Off Topic Catalonia

I think the difference is nationalism and national identity. In the middle ages your average serf couldn't be bothered if the Lord of the manor was French, English, Russia or what. They all shat on you and made you work for them.

Conquering territory used to pay off. A successful war used to be worthwhile. Once you got into the 1800's, especially in Europe, there became little profit in conquering neighbours. With more shared wealth and more national identity suddenly the people began to care who ruled them.

You could no longer conquer territory in Europe because the people wouldn't accept you, eventually they would rebel and throw you out. The Soviets had the most success but when they had to set up puppet regimes they couldn't rule directly. A Pole doesn't want to be a Russian. A frog doesnt want to be German. Ultimately conquered territory was never really conquered... It may be occupied but the national identity of the people remained and an occupied country requires constant military oversight.

Asian and Africa was fair game but even they have strong national identities now.


I think the age of conquering countries.and holding onto them directly (at least without a lot of expense and military oversight) is over for the time being.

Now serfdom in a way might be coming back with the way the gap between rich and poor is growing. We may end up uncaring serfs to whom one master is the same as another again.

 

I take the points you're making, but class (i.e. wealth and privilege) has always been the big difference. As you say, the poor have always been shat on by whoever is in charge, and smart rulers stave off rebellion with bread and circuses.
If rulers gave the people what they wanted, would the people really care about the rulers origins? After all, European royal houses have always been more closely related to each other than the countries in which they sat.

 

What about Italy and German u indication though... they were later than you allude to.

The history show all empires have seen the same eventual rebellion.

As I said if you parcel up states into tiny nothings like Kosovo or Catalonia or Scotland or where ever they will be rolled over if/when the threat of repercussions from big states drops.

As of now global trade is the only thing that scares countries off the brink. Imo....

Look at China. It's in love with global trade. The consequence of the destruction of this trade through war is devastation of ones own economy.

Scarily total war replaces the need for trade via manufacture of weapons etc so perhaps one day soon the us hawks in the g.o.p. might realise building a zillion cruise missiles to destroy China is a great way to employ americans.

Frankly the whole of central and South America is wide open for American conquest. None of them have a lot to piss in. We know hslfbof America would never dream of it but there's some serious freaks in the right in the usa

 

IPhones for all.

The emperor who does that will rule the world.

 

But Germany and Italy unified into the current forms by a strong national identity. There was already the sense of a similar people. Same language same society, etc.


Just like nationalism drives separatism it drove unity in those previously fragmented states.

 

You think the italian regions had or have a strong national identity?

 

Hang on woah....there. Germany and Italy are different to Spain? That Prussia and Bavaria are that similar that Bavaria does want some independance now?

Or how South of Italy and north of Italy have consistent battles over identity and one castingnoff the other?

We might was well say Italy France and Spain are really all Roman constructs and the 3 should reunite if this were the case.

I must point out again my point is bigger will gobble up smaller. I believe the amaerican civil war was fought over complex issues but cessesion from the union was prevented through war. Very shortly after this the German unification occurred but too some 20 odd years. Thry fought Austria over little principalities and also Denmark to take provinces and then Prussia turned its attention to the south and it is known that bismark deliberately started the franco prussian war to convince the more catholic and less warlike south yo join him. As in the threat of war.

We could go further back in time to talk about France which really was a fragmented set of kingdoms.

However my main point was small states get eaten up by big ones and I think history amply demonstrates this. As I also said in agreement with one of your points empires come and fall and that is the cycle of civilisation and dark ages that humanity has been going through forever.

My question was: are we seeing the disintegration of the grand European democratic experiment? I believe in Brexit the lies told bought a vote that the consequences of have not yet been fully realised. I believe the rise of the right in France and Germany, Austria and others indicates a dangerous time coming and when small states like Catalonia decide that selfish monetary reasons are enough to splinter the Spanish nation especially having seen the Basque terrorists in action.... well.. are people being served well?

I just think at some point the splintering of the ussr is something put in sees as a great wrong to be righted and many small states exist with little protection. If europe splinters so far its no longer an entity i think putin will feel he can exert his powers all he likes. The russian bear may be weak but don t think it can't bear claws and top Europe apart.

Is thisparanoid? Probably.

 

Had, yes. Italian nationalism nominally brought the country together. Have, no. Especially recently which is why you have an independence movement currently in the North. As the world is globilising regions are becoming more insular and self identifying.