Ask a Ukrainian

[Domen]

Whatever meaning they meant (probably to show most of their population is of German region)

They meant exactly the same - or a very similar thing - as we mean today, and our ancestors meant in 1900, when talking about nations or ethnic groups. I'd like to notice that since the 19th century until today, there is no consensus when it comes to definition of nation or ethnic group. There exist many, more or less different, definitions. But there is no reason to assume that before 1800 the variety of different understandings of these concepts was not the same as today.

HRE certainly was not nation-state

You and me know this, but majority of deputies who gathered in Cologne in 1512 - and majority were Germans - didn't know this.

Probably they were influenced by Martin Luther or someone like him, who told them that Slavic-speaking Sorbs (Wends), as well as Jews, etc., were "Roman" citizens of 2nd category, and therefore the HRE should have been renamed to the HRE of the German Nation. This is what Martin Luther really wrote.

BTW - Mozart described himself as German. And Voltaire mocked Germans that they were calling their country "Roman", despite being Germans. Both guys lived long before 1800, and they were well aware of what nations and ethnic groups are, so I'm not sure why this modern post-1945 myth (yes - before the horrible things of WW2 took place, for which nationalism was blamed, nobody though like this) that nations were "invented" in year 1800 is still so popular.

Do people fear that if we finally admit that nations are much older than 1800, immediately WW3 will start, or something like this ??? Silly fears.

BTW - the "invention" of nationalism is sometimes attributed to the French Revolution (ughr!!! these evil and arrogant French "frogs" again!!! they caused WW2 by "inventing" nationalism, not peaceful Germans!!! ) - and as we know, the French Revolution started in 1789, in the 18th century (not 19th).

But attributing the "invention" of nations to French revolutionists is wrong, because they are much older, and were not "invented" but aroused.

So stop blaming the French for all things bad, dear Tea-Drinkers, or dear Cabbage-Eaters who invented the nation-state of Cabbage-Eaters already in 1512.

 

[Snorrius]

They meant exactly the same - or a very similar thing - as we mean today, and our ancestors meant in 1900, when talking about nations or ethnic groups.

No, they don't.

Nation imply some uniformity, something that unites them all. Nation-state have become possible only when it became possible to transmit some unifying ideology and culture onto wider masses. Before ideas of "nation" the main unifying things were religion and sovereign, but still majority of population did not really cared and did not really was of whatever nation. Actually what we call now Russian classical culture or Polish classical culture was culure of Russian and Polish elites, not of majority. But with cheap paper and cheap books it became possible to transmit culture to whole population making it "nation". TV and radio made possible to create nations within smaller time frames.

 

[Domen]

Nation imply some uniformity, something that unites them all.

Not really. The nation of Americans for example doesn't seem to be very united.

For example they can't get over skin colour in their attempts at unification.

Before ideas of "nation" the main unifying things were religion and sovereign

Not really. Mozart was Catholic and his sovereigns were Habsburgs.

Luther was Protestant and his sovereigns were also different.

Yet both of them described themselves as Germans.

 

[Snorrius]

BTW - Mozart described himself as German. And Voltaire mocked Germans that they were calling their country "Roman", despite being Germans. Both guys lived long before 1800, and they were well aware of what nations and ethnic groups are, so I'm not sure why this modern post-1945 myth (yes - before the horrible things of WW2 took place, for which nationalism was blamed, nobody though like this) that nations were "invented" in year 1800 is still so popular.

"Nations" became popular in 19th century for several reason. First, it allowed to create mass armies. Second, empires tried to use nationalism agaist each other.

 

[Domen]

First, it allowed to create mass armies.

China could create mass armies already in Ancient times. Does it mean they had "the power of 19th century nationalism" already in Ancient times?

BTW - I have always thought that what allowed to create mass armies were: taxes, industrialization, mass conscription. Not nations.

Poles during World War 1 fought in all armies: Russian, German (here my great-grandfather fought, at Verdun), Austrian, French, etc.

Does it mean that those armies - Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian - could not exist without Polish nation ???

Second, empires tried to use nationalism agaist each other.

Most of European empires of the 19th century were actually multi-national. Number of nations was bigger than number of empires.

So if your claim that nations were "invented" in the 1800s was true, then Poles should not exist - only Prussians, Russians and Austrians.

We had one guy - his name was Szczęsny Potocki (1753 - 1805) - who claimed that he stopped being a Pole and became a Russian in 1795.

He wrote on 26 November 1795 (one day after the abdication of the last king of Poland):

"(...) I will speak no more of the former Poland and the former Poles. That nation and that name are no more, as with so many others in the history of the world. I am now forever a Russian. (...)" - Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki, 26.11.1795

But he was quite an isolated case. Most of other guys continued to be Poles also after 1795, and were not so eager to become "forever Russians".

 

[Snorrius]

Yet both of them described themselves as Germans.

Mozart could describe himself as German in ethnical meaning. But culturally and nationally he was Austrian or should we say Habsburgian?

Not really. The nation of Americans for example doesn't seem to be very united.

It is a diverse nation in first meaning (as culturally-political entity). Nation in second meaning (based on ethnicity, as an extension of tribe to millions of people) was popular only east of Rhine. But nation in second meaning also requires ability to elevate ethnicity (which is a neutral thing like color of eyes or region of birth) to ideological entity which unites all who belongs to it. Because I can have a same color of hair as the other guy but I do not really feel this somehow unites us. Mozart could describe himself as of German ethnicity but he would not describe himself as of German nation as we use this term today. He would define himself as Austrian if anything - or Viennese.

So if your claim that nations were "invented" in the 1800s was true, then Poles should not exist - only Prussians, Russians and Austrians.

Polish state existed earlier, actually Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth existed even before real Russia (which starts from Peter's rule).

 

[Domen]

Habsburgian culture is about what exactly ???

I think that incest, or inbreeding, is a typically Habsburgian cultural trait:

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Habsburg-Jaw-And-Other-Royal-Inbreeding-Deformities-and-Disorders

Are you suggesting that incest is also typical for Austrian culture?

Mozart could describe himself as German in ethnical meaning

Ethnic groups and nations are not the same thing but they have many common elements (but nation can consist of more than one ethnic group!).

So if they understood the concept of ethnicity, they surely (or at least with a high degree of probability) understood also the concept of nation.

Mozart could describe himself as of German ethnicity but he would not describe himself as of German nation as we use this term today.

Well - today we use the term "German nation" differently than Hitler used it in 1938, when he annexed his "German nationals" in Sudetenland.

Today, a Turkish-speaking person in Germany is also part of the "German nation" - according to modern understanding.

I think Mozart meant, unfortunately, something closer to what Hitler meant - that is, the Volksdeutsche.

Except that Mozart probably liked his Habsburg rulers, while many Germans in Sudetenland did not like their Czech president...

But nation in second meaning also requires ability to elevate ethnicity (which is a neutral thing like color of eyes or region of birth) to ideological entity which unites all who belongs to it.

And changing the name "Holy Roman Empire" to the name "HRE of the German Nation" is not elevating ethnicity to ideological entity ???

I think it is.

He would define himself as Austrian if anything - or Viennese.

He was born in Salty Stronghold, actually. Salzburg. But later emigrated to Vienna.

 

[Snorrius]

And changing the name "Holy Roman Empire" to the name "Holy Roman of the German Nation" is not elevating ethnicity to ideological entity ???

No, because most of "German Nation" will not even know it (there is no TV, nor radio, nor even newspapers). But there is a political meaning - it is a claim for all lands inhabited of German tribes. They may not know it but they are marked so other rulers would not try to claim these lands.

 

[Domen]

Ukrainian Cossacks during the 1600s were very unhappy that the Commonwealth was Polish-Lithuanian, and not Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian.

Why did they bother if nations allegedly did not exist? Couldn't they just be Poles or Lithuanians?

Instead, in the Treaty of Hadiach in 1658, Cossacks enforced the change of name from Polish-Lithuanian to Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian.

I think had the Czechs been strong enough, they would have also enforced the Holy Roman Empire of German and Bohemian Nations. Etc., etc.

No, because most of "German Nation" will not even know it (there is no TV, nor radio, nor even newspapers).

Everyone knew who was their Pope, etc. There was no TV but there were horses, churches, etc. News were spreading, just slower than today.

And actually there was printing since the 1400s, and printing allowed much faster spread of news than before that.

Also level of literacy was increasing. In Early Middle Ages, even Kings could not read and write (Charlemagne was an analphabet, for example).

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Ukrainian Cossacks were very unhappy that the Commonwealth was Polish-Lithuanian, and not Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian.

Why did they bother if nations allegedly did not exist? Couldn't they just be Poles or Lithuanians.

Instead, in the Treaty of Hadiach in 1658, Cossacks enforced the change of name from Polish-Lithuanian to Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian.

I think if the Czechs were strong enough, they would have also enforced the Holy Roman Empire of German and Czech Nations.

In retrospect, would a Polish-Ruthenian-Lithuanian Commonwealth have worked?

 

[Domen]

In retrospect, would a Polish-Ruthenian-Lithuanian Commonwealth have worked?

Well, Cossacks were cheap and available in large number as soldiers, but very good for their low price. They proved very helpful in many Polish-Lithuanian military campaigns. Especially as infantry (Cossacks in Ukraine in the 17th century fought mostly as infantry, though they also had some light cavalry, fleet and artillery - only later Cossacks became more cavalry-oriented, and most people remember Cossacks as cavalry from the 19th century, especially from the Napoleonic Wars). With loyal Cossacks protecting southern and eastern borders, Poland-Lithuania (or Poland-Ruthenia-Lithuania in this case) would be stronger.

So the loss of loyalty of Cossacks and the loss of part of Ukraine to Russia was a heavy blow.

 

[Snorrius]

Ukrainian Cossacks were very unhappy that the Commonwealth was Polish-Lithuanian, and not Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian.

Why did they bother if nations allegedly did not exist? Couldn't they just be Poles or Lithuanians.

There are several reason why I am not a big fan of history .

The main one is that history outside of printing press is extremely unreliable, and history of "Middle Ages" was used as a tool of 18th and 19th power to base their claims. Take Russia, for example, whose history, it is said, goes from call of Rurik in 862. This is based on a copy of "Primary Chronicle" which was found and published in second half of 18th. Now, if we read some French books in more believable era of printing press, we will find that there is Poland, Turkey, but instead of thousand years old Russia there is a something called Muscovy and it is basically something like Mongolia today - it does exists but it is all could be said about it.

The problem with pre-printing press era is that we have to rely on unique rare copies of dubious origins. You can take empire out of nowhere, say, "Mongolian empire" - without cities and written culture .

Now back to Cossacks. This region of that time was something like Somali today and the reason why they were unhappy is probably they were not given money or could not raid somebody .

 

[Domen]

Now back to Cossacks. This region of that time was something like Somali today and the reason why they were unhappy is probably they were not given money or could not raid somebody.

Well, Poland didn't want them to raid Turks, as it didn't want another war with Turkey.* So here you are partially right. But in such case - why instead of demanding to be allowed to raid Turkey, they demanded to transform the P-L Commonwealth into the Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian one?

That's a question.

The rebellion of 1648 started over failure to invade Turkey (and to give them money for invading Turkey), but it ended as national autonomy movement.

*Actually Polish King wanted war with Turkey, but Polish Parliament didn't want it - and Parliament took the upper hand.

 

[Snorrius]

So here you are partially right. But in such case - why instead of demanding to be allowed to raid Turkey, they demanded to transform the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into the Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian one?

I guess to get a share of power. It is one thing to be a guy outside (because you are Rusyn) and another - member of Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian aristocracy. I.e. you can not become aristocrat of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth if you are Rusyn, but you can become aristocrat of Polish-Rusyn-Lithuanian one.

 

[Domen]

I guess to get a share of power.

They wanted to be represented in power as a national group, or as an ethnic group, etc.

It was not about power of individuals but power as a group. So they had a group identity.

I.e. you can not become aristocrat of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth if you are Rusyn

No, here you are mistaken. A lot of Rusyns were Polish aristocrats. Even the founder of Cossacks was ancestor of the main enemy of Cossacks!

This guy (founder of Zaporizhian Sich):

Was ancestor of this guy (see "With Fire and Sword" to see who he was - the most evil Pole in the movie!):

The "grandfather" in 1554 founded Zaporizhian Sich, and the "grandson" in 1648 tried to destroy it!

 

[Snorrius]

It was not about power of individuals but power as a group. So they had a group identity.

But it is still not "national identity". Cossack were gangs of avanturists, so basically they could hav "group identity" but it is far cry from what we call "nation".

 

[Domen]

Cossack were gangs of avanturists

So were most of early Americans, who came to the New World!

BTW - declaration of US independence was in 1776, which is also before the 19th century, when nations were (allegedly) "invented". And who were those people in the 13 Colonies? Same ethnic groups - mostly British (English, Scottish, etc.) - but they developed a different national identity than their ancestors.

===============================================

Cossacks in Ukraine in the 17th century fought mostly as infantry, though they also had some light cavalry, fleet and artillery - only later Cossacks became more cavalry-oriented, and most people remember Cossacks as cavalry from the 19th century, especially from the Napoleonic Wars

Don Cossacks of the 20th century (WW1 ???):


Link to video.

 

[Snorrius]

So were most of early Americans, who came to the New World!

BTW - declaration of US independence was in 1776, which is also before the 19th century, when nations were (allegedly) "invented".

And who were those people in the Thirteen Colonies? The same ethnic group - mostly British people - but they developed a different national identity.

In 19th century the Ukrainian nation was "invented".

Americans were one of the first experiments in conscious nation-creating. Early Americans were not "nation". It took Louis XVI The Liberator of America and French intellectuals to invent "American people". It happened to be a very successful experiment (or not sucessful, depending on view), though the technology of nation-creating was fully developed later.

 

[Domen]

Americans were one of the first experiments in conscious nation-creating.

Existence of a nation doesn't require its previous conscious creation.

Nations can arise spontaneously or non-consciously as well. And most of them did.

And actually Americans were not consciously created - they also arose spontaneously.

The declaration of independence in 1776 was only the CONSEQUENCE of a nation developing BEFORE that date.

British discrimination of their colonies contributed to Americans increasingly hating their ancestral country, and developing a distinct identity.

It took Louis XVI The Liberator of America and French intellectuals to invent "American people".

I don't think that French intellectuals and Louis XVI were the ones who fought as simple soldiers under George Washington.

Well we can't also forget about Tadeusz Kościuszko, Kazimierz Pułaski and other members of Polish political emigration to the 13 Colonies.

But later both of them returned to Poland, and once again fought against Russia defending Poland's independence until 1794.

In 19th century the Ukrainian nation was "invented".

Maybe, but as an ethnic group with their own language and culture, Ukrainians existed already before that.

And also I'm not sure if we can say that it was "invented", considering that Ukrainians (some of them) themselves "invented" it.

So probably it was more like "Ukrainians became aware of being a distinct nation", rather than "Ukrainians were invented".

 

[Snorrius]

And actually Americans were not consciously created - they also arouse spontaneously.

The declaration of independence in 1776 was only the CONSEQUENCE of a nation developing BEFORE that date.

Declaration of Independence was the consequence of power struggle between France and UK. To arouse spontaneously it was required to use resources of superpower of the day.

I don't think that French intellectuals and Louis XVI were the ones who fought as simple soldiers under George Washington.

No, they employed George Washington to fight for their cause. USA was lucky that George Washington and other guy were European who understood European way to rule the world, so USA did not became liek one of the "sovereign nations" of Latin America.

So probably it was more like "Ukrainians became aware of being a distinct nation", rather than "Ukrainians were invented".

Invented - along with "culture" and "language". The main problem of modern-day Ukrainians is that this culture and language is not enough for the nation of their size.