why did nationalism overtake religion as the driving force for

>>1834436
>why did nationalism overtake religion as the driving force for conflict? but in other places (the middle east) it reverted back to religion?

Wut?

>>1834444

up until the 18th century religion had been the main justification to wage war against another country (crusades, jihads, protestants vs catholics, sunni vs shia). but when imperialism hit its stride it became more about spreading your cultural identity or obtaining resources (from other cultures who did not "deserve" them) religion still played a role yes but it more to the side compared to the former two.

thats what i meant sorry if it was worded poorly

Because until recently the two concepts were indistinct? OUR religion, is part of OUR culture, which defines OUR nation.

>>1834471
>>1834436

There is no why because thou art wrong.

See: conflicts between Rome and her neighbours, Alexander's conquests, the Mongolian invasions, any number of wars between European neighbours (Britain and Scotland for example) during the medieval and renaissance period, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in China, the Sengoku period, and a million more examples of wars fought for reasons other than religion pre-nationalism.

Also see: WW1 and WW2, the Vietnam war, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Korean war, the Napoleonic wars, the war of 1812, the Russo-Japanese war, the Boer war, and plenty more for examples of conflict concurrent with or post-the emergence of nationalism, but in which nationalism did not play a major part in causing the conflict, or only does so as part of a more complex web of causation.

>>1834471
Your point about imperialism and obtaining resources is more accurate to the cause of war for almost every conflict, however imperialism is not nationalism.

>>1834436
>religion
>force for conflict

Sweet meme broseph

>>1834436
The Catholic Church's influence declined in Europe around the end of the Middle Ages, and eventually Europe got sick and tired of rending itself into pieces due to originally religious wars in the 16th-17th centuries.

>>1834471
These are a very small number of conflicts. They are less about Religion and more about Government. True, the Government was based around Religion, but religion at the time was not about who was "right or wrong" but instead religion was considered equal to one's faction. The wars were more like "this is protest land fuck off Catholic", "this is Christian land, fuck off Saracen" etc. Christians stopped aligning themselves with religious factions since the Enlightenment. Other religions have not, though.

>>1834520

Bullshit.

Maybe that was true after christian countries spent generations Deus vulting themselves, anon. By doing a lot of stuff like the expelling the Huguenots from France to reach that point.

Schismatics BTFO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre

>>1834520
Wrong. Prior the rise of nationalism and nation-states subverting religion to their own purposes, religions such as Christianity and Islam were understood as universalist religions. Ergo when some medieval leader rallies people to DEFEND CHRISTENDOM/ISLAM that is understood as every Christian/Muslim cunt regardless of his nationality.

If you'd put medieval identity loyalties into a scale then that would be
>Religion > Liege/City State > Nation.

Think about the concept of Christendom.

Its incompatible with nationalism.

>>1834993
Jesus DID say His Kingdom was not of this world...

>>1835013

heh

Christendom is basically the EU of the medieval ages.

European, take a look at Pope Francis. Do you consider this man to be the leader of your nation?

>>1834436
>the driving force for conflict?
class conflict is the conflict that starts all conflict