Assignment Submission

Name – Khushi Thakran

Roll No – 6575
Semester – 6TH
Subject – Modern Europe II

Compare and contrast the processes of nation-building in Germany,

Italy, and the Balkans in the 19th and early 20th centuries. How did
historical, political, and cultural contexts influence the distinct paths
of unification and nationalism in these regions?

Ans. The 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the dramatic
reconfiguration of the European political map, as emerging
nationalist movements challenged old empires and gave rise to
modern nation-states. Among the most notable examples of this
transformation were the unification of Germany and Italy, and the
tumultuous nationalist struggles in the Balkans. Though driven by
shared goals of self-determination and sovereignty, the processes of
nation-building in these regions followed distinct trajectories shaped
by their unique historical, political, and cultural contexts. Scholars
have long debated the nature and origins of nationalism. Benedict
Anderson, in Imagined Communities (1983), argues that nations are
socially constructed entities imagined through shared language, print
media, and collective memory. Eric Hobsbawm in Nations and
Nationalism since 1780 (1990), frames nationalism as a modern
phenomenon closely linked to state-building and the needs of
industrial capitalism. In contrast, Anthony D. Smith particularly in The
Ethnic Origins of Nations (1986), emphasizes the role of deep-rooted
ethnic identities, myths, and symbols in shaping national
 Assignment Submission

consciousness over time. Charles Tilly’s Coercion, Capital, and

European States (1990) offers a structural perspective, asserting that
war-making and state-making were interdependent processes crucial
to the emergence of centralized nation-states like Germany. This
assignment examines the contrasting paths of nation-building in
Germany, Italy, and the Balkans analyzing how geopolitical
circumstances, cultural narratives, and ideological frameworks
shaped each region’s trajectory.
Modern German nationalism emerged about the late 18th century
under the impetus provided by the French Revolution and the
simplification of the political map of Europe and of the German
states by the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire by Napoleonic
armies. While modem nationalism has been linked to the rise of
capitalism and of bourgeois liberalism by adopting a linguistic or
ethnic definition of nations, the beginnings of nationalism can be
pushed back much further in time. However, the political unification
of Germany in the 19th century proved to be a difficult and complex
process, as the conservative monarchies resisted the spread of liberal
ideas and sought to maintain their authority. Following the
Napoleonic Wars, Germany's political fragmentation was reduced
from over 300 states in the Holy Roman Empire to just thirty-eight,
forming the German Bund in 1815. This was an attempt to preserve
the sovereignty of individual German states. However, the Concert of
Europe, led by Austria Prussia and Russia suppressed liberal and
democratic movements, especially through the actions of Austrian
Chancellor Prince Metternich. The unification of Germany faced
significant challenges particularly from conservative monarchies that
were resistant to liberal reforms. Although many German states
introduced democratic reforms after 1848, Prussia maintained a
more conservative political system, where electoral votes were
disproportionately controlled by wealthy minorities. The Prussian
political system remained entrenched until 1918, hindering
 Assignment Submission

democratic progress. The path to unification was also shaped by

military conflict. Prussia played a leading role in the process, aiding
smaller states in suppressing revolutionary uprisings in 1830 and
1848. Despite the creation of a national parliament, the Reichstag,
and a shared governing structure the German Empire remained a
loosely federated state, with significant influence from Prussian
conservatism. The process of unification was shaped by both Prussian
militarism and local resistance leading to a decentralized system that
required concessions to smaller states like Bavaria and Württemberg.
In addition to political and military factors, economic development
also contributed to the unification of Germany, particularly through
the rise of bourgeois ideology and industrial growth. The relatively
backward state of Germany compared to Britain coupled with the
desire to compete with British industrial power played a significant
role in shaping the policies of German states particularly Prussia. The
economic development of Germany in the 19th century was marked
by a significant shift in its industrial base. Although agriculture
remained important, there was substantial growth in the textile
sector during the 1830s following the creation of the Zollverein
(Customs Union) in 1833. This was followed by further industrial
development in the 1840s primarily driven by investments in
railways. Despite a temporary setback caused by harvest failures in
1846-47 and the revolutions of 1848-49, German industrialization
experienced a boom from the 1850s to the 1870s with industries like
coal, iron, and railroads driving the economy. The rapid expansion of
railways played a critical role in integrating the German economy,
fostering demand for iron and coal, and stimulating industrial growth.
However, the industrial bourgeoisie in Germany, though growing, was
not powerful enough to influence the political process of unification
significantly.
 Assignment Submission

Despite the liberal economic ideas promoted by thinkers like

Friedrich List, German industrialization did not immediately affect the
political unification process. High tariffs crucial to industrial growth
were not fully implemented until after unification in 1879 and the
industrial class was not sufficiently numerous to play a decisive role
in political reform. Moreover the German bourgeoisie though rapidly
developing could not democratize German society. The weakness of
the liberal bourgeoisie is often cited as a major reason why Germany
did not experience a liberal democratic revolution similar to that of
France, thus shaping the political structure of the unified German
state in ways that limited its democratic potential.

Bismark and German Unification

The unification of Germany in the 19th century was a complex
process, influenced by political maneuvering, military conflict, and
economic alliances. A major architect of this unification was Otto von
Bismarck, who used his real politic approach to navigate the delicate
balance of power within Europe and to achieve the goal of a unified
Germany under Prussian leadership. Bismarck’s political strategy was
rooted in Prussia’s ascendancy and a clear focus on German
unification. Bismarck worked within the German Confederation
(created after the Congress of Vienna) but by the mid-1800s it
became clear that the Confederation was inadequate for unifying
Germany. Prussia's involvement in the Zollverein (customs union)
helped strengthen economic ties among the northern states making
them more amenable to Prussian leadership. Bismarck was an expert
in manipulating international relations ensuring that Prussia did not
face a two-front war. He kept France neutral by skillfully isolating
them diplomatically, and used alliances with Italy (against Austria) to
further his goals. He also cleverly manipulated internal German
politics playing off the fears of smaller states against Austria’s
influence, and then later, uniting them against a common external
 Assignment Submission

enemy (France). On the other hand If we talk about Italy , the

Austrian Minister, Metternich had called Italy a "geographical
expression" in a conversation with Lord Palmerston in the summer of
1847. There is no doubt that Italian nationalism, which emerged in
the late 18th century actually gained wider support only in the 1830s
and 1840s. Like Bismarck, Italian unification was also led by a strong
central authority specifically Piedmont-Sardinia under Count Cavour.
However, Cavour's method was more liberal involving both
diplomacy and popular uprisings (especially by Garibaldi) to unite
Italy. While Bismarck excluded liberal forces in favor of conservative
monarchies and military solutions, Cavour worked alongside liberal
movements to unite Italy. The Balkans experienced a more
fragmented and chaotic path to nationalism and state formation.
Unlike Bismarck’s controlled and strategic approach, the Balkan
states were driven by ethnic and religious nationalism and the
Ottoman Empire’s decline created power vacuums. Wars in the
Balkans like the Russo-Turkish War (1877-78) played a central role in
state creation but led to greater instability compared to the relatively
stable unification of Germany.

Italian Nationalism and Unification

Italian nationalism in the 19th century was driven by the desire to
unify the fragmented states of the Italian Peninsula into a single
nation-state. The movement was motivated by a combination of
national identity, economic modernization, and liberal ideals. Unlike
the case of Germany, where Bismarck’s real politic played a crucial
role, Italy's unification (known as the Risorgimento) was influenced
by a blend of diplomatic, military, and popular efforts. The idea of
Italian nationalism was shaped by the concepts of liberalism,
romanticism, and republicanism all of which emerged during the
Napoleonic era and the post-Napoleonic period. Nationalism, as an
ideology was partly inspired by the idea that the people of a nation
 Assignment Submission

should govern themselves and share a common culture, history, and

language. Some of the key leaders : Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) -
A passionate advocate for republicanism and nationalism, Mazzini is
considered one of the intellectual fathers of Italian unification. He
founded the secret society Young Italy aimed at creating a unified
independent Italy. His vision was democratic, with a republican form
of government. Although Mazzini's ideas did not immediately result
in a unified Italy he inspired many with his ideas of national
sovereignty and freedom. Count Camillo di Cavour (1810-1861): As
the Prime Minister of Piedmont-Sardinia, Cavour was the primary
diplomatic architect of Italian unification. He sought to unify Italy
under the monarchy of the House of Savoy believing that monarchy
was a more practical solution than Mazzini's republicanism. Cavour
skillfully navigated alliances, particularly with France, to weaken
Austria’s influence over northern Italy. His diplomatic skills played a
crucial role in the eventual creation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861.
Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882): A military leader and revolutionary,
Garibaldi was instrumental in the unification of southern Italy. He led
the famous Expedition of the Thousand in 1860 where his forces
conquered Sicily and Naples, effectively ending Bourbon rule in
southern Italy. Garibaldi's more republican vision contrasted with
Cavour’s monarchy-oriented approach, but he ultimately supported
the unification under King Victor Emmanuel II. The main debate
among Italian nationalists was whether Italy should be a republic or a
monarchy. Mazzini, with his republican ideals pushed for a
democratic Italy, while Cavour and Victor Emmanuel II supported a
constitutional monarchy. This division created tensions but ultimately
resulted in a compromise when the monarchy of Piedmont-Sardinia
became the foundation of the new Italian state. Scholars like
Christopher Duggan argues that the Italian unification was "a top-
down process," driven more by the ambitions of elites, particularly
Piedmont-Sardinia’s monarchy, rather than a mass movement of the
people. He suggests that the Sardinian monarchy played a more
 Assignment Submission

significant role than commonly acknowledged. David Gilmour

emphasizes the role of Garibaldi noting that despite Cavour’s
diplomatic efforts, it was Garibaldi's army that ignited the popular
spirit necessary for the unification. However, he also highlights that
the liberal reforms of Cavour were essential for consolidating the
new state. Unlike Germany where Bismarck's strategic wars played a
decisive role in unification, Italy’s path involved both diplomatic
negotiations (Cavour’s alliances) and popular uprisings (Garibaldi’s
military campaigns). Italy’s unification also faced more internal
resistance, especially from the Papal States and the southern
kingdoms. The Balkan states, unlike Italy faced a complex ethnic
nationalism and the decline of the Ottoman Empire, leading to wars
and revolutions for independence. In contrast Italian unification was
largely driven by the desire to expel foreign powers (like Austria) and
consolidate territorial claims into one unified state.

Balkan Nationalism
The Balkans, a region in southeastern Europe has a complex history
of nationalism and the struggle for unification, particularly during the
19th and early 20th centuries. Like Italy, the Balkans were
characterized by ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity and this
diversity played a significant role in the emergence of nationalist
movements that sought to unify various groups under a single
national identity. However, the path to unification in the Balkans was
often marked by ethnic conflict, external intervention, and the
collapse of empires. In the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire
controlled most of the Balkans. The empire though diverse in terms
of ethnic and religious groups struggled to maintain control over the
region, particularly as nationalist movements in Europe began to
spread. The idea of national identity which was gaining traction in
other parts of Europe took root in the Balkans where Slavs, Greeks,
Albanians, and Romanians began to demand independence from
 Assignment Submission

Ottoman rule. The desire for national unity in the Balkans was
influenced by Romantic nationalism, ethnic self-determination, and
the rise of European liberalism, but it was also deeply shaped by the
decline of the Ottoman Empire and the intervention of European
powers like Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Britain. Balkan nationalism
was not just about creating new nation-states but also about
asserting the independence and sovereignty of peoples who had long
been subject to Ottoman, Austrian, or Russian control. Nationalism in
the region was often built around ethnic and religious identities,
particularly for Slavs (e.g., Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians), Greeks, and
Albanians. Ethnicity, language and religion became key markers of
national identity in the Balkans. European powers, particularly Russia
and Austria-Hungary played a significant role in shaping Balkan
nationalism. Russia supported Slavic nationalist movements
particularly in Serbia and Bulgaria viewing them as part of the
broader Slavic world and a way to expand Russian influence in the
region. On the other hand, Austria-Hungary supported some of the
South Slavic national movements, like those of the Croats, but also
sought to maintain its influence in the region. Many Balkan nations,
particularly Italy and the Slavic states, engaged in irredentism a
political movement that sought to reclaim territories they considered
historically or ethnically theirs. For example, Serbia sought to expand
into Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina and Greece pursued territorial
claims in Macedonia and Albania. John V.A. Fine Jr. a historian of the
Balkans argues that the roots of Balkan nationalism were deep and
tied to centuries of Ottoman and Habsburg domination. He suggests
that ethnic identity in the Balkans was often constructed in
opposition to foreign rule and that nationalist movements in the
region were influenced by both local traditions and the broader
trends of European nationalism. Katherine Verdery has explored the
role of state-building and ethnic identity in the formation of nation-
states in Eastern Europe. She emphasizes the importance of
territoriality and how borders were often redrawn to accommodate
 Assignment Submission

nationalist claims. Mark Mazower in his work on Balkan history has

pointed out that the Balkans were caught in the crossfire of
competing European empires and states. He suggests that Balkan
nationalism was not only a struggle for independence but also a
battle for influence between Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the
Ottoman Empire. The Balkan Wars and the eventual formation of
Yugoslavia reflected the difficulties of achieving unity in a region
marked by a variety of ethnic and religious identities. Similarly, Italian
nationalism faced challenges in reconciling the differing visions of
Mazzini’s republicanism and Cavour’s monarchical constitutionalism,
but it managed to create a single Italian state by the late 19th
century. The Balkans, on the other hand experienced prolonged
instability and division after their initial independence.

In conclusion
The 19th-century nation-building efforts in Italy, Germany and the
Balkans reflect the complex and often contradictory nature of
nationalism. While Italy and Germany emerged as unified states
through a combination of diplomacy, war and elite political strategy,
the Balkans remained a fragmented mosaic of nationalist aspirations
competing within and against imperial structures. What distinguishes
these movements is not only their differing outcomes but also the
divergent roles played by leadership, ideology, and external powers.
In Italy and Germany, unification strengthened the central authority
and laid the groundwork for future imperial ambitions. In contrast,
Balkan nationalism exposed the fragility of multinational empires and
anticipated the volatility of the 20th century. These examples reveal
that nation-building is never merely a domestic affair—it is shaped by
regional dynamics, historical grievances, and the shifting balance of
power in Europe. Ultimately, these unifications did not resolve
questions of identity and sovereignty, but rather redefined them in
 Assignment Submission

ways that would continue to reverberate in European history for

decades to come.