Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
You are right - I forgot that Poland was a potato at that time.
That title go to the Scottish. Best thing to happen to the Irish is a potato.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg
New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations
- Thread starter The Kingmaker
- Start date
You are right - I forgot that Poland was a potato at that time.
That title go to the Scottish. Best thing to happen to the Irish is a potato.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg
Poland? Where you could become Polish by converting to Catholicism?
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
??? Plenty of Polish nobility was actually Calvinist.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
That is a bold, bold claim.
sophie
Break My Heart
Potatoes hadn't actually been brought to Poland yet.
And I'm supposed to derive...what from this exactly?
christos200
Never tell me the odds
This is a very good list, although it has some problems.
That is wrong. There was nationalism since Ancient times, mainly in Greece and Rome. The Greeks considered Barbarians all non Greeks. That is not something strange. The strange thing is that there was not a unified Greek State (at least until Alexander, and even that was not a complete unification. The Spartans never joined the League of Corinth. Also it collapsed after the death of Alexander) and yet there was a nationalism based on common culture. Also Aristotle said to Alexander ''Rule the Greeks as a ruler and the Barbarians as a Despot''. If this is not nationalist (and racist), then I dont know what it is.
Also there was a Roman Nationalism for sometime, until the Romans created the Roman Empire. From there on, the Romans created a huge multi cultural empire (Like USA, but with an Emperor).
After the collapse of Rome, a strong regionalism existed because of fedualism, in western Europe at least. The Byzantine Empire was a multicultural Empire united under a strong Monarchy, christianity and Hellenic language (Language, not nationality. Something like English in USA). However, as it lost land, a nationalistic movement was born, but it died only a few years after it was born. In 1453 the Ottomans took over Constantinople.
The creation of huge Empires (Ottoman, Holy Roman, Spanish) ceased those nationalistic movements.
The Dutch revolution, although religious, created a state that was homeland to a certain ethnic group, the Dutch. So the Dutch were the first modern Nation State.
France was not a nation state until the French Revolution. Until that day, the French were subjects of the King of France. After the Revolution, they were free citizens of France. That's why nationalism developed. If you think that this is wrong, explain me why nationalism developed so fast after the campaigns of Napoleon.
Another example: Why China, a country with so rich history, never developed a strong nationalism until the creation of the Republic? Why a state that existed for almost 3,000 years did not develop nationalism, like the Ancient Greece? One of the many reasons is that it was an absolute monarchy. If it became a constitutional Monarchy, then, maybe, there would have been a stronger Nationalism in China. It is true that the Chinese also considered the non-Chinese Barbarians, but there was not a strong nationalistic sense in China. Other thing is nationalism and other Patriotism.
In the Ottoman Empire, because of the religious divisions and because the Patriarch was the one that was responsible for the taxes of the Christians and because of the regional Governments (each village - town elected its own ''Governor'' [The Greek Dimogerontes, for example]), Nationalism deveoped very fast although it was an absolute Monarchy.
Then Communism came and once again a huge multicultural Empire was created, the Soviet Union. However, it also failed and after 80 years it collapsed. After its collapse, strong nationalistic movements developed in the former USSR states.
So since the start of history, there were two movements: Nationalism and Multiculturalism. Saying that nationalism is something modern is wrong. Since the Ancient times there was a fight between nationalism and multiculturalism. There was nationalism in Ancient Greece and Rome, but after the conquests of Rome, a huge multicultural Empire was developed. A few years after the fall of Rome, huge multicultural Empires were created. However after Napoleons campaigns, in less than a century Empire's that lasted more than 500 years collapsed. Communism managed to create a huge multicultural Empire, but after its fall it's multiculturalism collapsed and a strong movement of nationalism was born in the former USSR states.
So saying that Nationalism is something modern is wrong. Also saying that the first Nation State is France is wrong.
That is wrong. There was nationalism since Ancient times, mainly in Greece and Rome. The Greeks considered Barbarians all non Greeks. That is not something strange. The strange thing is that there was not a unified Greek State (at least until Alexander, and even that was not a complete unification. The Spartans never joined the League of Corinth. Also it collapsed after the death of Alexander) and yet there was a nationalism based on common culture. Also Aristotle said to Alexander ''Rule the Greeks as a ruler and the Barbarians as a Despot''. If this is not nationalist (and racist), then I dont know what it is.
Also there was a Roman Nationalism for sometime, until the Romans created the Roman Empire. From there on, the Romans created a huge multi cultural empire (Like USA, but with an Emperor).
After the collapse of Rome, a strong regionalism existed because of fedualism, in western Europe at least. The Byzantine Empire was a multicultural Empire united under a strong Monarchy, christianity and Hellenic language (Language, not nationality. Something like English in USA). However, as it lost land, a nationalistic movement was born, but it died only a few years after it was born. In 1453 the Ottomans took over Constantinople.
The creation of huge Empires (Ottoman, Holy Roman, Spanish) ceased those nationalistic movements.
The Dutch revolution, although religious, created a state that was homeland to a certain ethnic group, the Dutch. So the Dutch were the first modern Nation State.
France was not a nation state until the French Revolution. Until that day, the French were subjects of the King of France. After the Revolution, they were free citizens of France. That's why nationalism developed. If you think that this is wrong, explain me why nationalism developed so fast after the campaigns of Napoleon.
Another example: Why China, a country with so rich history, never developed a strong nationalism until the creation of the Republic? Why a state that existed for almost 3,000 years did not develop nationalism, like the Ancient Greece? One of the many reasons is that it was an absolute monarchy. If it became a constitutional Monarchy, then, maybe, there would have been a stronger Nationalism in China. It is true that the Chinese also considered the non-Chinese Barbarians, but there was not a strong nationalistic sense in China. Other thing is nationalism and other Patriotism.
In the Ottoman Empire, because of the religious divisions and because the Patriarch was the one that was responsible for the taxes of the Christians and because of the regional Governments (each village - town elected its own ''Governor'' [The Greek Dimogerontes, for example]), Nationalism deveoped very fast although it was an absolute Monarchy.
Then Communism came and once again a huge multicultural Empire was created, the Soviet Union. However, it also failed and after 80 years it collapsed. After its collapse, strong nationalistic movements developed in the former USSR states.
So since the start of history, there were two movements: Nationalism and Multiculturalism. Saying that nationalism is something modern is wrong. Since the Ancient times there was a fight between nationalism and multiculturalism. There was nationalism in Ancient Greece and Rome, but after the conquests of Rome, a huge multicultural Empire was developed. A few years after the fall of Rome, huge multicultural Empires were created. However after Napoleons campaigns, in less than a century Empire's that lasted more than 500 years collapsed. Communism managed to create a huge multicultural Empire, but after its fall it's multiculturalism collapsed and a strong movement of nationalism was born in the former USSR states.
So saying that Nationalism is something modern is wrong. Also saying that the first Nation State is France is wrong.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"Sometimes people of a similar culture develop a sense of collective self-identity, therefore nationalism is immanent in all human activity."
christos200
Never tell me the odds
Just random post about nationalism. 
Wut ?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
If we were playing the CFC drinking game, this post alone would've floored most of us.
Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling. Pointing at someone's post and laughing at the claims in it isn't very constructive.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
christos200
Never tell me the odds
Has anyone in this forums heard the word ''constructive criticism''?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Instead of combing through all of that, I'll set forth a very simple task. I want you to identify for me one singular instance of an ancient person believing there to be a "Greek nation" or a "Roman nation" in accords with the modern definition of what nationalism is. And I want a direct quote as primary evidence, not some modern author's retroactive interpretation.
And, show me one singular instance of a from-the-dawn-of-mankind ideological conflict between nationalism and multiculturalism.
Shouldn't be difficult to substantiate your beliefs, right?
And, show me one singular instance of a from-the-dawn-of-mankind ideological conflict between nationalism and multiculturalism.
Shouldn't be difficult to substantiate your beliefs, right?
christos200
Never tell me the odds
1) Isocrates, Quotation of Panegyricus 50
"Our city of Athens has so far surpassed other men in its wisdom and its power of expression that its pupils have become the teachers of the world. It has caused the name of Hellene to be regarded as no longer a mark of racial origin but of intelligence, so that men are called Hellenes because they have shared our common education rather than that they share in our common ethnic origin."
''τοσοῦτον δ' ἀπολέλοιπεν ἡ πόλις ἡμῶν περὶ τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ λέγειν τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους, ὥσθ' οἱ ταύτης μαθηταὶ τῶν ἄλλων διδάσκαλοι γεγόνασι, καὶ τὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὄνομα πεποίηκε μηκέτι τοῦ γένους ἀλλὰ τῆς διανοίας δοκεῖν εἶναι, καὶ μᾶλλον Ἕλληνας καλεῖσθαι τοὺς τῆς παιδεύσεως τῆς ἡμετέρας ἢ τοὺς τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως μετέχοντας''
Isocrates, says that because of the wisdom of the Hellenes, at his time all wise men were called Hellenes and not only the ones that had common ethnic origin with the Athenians. So from the nationalist Classical Era, we slowly go to the multicultural Hellenistic era.
Also by saying ''our common ethnic origin'', I think that he believes that a Greek nations exists.
2) Classical - Hellenistic Era, 19th Century revolutions against the large Empire (Greeks vs Ottoman Empire, Polish vs Russian Empire, Hungarians vs Austrian Empire, South America colonies vs Spanish Empire). If you say that the Ottomans Empire or Austrian Empire is not multicultural and that, for example, the Greek revolution is not nationalist, then I give up.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
That means the opposite of what you are supposing it means. If he were arguing that there was a Hellenic ethnicity for which all Greeks should be allied in favor of, that would be nationalism. Saying that the mark of a Greek is "shared education" means that there is no Greek nation at all, since men in Israel and Egypt and Iran and Sicily have the same associations.
What? Okay, so since you're supposing that nationalism predates the French Revolution (contra what is universally believed by good historians), I'm asking for examples of an ideological clash between nationalism and multiculturalism that predates the 18th century. The Greek conflicts against the Ottoman Empire or the South American conflicts against the Spanish Empire are not evidence of nationalism, they are evidence that people didn't want to be ruled by Istanbul and Madrid, respectfully.
The ethnic conflicts in the Austro-Hungarian Empire is evidence of nationalism, but that didn't begin at all until the late 19th century.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
I know that. However, Isocrates states two Hellenes:
1) The ones who ''share in our common ethnic origin.''
2) And the ones who ''are called Hellenes because they have shared our common education''
Also another person stating that the Greeks are a race, and this time medieval:
"We are not ashamed of our race, Greeks we are, and we glory in it."
Antonio de Ferraris (c. 1444–1517), Galatone, Puglia.
this is before the French Revolution, so there was nationalism before the 18th Century.
That is wrong. If Constantinople was Byzantine, would the Greeks have revolted against the Byzantine Empire to create their own state? (I am not talking about a revolt to overthrow the Emperor.)
Also in South America there is not nationalism, right?
Also, Greek Revolution of 1685. Although Venice helped the rebels, and the rebels helped Venice, one can see that the people revolt to create a Greek state, but because they are afraid of the Turks, they ask Venetian help. Of course Venice accepts help against the Turks.
Also the Ionian Revolt, even more ancient revolution.
By the way, I am not a nationalist. I believe that there should be a Federal EU (USA style) and that Nations state cant work alone anymore.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
None of your examples suggest any sort of nationalism.
Absolution
King
There is no need to define civilization.
It is not a strict term.
What you can do is to debate about each one, and to decide wether it is a civilization or not.
The term civilization includes political entity, ethnic defenition, and territorial defenition.
But doesn't have to include all of them.
For example, Roman civilization and Italian civilization are not the same one in my opinion.
Babylonian and Akkadians are not the same civ as well.
However, Achaemenid Persia and Khwarezmian Persia are the same civilization in my opinion.
