Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by UberCryxic


Oh are we adopting a defeatist attitude now and retreating with half-assed comments???

More that I couldn't be arsed responding in detail to your ranting.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by UberCryxic


Oh are we adopting a defeatist attitude now and retreating with half-assed comments???

While Napolean lacked the defeatest attitude, he was shown the door by being defeated on the battlefield.

What is your fascination with this little dwarf anyway, he is obviously overshadowed by the homosexual Greek and the pimping Mongol warlord....

[Alexander's Horse]

The French revolution is a seminal event and seen as the starting point for the modern period but actually the English civil war could be seen as an equally seminal event, ushering in parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy for the first time. That occurred well before the French Revolution when France was still in feudal ignorance.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
What is your fascination with this little dwarf anyway, he is obviously overshadowed by the homosexual Greek and the pimping Mongol warlord....

Mind you he was 5'6''....that was average height back then.

[Alexander's Horse]

his horse was short

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by UberCryxic

Molly are you aware that Napoleon formed an Irish Foreign Legion for his army???

When I say, "the French Revolution saw the founding of MODERN nationalism" (keep the word 'modern' in mind) I mean that it exploded all those sentiments that had been building up in the previous century/centuries.

These common identities were finally let out of a cannonball by the French Revolution; Napoleon was the spark. ....but their common anger, frustration, and desires were set to action by what Napoleon did.....that is what I was saying. I hope this time I was a bit more clearer.

Yes, I am aware of the role the Wild Geese played in European armies- are you equally aware of the Irish Marshals in the Austrian and Spanish and Russian armies?

Napoleon's Irish Brigade weren't by any means France's first such- at the Battle of Fontenoy an Irish force helped defeat the British, in the reign of Louis XV, as they had earlier helped defeat the Austrians in Louis XIV's reign at the Battle of Cremona.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1512/brigade.html

In any case, Napoleon was simply taking advantage of an already existing phenomenon, that dated back to (in part) Norman settlement of the Pale of Dublin, and more properly, the three great settlements or plantations of the Jacobean (James I) and Cromwellian eras, and the reign of William III.

An explicitly indpendent nationalist Catholic and Irish identity was fostered in opposition to a Protestant Irish one seen as being subservient or allied to the English crown, although by the latter part of the 18th Century, Protestants open to the philosophical ideas of the Enlightenmnent were also backing the cause of Irish independence.

Now given that the American Revolution predated the French one, and that the style of nationalism fostered by the American Revolution differs to a great degree from the French one, you cannot assume that the French Revolution was responsible for agitation for an Irish Revolution, for instance, certainly not given the role of Irish Catholics in the American War of Independence (at least one of whom signed the Declaration of Independence).

The Portuguese and Dutch were by the time of the Treaty of Westphalia nations with individual cultures which had asserted themselves against more powerful entities which had sought to absorb or subdue them within a pan-European state. Portugal reasserted its independence from Spain in 1680, well before the French Revolution or Napoleon.

Now if by modern state, you mean a centralized, or centralizing power with a bureaucracy, an intelligence service, a civil service, a national entity that encourages an inhabitant's identification with it, then you already have this in several states in the 17th Century.

Certainly, with the likes of Axel Oxenstierna in Sweden (and the de la Gardies to a certain extent too) Strafford in Great Britain, the Count Duke Olivares in Spain and Richelieu/Mazarin and the likes of Colbert in France you have servants of the Crown/state who subordinate personal gain/private religion to a greater 'national' duty.

From the two statements of Richelieu's which I quoted, you can see quite clearly how he thinks of France-
as a national unified entity, not separated into religious or noble factions, and a power which suppresses any assertions of private or exclusive privilege on the part of aristocrats or religious parties against the interest of the state.

Similarly in Great Britain under Cromwell, there was a more extreme conception of the nation as a godly construct, because due to the nature of his Protestant beliefs he believed he was creating God's kingdom on earth (or at least the preconditions for its establishment).

Even then, he was merely building on decades of English Puritan sentiments and English culture which had asserted a distinct national culture.


A Belgian revolt from the Kingdom of the Netherlands (an entity created by Napoleon) is hardly evidence of Napoleon fostering national identity on behalf of the Dutch. One might at least give credit to the opera which was being performed and is said to have inspired it.

'In August 1830, stirred by a performance of Auber's' La Muette de Portici' at the Brussels opera house La Monnaie, the Belgian Revolution broke out, and the country wrested its independence from the Dutch, aided by French intellectuals and French armed forces. The real political forces behind this were the strong resistance from the Catholic clergy against the protestant Dutch king, joined by the equally strong resistance from the liberals, opposing the royal authoritarianism. '

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Belgium

You have yet to show how Napoleon helped the Poles, Irish, Swedes, Finns, Greeks, Americans, Spanish, Portuguese, Danes, Scots or Russians assert their nationhood, because he didn't (other than creating the short lived Duchy of Warsaw, an obvious counterbalance/irritant for the Enlightened Despotisms of Prussia, Russia and Austria).

If you were asserting however, that Napoleon's alienation of the Prussians and his lack of understanding in the Iberian theatre of war helped promote a national identification in opposition to Napoleon, you'd be correct.

I would say you would be on much firmer ground by claiming that through entities such as the Confederation of the Rhine, the various Italian republics and kingdoms he set up, and the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire he was at least partly inspirational for Italian Unification
and a growth in German moves towards unification (although as we've already seen, Herder was promoting this before the French Revolution).

[Al B. Sure!]

Attila and Mohammed are so over-shadowed by the others... Mohammed really doesn't deserve to be on here as in his life, the muslims only consolidated Arabia. It was just in the 40 years (very short time period considering we're talking about the 7th century) after his death that the muslims established one of the largest empires in history, from Spain to northern India...

the muslims, alongside the mongols and alexander, deserve recognition for forming the largest, longest-lasting, empires in incredibly short spans of time against enemies that were far superior to them. Napoleon, Hitler, and Caesar did not suffer as acute disadvantages as the muslims, mongols, and macedonians did.

[Al B. Sure!]

my vote by the way, is split betweren Sargon of Akkadia and Menes of Upper Egypt... they started this whole mess of conquests

[Ben Kenobi]

The assertion of an avowedly English identity began not only with the foundation of an Anglican English church, but also with its exclusion from continental landholdings with the loss of Calais in the reign of Mary Tudor, and subsequently the growth of English as a language and literature accelerated by the replacement of Latin in church usage and the explosion of printed material in English in the reign of Elizabeth I.

Also you have to consider the defeat and conquest of the rest of Normandy because this forced the Norman lords to decide between becoming vassals of France or of England.

The Norman lords that stayed in England tended to have less of a continental outlook than the ones that chose to become vassals of France. Given that the parliaments in England comprised of the Lords, this loss of the continentalist lords would have a large effect on public policy.

[Ben Kenobi]

He never ended the war like Napoleon ended conflict with the Second Coalition. I was mistaken in saying "permanent peace", that just came out wrong; it wasn't what I meant.

Then you concede my point. How different is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from the Peace of Amiens?

Hitler's abilities as a military commander have seriously been called into doubt after the disastrous invasion of the Soviet Union. He blundered badly in weakening the center and shifting 4th Panzer Corps in the Caucasus Campaign. There were also plenty of other mistakes.

And Napoleon is not without his own?

Sending Marshal Ney to a suicidal charge against the English squares, rather than leaving his artillery, to chew at the British?

Both of them were about as successful with the invasion of Russia, so if Hitler's unsuccessful attempt casts doubts as to his military prowess, then so should Napoleon's unsuccessful attempt.

Britain was comparatively much weaker in the 1940's then she was in the early 19th century. Combine Nelson's genius with improving naval trends and you have the recipe for British domination of the seas.

Britain had a smaller navy than the Dutch at the beginning of the century, and had a smaller navy than the combined Spanish and French fleets at Trafalgar. Much of their successes and domination of the seas did not come until after the defeat of Napoleon at Trafalgar, and their consolidation over the rest of the 19th Century.

Now, while the British did not have as much naval supremacy in the second world war, they still were able to bottle up the Germans, and produce enough ships to overcome damage through submarine warfare. Hitler never had any domination of the seas, hence his determination to establish Lebensraum over the Ukraine so that he could feed the Reich.

So in both cases, Britain dominated the seas, at least for surface fleet. I don't see that much of a difference between the situation of the British in 1815, and that of Britain in 1940.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Also you have to consider the defeat and conquest of the rest of Normandy because this forced the Norman lords to decide between becoming vassals of France or of England.

The Norman lords that stayed in England tended to have less of a continental outlook than the ones that chose to become vassals of France. Given that the parliaments in England comprised of the Lords, this loss of the continentalist lords would have a large effect on public policy.

It might, but it wouldn't have anything to do with asserting a national English identity- I'm not quite sure what a 'continental outlook' is anyway- a view of France from a window in then English Calais?

I'd say rather that the Welsh Tudors taking the English throne from an English Yorkist had to establish their credentials, and had to keep on establishing their credentials, given the popular uprisings against Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary Tudor and even Elizabeth I.
Consider the anti-Yorkist propaganda of Sir Thomas More against Richard III, and of course Shakespeare's play of 'Richard III', only parts of a campaign of legitimization for the short-lived Tudor dynasty

After a fractious civil war (or conflict between noble factions) the country was little involved directly with foreign adventurism- Henry VIII's forays into mainland Europe aren't exactly the stuff of legend (except perhaps for the Field of the Cloth of Gold) and parsimonious Elizabeth preferred to subsidize foreign forces rather than send over costlier English armies.

The creation of a national, English church, with a liturgy in the vernacular, the translation of Old and New Testaments into English, and the conception and conviction that a language which served as the means of communication for perhaps only 5-7 millions in mainly one part of one offshore island could convey meaning as well as any other European language, all helped foster the growing sense of a national unity.

Even in Henry VIII's day, Cornish, for instance, was still being used in Cornwall, in everyday speech, and in productions of Cornish Mystery Plays, and Irish Gaelic, not English, was the main language of Ireland.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then you concede my point. How different is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from the Peace of Amiens?



And Napoleon is not without his own?

Sending Marshal Ney to a suicidal charge against the English squares, rather than leaving his artillery, to chew at the British?

Both of them were about as successful with the invasion of Russia, so if Hitler's unsuccessful attempt casts doubts as to his military prowess, then so should Napoleon's unsuccessful attempt.



Britain had a smaller navy than the Dutch at the beginning of the century, and had a smaller navy than the combined Spanish and French fleets at Trafalgar. Much of their successes and domination of the seas did not come until after the defeat of Napoleon at Trafalgar, and their consolidation over the rest of the 19th Century.

Now, while the British did not have as much naval supremacy in the second world war, they still were able to bottle up the Germans, and produce enough ships to overcome damage through submarine warfare. Hitler never had any domination of the seas, hence his determination to establish Lebensraum over the Ukraine so that he could feed the Reich.

So in both cases, Britain dominated the seas, at least for surface fleet. I don't see that much of a difference between the situation of the British in 1815, and that of Britain in 1940.

The Peace of Amiens brought peace to ALL of Europe. Last I recall, the M-R pact never did that. And later on Napoleon had at least some breathing space to enjoy his triumphs. Hitler was perennially tied down in a losing effort. An important correction on Ney's charges: injured British soldiers were escorted out via the Brussels-Charleroi road and when Ney saw these roadcoats he thought the British were retreating and he charged like hell, only to find the British arrayed in squares. Napoleon was actually livid by this move. French artillery was largely unsuccessful because the British were positioned behind a crest and couldn't be clearly seen. And Hitler was WAY more successful with the invasion of Russia. Napoleon fumbled badly; Hitler pwned the Russians like no other, the Reds only surviving because of those well-equipped Siberian divisions which had been freed by Japan's concession not to attack. But I am not interested in isolated incidents. Patterns are more important. Hitler never showed Napoleon's genius when in a bind. Once he started losing, he STARTED losing. Man....they got owned. But that requires a lot more deep analysis which for lack of time I won't go into.......the statement on the navies proves nothing about British strength. In the 1880s Chile had a larger navy than America but they would've gotten raped in the event of war....Britain would've dismantled Holland...anyway, you are right about the British domination of the seas. It started in the 1790s with the use of innovative tactics which finally uberowned the Franco-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar....they were very superior to their enemies....much more so than in World War II....your last paragraph is a joke...I think you made a mistake unknowingly...cuz 1940 is a bad year to pick. Ya know....'the Blitz'....By 1815 Britain was much more comfortable about her security than she was in 1940....Molly unfortunately with the start of school I don't have that much time so I can't quite respond to your post just now, but I will during the weekend perhaps. I do want to reiterate that concentrating on 'national identities' gets us nowhere because then I can easily prove that nationalism started during the Hundred Years War...and maybe even during the Capetians of France, who consolidated royal authority...how would you like that? Your analysis is aimed at the wrong thing, with all due respect. Try looking up 'modern nationalism' and the French Revolution will be your crucible.....

[UberCryxic]

Yo Molly, here you go: http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/natlism.html ....."Nationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon, probably born with the French Revolution..."..."In its first powerful manifestation in the French Revolution, nationalism carried with it the notion of popular sovereignty, from which some have inferred that nationalism can occur only in democratic nations"... "Although nationalism is unique to the modern world, some of its elements can be traced throughout history"..."It was in the 19th cent. that nationalism became a widespread and powerful force. During this time nationalism expressed itself in many areas as a drive for national unification or independence. The spirit of nationalism took an especially strong hold in Germany, where thinkers such as Johann Gottfried von Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte had developed the idea of Volk. However, the nationalism that inspired the German people to rise against the empire of Napoleon I was conservative, tradition-bound, and narrow rather than liberal, progressive, and universal"...like I said dude, you're concentrating on the wrong side of the coin. I'm telling you to look at heads and you're looking at tails.....your apology is accepted.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by UberCryxic

"Nationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon, probably born with the French Revolution..."..."

"Although nationalism is unique to the modern world, some of its elements can be traced throughout history"...

like I said dude, you're concentrating on the wrong side of the coin. I'm telling you to look at heads and you're looking at tails.....your apology is accepted.

Well, thanks, but you won't be getting one.

Notic ethat all important 'probably'.....

You seem to be labouring under the impression that there is only one kind of nationalism, and that one person's opinion is holy writ.

There isn't, and it ain't.

So far you haven't shown out of the many examples I gave, how Napoleon 'inspired' or produced English, American, Spanish, Portuguese, Scottish, Finnish, Russian or Dutch 'nationalism'.

You don't seem to appreciate, for instance, that the kind of nationalism expressed in France during the French Revolution and after may differ greatly from the nationalism found in England during the Tudor dynasties and the Cromwellian Interregnum.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/geog/study/courses/globalisation/week7.pdf

The Treaty of Westphalia and 'nationalism'.


and again:

'The origins of modern states can be traced to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which saw the disintegration of the medieval Holy Roman Empire. This era witnessed a polarization of European powers and the emergence of centralized political and legal administrations that laid the foundations of England, France, Spanish, Swedish, Russia, Hungary and the Holland territories. '

http://www.kurdishmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1586

and again:

'Tony Blair wants "rogue" states to be stripped of the protection afforded by the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. That forbade intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and decreed they couldn't be attacked unless they posed a direct threat to the country, or a treaty partner of the country, that went to war with them. '

http://www.20six.co.uk/weblogEntry/1cppivbz7mpfb

and again:

'The problem with Scruton's and Ruthven's cultural determinism is its teleology. In fact, Western secularism, in the sense of de jure authority, is a more recent innovation than the Bible would suggest. It was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that introduced the principles of territorial sovereignty, established the independence of states and gave impetus to notions of raison d'etat, thereby overthrowing forever the medievalist notion of a universal religious authority acting as final arbiter of Christendom. Prior to Westphalia, secularism only existed as de facto power, as Rome was challenged by the divine right of kings. The reason Scruton does not delve into this basic history is because he does not wish to concede the possibility of historical change taking precedence over cultural forms, rather than culture determining history. '

http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2003-02/islamism.htm

and finally:

'
.... the nation state is a highly specific historical form.

It developed between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe. The rise of the modern state not only changed the territorial landscape of Europe: it also transformed our imaginative landscapes.

Since the seventeenth century, we have come to see political power as inherently territorial.

Politics takes place within the state as the exclusive governor of a definite territory. We also identify political territory with social space, perceiving countries as ‘state-societies’.

....sovereign territorial states reinvented themselves as nation states. Rulers and ruled became alike, and together they shared a distinct culture and institutions defined at least in part in opposition to those of other nations.


Such differences were shaped in and by the conflict of states that has been inherent in the states system since its formation.'

http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/104hirst.htm

Conflicts such as the Reconquista in Spain- redefining Spanish as Catholic, non-Jewish and non-Moorish, and attempting to create a Spanish nation and identity, rather than sets of kingdoms and towns with their own exclusive privileges within the Iberian peninsula.

Such as the Eighty Years' War between the United Provinces and Spain, creating a mercantilist tolerant Protestant Dutch society.

Such as the triumph of the Tudors at the end of the Wars of the Roses, and the creation of a militant Protestant English national identity in the English Civil Wars.

Such as the creation of a federal republican democratic state in opposition to a constitutional monarchy, in the United States.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Well, thanks, but you won't be getting one.

Notic ethat all important 'probably'.....

You seem to be labouring under the impression that there is only one kind of nationalism, and that one person's opinion is holy writ.

There isn't, and it ain't.

So far you haven't shown out of the many examples I gave, how Napoleon 'inspired' or produced English, American, Spanish, Portuguese, Scottish, Finnish, Russian or Dutch 'nationalism'.

You don't seem to appreciate, for instance, that the kind of nationalism expressed in France during the French Revolution and after may differ greatly from the nationalism found in England during the Tudor dynasties and the Cromwellian Interregnum.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/geog/study/courses/globalisation/week7.pdf

The Treaty of Westphalia and 'nationalism'.


and again:

'The origins of modern states can be traced to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which saw the disintegration of the medieval Holy Roman Empire. This era witnessed a polarization of European powers and the emergence of centralized political and legal administrations that laid the foundations of England, France, Spanish, Swedish, Russia, Hungary and the Holland territories. '

http://www.kurdishmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1586

and again:

'Tony Blair wants "rogue" states to be stripped of the protection afforded by the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. That forbade intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and decreed they couldn't be attacked unless they posed a direct threat to the country, or a treaty partner of the country, that went to war with them. '

http://www.20six.co.uk/weblogEntry/1cppivbz7mpfb

and again:

'The problem with Scruton's and Ruthven's cultural determinism is its teleology. In fact, Western secularism, in the sense of de jure authority, is a more recent innovation than the Bible would suggest. It was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that introduced the principles of territorial sovereignty, established the independence of states and gave impetus to notions of raison d'etat, thereby overthrowing forever the medievalist notion of a universal religious authority acting as final arbiter of Christendom. Prior to Westphalia, secularism only existed as de facto power, as Rome was challenged by the divine right of kings. The reason Scruton does not delve into this basic history is because he does not wish to concede the possibility of historical change taking precedence over cultural forms, rather than culture determining history. '

http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2003-02/islamism.htm

and finally:

'
.... the nation state is a highly specific historical form.

It developed between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe. The rise of the modern state not only changed the territorial landscape of Europe: it also transformed our imaginative landscapes.

Since the seventeenth century, we have come to see political power as inherently territorial.

Politics takes place within the state as the exclusive governor of a definite territory. We also identify political territory with social space, perceiving countries as ‘state-societies’.

....sovereign territorial states reinvented themselves as nation states. Rulers and ruled became alike, and together they shared a distinct culture and institutions defined at least in part in opposition to those of other nations.


Such differences were shaped in and by the conflict of states that has been inherent in the states system since its formation.'

http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/104hirst.htm

Conflicts such as the Reconquista in Spain- redefining Spanish as Catholic, non-Jewish and non-Moorish, and attempting to create a Spanish nation and identity, rather than sets of kingdoms and towns with their own exclusive privileges within the Iberian peninsula.

Such as the Eighty Years' War between the United Provinces and Spain, creating a mercantilist tolerant Protestant Dutch society.

Such as the triumph of the Tudors at the end of the Wars of the Roses, and the creation of a militant Protestant English national identity in the English Civil Wars.

Such as the creation of a federal republican democratic state in opposition to a constitutional monarchy, in the United States.

"You seem to be labouring under the impression that there is only one kind of nationalism, and that one person's opinion is holy writ." - "One person's opinion"....you know how ridiculous you sound? Did you even see the link? It was the Columbia Encyclopedia. But if you want more: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook17.html. "Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of "feeling" and "identity" [see Herder above all on this] and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a "people" rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic "identity nationalism" and Liberal "civic nationalism" were essentially middle class movements. There were two main ways of exemplification: the French method of "inclusion" - essentially that anyone who accepted loyalty to the civil French state was a "citizen". In practice this meant the enforcement of a considerable degree of uniformity, for instance the destruction of regional languages. The US can be seen to have, eventually, adopted this ideal of civic inclusive nationalism. The German method, required by political circumstances, was todefine the "nation" in ethnic terms. Ethnicity in practice came down to speaking German and (perhaps) having a German name. For the largely German-speaking Slavic middle classes of Prague, Agram etc. who took up the nationalist ideal, the ethnic aspect became even more important than it had been for the Germans. It is debateable whether, in practice, all nationalisms ended up as Chauvinistic and aggressive, but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn. Unless these boundaries are purely civic, successful nationalism, in many cases produced a situation in which substantial groups of outsiders were left within "nation-states"."

Hell, I could go on giving you links and sources pointing to the French Revolution being the crucible of nationalism until I had a book.

"So far you haven't shown out of the many examples I gave, how Napoleon 'inspired' or produced English, American, Spanish, Portuguese, Scottish, Finnish, Russian or Dutch 'nationalism'." - aww you've given up on the Germans? I at least hoped you would've made one last foolhardy stand for them. Making the debate this categorical isn't really constructive, and because I "can't" prove it (not so much that as the fact that up to know I thought it was common knowledge that the French Revolution was the birthplace of nationalism...hence I feel no point in trying to a great effort). Now let's see, with Spain you had the revolution of 1823, which I've already mentioned. You had the Belgians, also influenced by the French. You had people all across Europe beginning to show discontent with the established powers. And I should also like to think Leo Tolstoy knows more about how the Russian spirit was affected by the French than you....you might've heard of it, it's a book called War and Peace. Read it sometimes.

"You don't seem to appreciate, for instance, that the kind of nationalism expressed in France during the French Revolution and after may differ greatly from the nationalism found in England during the Tudor dynasties and the Cromwellian Interregnum." - Here I think you've finally reached the 'armistice' line. I'm to the left and you to the right. I suspected all along that you were not talking about nationalism in the same sense I was. I don't consider your case with the Tudors useful because I mentioned earlier that many nations had undergone similar things in their history. To that end, we can tie 'nationalism' back to ancient times. The reason why I speak of "this" type of nationalism is because it was the most important in history. The French Revolution is the turning point in human history; by far the most important event to ever occur. The forces unleashed from it brought about the modern world. THAT type of nationalism never existed before. So thank you for drawing the distinction......we can debate endlessly about the Westphalia setting the stage for modern borders. The split of the Carolingian Empire in 840 layed the foundations for modern-day France and Germany, yet you don't mention it. Again I reiterate, with the vain hope your brain-dead existence will comprehend, that modern nationalism was born in the French Revolution.....any other suggestion would indicate you are not talking about the type of nationalism that shaked human history in the past two centuries.