exactly. A real patchwork quilt, especially in central Europe. And Eastern Europe was dominated by these huge autocratic empires. The Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Habsburg Empire. Ah, the Habsburgs. The source uses them as a key example. AustriaHungary and all that. Precisely. The Habsburg Empire ruled over an incredible mix of regions and peoples. You had Tyrell, Austria, the Sugettin land, Bohemia, parts of Italy like Lombardi and Venetia. Yeah. And lots of different languages and ethnic roots all mixed together. Absolutely. German, Maguar, Hungarian, various Slavic languages like Czech, Polish, Slovac, Slovin, Croat, Romanian, the list goes on. These groups didn’t share a common identity or culture. So, what held it all together? Really the only common tie was allegiance to the emperor. Loyalty to the dynasty, not to a nation in the modern sense. The very idea of a nation state based on shared culture and identity just wasn’t the reality for most of Europe then. Okay. So against that backdrop of fragmentation and empires, how did this idea of the nation state actually start to spread and take hold? The source talks about the aristocracy versus the middle class. Right. Socially and politically, the landed aristocracy were dominant across the continent. They owned vast estates, controlled local affairs, and they had their own kind of shared culture, right? Speaking French, intermaring. Yes. They often had more in common with aristocrats in other countries than with the peasants on their own lands. But they were a small minority compared to the peasantry. Exactly. But then, particularly in Western and parts of Central Europe, you see the growth of towns, trade, and eventually industrial production. And that creates new groups of people. It does commercial classes, merchants, manufacturers. And later with industrialization picking up in places like France and the German states in the 19th century, you get industrialists, businessmen, professionals, doctors, lawyers, teachers, middle class, basically, the educated liberal middle class. And the source argues that it’s really among this group that ideas of national unity started to gain traction, often linked with wanting to get rid of aristocratic privileges. So liberalism and nationalism start to connect very much so. Liberalism emphasized individual freedom, equality before the law, government by consent, meaning through elected representatives, not absolute monarchs. They wanted constitutions, an end to autocracy and clerical privileges. And protection of private property was key, too. Definitely. But we need to be careful. As the source points out, early liberalism wasn’t always about equality for everyone, right? The suffrage issue, who got to vote. Initially, it was almost always restricted to men with property. Women were excluded, men without property were excluded. There was a brief period during the French Revolution where suffrage was wider, but Napoleon rolled that back and his code actually reduced women’s legal standing in many ways. So, equality had its limits back then. It took a long time and a lot of struggle to expand those rights, a very long time. But economically, liberals were pushing for freedom, too. freedom of markets, getting rid of state restrictions on trade and the movement of capital, which makes sense if you’re a merchant trying to do business across, say, the German states in the 1830s. The source gives that example. It’s a brilliant example. Imagine trying to ship goods from Hamburg to Nuremberg. You’d cross maybe 11 different customs borders, pay duties each time, deal with different currencies, different weights and measures. A total nightmare for business completely. Which is why the Zolverine was such a big deal. The customs union started by Prussia in 1834. Yes. It abolished most of those internal tariffs between the member German states and drastically reduced the number of currencies. It created a much larger unified economic zone and then add railways which made moving goods and people even easier. And all this economic integration helped foster a sense of shared German identity, a feeling of common interest, economic nationalism feeding political nationalism. And the source mentions Friedrich List, an economist who basically said that was the point. Exactly. List saw the Zulverine as deliberately aiming to bind the Germans economically into a nation to strengthen national feeling through shared prosperity. It shows how economics was consciously used as a tool for nation building. Fascinating. But this liberal nationalist push wasn’t unopposed, was it? After Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, oh no, you get a strong conservative reaction. The rulers who came back to power or were confirmed in power were mostly conservatives. What did conservatism mean then? Preserving the old ways pretty much. They believed in tradition, monarchy, the church, social hierarchies, property, family. They wanted to preserve these institutions. Though interestingly, some conservatives realized that some of Napoleon’s modernizing changes like efficient administration could actually strengthen the monarchy and the state. So, not necessarily going back to pre789, but definitely stopping the liberal tide. That was the goal. And this led to the Congress of Vienna in 1815, hosted by the Austrian Chancellor Metik, a staunch conservative. And their aim was basically to put Europe back together after Napoleon, but in a conservative way. Exactly. Undo Napoleon’s changes were possible. Yeah. Restore the monarchies he’d overthrown, like the Bourbons in France. Create buffer states around France to contain it. redraw the map to create a balance of power. Prussia got territory. Austria got control of northern Italy. Russia got part of Poland. And the German Confederation stayed fragmented. Yes. 39 states. No unified Germany. The main goal was restoring monarchs and creating a stable conservative order. And these restored regimes. They weren’t big on free speech. Definitely not. They were autocratic. They didn’t tolerate criticism or disscent. They imposed strict censorship laws to control newspapers, books, plays, anything that might spread liberal or nationalist ideas. Ideas associated with the French Revolution. Figure six, the club of thinkers seem to capture that pretty well. It’s a brilliant caricature, isn’t it? Showing intellectuals literally being muzzled, forced into silence. It perfectly illustrates the climate of repression, the fear these regimes had of new ideas. So if you were a liberal or a nationalist then you couldn’t really operate openly. Not easily. The fear of oppression drove many of them underground. They started forming secret societies to train revolutionaries, spread their ideas. Yes. Being a revolutionary at this time essentially meant opposing the post Vienna monarchies and fighting for liberty and freedom. And very often that fight was tied directly to the idea of creating independent nation states. And Jeppi Mazini is presented as a key figure here. Absolutely. Central, an Italian nationalist born in Genoa. He joined the Carbonari, an early secret society, got exiled for it and then founded his own groups. Young Italy, Young Europe. He did. Young Italy aimed specifically for a unified Italian Republic. Young Europe was broader, trying to link up young revolutionaries from different countries, Poland, Germany, Switzerland. Mazini believed nations were like God’s intended natural units for humanity. So nationalism as a divine plan almost in his view. Yes. And unifying Italy wasn’t just politics. It was fulfilling destiny. His ideas and his organizing were incredibly influential. He inspired countless others. No wonder Meternet called him the most dangerous enemy of our social order. Metick saw exactly how potent Mazini’s blend of nationalism, republicanism, and revolutionary fervor was. Figure seven showing the founding of young Europe hints at that reach. Mazini really embodied that link between fighting for liberty and fighting for the nation. Okay. So this underground activity, this simmering discontent, it eventually boils over into the age of revolutions 1830 to 1848. That’s the period. Yes. Liberalism and nationalism increasingly become the driving forces behind open revolt against those conservative regimes established after 1815 in the Italian states, the German states, parts of the Ottoman Empire, even Ireland and Poland. And who was leading these revolutions? Primarily it was those educated middle class liberal nationalists. We talked about professors, students, lawyers, journalists, merchants. And the first big one was in France again 1830. The July revolution. Yes. Overthrew the restored Bourbon King Charles the 10th and put in Louis Phipe who promised a more constitutional monarchy. This is when Meternick supposedly said, “When France sneezes, the rest of Europe catches cold.” because it set off sparks elsewhere immediately. The French events directly inspired the uprising in Brussels which led to Beldum breaking away from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and becoming independent. And then there was Greece, the Greek War of Independence that seems to have really captured the imagination of Europeans. It did. Greece had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries. The idea of the ancient home of democracy fighting for freedom resonated hugely, especially with educated Western Europeans who idealized classical Greece. So they got support from outside. Poets and artists got involved. Lots of support. Exiled Greeks, volunteers from across Europe. Lord Byron being the most famous. He actually died fighting in Greece. Artists painted dramatic scenes like Delacroyy’s massacre at Kio’s figure 8 which stirred up immense sympathy and Greece eventually won its independence. Yes. Recognized by the Treaty of Constantinople in 1832. It was a major victory for the nationalist cause and showed the power of mobilizing European public opinion. This involvement of poets and artists brings us to romanticism. The source argues culture played a huge role in building this idea of the nation. A massive role. It wasn’t just about politics and armies. Romanticism as a cultural movement was all about emotion, intuition, mystical feelings, a reaction against the pure reason of the enlightenment. And romantics looked to the past, to folk culture. Exactly. They wanted to create a sense of shared heritage, a common cultural past as the basis for the nation. They believed the true spirit of a nation resided in its folk traditions. Like Johan Godfrieded Herder in Germany. Herder was key. He argued that true German culture wasn’t in the elite salons but among the common people das folk in their folk songs, folk poetry, folk dances. This was the vulkist, the spirit of the people. So collecting fairy tales suddenly becomes a political act for figures like the Grim brothers. Yes, we think of them for fairy tales, but they saw collecting these stories as discovering the authentic German spirit. It was part of resisting French cultural dominance after Napoleon and building a German national identity. And using the local language, the vernacular was important too, especially for reaching people who couldn’t read. Crucial. Emphasizing the vernacular, language, and folklore helped carry the nationalist message beyond the educated elite. Think about Poland, which had been partitioned, wiped off the map. How did culture help keep Polish identity alive? Through language, absolutely, but also through music. Carol Kpinsky used traditional Polish dances like the Polynes and Mazerka in his operas, turning them into national symbols. Even just using the Polish language in church services became an act of resistance against Russian rule. sometimes landing priests in prison. It shows how powerful culture can be. So culture becomes a weapon in the fight for national identity. In many ways, yes, it shapes how people see themselves and their connection to a larger group. Now, alongside these cultural and political currents, the source brings in another factor, economic hardship. The 1830s sound like a tough time for many people in Europe. They really were. There was a huge population increase, meaning more people looking for jobs than there were jobs available. So unemployment, people moving from the countryside to cities. Yes. Leading to overcrowded urban slums and small producers, especially weavers, faced crippling competition from cheap machine-made goods, mostly from England. And in the countryside, peasants still dealing with feudal dues in some places. In many parts of Central and Eastern Europe, yes. Add in bad harvests or sudden rises in food prices and you had widespread poverty poism they called it. The 1830s and 40s saw a lot of social distress. 1848 seems to have been a particularly bad year. Food shortages, unemployment, a real crisis point. That Paris uprising in February 1848 we mentioned it was directly fueled by food shortages and unemployment. People were desperate. That’s why they put up barricades, forced Lee Philippe to flee. and the New Republic set up national workshops to try and create jobs. They did, though it was a short-lived experiment, but it shows the link between economic hardship and political upheaval. This source gives that detailed account of the Celisian Weaver’s revolt in 1845. It sounds brutal. It was based on Wilhelm Wolf’s report. It paints a grim picture. Weavers marching to the contractor who drastically cut their pay, demanding better wages, being treated with contempt, breaking into his house, smashing things, driven by desperation. And then the contractor returns with the army and 11 weavers are shot dead. It’s a stark reminder of the social tensions simmering beneath the surface. And figure 9, the peasants uprising in 1848. It shows this wasn’t an isolated incident. Not at all. These popular revolts driven by hunger and hardship were happening alongside the more politically motivated revolutions of the liberals. The two often coincided in 1848. Right. So 1848 sees both popular revolt and this revolution led by the educated middle classes. Exactly. The February revolution in France, king overthrown, republic declared with universal male suffrage that sent shock waves across Europe, especially in places that weren’t unified nations yet. Germany, Italy, Poland, the Havsburg lands. Precisely. The liberal middle classes in those areas saw their chance. They tried to harness the popular unrest, the anger of the poor to push their own demands for constitutional government and national unification. So combining demands for constitutions, free press, freedom of association with the goal of creating nation states. That was the idea. Take the German regions, liberal professionals, businessmen. They formed political associations, met in Frankfurt, and organized elections for an allGerman National Assembly. The Frankfurt Parliament, convened in St. Paul’s Church, May 1848. Figure 10 shows it. What was their plan? They drafted a constitution for a unified German nation. It would be a constitutional monarchy, a king, but responsible to an elected parliament. But it failed. Why? They offered the crown of this unified Germany to the king of Prussia, Frederick Wilhham IV, and he turned it down flat. He wouldn’t accept a crown offered by elected representatives. And he joined the other monarchs to suppress the movement. He did. The aristocracy and the military regained control. The parliament itself was also weakened because the middle class liberals who dominated it often resisted the demands of workers and artisans losing potential allies. Eventually, troops were called in and the assembly was forced to disband. A major setback for liberal nationalism. And what about women in all this? The source says they were active participants, very active, forming political associations, publishing newspapers, attending meetings, demonstrating, but they were denied the vote. Even in the Frankfurt Parliament, they could only watch just observers in the visitors gallery. The issue of women’s political rights was hugely controversial within the liberal movement itself. Source C gives those contrasting views. Carl Welker saying men and women have different spheres based on supposed natural differences. Yeah. But then you have Louise Otto Peters arguing passionately that liberty is indivisible. You can’t have freedom for only half the population. And that anonymous letter pointing out the hypocrisy of denying rights to property owning women. It really highlights the contradictions within liberalism at the time. The ideals of freedom and equality weren’t consistently applied. So 1848, the liberal revolutions are ultimately crushed by conservative forces. But did anything change? Yes. Even though the conservatives won in the short term, they couldn’t just turn the clock back completely. Monarchs started to realize they had to make some concessions like abolishing surfom. Surfom and bonded labor were abolished in the Habsburg lands and Russia in the years after 1848. And the Habsburgs granted more autonomy to the Hungarians in 1867. The old order was shaken even if it wasn’t overthrown everywhere. Okay. So after the failure of 48, the path to German unification took a different route. More conservative. Definitely nationalism started to detach from its earlier links with democracy and revolution. Conservative forces, particularly in Prussia, began to see nationalism as a tool they could use to build state power and achieve political goals. Enter Ottovon Bismar, the architect of German unification. Yes, Prussia’s chief minister. He wasn’t a liberal. He was a pragmatist, master of real politi politics based on power and practical needs, not ideology. And he used the Prussian army and bureaucracy. Relied heavily on them. Unification wasn’t achieved through parliamentary votes, but through iron and blood, as he famously said. Three wars in seven years against Denmark, Austria, and France. All Prussian victories, which paved the way for unification. In January 1871, in the hall of mirrors at Versailles, no less, the Prussian king William I was proclaimed German emperor. Figure 11 shows that moment. A very deliberate display of power. Absolutely. And the new German Empire was clearly dominated by Prussia. They focused on modernizing currency, banking, legal systems, often using Prussian models for the rest of Germany. Figure 12 maps it out. And figure 13, the caricature of Bismar. What’s that telling us? It suggests Bismar had a rather commanding, maybe even dismissive relationship with the elected parliament, the Reichto. The artist seems skeptical about how much real democratic power existed under him. Okay, so Germany unified through Prussian power. What about Italy? It was also fragmented for a long time. Very fragmented. Mid-9th century, you still had seven states. Only one. Sardinia Piedmont in the northwest was ruled by an Italian dynasty. Austria controlled the north, the Pope the center, the Bourbons of Spain the south. Exactly. And like Germany, no single common Italian language spoken everywhere. Mazini had tried for a unified republic earlier, but his revolutionary attempts in 1831 and 1848 failed. So leadership passed to Sardini Pedmont under King Victor Emanuel II. Yes. The ruling elite there, particularly the shrewd chief minister Kavor, saw unification as a way to increase their own power and foster economic development. Kavor wasn’t a revolutionary like Misini. Not at all. More of a pragmatic statesman like Bismar in some ways. He used diplomacy, forged an alliance with France to fight Austria in 1859, which allowed Sardinia Pedmont to annex Lombardi in the north. But then there was Gabaldi. He seems more like Mazini’s type. Jeppi Gabbaldi. Yeah. A charismatic soldier and nationalist. He led his volunteer army, the famous red shirts or the expedition of the thousand down to Sicily and southern Italy in 1860 and got peasant support. Yes. Managed to rally support and drive out the Spanish bourbon rulers from the kingdom of the two Sicilles. He was incredibly popular. Figure 15 shows him sort of helping Victor Emanuel put on the boot of Italy, symbolizing handing over the south to the king. That’s often the interpretation. So in 1861, Victor Emanuel II was proclaimed king of Italy. Figures 14A and 14B show the before and after maps. But the source adds a reality check. Many ordinary Italians, especially illiterate peasants, didn’t really grasp the nationalist ideology. The Latalia story. Yeah. The story goes that some southern peasants thought Latalia was the name of the king’s wife. It suggests the liberal nationalist ideas hadn’t fully penetrated the whole population. Unification was driven more from the top down by Sardinia Pedmont’s ambitions and Gabaldi’s military success. Box two gives more on Geral Baldi’s amazing life. So again, unification through war and diplomacy may be more than popular demand from below. It seems that way for both Germany and Italy in this period. A contrast to Renan’s idea of the daily plebbeite perhaps. Now Britain, the source calls it a strange case. Why strange? Because its formation as a nation state wasn’t a sudden event or revolution like in France or even a relatively quick unification like Germany or Italy. It was a much longer, more gradual process. Starting with different ethnic groups, English, Welsh, Scott, Irish. Exactly. These groups had their own distinct cultures and political traditions long before a unified British identity emerged. But over centuries, England grew steadily more powerful and wealthy and use that power to influence the others to extend its influence. Yes, the English Parliament, especially after it gained supremacy over the monarch in 1688, became the key instrument in forging a nation state, but with England very much at the center. The act of union with Scotland in 1707 that created Great Britain, but it effectively meant English dominance. Scotland’s distinct political institutions were suppressed. Its culture, like the Gaelic language and Highland traditions, was often actively repressed. In Ireland, a similar story. similar, but perhaps even more fraught, especially due to the religious divide between Catholics and Protestants. English power consistently backed the Protestants. Catholic revolts were crushed like wolf tones in 1798. Then in 1801, Ireland was forcibly incorporated into the United Kingdom. So the British nation was built by promoting English culture, the flag, the anthem, the language largely. Yes. A dominant English culture was propagated and the older nations Scotland, Wales, Ireland survived but as subordinate partners within this new British identity. The source defines ethnic here connecting it to shared cultural origins. So a different model gradual assimilation and dominance rather than unification of equals. That’s a fair summary of the strange case argument. Okay, moving towards the end of the century. How do people visualize the nation? It’s an abstract idea. Artists started personifying nations usually as female figures, allegorories, not real women, but symbols. Like during the French Revolution, Liberty Justice. Exactly. Liberty with her red cap or broken chain. Justice blindfolded with scales. This continued in the 19th century. France had Maryanne, a common woman’s name. Yes. Chosen to represent the people’s nation. She wore symbols of liberty and the republic. The red cap, thericolor, the cockade. Her statues went up in town squares. her image on coins and stamps like in figure 16 making the abstract idea visible every day. And Germany had Germania. Germania often shown wearing a crown of oak leaves oak symbolizing German heroism. Figure 17 is Philip Vites Germania from 1848 meant for the Frankfurt Parliament. Box 3 explains her symbols broken chains for freedom sword for defense. Right. And looking at how Germania is depicted changes over time tells a story too. Compare figure 17 with figure 18, the fallen Germanmania from 1850 after the failure of the revolution. Or figure 19, Germania guarding the rine, which is much more Marshall. The activity asking us to imagine being in the Frankfurt Parliament and seeing that Germania banner really makes you think about who these symbols resonated with and how. Absolutely. They were powerful tools for creating a visual language of national identity. But by the last part of 19th century, the source says nationalism changed again, became less idealistic. It did. It often shifted from that earlier liberal democratic spirit towards something narrower, more intolerant, more aggressive. It became closely linked to state power and crucially to imperialism. The big European powers started using nationalism for their own ends. Manipulating the nationalist feelings of subject peoples to justify their own imperial ambitions. It became a tool of competition between states and the Barkans are given as a major flash point after 1871. A real powder keg. It was a region of incredible ethnic and geographic diversity. Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Greeks, Albanians, Sloines, Montenegrons, mostly under the weakening control of the Ottoman Empire. So romantic nationalism spreads there. the Ottoman Empire decays and you get this explosion of competing nationalisms. Different groups breaking away or wanting to break away, claiming independence based on their history and identity. But their claims often overlapped and conflicted, leading to wars between the Balkan states themselves. Intense conflicts. And it was made even more dangerous because the big European powers, Russia, Germany, Britain, Austrahungary were all meddling, competing for influence, trade routes, military advantage in the region. a toxic mix which led directly to a series of wars in the Balkans in the early 20th century and ultimately was a major factor in the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Figure 20, that map celebrating the British Empire shows how nationalism and imperialism went handinand for the major powers. So nationalism aligned with imperialism led Europe to disaster. That’s the argument. Though the source also briefly notes that anti-imperial movements were rising in colonized countries too, often developing their own forms of nationalism in the struggle for independence. But the idea of the nation state itself had become globally accepted. That’s a really complex legacy. Absolutely. Okay. So to wrap up this deep dive, wow. We’ve seen how 19th century European nationalism was driven by so many things. Revolutionary ideals, Napoleon’s reforms, the rise of middle class and liberalism, romantic culture, economic factors. Yeah. And then Yeah. state power and imperialism. It was definitely not one simple story. And that shift is crucial from the early often idealistic hopes towards something much more competitive and aggressive later on. What really stands out is how national identity wasn’t just there. It had to be actively constructed through shared stories, symbols, language, even deliberately forgetting some parts of the past. Exactly. The idea of the nation is powerful, but it’s often built. And the other key thing is how those early liberal ideals championing freedom often didn’t extend that freedom to everyone, women, the non-propied, sometimes ethnic minorities. Which leaves us with a big question really thinking about this complicated, often messy, sometimes violent history of European nationalism. How does that help us understand national identity and all the conflicts around sovereignty we still see in the world today? What are the echoes? What are the legacies of these 19th century movements still shaping our present? Definitely something to chew on. Maybe, as the source suggests, exploring nationalist symbols and movements outside Europe could offer more perspectives, too. Lots to think about. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive.

Key Themes and Concepts:

1. Formation of Nations:
   • Understanding how nations come into being and the forces that shape national identity.
   • The role of historical events, cultural movements, and economic factors in the development of nationalism.
2. Utopian Visions of Nationalism:
   • Frederick Sora’s 1848 prints as representations of 19th-century European nationalism.
   • Symbolism of the Statue of Liberty and the ideals of the French Revolution.
   • The concept of a harmonious Europe with distinct nations, each represented by their flags and traditional attire.
3. Ernst Renan’s Perspective:
   • Renan’s lecture “What is a Nation?” emphasizes shared history, sacrifice, and a common will.
   • The idea of nations as ongoing choices rather than static entities.
   • Nations as vital for liberty, acting as checks against global homogenization.
4. The French Revolution:
   • The shift from monarchy to popular sovereignty and the establishment of a national identity.
   • Introduction of symbols and practices that fostered a sense of belonging among citizens.
   • The export of revolutionary ideas across Europe.
5. Napoleon’s Influence:
   • Centralization of power and the continuation of revolutionary principles.
   • The Napoleonic Code and its impact on legal and administrative reforms across Europe.
   • The initial welcome of French armies that turned into resentment due to oppressive measures.
6. Fragmentation of Europe Pre-Nationalism:
   • The patchwork of kingdoms, duchies, and empires in mid-18th century Europe.
   • The Habsburg Empire as a key example of a multi-ethnic empire lacking a unified national identity.
7. Rise of the Middle Class and Liberalism:
   • The emergence of a new social class that sought to challenge aristocratic privileges.
   • The connection between liberalism and nationalism, emphasizing individual rights and government by consent.
8. Revolutions of 1848:
   • A wave of revolutions driven by liberal and nationalist sentiments across Europe.
   • The role of the educated middle class in leading these revolts.
   • The failure of the Frankfurt Parliament and the subsequent conservative backlash.
9. Cultural Nationalism:
   • The role of romanticism in shaping national identity through folk culture and traditions.
   • The significance of language, music, and folklore in fostering a sense of belonging.
10. Economic Hardship and Social Unrest:
    • The impact of economic crises on political movements and revolutions.
    • The connection between social distress and the rise of nationalist sentiments.
11. Unification of Germany and Italy:
    • The contrasting methods of unification in Germany (Bismarck’s realpolitik) and Italy (Cavour and Garibaldi).
    • The role of war and diplomacy in achieving national unity.
12. The British Case:
    • The gradual formation of a British identity through dominance and assimilation rather than revolution.
    • The suppression of distinct cultures within the UK, particularly in Scotland and Ireland.
13. Visualizing the Nation:
    • The use of allegorical figures to personify nations and create a visual language of national identity.
    • The evolution of these representations over time.
14. Shift in Nationalism:
    • The transition from idealistic nationalism to a more aggressive, state-centered form linked to imperialism.
    • The Balkan region as a flashpoint for competing nationalisms leading to conflicts.
15. Legacy of 19th Century Nationalism:
    • The complex legacy of nationalism and its implications for contemporary issues of identity and sovereignty.
    • The ongoing relevance of these historical movements in understanding modern conflicts.

Discussion Questions

1. How did the ideals of the French Revolution influence the development of nationalism in Europe?
2. In what ways did Ernst Renan’s definition of a nation challenge traditional notions of national identity?
3. What role did economic factors play in the rise of nationalist movements during the 19th century?
4. How did the revolutions of 1848 reflect the tensions between liberalism and nationalism?
5. In what ways did cultural movements, such as romanticism, contribute to the formation of national identities?
6. How did the methods of unification in Germany and Italy differ, and what does this reveal about their respective national identities?
7. What are the implications of the shift from liberal nationalism to aggressive nationalism and imperialism in the late 19th century?
8. How can the historical context of 19th-century nationalism help us understand contemporary issues of national identity and sovereignty?