In 19th century Europe the conflict between the notions of the nation state and empire were created through the desire for more supremacy and division of ideas, being both imperial and nationalistic. This tension was mostly centered around the ideas of what Europe was at the time and what is would work to become. Ideological differences between nations and empires created geo-political conflict. Many thinkers of the time espoused individual rights and, detested many forms of imperial rule.
With the rise of nationalistic movements such as the French revolution highlight the struggle of social groups in Europe fighting for the right to self-governance. Upon the invasion of Prussia by Napoleon, philosopher Gottlieb Fichte withdrew from the belief that foreign rule over the nation was possible and went through an intellectual opposition toward any form of occupation from a foreign power and rather urged Germans to create a strong unification within Germany and unite on a common national identity (Benner 2013, p. 45).
His views which were posed in his Addresses to the German Nation in 1808, indicate that were was a growing sense of nationalism which was significantly affected by post French revolution, and such tensions also illustrate the growing fears of occupation and being stripped of any form of autonomy which could result in some form of republican nation state. Thus, this is a reflection of some of the attitudes to the tension of the idea of nation state, which forms as one of the various implications of the tensions and interdependence regarding ideas of empire.
One of the tensions between the ideas of empire and the nation state in 19th century Europe was the advocacy of the division of Europe into nation states, partly accounting for the failure of any permanent concept and practicality of the empire. Ernest Renan states – “western Europe appears to us as divided into nations, some of which, at certain periods, tried to establish a hegemony over others, without ever achieving any permanent success” (Renan 1995, p. 143). A division was seen not only in ideology, but also geo-politically, where the divide of nation states accounted for the national difference.
Renan mentions that resulting from the end of the Roman Empire and the subsequent failures of prominent historical European figures such as Napoleon I, Charles V and Louis XIV in maintaining an empire, there resulted a low chance of an empire emerging again, since Europe was too divided nationalistically (p. 143). The tension with the ideas of empire and the nation state is, as Renan states – “an attempt at universal domination would immediately produce a coalition that would compel the ambitious nation to retire within its natural limits” (p. 143).
Considering these tensions of division, it illustrates the ‘historical individuality’ that various nation states had acquired, including Russia, Germany, England and France, thus the difficulty in any chances of unification as a European empire. Thus, the division accounts for the struggles that occur between the “protagonists of different conceptions of European modernity” (Strath and Koskenniemi 2009, p. 2). Additionally, the concept of a power struggle and the power politics of Europe was a major factor in contributing to the tension and interdependence of the ideas of empire and the nation state in Europe.
The power struggle present in Europe, exemplifies the idea of the tension with deciding who would be given the responsibility and authority to control Europe. In order to maintain the public order of Europe, two main conceptions were present; the first being the regional stability which was recognized by events such as the Holy Alliance of 1815 (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014) and the European Concert during the post Napoleonic era (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014).
The other concept was the idea of “emerging international law of sovereign equals as alternative modes of stabilisation” (Strath and Koskenniemi 2009, p. 3). The relationship that was present between the two main conceptions, were more prominent in the inception of the German empire in 1870, thus contributing toward changing the power interplay of Europe. Therefore, this contributed to tension between the national and international, in which the idea of European nation states and European empires played into power politics (Strath and Koskenniemi 2009, p. ).
Focusing more towards the interdependence of nation state and empire, is found in post Congress of Vienna, where the interdependence between empires and monarchies, illustrates the tensions that were also present once the expanding beliefs of nationhood were becoming evident. In Vienna, there was a strong influence of the monarchy providing the general stability, significantly territorial, which was motivated by the idea of the balance of power.
Shortly after the congress of Vienna (1814-1815), the inception of the Holy Alliance (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014) was introduced in which Tsar Alexander | made additions, one of those additions being the inclusion of a principle which was grounded on religious belief in “peaceful settlement of conflicts among the European monarchs” (Strath and Koskenniemi 2009, p. 3). Therefore within this formation would include alliances with other monarchs which the Tsar involved in his manifest and monarchs binding themselves to follow justice and mercy according to Christian teachings in regards to governing their people.
Of those who signed the manifest included Emperor Franz I of Austria, Tsar Alexander | and King Freidrich Wilhelm III of Prussia (Strath and Koskenniemi 2009, p. 3). Yet although this interdependence between monarchies seemed quite successful, it is evident that there was also a failure and weakness, since the attempts being made by The Holy Alliance to expand their political influence in other congresses, such as Verona in 1822 and Aachen in 1818; were directly opposed with the reality of the emerging principle and idea of national sovereignty (Strath and Koskenniemi 2009, . 3). Considering revolutions were taking place throughout Europe, it accounted for further tensions – Already the revolutions in Spain, the Two Sicilies and Greece in 1820-21, and later in the 1830’s and 1840’s claims for German and somewhat later Italian unification challenged the principles laid down in Vienna.
In 1830 (France, Belgium, Poland) and even more in 1848, the confrontation between the principles of territorial power balance and national sovereignty was violent and shook the continent (Strath and Koskenniemi 2009, p. -4). These movements accounted for the tensions of the vision of rising nation states, but also the interdependence that was occurring between the people of various segments of Europe who shared very similar intellectual ideas regarding the future of Europe. It also allowed for the discussion on the issue of which people were able to be given the entitlement of national independence (Benner 2013, p. 48). There was an evident politicisation in the discussion of general principles.
The introduction of the universal Principe de nationalite by Alphonse de Lamartine, the French foreign minister in 1848, gave France the authorisation to provide military aid to whichever movement that was of the subject nationalities in Europe. Thus the great powers consisting of Britain, Russia and France, along with the Austrian and Ottoman Empires which were being threatened with decline, would use the principle “selectively to support national movements that weakened their rivals” (Benner 2013, p. 8).
Thus the idea of empire and nation state was greatly tense. The reality is not only the people supporting and fighting intellectually and physically for the nation state, but also the Empires themselves were in fear of being threatened and overpowered by the emerging nationalistic beliefs present in Europe. Thus this accounts for the tensions and interdependence of nation states and empires in 19th century Europe.