I don't think resorgimento nationalism was religious in nature.

>The only reason the "nation-state" didn't exist before the post-enlightenment was that society hadn't modernized at a level to allow a civic identity to even develop beyond the regional level.

First you're going to need to define modernisation and by what you mean.

And yes I would agree that society wasn't able to reach the level to allow "civic" (define this) identity to develop beyond small regional lines, but I don't think this is an argument against what i'm saying moreso of an explanation of something which is true and natural

btw let me finish

>The national identity was always tied into the monarch or religion.

Yes. I agree

Just bc there is a time gap doesn't indicate harm also @εïз irma εïз
...

Everybody gets paradise is my definition for the modernism I believe is

>The latter of which was infinitely more important than national identity before the 19th century, even between countries like England and France that already had a proto-national identity

Yes, there was always an importance, a huge one in fact, however this was at a time when these nation-states who were led also by religion began realising how much an adverse effect religion had on their control which slowly began creating the idea of "secularism" much like how you secularise the yolk of an egg, the center, the same occurred with religion and nation-states

Romantic (and by extension risorgimento) nationalism of the 19th century was inherently secular.

^ yup

It was only reactionary movements such as that in France that was religious.

>And it's silly to suggest that nationalism didn't exist before that.

Before when fam?

Before the 19th century.

Someone in TRC tried to argue that with me once

The proliferation of the press, transportation technology (the train), and the telegraph all allowed language to become standardized.

You both agree with me. Let's not flog this section too much

That it didn't truly exist until the French Revolution gave it a definition

>For example Rome, that did have a civic identity (although it didn't extend much outside of Italy) or Greek city-states which had their own localized identities and considered themselves as diverse as early modern Europe.

You're using the idea of civic identities, which i hope you'll define later, and yes Rome did have a huge identity and it's influence reached the maximum it could (which for it's time was immense eventhough for now it's pretty weak) this isn't an aspect of nationalism though

@εïз irma εïз you really should've let me asnwer everything at once

now i have to keep scrolling up for your responses

and piece them together with my response

A civic identity as in based on a shared identity, not based on religious or ethnic similarities.

what shared identity though?

Not unlike romanticism of the 19th century.

you're pretending an identity is nearly always religious or ethnic

when it isn'0t the case in history

even before the 1500s

for every single case

Well for the French, as I briefly mentioned, they had a proto-national character by being at war with the English for a hundred years.

@aymem everybody has Angel powers and a mate.

The proto-English and French national identities were based on their rivalry with each other.

and one thing, i do realise nationalism is an incrementation of identity and how it always evolves

i'm not saying we should go back in time

i'm saying we should evolve

Most countries did not have a real identity before the 1500's and even afterwards.

Most people knew their lives in association with their lord. There was no connection to governmental authority or any connection to the identity of the country as a whole, and this was made possible by the fact that nobody spoke the same way you did. Ex., France.

Modern French is based entirely off of the Parisian dialect spoken in the Ile-de-France, it's not how most people spoke.

And it's the same in Germany and Spain and Italy.

I guess I'm done.

okay gucci

>Most countries did not have a real identity before the 1500's and even afterwards.

Yes, this is my point for the most part.

>Most people knew their lives in association with their lord. There was no connection to governmental authority or any connection to the identity of the country as a whole, and this was made possible by the fact that nobody spoke the same way you did. Ex., France.

This, is also my point, there was no identity because there was never an idea of melding nation with state, people lived their lives by their lord and whatever feudalistic societal hamlet they were apart of. However in these small connection of hamlets where a stabilised culture could occur, these differences were created, even if they were small. However even by saying this, i'm not saying we should close ourselves of, i'm only saying we should take a pluralistic approach and at the same continue the inevitable process which is internationalism, but not in a process that still damages the person and ethnos and is ultimately not even driven by culture or truth.

>Modern French is based entirely off of the Parisian dialect spoken in the Ile-de-France, it's not how most people spoke.

Yup.

>And it's the same in Germany and Spain and Italy.

Nearly always use Italy and France as examples since they're the easiest to use, and Spain for reference to now since Spain was never truly able to extinguish regionalism at the extent that other nations did since Spain has nearly always had a separate path from other European countries

@εïз irma εïз ❤

And Spain didn't follow the same route as Germany, France, or Italy because the country was dominated by agrarian hidalgos and all of the things that allowed romanticism to take root in those other countries were never Spanish.