It's kinda hard to use anything else from the war in domestic politics (And the Constitution fixing a few of those issues).
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Could someone explain in real terms the difference between a "nation state" and a "sovereign state"? That's one of those things that's always gone above my head when I try to figure it out.
A sovereign state is a state over which there is no higher authority, in other words it is politically independant. A nation-state is a state which is created by and for a nation, and exists to serve the members of that nation.
So, the Ottoman Empire in 1453 was a sovereign state, and modern Turkey is a nation-state.
Spoke different languages, were bound to different Lords, had different structures and power balances (The Portuguese King always wielded a lot more power than the French Kings in contrast with the vassals. Making a contrast, while a lot of the French power structures emanated in the huge feudal landings of vassals of the French King, in Portugal power emanated a lot from popular support and autonomy granted by the King to the towns, who were in turn placed directly under his authority), had different regional traditions, among many other minor details which in the end, make the difference into dividing a people from the other one.
Popular hostility towards Castillian Kings (Contrarily to Portuguese Noblility and Clergy, whose alligiances always fractured when disputed legitimacy was on the line) is well documented in Portuguese history. The plebs and burghers were always against Castillian candidates or successors to the throne. In every single war.
Last edited:
Nation here being used in the sense of a people that share certain historical, cultural, linguistic, etc, ties. Not in its informal sense of a country.
All nation-states are sovereign states (being sovereign is considered part of the definition of nation-state), but not all sovereign states are nation-states. Modern examples of sovereign states that are not nation-states would be places like Canada or the UK, which quite openly recognizes as fundamental part of the state multiple distinct nations.
So if a sovereign state is politically independent and has no higher authority, how is Turkey not a sovereign state and what makes it a nation state?
A nation-state is necessarily a sovereign-state, but not the other way around. So today's Turkey is both a sovereign-state and a nation-state
Lord no.
Although I really hope names/flags are not locked to TAGs, so if someone converts a CK2 game where they formed an "Ottoman-ish" empire with a different dynasty name, they won't have to suddenly become the Ottomans.
Indeed. One could even argue that the concept of sovereign state was enshrined by the Peace of Augsburg of 1555.
No, it wasn't a continuum:
I understand not all countries during the time-frame were as homogeneous as Portugal, but EU3's usage is a good abstraction. Let's not say Oh, nations did not exist, just because most countries were heterogeneous.
Nations existed but most sovereign states of the era where not nation-states, either in theory or in practice. The King of Poland ruled over a diverse collection of ethnic and cultural groups, and Polish people lived not just in Poland but also in Prussia or the Holy Roman Empire.
It's still not clear to me. If a nation state is also a sovereign state then all the attributes of a sovereign state are a subset of the attributes of a nation state... so a nation state is a sovereign state and more. What more is a nation state that a sovereign state isn't? Presumably it's possible to have a sovereign state that is not a nation state. Chamboozer's earlier post stated that "A sovereign state is a state over which there is no higher authority, in other words it is politically independant."; what more conditions does a state have to fullfill before being upgraded from sovereign state to nation state?
It has to exist by and for that nation. For instance, Germany is a nation-state because it is a state that exists for the German people, and Yemen is not a nation-state because the majority of Arabs do not reside within it.
Nation states are a subset of Sovereign States. Chamboozer is correct, a nation state is a state that is supposed to exist for a certain group ("Nation") of people, and who are supposed to have some kind of god given right to the land within which the "nation" resides.
Examples of countries that are/were not nation states: The United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, India, Singapore.
The quintessential nation state is Japan, almost all of it's residents are "Japanese". Some Nation States also can have very large minorities living within them. Good examples would be Russia, which is at once a nation-states ("for Russians"), but also has extremely large minorities (eg: Chechens, tatars etc.). Another one might be China, which has large non-chinese minorities within it's borders as well.
Generally speaking, if a country is named after an ethnicity, it's a nation state. If it's not an ethnicity, but more a regional or political description, it is not a nation state. For instance India is not a nation state, as there is no "Indian" ethnicity or nation. Instead Indians would describe themselves as Tamils, Hindi, Bengali etc. Likewise the USA is not a nation state so much as a state founded on a particular political idea, with many ethnicities freely coexisting within it.
Examples of countries that are/were not nation states: The United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, India, Singapore.
The quintessential nation state is Japan, almost all of it's residents are "Japanese". Some Nation States also can have very large minorities living within them. Good examples would be Russia, which is at once a nation-states ("for Russians"), but also has extremely large minorities (eg: Chechens, tatars etc.). Another one might be China, which has large non-chinese minorities within it's borders as well.
Generally speaking, if a country is named after an ethnicity, it's a nation state. If it's not an ethnicity, but more a regional or political description, it is not a nation state. For instance India is not a nation state, as there is no "Indian" ethnicity or nation. Instead Indians would describe themselves as Tamils, Hindi, Bengali etc. Likewise the USA is not a nation state so much as a state founded on a particular political idea, with many ethnicities freely coexisting within it.
Last edited:
It's not an "upgrade" or an "evolution" or "progress". Many modern states aren't nation-states at all, including arguably a few pretty significant ones.
The difference between a nation-state and any other sovereign state is that the nation-state is that the nation-state define itself on the basis of a specific group of people (a nation), which shares common geographic, historical, cultural and ESPECIALLY linguistic ties. The nation-state will claim to be THE state for that group of people, and subsequently will generally claim the right to rule any and all areas associated with that group (and anyone who live within them, even if they're from a different group).
Other, non-nation states, instead, define themselves by their territory. They don't claim a right to rule over territory on the basis of "historical association" or over the presence of a certain group in that region, but (in earlier times) because of dynastic inheritance or simple right of conquest, or (today) largely on the basis of treaties and legal documents that define their territories to begin with. Much more importantly, they claim to be the union or assembly of many historico-cultural groups that all happens to live within the state.
France, for example, portrays itself as the nation of one single people, who speak a common language (the Bretons...have some slight recriminations on the issue). It doesn't make much claim on anyone else's territory anymore (although there is a certain movement that seems to think Belgian Wallonia should become French), because World Wars happened, but in theory, it still defines itself along national lines. That doesn't mean that they refuse to let anyone else move in; but they tend to think that people who move in should Frenchify themselves. France is thus both a sovereign state and a nation-state.
Japan, as others noted above, is decidedly a nation-state.
Canada, on the other hand, has a long tradition of NOT defining itself along national lines. The constitution established a level of bilingualism at the federal government, implicitly admitting that there were (at least!) two distinct nations that were equally part of Canada (since linguistic distinction are some of the most important ones in determining what is and is not a nation). The addition of official bilingualism at the federal level strenghtened that, and the recognition of the Québécois nation "as part of a united Canada" in the last few years made it explicit (there's also the whole First Nations angle to possibly consider). Canada is thus very much NOT a nation-state (but it is a sovereign state).
(The Québec independence movement, on the other hand, is rooted in the idea of the nation-state).
The difference between a nation-state and any other sovereign state is that the nation-state is that the nation-state define itself on the basis of a specific group of people (a nation), which shares common geographic, historical, cultural and ESPECIALLY linguistic ties. The nation-state will claim to be THE state for that group of people, and subsequently will generally claim the right to rule any and all areas associated with that group (and anyone who live within them, even if they're from a different group).
Other, non-nation states, instead, define themselves by their territory. They don't claim a right to rule over territory on the basis of "historical association" or over the presence of a certain group in that region, but (in earlier times) because of dynastic inheritance or simple right of conquest, or (today) largely on the basis of treaties and legal documents that define their territories to begin with. Much more importantly, they claim to be the union or assembly of many historico-cultural groups that all happens to live within the state.
France, for example, portrays itself as the nation of one single people, who speak a common language (the Bretons...have some slight recriminations on the issue). It doesn't make much claim on anyone else's territory anymore (although there is a certain movement that seems to think Belgian Wallonia should become French), because World Wars happened, but in theory, it still defines itself along national lines. That doesn't mean that they refuse to let anyone else move in; but they tend to think that people who move in should Frenchify themselves. France is thus both a sovereign state and a nation-state.
Japan, as others noted above, is decidedly a nation-state.
Canada, on the other hand, has a long tradition of NOT defining itself along national lines. The constitution established a level of bilingualism at the federal government, implicitly admitting that there were (at least!) two distinct nations that were equally part of Canada (since linguistic distinction are some of the most important ones in determining what is and is not a nation). The addition of official bilingualism at the federal level strenghtened that, and the recognition of the Québécois nation "as part of a united Canada" in the last few years made it explicit (there's also the whole First Nations angle to possibly consider). Canada is thus very much NOT a nation-state (but it is a sovereign state).
(The Québec independence movement, on the other hand, is rooted in the idea of the nation-state).
Last edited:
It's partially true. The American Revolution had its origins in the separation of Colonial and British culture and in how used the Americans were (by 1770) to being 'independent' to some degree anyways, but the cause for the American revolution was the Tea and Stamp Taxes which pissed off the Americans and made them aware that they didn't have representation in the greater British parliament. In this way the American revolution has a lot of similarities to the Creole rebellions that ended in the independence of the Latin American states.
But I would attribute the American 'Revolution' more to Enlightenment concepts of tyranny and the Tea/Stamp taxes than I would any nascent sense of nationalism.
edit @ Guillarme: I utterly agree, which is why I think that we should make nationhood a national idea (that is difficult to acquire) rather than a tech-up or a governmental type or anything like that. By 1820 I would only really say that France (and maybe Poland) had developed an idea of nationhood, and over the timeline I would only really maybe maybe add Ming to a list of countries that saw themselves as nations. But if we allowed nationhood to be something easily attained by a country (say have it only require a tech limit, or 1 or 2 government ideas), then by 1789 or whatever you'd see multiple Italian city states claiming their unique nationhood, you'd see a Hanseatic Nation standing beside the Hessian Nation standing beside the nation of Cologne. Now, historically, you do have a bunch of nations which are relatively small (The Flemish and Walloon nations for instance), but that came out of differing cultural factors, not both Flanders and Wallonia hitting Government Tech 57.
Last edited: