Nationhood before Modernity

Generally the modern nation state starts to take shape after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648

I don't really know a whole lot more about it than that but maybe some other anon can help you out.

>>1059247
If we're talking Europe, then there was no clear nationhood or statehood identity back then. Ruling body often had different culture and spoke different language from the majority of population, there were no borders (except customs because everyone likes shekels) to speak of and religious identity was in some cases more influential than "national" one.

This being said, I don't know much about perception of nationhood in pre-modern area, but I know that Romans, for example, equalized nationhood with citizenship.

>>1059285
This Anon is absolutely correct about peace of Westphalia, but I want to elaborate on it. Westphalia is a land in Germany, not a city. There were two separate peace treaties for Sweden and France which were signed in two different Westphalian towns: Munster and Osnabruck. That happened because Thirty Year War was the first case where two large nations of different religious beliefs decided to act according to their common national interests instead, but they still had to keep some distance from each other.

>>1059247
It's kind of like obscenity: you know it when you see it.

>>1059385
I'm still confused as to what nationality is or what is its worth.

Is nationality an assumed identity based on the cultural manifestation of an ethnicity? What is an ethnicity? Is the defined solely by language given that there is no such thing as a pure race and even more so a pure 'ethnicity'?

And why was(and still is to a certain extent) nationality valued so much? Why didn't all citizens of former and current multiethnic states just adopt the dominant language and particularize the state culture on a regional level instead of developing a national culture?

I mean nationality really has no basis outside emotional attachment and cultural programming. You can't define it racially and culturally it is worth only insofar as it gives better results as opposed to other cultures(work ethic, balance between individualism and collectivism etc).

To me, the development of modern nationhood seems more like a regression. While the modern system of government is clearly superior to absolute monarchies and what not, it is no less valid today that the state is a matter of security and wealth, not some supposed inherent unity and brotherhood.

File: 1461249480290.png (338KB, 778x658px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 778x658px

An interesting read. "Nationalism in Norway in Middle Ages"

In Norway there excited a form of consetutional nationalism and authoritarian traditionalism. In the sense that the king had to be elected and supported by the people. Not by the church or nobles, nor did Norway have a aristocracy to follow other European customs befote the 13th century.
In the sagas you can read how Danes, and Swedes are sometime described aa inferior to the Norwegians.
Norway also had laws against treason against not only the king l, but also the nation and its inhabitants.

But this does not prove that Nationalism existed. Just that there werr a sense of national identety.

>>1059420
There are two main theories explaining nationalism: primordialism and instrumentalism.
Former describes nationalism as something inherently irrational but extremely strong which is either impossible, according to classic primordialism which isn't actually used these days, or very hard, according to modern, "soft" primordialism, to change. It also claims nations have deep roots in history but the rise of nationalism per se is still a strictly modern idea; some scholars tie it to mass literacy and printing development.
Instrumentalism is your basic postmodernist point of view: nations are a tool of the elite constructed to manipulate the public and all that.
Mind you, neither theory can be applied universally worldwide because, for example, primordialism cannot explain why countries like US or Canada have their own strong identity while instrumentalism cannot explain why oppressed nations in some cases lacking even elites like Ukrainians keep existing.
There are also some smaller theories like national symbolism which shows the importance of symbols, social-biological theory - essentially a mix of primordialism and instrumentalism - or marxism which denies anything national.
In other words, nations should be studied on a case by case basis because there's no one-size-fits-all solution.

>What is an ethnicity? Is the defined solely by language given that there is no such thing as a pure race and even more so a pure 'ethnicity'?
It's a very good question. Generally ethnicity is defined by a mix of language, culture, national myths and, last but not the least, a border between "us" and "them" which exists in the public perception.

>I mean nationality really has no basis outside emotional attachment and cultural programming
Culture didn't come out of nowhere. History, area of living, language and some other smaller factors all come into play here. A good example are mountain people who're always different from the ones who live on the plains.