>nationalism didn't exist until after Napoleon When will

>>300858
That's not nationalism, desu. Nationalism is connected with the system of the nation-state, which began in the 19th century.

It wasn't political nationalism though, they didn't try to unite Greek people under one flag, and they had no problems with allying "barbarians" against each other from Peloponnese War onward.

Nationalism =/= "ethnicities exist". It's more about the concept of a nation state which really didn't exist until the late 18th / early 19th century.

>>300858
>Hellenism
>nationalism
Nigga what what nigga what.

File: 1446782537095.jpg (9KB, 189x266px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 189x266px

>>300858
>Tfw you'll never unite the Germanic peoples into one nation.
>Tfw Austria is not part of Germany.

>>300915
Thank god they aren't

File: 12193590_182026395470341_7285490956721871286_n.jpg (48KB, 601x590px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 601x590px

>>300925

"Nationalism" in the sense of "Groups advocating their own interests"? Then of course it has, no amount of Queer-Marxist Studies whining will change that.

In the sense of "The Nation" as we know it? That's pretty new. There's a big difference between "We Hellenes have to look out for our own" and "We Athenians have to look out for our own", both of which are vastly different from "We members of the Pratokoratiokoidodkoikiddyfiddler clan have to look out for our own".

>>300858
Greek were more concerned with their polis than each other.

poli closer to each other were, well closer and had more relatable cultures (and the same language meaning communication was easier), but they didn't call each other brothers and they warred with each other more often than they did with other people.

Keep in mind that Macedon was also Hellenistic but they were also called barbarians.

>try to apply nationalism to a federalist setting.
>jump through hoops to explain why people of the same "nation" are constantly at war with one another and using people of different "nations" to crush them
>i-it's a civil war

>>300858
>nationalism means looking down on others
No, anon, this is the meme.

Nationalism is about creating a pan-ethnic state, where all people of a certain culture/ethnicity/religion/whatever will live and fight for their national interests together. Obviously this idea wasn't invented in the 19th century, but it became an ideology then, when the french people rose up against their oppressors together.

>>300893
That's exactly OP's point. People claim this as if national identity didn't exist before some wig-wearing motherfucker imposed it on them.

>>300858
>I don't know a lot about history, but here are some sweeping statements

File: alfredthegreat.jpg (75KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 620x387px

but what about Alfred the Great?

TO ELIMINATE THE VIKINGS WE MUST UNITE ALL THE ENGLISH PEOPLE UNDER ONE NATION

>>301220
No, OP just said nationalism.

There's a huge difference between "I am a German" and "there should be a state only for Germans, based on ethnic borders".

>>300883
Late 18th to be specific. But yes basically.

>>300858
I've always wondered this too. There's clearly examples of what we can consider nationalism in the past. In the same way greeks did this, persians differentiated between Iran and Non-Iran. It wasn't "ethnicities exist" because Iran meant not only persians but the rest of iranians too, and the kingdom wasland of Iran not only the people.

I remember reading somewhere (maybe here) that something similar happened in China. They were all chinese and China was asocated with a very specific piece of land, not with ethnic tribalistic

Also, if I remember well wasn't Machiavelli basically advocating for what's basically italian nationalism? Even if it was an unrealistic plan for the time because the political theatre didn't favour that, the idea still existed.

>>301213
This. Nationalism is firstly, the belief that various people are above all united by their nationality (especially including expressed national identity, language, and/or ethnicity). Secondly, that said community of people, called a nation, has or should have political sovereignity and right of self-determination.

>>301243
He said nationalism but didn't mean political nationalism

>There's a huge difference between "I am a German" and "there should be a state only for Germans, based on ethnic borders".
Mine and I assume his implication is that people use the argument to argue that neither existed and that both are modern.

>>301283
>that neither existed

I don't think anyone is arguing that and if he does then he's a retard. Medieval rulers and philosophers obviously understood the concept of ethnicity (considering the very fucking word ethnicity dates back to ancient Greece), they just saw as something marginal at best and downright undesirable at worst, seeing as they view tribal-oriented pagans as retarded primitives and non-ethnic based Christian society as a bastion of civilization.

>>301237
but he didn't succeed in that

quite a few kindoms were still under viking rule and after him they still held more loyalty to their individual kingdoms until William the conqueror (a Franco-norman) conquered them whose decedents went back and forth from being French and English when it convenienced them.

Keep in mind that Alfred called himself king of the Angles (aka English) DESPITE BEING A SAXON KING

>OP is mad he's a literal babby who can't comprehend life before nationalism

Git gud, faggot.

The Greeks called each other barbarians

>>301274
>It wasn't "ethnicities exist" because Iran meant not only persians but the rest of iranians too, and the kingdom wasland of Iran not only the people.
It's even better than that. "Eran" included non-Iranic peoples, like the Babylonians and various other tribes and ethnicities that were ruled by the shah, while "Aneran" (non-Iran) primarily referred to Turan, which bordered Persia proper to the north-east and was inhabited 99% by Iranic peoples, be it nomads like the Saka, or sedentary like the Soghdians. Furthermore, those "non-Iranians" were sometimes closer to Iranian cultural heritage - for instance, Zarathustrian literature refers to Bactria and Khwarezm being the cradle of the faith, rather than Persia proper.


Of course later the shahanshahs adopted the title king of Eran and Aneran, which fucked things up even further. And barbarian Iranic peoples like Kushans and Hephtalites invaded eastern parts of Persia and became persianized.

It's interesting how all this is even more massively fucked up in Shahnameh, which was written during times when Khwarezm again became the center of Iranian cultural revival, while Persia proper was under firm Arab rule. At times you can see Ferdousi trying to write himself out of a corner.

>>301315
Here's the thing, these societies weren't carefree non-racist societies brought together by faith as commonly envisioned. The instances of multiculturalism were most of the time due to imperialism and slavery, and heavily segregated at that. Sure, leaders didn't base their polity on nationalism like we do now, but nativistic attitudes and policies appeared all the time in all layers of society.

>>301220
>didn't exist before some wig-wearing motherfucker imposed it on them.

Nice strawman. The rise of literacy and mass political literature/propaganda creating the so called nation consciousness was what many people including Benedict Anderson attributed to the rise of Nationalism and not the Peace of Westphalia or >wig-wearing motherfucker as you kindly put it.

>>301276
Yes, exactly, nicely worded.

>>301347
They weren't non-racist, but pretty much the more civilized and higher in hierarchy you were, the less you viewed some kind of tribal bund as a good thing.

A shit-covered peasant treated people from a neighboring village like they're subhumans but noble houses were a clusterfuck of different ethnic backgrounds and nobody considered it bad.

>>301274
those are examples of proto-nationalism. the problem is nationalism is a project from top-bottom. we know the literati might have believed in it, but we don't know whether your average illiterate peasants who still made up the majority of the population believed it or not.

>>301367
Literally what's the difference between nationalism and proto-nationalism. It seems like an euphemism to avoid breaking the idea of "nationalism is modern" and nothing more.

>>301367
Of course they did. For example the Piedmontese forces who's goal was unification of Italy were welcomed by the people in all Italian states and cities and thousands of volunteers from all over Italy and even other European nations volunteered to fight for the Italian cause.

>>301366
Yes and no. In the nobility, some backgrounds and associations were considered bad. An emperor could insult someone by treating them as if they were foreigners which was like getting to sit at the kid's table.

>>301392
Any actual examples of this?

>>301390
We are not talking about Italian Unification here. There was already a "national identity". People acknowledge that. People just don't know if that was the case for example in China. For example the rise of national identity or consciousness is cited there to have begun in the early 20th century.

>>301412
This text highlights the friction between nobility and ethnicity

http://pastebin.com/GnG28fE8

>>300858
There was no "Greece" friend it was a group of Greek tribes hating themselves before and after the persians, so no, no nationalism.

>>300939
>"Nationalism" in the sense of "Groups advocating their own interests"
You make no sense.

>>301213
And why exactly would you identify with a group unless you thought it was the better group? How exactly do you propose one would consider one group "better" without considering another group "worse"?

>>301494
Do you also think that because you have a family, other families are worse?

>>300883
So people from city-states felt no national pride?

>>301535
I don't think my family is better. I spend time with my family because we share personal emotional bonds. This is not the case with citizens in a country who've never met or bonded emotionally.

>>301494
Because they are your group, you can't choose your people, but you can choose to feel proud in them.

>>301552
Why do you share an emotional bond with them and not with other families? Because you think your family is better?

>>300915
Germany should be part of Austria if anything. Austria has been the Germanic nation doing all the work in history, except Bismarck happened, luck of the Prussians they came across him.

Also they have cooler name. Eastern Realms, straight out of fantasy.

>>301850
So the homeland of the german people should not be called "germany" but "eastern march". Brilliant logic.

Next, how shall our soldiers treat their enemies? What about this?
In what respect do you mean?
First of all, in regard to slavery? Do you think it right that Hellenes should enslave Hellenic States, or allow others to enslave them, if they can help? Should not their custom be to spare them, considering the danger which there is that the whole race may one day fall under the yoke of the barbarians?
To spare them is infinitely better.
Then no Hellene should be owned by them as a slave; that is a rule which they will observe and advise the other Hellenes to observe.
Certainly, he said; they will in this way be united against the barbarians and will keep their hands off one another.
Next as to the slain; ought the conquerors, I said, to take anything but their armour? Does not the practice of despoiling an enemy afford an excuse for not facing the battle? Cowards skulk about the dead, pretending that they are fulfilling a duty, and many an army before now has been lost from this love of plunder.
Very true.
And is there not illiberality and avarice in robbing a corpse, and also a degree of meanness and womanishness in making an enemy of the dead body when the real enemy has flown away and left only his fighting gear behind him,—is not this rather like a dog who cannot get at his assailant, quarrelling with the stones which strike him instead?
Very like a dog, he said.
Then we must abstain from spoiling the dead or hindering their burial?
Yes, he replied, we most certainly must.
Neither shall we offer up arms at the temples of the gods, least of all the arms of Hellenes, if we care to maintain good feeling with other Hellenes; and, indeed, we have reason to fear that the offering of spoils taken from kinsmen may be a pollution unless commanded by the god himself?
Very true.

*German nationalism didn't exist until after Napoleon

fixed

>>301893
Again, as to the devastation of Hellenic territory or the burning of houses, what is to be the practice?
May I have the pleasure, he said, of hearing your opinion?
Both should be forbidden, in my judgment; I would take the annual produce and no more. Shall I tell you why?


Pray do.

Why, you see, there is a difference in the names 'discord' and 'war,' and I imagine that there is also a difference in their natures; the one is expressive of what is internal and domestic, the other of what is external and foreign; and the first of the two is termed discord, and only the second, war.

That is a very proper distinction, he replied.

And may I not observe with equal propriety that the Hellenic race is all united together by ties of blood and friendship, and alien and strange to the barbarians?

Very good, he said.

And therefore when Hellenes fight with barbarians and barbarians with Hellenes, they will be described by us as being at war when they fight, and by nature enemies, and this kind of antagonism should be called war; but when Hellenes fight with one another we shall say that Hellas is then in a state of disorder and discord, they being by nature friends; and such enmity is to be called discord.

I agree.

Consider then, I said, when that which we have acknowledged to be discord occurs, and a city is divided, if both parties destroy the lands and burn the houses of one another, how wicked does the strife appear! No true lover of his country would bring himself to tear in pieces his own nurse and mother: There might be reason in the conqueror depriving the conquered of their harvest, but still they would have the idea of peace in their hearts and would not mean to go on fighting for ever.

Yes, he said, that is a better temper than the other.

And will not the city, which you are founding, be an Hellenic city?

It ought to be, he replied.

>>301898


Then will not the citizens be good and civilized?

Yes, very civilized.

And will they not be lovers of Hellas, and think of Hellas as their own land, and share in the common temples?

Most certainly.
And any difference which arises among them will be regarded by them as discord only—a quarrel among friends, which is not to be called a war?
Certainly not.
Then they will quarrel as those who intend some day to be reconciled?
Certainly.
They will use friendly correction, but will not enslave or destroy their opponents; they will be correctors, not enemies?

Just so.

And as they are Hellenes themselves they will not devastate Hellas, nor will they burn houses, nor ever suppose that the whole population of a city—men, women, and children—are equally their enemies, for they know that the guilt of war is always confined to a few persons and that the many are their friends. And for all these reasons they will be unwilling to waste their lands and rase their houses; their enmity to them will only last until the many innocent sufferers have compelled the guilty few to give satisfaction?

I agree, he said, that our citizens should thus deal with their Hellenic enemies; and with barbarians as the Hellenes now deal with one another.

Then let us enact this law also for our guardians:—that they are neither to devastate the lands of Hellenes nor to burn their houses.

Agreed; and we may agree also in thinking that these, like all our previous enactments, are very good.

Plato, Republic, book V

>>301213
>>301276
These answer the OP perfectly.
/thread

File: 139897532460.jpg (40KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x500px

"I hate Greeks, but I hate other Races more"

-Agamemnon, Pericles, Leonidas, and countless others

>>301543
They didn't feel the need for all people of their culture to live under a single homogeneous state.

File: 1403219975693.jpg (4KB, 127x124px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 127x124px

>>300858
>Nationalism has existed since ancient Greece
>Tribalism is nationalism


Clearly you do not know the difference between one and another. Nationalism has nothing to do with ethnic identity per se. Nor superiority claims - which is natural and common to all civilizations.

Nationalism requires that there be a common identity (involving a language, customs, and generally, ethnicity and religion) under a common ground and a common sovereignty tied to national identity, to the exclusion of all others.

This is a recent concept. It's still very strange to much of the world, who always lived under multinational empires, or in scattered tribes.

>>301213
The first Persian invasion had the goal (on the Greek side) to free the Greeks living under Persia

>>303440
>common identity (involving a language, customs, and generally, ethnicity and religion) under a common ground and a common sovereignty tied to national identity, to the exclusion of all others
That is literally exactly what the Greeks were in times of foreign invasion.

That idea even existed before the classical idea, because that's how they operated in the Iliad

>>300858
>"muh big bad persians and greek pride"
Athenians viewed everyone as barbarians including the other city-states.and the whole "stand together agains the eastern threat" was a one time thing to protect their own political interests rather that cultural/national pride.
>Themistocles, the great political leader, naval commander and hero of Salamis
>became the advisor to the son of Xerxes after the war
>Pausanias, nephew of Leonidas and the King of Sparta that was seen as a hero when he lead all the united greek forces during the deciding Battle of Platea
>became a fucking persianboo that would dress like them and adapt their culture while he was plotting with Xerxes to help him conquer Greece in return for marrying his daughter, but ended up getting walled inside a Temple of Athena and almost starved to death after he was found out
And dont get me started on the peloponnesian/corinthian war where the persians were basically playing greek roulette on who to side with.

Hell, the only time the greeks actually stood united was against the Macedonians in defense of Persia and if Memnon of Rhodes didnt die of illness before he could get his ionian greek/persian fleet to Demosthenes and friends in Athens then it wouldnt have just been Sparta that Alexander would have had to face at Megalopolis.

>>303536
The Greeks still considered themselves a cohesive unit when compared to everyone else though.

They'd come together and play games with one another and generally understood that they were of the same stock.

Even their folk histories involved them banding together to fight non greeks.

They weren't a single nation, but they shared what a modern would see as Nationalistic traits. It's to the point that Greece was the first modern nationalist nation when they came into being

>>301220
Modern national identities are mostly manufactured nigga.
Like, the French government had to kick the ass of every child until they stopped speaking their local tongue before they identified as "French".

Yes, there always was a sense of belonging to your territory, but that extended to what you had before your eyes: your city or maybe the whole region. But the idea that some Norman descendant from Calais shares an identity with some quasi-Italian from Corsica is purely and entirely modern.

>>303774
Maybe the Greeks did, but when people talk about the birth of nationalism, it's of course compared with feudalism. Nobody under feudalism believed in some abstract concept like "the nation", it was an interpersonal system so all that mattered was "the king".

>>303536
>the US has had traitors
>therefore the US doesn't exist

that's you

>>303803
>George Washington and Benjamin Franklin decided to leave America to suck the cock of King George

that's you

>>300883
>>300889
>>300893
>>300904
FUCK OFF /POL/