THE APOGEE OF EUROPEAN NATION-STATES

 

                                                                               The Vienna Congress (1815)

19th century is the European century. In the first half the principle of the Nation-State through the Laissez-faire (liberal) regime extends all over Europe despite the resistance of the Absolutists sovereigns reunited in the Congress of Vienna (1815) and signatories of the Holy Alliance, and Metternich's policy of counterrevolutionary military intervention.

                                                          Klemmens von Metternich (1773-1859)

 It is true that thanks to Metternich's system European sovereigns agreed on a common policy to fight revolutions as the one started by Riego in Spain in 1820, that was followed by movements like the Decembrist Revolt in Russia (1825). 

                                                                    The Decembrists in Saint Peterburg (1825)

But Metternich's system ends when the UK walks away from the Holy Alliance because Her Majesty's Government and British ruling classes do not want to back the repression of the rebellion in Spanish America, as they saw a great potential for British Colonial interests in Central and South America. And the same is true with the Greek War of independance (1821-1832) against the Ottoman Empire,where notorious European intellectuals like Lord Byron (1788-1824) are willing to figh and die for. 

The Metternich System collapses also in France with the 1830 revolution that brings also the Belgian Revolution against the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the creation of the Belgian State. These movements would also have an extremely important repercussion in England, as they led to the crucial electoral reform of Lord Grey in 1832 that transform the nature of the English Parliamentary system in the sense of rendering it more representative, opening up the way to the democratization of the British Political System. A process that would not be completed entirely until the  the right of vote was granted to British women in 1928.    

                                    The 1830 French Revolution by Eugène Delacroix

The whole order established in the Congress of Vienna crumbles definitely in the rest of Europe with the wave of 1848 revolutions, that brings liberal nationalism to Italy, Austria and Prussia. This crucial movement would end up changing the political history of Continental Europe, starting with the Unification movements that happened in Italy and Germany. It also enables the creation of the French Second Republic, which is the first "social" regime in European history. 1848 is significantly also the year in which Marx and Engels publish their "Communist Manifesto". Socialists ideas would be the main ennemy of the European bourgeois liberal regimes.

                                                                        The 1848 Revolution in Berlin

 The first permanent consequence of 1848 Revolution is the creation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861 through the movement of the Risorgimento headed by the Comte of Cavour and Giuseppe Garibaldi. The Italian unity would be completed in 1870 when Italian troops occupied the Papal States and Rome became the Capital of Italy. The popes would not have again an independent State until 1929, and thanks to Mussolini who agrees on creating the Vatican city state. . 

                                                             

 Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882)

 For understanding what the liberal revolution meant to the Italian Nation you should read the indispensable novel The Leopard (1958), of Giuseppe Tomaso di Lampedusa (1896-1957), published posthumously. The Story of a Sicilian Aristocrat the Prince of Salina who is fully conscious of the changes that the Risorgimento revolution is bringing, and  realizes that old nobility has to adapt to the new times, accepting the change "so that everything could remain the same". 

  Giovanni Tomaso di Lampedusa (1896-1957)

This novel created a neologism, el gattopardismo, which we might define as any political action consisting of presenting as revolutionary an idea that, in reality, does not seek to change economic or social foundations but rather to maintain the status quo. If you want to understand this key concept better, I encourage you to read the book, or, at the very least, watch Luchino Visconti movie (1963) with the same title, starring Burt Lancaster, in one of his most memorable performances. It is a beautiful film that effectively conveys the novel's themes of decline and impermanence.  Do not miss it. 

                                                            A scene from The Leopard by Luchino Visconti (1963)

 The German unification promoted by Bismarck, would be the result of the Prussian overwhelming victories over Austria, and especially over Napoleon III. The defeat of the French Second Empire would give way to the creation of the German Second Reich, with the proclamation of William I of Prussia as Kaiser in Versailles. A huge humiliation for the French that would be one of the causes of the anger towards Germany that would provoke the disaster of the Peace of Versailles in 1919.  The new German Empire, the North German Confederation headed by Prussia, was not a totally unified state, and on top of that it was not a Parliamentary Regime as the Government was designated by the Kaiser and not by the Reichstag. The German unification and the instauration of the Parliamentary Regime would not occur until the foundation of the Weimar Republic in 1919.                                         

                                     Proclamation of the Second Reich in Versailles (January 18, 1871)

 As far as the Liberal revolutions cycle is concerned Imperial Russia would be the last bastion of autocracy, until the 1905 Revolution, provoked by the humiliating defeat of Tsarist Russia by Imperial Japan.

                        17 October 1905. Painting by Ilya Repin

 Thanks to the 1905 movement Russia will have a sort of Liberal regime from 1906 to 1917.  But because of the Soviet Revolution of October 1917 it would not reach its definitive consolidation. Not only the Monarchy was abolished, but the Imperial family was murdered on the night of the 16-17 July 1918 in Yekaterinburg by order of Lenin. 

                                                        The Imperial Russian family                                                                    

  If you want to understand how Europe became the leading continent in the World you should not miss Orlando Figes book The Europeans: Three Lives and the Making of a Cosmopolitan Culture (2020).  

The Europeans is a richly enthralling, panoramic cultural history of nineteenth-century Europe, told through the intertwined lives of three remarkable people: a great singer, Pauline Viardot, a great writer, Ivan Turgenev, and a great connoisseur, Pauline's husband Louis. Their passionate, ambitious lives were bound up with an astonishing array of writers, composers and painters all trying to make their way through the exciting, prosperous and genuinely pan-European culture that came about as a result of huge economic and technological change. This culture - through trains, telegraphs and printing - allowed artists of all kinds to exchange ideas and make a living, shuttling back and forth across the whole continent from the British Isles to Imperial Russia, as they exploited a new cosmopolitan age. (Extracted from AMAZON web page). 

 From a Legal perspective, all the revolutionary movements that happen in Europe in the course of the 19th century in the name of the Liberal state principles end up bringing legal tools like constitutions, sets of fundamental rights and, above all,  a national narrative that consolidates the independence of every European State. The result of all this rising nationalism is the amazing colonial expansion that will make European Nation-States extremely wealthy and powerful to the point they would control the whole World that was distributed among the colonial European states, like it happened in the Berlin Conference of 1884 with the African continent. 

 And the same thing happened with Asia, where Europeans controlled most of the oldest and most prestigious civilization like India or China. 

                                                                                            Asia in 1898

 The result of it is that Europe ends up controlling a lot of territorie world wide. This is why the 19th century is undoubtedly the European century. Tough we have to mention also the case of Japan, a country that fully accepts the American-European Western model in 1868, with what is called the Meiji Revolution. The result of the Westernization of Japan results in Japanese imperialism a ming at China and at the Pacific area. A map of the World around 1900 would look like the one that appears in the following image: 

 Nevertheless the European colonial expansion iends badly as it increases gradually the tensions among the different colonial powers, which reamrm themselves very strongly trying to get as many colonies as possible, and followin the classic Roman principle "Si vis pacem para bellum". This is why the last third of the 19th century is known as the Armed Peace period. The military equilibrium based in alliances would finally be broken in 1914. And European Nation-States would commit suicide in the horrid and absurd World War I.  

Cartoon representing the tensions of the Armed Peace

The most important idea you have to retain from Teaching Guide 5 is that a Europe of wealthy and powerful national states drove them to an anihilating war. An important lesson that proud European States will not learn until the end of World War II, when a destroyed Old Continent had totally disappeared from the world scene. To the point that European governments realized that only united they could survive. 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 80 to 118), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 119-121) the crucial dates are the following: 

1815, 1820-1823, 1830, 1832, 1848, 14 March 1861, 1862-1890 (Bismarck), 1868, 1870, 1871, 1904, 1905, 1906. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Are the principles of the revolutionary liberalism still valid in our Western Democracies ? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Think that the Liberal regime establishes severe limits to the government, through the Constitution, the Declaration of Fundamental Rights and the Parliamentary regime. Think of how everyone of these limits work. 

2. Look for the Concept of the “Rule of Law” (“Estado de derecho” in Spanish)

3. Do you think that the rule of law is really respected by Western governments? Provide some concrete examples. 

4. Do you think that there are questions that justify governmental authoritarianism?

5. “  Please explain what Churchill meant when he said that “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.”

   

                                                            Winston Churchill in 1941 by Yousuf Karsh

A MOST POWERFUL INVENTION: THE "NATION STATE"

 

After the terrible period of the Wars of religion that torn Europe between mid 16th and mid 17th century, the idea of a Universal Christian Empire was replaced by an international order based on the struggle between different “monarchies”. The “official” sanction of these capital change in Western political organization was the Westphalia Peace of 1648 that reorganized Europe after the Thirty Years War. 

                                        The signing of the Westphalia Peace (1648)

The decadence of the Universal model was the direct consequence of the strengthening of the “state” as political organization. The consequence was that unity was replaced by diversity. There was not a common pope or a common emperor anymore, but a bunch of kings that were heads of their respective independent kingdoms-states”.

As we have already seen in Teaching guide 2 it all started in the Middle Ages when after the Feudal era kings turned into monarchs, because they could organize better their realms creating administrative bodies that enabled them to collect taxes for paying the maintain a permanent army. The result was that they were far more powerful because they were richer as as they could use their power (militar, political and legal) to impose a protectionist economic policy aiming at augmenting the wealth of the state by the way of increasing as much as possible the reserves of gold and silver. 

Something that could be reached by establishing a favorable balance of trade. That is: exporting more goods than importing and monopolizing as many trades as possible.  This economic policy was called “mercantilism” and reached his height during the reign of Louis XIV thanks to his outstanding Minister of Finances Jean Baptiste Colbert. 

Jean Baptiste Colbert (1665-1683)

So every monarch started competing with other monarchs in order to accumulate wealth and therefore power.  For this it was rather convenientg to reunite as many territories as possible because that meant many more subjects that could pay taxes and join the royal armies. But paying taxes and dying in the war was difficult to swallow and this is why they came up with the idea of creating the myth of how great was to love your land king. For this monarchs did their best to develope step by step a “proto-national feeling.” 

In France, for instance, this started with Jeanne d’Arc (1412-1431) who was burned at the stake being 19 years old, after helping  his king Charles VII to get rid of the English soldiers that occupied a substantial part of French soil during the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). Napoleon considered her the symbol of France and she was beatified in 1909 ans canonized in 1920. Since then Saint Joan of Arc is one of the patrons of France. A Woman. Which is extraordinary in such a patriarcal society as France was in the first half of the 15th century. 

 In Teaching guide 1 we spoke of the “political use of nationalism”, referring to how 19th and 20th century historians considered the “Germanic Nations” as the origin of European nations.  The real entrance in politics of the word “nation” however does not begin, as you already know, in the 5th century but in the 18th century with the Enlightenment, when Absolute monarchies fell in the name of the “Nation”, as the divine origin of the concept of sovereignty vested in the person of the king was transferred to the joint body of the inhabitants of a kingdom: the National Congress or Assembly. 

 This idea had appeared a century earlier with the concept of “Social Pact”, referring to a new explanation of why political power had to be obeyed by citizens. In the Middle Ages the pope, the emperor and the kings were sovereigns because God had created the world this way (Theocentrism). But the religious crisis of the 16th and 17th centuries that brought the dreadful wars of religion obliged political thinkers to develop a laic approach to the justification of political Power. 

It was then when Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) horrified by the long English civil war and the execution of Charles I came up with the idea that sovereignty was vested in a political monster called Leviathan, integrated by the ensemble of citizens that gave up forever all their rights to Him in order to get His protection and avoid chaos.  

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

This harsh vision of the Social Pact was tempered by John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) as they considered that the Social Pact could not be irreversible and irrevocable. Citizens accept to obey the Government but only if it works for the “Common wealth”. If not they could consider that those in power break the social pact and this legitimate them to disobey and bring along a new pact. On top of that the Social pact had some “special clauses” because some of the original rights of citizens could not be given up under any circumstance, as they were considered “fundamental”. This is the origin of the theory of the “Fundamental Rights and Liberties”

The result of this mildest vision of the social pact empowered citizens as they became the “owners” of sovereignty –instead of the kings-, as they were the real “protagonists” of the Social pact. A body of people that had in common that they were born in the same territory. This is why they were called its “nationals”, and the ensemble of them a “Nation” with capital N. Remember the French celebration of the "Fête de la Fëdération" on the 14 of July of 1790, was the origin of French National Day.  

 The problem was, as you know, that the "state" is not a very "sexy" idea. It is just an organization, a way of setting the government and the administration of a territory. It was an idea too abstract for getting people attached to it. For paying taxes or dying in a war for this political and administrative body people needed motivation. The state needed a soul, and that soul and easiest one was to develop the “national” pride. was nationalism. The result was the appearance of a new political organization: the Nation-State. 

Because one thing was to have the idea of replacing the "Monarch" by the “Nation”, and another very different to put it into practice. It was not going to be an easy transition. In fact it required a revolutionary movement followed by dramatic wars steered by the “nationalistic narrative”. First in North America, since 1776, and secondly in France since 1789. This is what we are going to study today.  

                                       Signing the US Declaration of Independence on 4th of July 1776. 

 The idea that it was worth dying for your land and people appeared clearly for the first time in North America when colons rebelled against the British Crown and declared their independence on July 4, 1776, starting a Revolutionary War of 7 years (until 1783). Patriotism was at the stake in George Washington’s Camp. British soldiers fought essentially for money, but American soldiers fought to have a country of their own. Of course not all of the Americans were for rebellion. Some wanted to keep on being British subjects: they were called Loyalists. If you want to really feel what was it like I strongly recommend the US TV Serie “Turn". Washington Spies” (2014) and of course the classic and powerful Mel Gibson’s Movie The Patriot (2000). 

                                                              Mel Gibson in The Patriot

 Fighting for your own country and not for your king was a powerful narrative that lead you to be willing to die by patriotism. That was very clear under another Revolution: the French one. The French Revolution was such a mess that would have disappeared if the Revolutionary Constituant Assembly had not had the brilliant idea of declaring the war to the kings of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria on the 20 of April 1792. 

                       

The Battle of Jemappes (6 November 1792)

 The conflict of the newborn United States of America with the UK between 1776 and 1783, and the conflict of Revolutionary France against Absolutist European kings of the Ancien Régime created a new type of State: the Nation-State in which sovereignty was not vested on the Monarch, but on the People, considered as Nation, that is a Political Body that govern through the representatives elected (Representative democracy). But the crucial point was that every “Nation” developed its own “nationalism”. A very powerful narrative that consolidated the state dissolving any rest of “universalism”. Even the Law ceased to be common to all European kingdoms (Ius commune) and became “national” as a result of “codification”. Every State created its own ordenred set of national laws. Including the Law that declared who was “national” of the state and who was to be considered a foreigner, adn of course its symbols: the banner and the national anthem. 

The first US flag: 13 stripes representing the colonies and 13 stars representing the new states. (Today it has 50 stars but still 13 stripes). The Star Spangled Banner.   

The main problem that the European Union has is that its 27 Member states are still heavily rooted "Nation-States", and that usually their nationals do feel closer to their country than to the abstract idea of a United Europe. European narrative is still far less powerful. In contrast with what happens in the United States, where you 50 Member States but only "one nation". Of course their integration process was difficult and had to go through a terrible Civil war, but today they are one of the most powerful countries because despite their diversity they have a common strong narrative.   

               

 In this Teaching Guide 4 we will see the origins of the “Nation State” idea through the American and French Revolution, and how this new concept of state will take Europe to his zenith in the 19th century, when the world lived at the European hour. In the next Teaching Guide, number 5, we will see how our countries reached the apogee of the Nation-States in a period that started with Napoleon and led to the Era of Great colonialism that rendered European states the most wealthy and powerful organizations of the World. Until they committed suicide provoking the holocaust of World War I. 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 54 to 78), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 74 to 75) the crucial dates are the following: 

a) For the American Revolution: 1607, 1620, 1754-1763, 1773, 17775, 1776, 1777, 1783 and 1787

b) For the French Revolution: the periods of Constituant Assembly (June 1789 to September 1791); the Legislative Assembly (October 1791 to August 1792); the Convention (September 1792 to October 1795) and the Directory (October 1795 to November 1799). 

Crucial dates are : 1789 (17 June, 20 June, 27 June, 14 July), 1790 (July 14),  1792 (April 20; 10 August, 20 and 22 September); 1793 (21 January); 1794 (January until July: Robespierre). 1799, 9 November. 

 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: How important is your country for you? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Are you proud of being “national” from your country? 

2. Do you think your country is an arbitrary invention that does not make sense today?

3. Do you think that separatist nationalist in European statestoday should be independent Nation-States? Give reasons for and against. 

4. Do you feel more “national” or more European?

5. What moves you more: your local soccer team or your National team?

                                        The "Nation-State" an extremely powerful fiction

THE MYTH OF A UNIVERSAL POWER

 

          

Most of Europeans in the 21st century are trying to get over the concepts of “nation” and “state”, in order to be able to cooperate together in the much larger frame of the European Union. Apparently it seems this is something new. In fact, in the past, our ancestors lived during long periods of our history in one single political and legal unit.  Concretely since the appearance of the first Western Empire: The Roman Empire. Its history is really interesting because despite the fact that it disappeared more than 1500 years ago, we still live to a large extent from its legacy. 

The Roman Empire is not the oldest one. In Teaching Guide 2 we have already mentioned how Sargon created the oldest Empire in Human History: the Akkadian, 4.300 years ago. But it was an Oriental Empire. In the West the pioneers were the Romans. It is true that first politicaly organized structure in the West appeared in Greece: the "polis". But the Greeks were far too individualistic, and never became a big empire, with the ephemeral exception of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), one of the brightest figures in human history. But his empire only lasted 12 years. The first Western power which aimed at becoming “Universal” was the Roman Empire. And it did not appear overnight. 

Alexander the Great (356-323)

The origins of Western Political “Universalism”

The first politically organized Western society were the Greek Polis. They are the origin of the word "Politics". The problem was that they were geographically speaking very tiny units, limited to the area of the different Greek cities: Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc… All these independent cities only got together in exceptional circumstances: for competing in the Olympic Games (since 776 BC), for fighting the Persians in the Medic Wars at the beginning of the 5th century, and, finally, under the short rule of Alexander the Great (336-323).  For most of their history the Greek Polis were completely independent city-states that did not hesitate to figh each other when the had the occasion as they demonstrated during the Peloponnesian Wars that first destroyed Athens, then Sparta and finally Thebes.  

 The cause of all this mess was that the regime of the Polis only worked within the limits of the city walls. It is significant that when there was a crisis of overpopulation in a Polis, the surplus of citizens were sent abroad in order to create a new colony. The problem was that the new colony was not ruled from the mother polis but immediately became a totally independent new Polis. This fragmentation explains why Greece was so easily conquered by Rome and became a Roman Province in 146 B.C. Only half a century later than Spain became a Roman Province (Well in fact two: Hispania Citerior and Ulterior in 197 B.C.).

Romans also founded colonies, that is: cities integrated by Roman citizens in distant lands. But Roman colonies had a political and administrative regime totally different from the Greek colonies. Because the Roman colonies were not independent. After their foundation they were still controlled by Roman central Power. And this because Rome figured out a way of ruling territories distant from the city of Rome (the civitas). Rome started as a polis by the end of the 6th century B.C. and 500 years later it was a great power that controlled the whole Mediterranean area which became "their Sea" (Mare Nostrum). The big question is: What did the Romans do right? Why they succeeded where Greek Polis failed? And the answer is: because they were far more organized than the Greeks, and they soon developed more efficient ways of cooperating together. This is why they ended up becoming a great Empire, and since then the Roman Eagle is the symbol of empires. 

Roman Imperial Eagle

Napoleon Imperial Eagle

                                                              Hitler's Third Reich Eagles

 The extraordinary Roman territorial expansion was not, however, without consequences. It provoked a brutal crisis of the Republican regime and brought half a century of a series of dreadful civil wars (86-31 B.C), that only ended with the victory of Octavius Caesar Augustus who was a fine politician, convinced that the only way of preserving the peace was to reunite all the power in one man's hand (monarchy). This is why he first became the Prince (Princeps: First citizen), and its successors "Emperors", because they had full power of command (“imperium”). Finally, at the end of the 3d century BC, the Roman Empire became the Dominate, because the emperor had become its owner and master  (Dominus).    

 The main feature of the Roman empire is that it was "universal", meaning that their emperors reigned all over the known antique world. And that, legally speaking, meant that since the year 212 AD all inhabitants of the empire had become Roman citizens, subject to the same political leader and ruled under the same Law. And so it was until in the year 476, Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman Emperor was overthrown. when the Western Roman Empire disappeared  and its territory –more or less today’s Europe- was occupied by different Germanic Nations that created independent kingdoms; a situation that would normally have meant then end of "Universalism". Nevertheless Roman universalism did not disappear with the fragmentation of the Empire.  Why?  Because during the 4th century the Roman Empire was penetrated by a new religion: Cristianism. After having been initially prosecuted by the Roman emperors, it became tolerated, and finally declared the Official cult of the Empire, which transformed it in a "Universal" cult.    

From political to religious universalism:  Cristianism vs. Catholicism

When Rome became a great Empire, the Romans grew rich and powerful, and become disbelieving materialists. They did not really give a damn about religious diversity, as long as a religion or cult did not affect the integrity of the Empire. In fact, the Roman emperors tolerated all kinds of faiths because they had not a strong religion of their own. Apart from the traditional veneration of ancestors, the only genuinely Roman religion was emperor worship, a political cult pragmatically aimed at glorifying the public authority wielding power over all the inhabitants of the Empire. But it went no further than that. 

 This milieu of worldliness and spiritual disinterest was, undoubtedly, what fuelled the rise of Christianity, a faith rooted in Judaic monotheism and based on an alluring and effective narrative, among other things, because it upheld equality between all people, and argued that the wealthy were spiritually bankrupt, and likely doomed to damnation. In a sceptical Roman Empire, one sustained by hordes of slaves, Christianity spread like wildfire in the years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which occurred under the rule of Augustus's successor, Tiberius. Although, historically, the emperors couldn't care less about their subjects' religious beliefs, Christianity was different because it posed a threat to power by placing man's relationship with God above loyalty to the emperor. This menace spurred Rome's leaders, beginning with Nero (54-68), who detected the danger the Christians constituted, to persecute and even martyrize them. By doing so, however, they only fanned the flames of the new religion and fomented its spread throughout the Empire. 

Despite its repression –or, perhaps because of it– Christianity grew so strong that the emperors had no choice but to, first, tolerate the new religion, and then legalize it, through the Edict of Serdica, in 311, issued by Emperor Galerius; and the Edict of Milan, promulgated by Constantine, just two years later.

Christianity proved a powerful social movement, so unstoppable that emperor Theodosius I, in 380, made it the official religion of the Empire, with the momentous consequence that all other religions were rendered illegal. As a result, Christianity became a religion as "universal" as the imperial power itself, which is why its name changed, and it came to be called "Catholicism", from the Greek katholikós; meaning "universal" or "general".  Does the word “universal” seems familiar to you?                                          

The secret to Catholicism's stunning success was that the Christians were very well organized, managing to develop, in a short period of time, a powerful structure, the Church, effectively established thanks to a highly hierarchical territorial network starting at the local level of the parish, and extending all the way up to the Pope in Rome, after passing through the heads of the "ecclesiastical provinces": the bishops.

                                            Percentage of catholics by country in the world

As a result, the Church, initially a clandestine group of ragtag rebels, became, after its officialization, a veritable "state" within the Roman state. Over time the emperors began to lock horns with the bishops who, soon wielding great power themselves, often proved unruly. And this is where the stormy history of relations between Church and State begins, which received the name "Caesaropapism", as the conflict involved the heads of these two "states": the Caesars (emperors) and the popes. Today, two millennia after its appearance, the Catholic Church continues to be headquartered in an independent state: the Vatican, which rules over an impressive territorial network spanning the entire world. Its institutional longevity and effectiveness are truly impressive.                              

  The Pope Francisco. The actual head of the "Universal" Church

The Church, thus, became a very powerful force, one that would prove able to exert pressure not only on the Roman emperors, but also on their successors, the Germanic kings, whose subjects, mostly "Roman", shared a common creed, Christianity, which placed them under the bishops' authority. Thus, the German monarchs converted to Catholicism, embracing the old adage that "if you can't beat them, join them". In fact, not only did they become Catholics, but they also reached an agreement with the bishops of their kingdom whereby the Church consecrated the king, rendering him a sacred and indisputable figure. In return, the ecclesiastical structure was integrated into the kingdom's government.

The important thing for you to understand is that in the Europe of the High Middle Ages (8th to 11th centuries) Catholicism had been established as a universal religion extending throughout all of "Christendom". Thus, even though there was no longer an emperor in Rome, there did rule in the Eternal City a pope, who served as the head of the Catholic, apostolic (because its objectives included spreading the faith, through "evangelization" among non-believers, or pagans) and "Roman" church. When the feudal system spread across Europe its people were, then, already devout Christians, not only fully integrated into the structure of the Church, but also entirely convinced that the world ought to be governed by the Law of God. They were no longer united by a common political structure, since the old Western Empire had crumbled into a diverse set of kingdoms, but they did share a "theocratic" conception of the world and of society. Everyone firmly believed that the only legitimate power was that granted by God, "Creator of heaven and earth", and, of course, the legal order.

                                                  Pantocrator of Sant Climent de Taüll

A two head universalism: Popes and Emperors

Then the Popes became heads of a real State, since the creation in 754 of the Papal States, thanks to the alliance with the Frankish Monarchy of Pepin the Short  (751-768). In return of the favour the popes helped Pepin’s son “Charlemagne” (the Great Charles) to become the first Western Medieval emperor on December 24 of the year 800. It would be renewed by Otto I who became in 962 the first head of the Holy Roman Empire that would last nominally until 1806. 

The Universal model had therefore not disappeared with the fall of Western Roman Empire in 476. Though now in its medieval version it had two heads: a pope and an emperor. In a Catholic society were all men were equal under the eyes of God (Theocracy). Popes and emperors were therefore the most important figures in politics at least until the beginning of the 14th century. 

The power of popes and emperors nevertheless was not enduring or strong as the Late medieval European kings had became more and more important since the 14th century, and during the Absolutist period (16th and 17th centuries) the European Monarchies would became fully independent from Popes and Emperors. Especially after the Westphalia Peace (1648). 

Then the decadence of the papacy was more and more obvious because of the Avignon’s Captivity and the Western Schism, that brought a severe coup to papal prestige. Universalism of the Catholic church was done when Luther started the Protestant reform in 1520, and Henry the VIII of England created in 1534 his own Anglican church and became the head of it displacing the pope. 

 Of course the disappearance of Universalism obliged political thinkers to find a new narrative to justify the power of these independent kings. As the reference to traditional legitimacy of Imperial Rome disappeared required a new approach for convincing people they should blindly obey their monarchs. And thanks to Machiavel, Bodin and Hobbes, among others, the narrative of the absolute state and the full sovereignty of the king was found: the prevention of anarchy and chaos.  

The persistency of the Imperial idea

 The triumph of the idea of a Europe of independent States did not abolished completely the myth of an Emperor. The Imperial idea lasted a little longer after the signing of the Westphalia Peace in 1648. 

 Despite the fact that Charles V (1519-1558) was the last Universal emperor in the medieval way, the emperors did not disappeared from European politics. Essentially because they were ambitious leaders who wanted to become emperors. Like Napoleon's First Empire (1804-1814), for instance who provoked the abolition of the First German Reich (962-1806). 

                                                      

Official portrait of Napoleon as a Roman Emperor

And after the French Empire -with Napoleon I (1804-1815), and Napoleon III (1851-1870)- came  the German Empire of Bismarck (1871-1918). 

 And even Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was formally named “Empress of India”, the Jewell of the mighty British Empire. 

The British Empire in 1921. 

The last European emperor would be Adolf Hitler (1933-1945) head of the Third Reich, though it had no emperor but a "Guide": The Führer   

Europe in 1942, the height of nazi domination.  

                                                        Member States of the European Union

Was Adolf Hitler really the last emperor? Well some consider the US President as the head of a the “De facto” World imperial power. And despite the fact that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jiping are doing everything they can to jeopardize American superiority the White House is still a reference in the world. 

HOW TO STUDY TEACHING GUIDE 3 

First read the text included in your Materials (pages 31 to 45), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 46 to 48) the crucial dates are the following: 590-604, 754, 800, 962, 1054, 1075, 1198-1216, 1303, 1378-1417, 1527, 1534, 1618-1648, 1804-1815, 1806, 1852-1870, 1871-1918, 1929, 1933-1945. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Is globalization a de facto return to an Universal Model, as States cannot act anymore on their own, isolated, in the World context?

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Why Rome became a great Power and Greek Polis disappeared. 

2. How did Octavius Cesar Augustus solved the Crisis of the Roman Civil wars?

3. Why after 476 AD the idea of “Universalism” did not disappear in the West?

4. Why Universalism failed after Charles V (1519-1556) in Europe? What conflict provoked the disappearance of the idea that all westerners were under a supreme unique authority. 

5. What was the main feature of European Political History after 1648?

6. How was organized Europe under the Napoleonic Empire (1804-1815)?

7. How was Europe organized under Hitler’s Third Reich (1933-1945)?

8. Why the World was so relatively stable during the period 1948-1989?

9. Are States in our global world really as independent as they appear? 

10. Is the accelerated "urbanisation" of the planet (by 2050 very much likely 2/3 of the inhabitants of the Planet will live in cities) contributing to globalisation as big cities are beginning to be more important than the States?