STurke

In the latter half of the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks began penetrating into
medieval Armenia and the eastern regions of Anatolia. In 1071, the Seljuks defea
ted the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert, starting the Turkification proces
s in the area; the Turkish language and Islam were introduced to Armenia and Ana
tolia, gradually spreading throughout the region. The slow transition from a pre
dominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and T
urkish-speaking one was underway.[63] Alongside the Turkification of the territo
ry, the culturally Persianized Seljuks set the basis for a Turko-Persian princip
al culture in Anatolia,[64] which their eventual successors, the Ottomans would
take over.[65][66]
In 1243, the Seljuk armies were defeated by the Mongols, causing the Seljuk Empi
re's power to slowly disintegrate. In its wake, one of the Turkish principalitie
s governed by Osman I would, over the next 200 years, evolve into the Ottoman Em
pire. In 1453, the Ottomans completed their conquest of the Byzantine Empire by
capturing its capital, Constantinople.[67]
Topkapi and Dolmabahe palaces were the primary residences of the Ottoman Sultans
and the administrative centre of the empire between 1465 to 1856[68] and 1856 to
1922,[69] respectively.
In 1514, Sultan Selim I (1512 1520) successfully expanded the empire's southern an
d eastern borders by defeating Shah Ismail I of the Safavid dynasty in the Battl
e of Chaldiran. In 1517, Selim I expanded Ottoman rule into Algeria and Egypt, a
nd created a naval presence in the Red Sea. Subsequently, a contest started betw
een the Ottoman and Portuguese empires to become the dominant sea power in the I
ndian Ocean, with a number of naval battles in the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and
the Persian Gulf. The Portuguese presence in the Indian Ocean was perceived as a
threat for the Ottoman monopoly over the ancient trade routes between East Asia
and Western Europe. Despite the increasingly prominent European presence, the O
ttoman Empire's trade with the east continued to flourish until the second half
of the 18th century.[70]
The Ottoman Empire's territorial extent in Europe, Asia and Africa at the time o
f the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, which marked the start of the Grea
t Turkish War (1683 1699).
The Ottoman Empire's power and prestige peaked in the 16th and 17th centuries, p
articularly during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, who personally institu
ted major legislative changes relating to society, education, taxation and crimi
nal law. The empire was often at odds with the Holy Roman Empire in its steady a
dvance towards Central Europe through the Balkans and the southern part of the P
olish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[71] At sea, the Ottoman Navy contended with sever
al Holy Leagues, such as those in 1538, 1571, 1684 and 1717 (composed primarily
of Habsburg Spain, the Republic of Genoa, the Republic of Venice, the Knights of
St. John, the Papal States, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Duchy of Savoy),
for the control of the Mediterranean Sea. In the east, the Ottomans were often
at war with Safavid Persia over conflicts stemming from territorial disputes or
religious differences between the 16th and 18th centuries.[72] The Ottoman wars
with Persia continued as the Zand, Afsharid, and Qajar dynasties succeeded the S
afavids in Iran, until the first half of the 19th century. From the 16th to the
early 20th centuries, the Ottoman Empire also fought many wars with the Russian
Tsardom and Empire. These were initially about Ottoman territorial expansion and
consolidation in southeastern and eastern Europe; but starting from the latter
half of the 18th century, they became more about the survival of the Ottoman Emp
ire, which began to lose its strategic territories on the northern Black Sea coa
st to the advancing Russians. Between the 18th and the early 20th centuries, the
Ottoman, Persian and Russian empires were neighbouring rivals of each other.
From the second half of the 18th century onwards, the Ottoman Empire began to de
cline. The Tanzimat reforms of the 19th century aimed to modernise the Ottoman s
tate in line with the progress that was made in Western Europe, but these effort
s proved to be inadequate in most fields, and failed to stop the dissolution of
the empire.[20] As it gradually shrank in size, military power and wealth, espec
ially after the Ottoman economic crisis and default in 1875[73] which led to upr
isings in the Balkan provinces that culminated into the Russo-Turkish War of 187
7 78, many Balkan Muslims migrated to the Empire's heartland in Anatolia,[74][75]
along with the Circassians fleeing the Russian conquest of the Caucasus. The dec
line of the Ottoman Empire led to a rise in nationalist sentiment among its vari
ous subject peoples, leading to increased ethnic tensions which occasionally bur
st into violence, such as the Hamidian massacres of Armenians.[76]
Visit of Kaiser Wilhelm II to Istanbul in Oct. 1917 with Mehmed V and Enver Pash
a. The Ottomans joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers and suffere
d heavy losses. Overall, the total number of combatant casualties in the Ottoman
forces amounts to just under half of all those mobilised to fight. Of these, mo
re than 800,000 were killed. However, four out of every five Ottoman citizens wh
o died were non-combatants.[77]
The Young Turk Revolution in 1908 restored the Ottoman constitution and parliame
nt 30 years after their suspension by Sultan Abdlhamid II in 1878, but the 1913 O
ttoman coup d'tat effectively put the country under the control of the Three Pash
as. This made sultans Mehmed V and Mehmed VI largely symbolic figureheads with n
o real political power.
The Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was
ultimately defeated. During the war, the empire's Armenians were deported to Sy
ria as part of the Armenian Genocide. As a result, an estimated 800,000 to 1,500
,000 Armenians were killed.[78][79][80][81] The Turkish government has refused t
o acknowledge the events as genocide and claims that Armenians were only relocat
ed from the eastern war zone.[82] Large-scale massacres were also committed agai
nst the empire's other minority groups such as the Assyrians and Greeks.[83][84]
[85] Following the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918, the victorious Allied
Powers sought to partition the Ottoman state through the 1920 Treaty of Svres.[6
7]
Republic of Turkey
Main article: History of the Republic of Turkey
See also: Atatrk's Reforms
Mustafa Kemal Atatrk, founder and first President of the Turkish Republic, at the
library of ankaya Mansion in Ankara, 1929.
The occupation of Istanbul and Izmir by the Allies in the aftermath of World War
I prompted the establishment of the Turkish National Movement. Under the leader
ship of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, a military commander who had distinguished himself
during the Battle of Gallipoli, the Turkish War of Independence was waged with t
he aim of revoking the terms of the Treaty of Svres.[86]
By 18 September 1922 the occupying armies were expelled,[87] and the Ankara-base
d Turkish regime, which had declared itself the legitimate government of the cou
ntry on 23 April 1920, started to formalise the legal transition from the old Ot
toman into the new Republican political system. On 1 November 1922, the Turkish
Parliament in Ankara formally abolished the Sultanate, thus ending 623 years of
monarchical Ottoman rule. The Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 led to the inte
rnational recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed "Republic of Turkey
" as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and the republic was officially
proclaimed on 29 October 1923 in Ankara, the country's new capital.[88] The Laus
anne treaty stipulated a population exchange between Greece and Turkey, whereby
1.1 million Greeks left Turkey for Greece in exchange for 380,000 Muslims transf
erred from Greece to Turkey.[89]
Mustafa Kemal became the republic's first President and subsequently introduced
many radical reforms with the aim of transforming the old religion-based and mul
ti-communal Ottoman state system (constitutional monarchy) into an essentially T
urkish nation state (parliamentary republic) with a secular constitution.[90] Wi
th the Surname Law of 1934, the Turkish Parliament bestowed upon Mustafa Kemal t
he honorific surname "Atatrk" (Father of the Turks).[86]
Eighteen female MPs, 1935 general elections. Turkish women gained the right to v
ote a decade or more before women in such Western European countries as France,
Italy, and Belgium a mark of Ataturk's far-reaching social changes.[91]
Ismet Inn became Turkey's second President following Atatrk's death on 10 November
1938. Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II, but entered the closi
ng stages of the war on the side of the Allies on 23 February 1945. On 26 June 1
945, Turkey became a charter member of the United Nations.[92] In the same year,
the single-party period in Turkey came to an end, with the first multiparty ele
ctions in 1946. The Truman Doctrine in 1947 enunciated American intentions to gu
arantee the security of Turkey and Greece during the Cold War, and resulted in l
arge-scale U.S. military and economic support. In 1948 both countries were inclu
ded in the Marshall Plan and the OEEC for rebuilding European economies.[93] In
1949 Turkey became a member of the Council of Europe. The Democratic Party estab
lished by Cell Bayar won the 1950, 1954 and 1957 general elections and stayed in
power for a decade, with Adnan Menderes as the Prime Minister and Bayar as the P
resident. After participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War,
Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the
Mediterranean. Turkey subsequently became a founding member of the OECD in 1961
, and an associate member of the EEC in 1963.[94] The country's tumultuous trans
ition to multiparty democracy was interrupted by military coups d'tat in 1960, 19
71, and 1980, as well as a military memorandum in 1997.[95][96] Between 1960 and
the end of the 20th century, the prominent leaders in Turkish politics who achi
eved multiple election victories were Sleyman Demirel, Blent Ecevit and Turgut zal.
Following a decade of Cypriot intercommunal violence and the coup in Cyprus on 1
5 July 1974 staged by the EOKA B paramilitary organisation, which overthrew Pres
ident Makarios and installed the pro-Enosis (union with Greece) Nikos Sampson as
dictator, Turkey invaded Cyprus on 20 July 1974 by unilaterally exercising Arti
cle IV in the Treaty of Guarantee (1960), but without restoring the status quo a
nte at the end of the military operation.[97] In 1983 the Turkish Republic of No
rthern Cyprus, which is recognised only by Turkey, was established.[98] As of 20
17, negotiations for solving the Cyprus dispute are still ongoing between Turkis
h Cypriot and Greek Cypriot political leaders.[99]
In 1984 the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group (listed as a terrorist organization
by NATO, the United States and the European Union), began an armed insurgency ca
mpaign against Turkey. The conflict has claimed over 40,000 lives to date.[100]
Since the liberalisation of the Turkish economy in the 1980s, the country has en
joyed stronger economic growth and greater political stability.[101] Turkey appl
ied for full membership of the EEC in 1987, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995
and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005.[25]
In 2013, widespread protests erupted in many Turkish provinces, sparked by a pla
n to demolish Gezi Park but growing into general anti-government dissent.[102] O
n 15 16 July 2016, an unsuccessful coup attempt tried to oust the government.[103]
Administrative divisions
Main article: Administrative divisions of Turkey
Further information: Regions of Turkey and NUTS of Turkey
Turkey has a unitary structure in terms of administration and this aspect is one
of the most important factors shaping the Turkish public administration. When t
hree powers (executive, legislative and judiciary) are taken into account as the
main functions of the state, local administrations have little power. Turkey do
esn't have a federal system, and the provinces are subordinate to the central go
vernment in Ankara. Local administrations were established to provide services i
n place and the government is represented by the province governors (vali) and t
own governors (kaymakam). Other senior public officials are also appointed by th
e central government instead of the mayors (belediye baskani) or elected by cons
tituents.[104] Turkish municipalities have local legislative bodies (belediye me
clisi) for decision-making on municipal issues.
Within this unitary framework, Turkey is subdivided into 81 provinces (il or vil
ayet) for administrative purposes. Each province is divided into districts (ile),
for a total of 923 districts.[105] Turkey is also subdivided into 7 regions (blg
e) and 21 subregions for geographic, demographic and economic purposes; this doe
s not refer to an administrative division. The centralised structure of decision
-making in Ankara is considered by some academicians as an impediment to good lo
cal governance,[106][107] and occasionally causes resentment in the municipaliti
es of urban centres that are inhabited largely by ethnic minority groups, such a
s the Kurds.[108][109][110] Steps towards decentralisation since 2004 have prove
n to be a highly controversial topic in Turkey.[106][107] The efforts to decentr
alise the administrative structure are also driven by the European Charter of Lo
cal Self-Government and with Chapter 22 ("Regional Policy & Coordination of Stru
ctural Instruments") of the acquis of the European Union.[111][112][113][114] A
decentralisation program for Turkey has been a topic of discussion in the countr
y's academics, politics and the broader public.[113][115][116]
Ankara
Kirklareli
Edirne
Tekirdag
anakkale
Balikesir
Bursa
Yalova
Istanbul
Kocaeli
Sakarya
Dzce
Zonguldak
Bolu
Bilecik
Eskisehir
Ktahya
Manisa
Izmir
Aydin
Mugla
Denizli
Burdur
Usak
Afyon
Isparta
Antalya
Konya
Mersin
Karaman
Aksaray
Kirsehir
Kirikkale
ankiri
Karabk
Bartin
Kastamonu
Sinop
orum
Yozgat
Nevsehir
Nigde
Adana
Hatay
Osmaniye
K. Maras
Kayseri
Sivas
Tokat
Amasya
Samsun
Ordu
Giresun
Erzincan
Malatya
Gaziantep
Kilis
Sanliurfa
Adiyaman
Gmshane
Trabzon
Rize
Bayburt
Erzurum
Artvin
Ardahan
Kars
Agri
Igdir
Tunceli
Elzig
Diyarbakir
Mardin
Batman
Siirt
Sirnak
Bitlis
Bingl
Mus
Van
Hakkri
Desc-i.svg
Politics
Main article: Politics of Turkey
See also: Constitution of Turkey, Elections in Turkey, and Ministries of Turkey
Recep Tayyip Erdogan.PNG Binali Yildirim.jpg
Tayyip Erdogan
President Binali Yildirim
Prime Minister
Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy. Since its foundation as a re
public in 1923, Turkey has developed a strong tradition of secularism.[117] Turk
ey's constitution governs the legal framework of the country. It sets out the ma
in principles of government and establishes Turkey as a unitary centralised stat
e. The President of the Republic is the head of state and has a largely ceremoni
al role. The president is elected for a five-year term by direct elections and T
ayyip Erdogan is the first president elected by direct voting.
Executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers
which make up the government, while the legislative power is vested in the unica
meral parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The judiciary is indepe
ndent of the executive and the legislature, and the Constitutional Court is char
ged with ruling on the conformity of laws and decrees with the constitution. The
Council of State is the tribunal of last resort for administrative cases, and t
he High Court of Appeals for all others.[118]
The prime minister is elected by the parliament through a vote of confidence in
the government and is most often the head of the party having the most seats in
parliament. The prime minister is Binali Yildirim, who replaced Ahmet Davutoglu
on 24 May 2016.
Universal suffrage for both sexes has been applied throughout Turkey since 1933,
and every Turkish citizen who has turned 18 years of age has the right to vote.
There are 550 members of parliament who are elected for a four-year term by a p
arty-list proportional representation system from 85 electoral districts. The Co
nstitutional Court can strip the public financing of political parties that it d
eems anti-secular or separatist, or ban their existence altogether.[119][120] Th
e electoral threshold is 10 percent of the votes.[121]
Declaration of Republic
29 October 1923
Current constitution
7 November 1982
Area
Total
783,356 km2 (302,455 sq mi) (37th)
Water (%)
1.3
Population
2016 census
79,814,871[2] (18th)
Density
102[3]/km2 (264.2/sq mi) (107th)
GDP (PPP) 2016 estimate
Total
$1.665 trillion[4] (17th)
Per capita
$21,198[4] (60th)
GDP (nominal) 2015 estimate
Total
$861 billion[5] (17th)
Per capita
$11,014[5] (62nd)
Gini (2013) 40.0[6]
medium 56th
HDI (2014) Increase 0.761[7]
high 72nd
Currency Turkish lira ? (TRY)
Time zone FET (UTC+3)
Date format dd/mm/yyyy (AD)
Drives on the right
Calling code +90
ISO 3166 code TR
Internet TLD .tr
Website
www.turkiye.gov.tr
Turkey (Listeni/'t??rki/; Turkish: Trkiye ['ty?cije]), officially the Republic of
 Turkey (Turkish: About this sound Trkiye Cumhuriyeti (helpinfo); pronounced ['ty?
cije d??um'hu?ijeti]), is a transcontinental country in Eurasia, mainly in Anato
lia in Western Asia, with a smaller portion on the Balkan peninsula in Southeast
Europe.[8] Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, parliamentary republic wit
h a diverse cultural heritage.[9] Turkey is bordered by eight countries: Greece
to the west; Bulgaria to the northwest; Georgia to the northeast; Armenia, the A
zerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan and Iran to the east; and Iraq and Syria to the
south. The Aegean Sea is to the west, the Black Sea to the north, and the Medit
erranean Sea to the south. The Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelle
s, which together form the Turkish Straits, divide Thrace and Anatolia; they als
o separate Europe and Asia.[10] Turkey's location has given it geopolitical and
strategic importance throughout history.[11][12]
Turkey has been inhabited since the Paleolithic[13] by various ancient Anatolian
civilisations, as well as Assyrians, Greeks, Thracians, Phrygians, Urartians an
d Armenians.[14][15][16] After Alexander the Great's conquest, the area was Hell
enized, a process which continued under the Roman Empire and its transition into
the Byzantine Empire.[15][17] The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area in
the 11th century, starting the process of Turkification, which was accelerated
by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.[18
] The Seljuk Sultanate of Rm ruled Anatolia until the Mongol invasion in 1243, wh
en it disintegrated into small Turkish beyliks.[19]
In the mid-14th century the Ottomans started uniting Anatolia and created an emp
ire encompassing much of Southeast Europe, West Asia and North Africa, becoming
a major power in Eurasia and Africa during the early modern period. The empire r
eached the peak of its power in the 16th century, especially during the reign (1
520 1566) of Suleiman the Magnificent. It remained powerful and influential for tw
o more centuries, until important setbacks such as the Great Turkish War (1683 99)
and the Russo-Turkish War (1768 74) forced it to cede strategic territories in Eu
rope, signalling the loss of its former military strength and wealth. The Tanzim
at reforms of the 19th century, which aimed to modernise the Ottoman state, prov
ed to be inadequate in most fields, and failed to stop the dissolution of the em
pire.[20] Established in 1876 and suspended by Sultan Abdlhamid II in 1878, the O
ttoman constitution and parliament were restored with the Young Turk Revolution
in 1908. In the same year, Bulgaria declared its independence and Austria-Hungar
y annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Italo-Turkish War (1911 1912) encouraged the Bal
kan League to declare the Balkan Wars (1912 1913), which caused the Ottoman Empire
to lose the majority of its remaining territories in Europe and triggered the l
argest ethnic cleansing of Turks in the Balkan peninsula since the Russo-Turkish
War (1877 78), resulting in the mass migrations of Turks to Anatolia. The disappo
intment in these losses led to the 1913 Ottoman coup d'tat which effectively put
the country under the control of the Three Pashas, who decided to join the Centr
al Powers of World War I (1914 1918) that were ultimately defeated by the Allied P
owers. During the war, the Ottoman government committed ethnic cleansing or geno
cide against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens.[21] Following the
war, the conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the
Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states.[22]
The Turkish War of Independence (1919 1922), initiated by Mustafa Kemal Atatrk and
his colleagues against the occupying Allies, resulted in the abolition of monarc
hy in 1922 and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, with Atatrk a
s its first president.[23] Turkey's official language is Turkish, a Turkic langu
age spoken natively by 84.5% of the population.[24] According to polls, between
78.1% and 81.3% of the country's citizens identify themselves as ethnic Turks.[2
4] Other ethnic groups include legally recognised (Armenians, Greeks, Jews) and
unrecognised (Kurds, Circassians, Arabs, Albanians, Bosniaks, Georgians, etc.) m
inorities.[24] Kurds are the largest ethnic minority group, making up approximat
ely 18% of the population.[9] The vast majority of the citizens are Sunni Muslim
, while Alevi Muslims are the largest religious minority, followed by Christians
 and Jews of various denominations.[9] Turkey is a charter member of the UN, an
early member of NATO, and a founding member of the OECD, OSCE, OIC and G-20. Aft
er becoming one of the first members of the Council of Europe in 1949, Turkey be
came an associate member of the EEC in 1963, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995
and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005.[25] Turkey'
s growing economy and diplomatic initiatives have led to its recognition as a re
gional power.[26][27][28][29]
Contents
1 Etymology
2 History
2.1 Prehistory of Anatolia and Eastern Thrace
2.2 Antiquity and Byzantine period
2.3 Seljuks and the Ottoman Empire
2.4 Republic of Turkey
3 Administrative divisions
4 Politics
4.1 Human rights
4.2 Law
4.3 Foreign relations
4.4 Military
5 Geography
5.1 Biodiversity
5.2 Climate
6 Economy
6.1 History
6.2 Tourism
6.3 Infrastructure
6.4 Science and technology
7 Demographics
7.1 Languages
7.2 Religion
7.2.1 Islam
7.2.2 Christianity
7.2.3 Judaism
7.2.4 Agnosticism and atheism
7.3 Education
7.4 Healthcare
8 Culture
8.1 Visual arts
8.2 Literature and theatre
8.3 Music and dance
8.4 Architecture
8.5 Cuisine
8.6 Sports
8.7 Media and cinema
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links
Etymology
Main article: Name of Turkey
The name of Turkey (Turkish: Trkiye) is based on the ethnonym Trk. The first recor
ded use of the term "Trk" or "Trk" as an autonym is contained in the Old Turkic ins
criptions of the Gktrks (Celestial Turks) of Central Asia (c. 8th century).[30] Th
e English name Turkey first appeared in the late 14th century and is derived fro
m Medieval Latin Turchia.[31]
The Greek cognate of this name, Tourkia (Greek: ??????a) was used by the Byzanti
ne emperor and scholar Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his book De Administra
ndo Imperio,[32][33] though in his use, "Turks" always referred to Magyars.[34]
Similarly, the medieval Khazar Empire, a Turkic state on the northern shores of
the Black and Caspian seas, was referred to as Tourkia (Land of the Turks) in By
zantine sources.[35] The medieval Arabs referred to the Mamluk Sultanate as al-D
awla al-Turkiyya (State of Turkey).[36][37] The Ottoman Empire was sometimes ref
erred to as Turkey or the Turkish Empire among its European contemporaries.[38]
History
Main article: History of Turkey
See also: History of Anatolia and History of Thrace
Prehistory of Anatolia and Eastern Thrace
Main articles: Prehistory of Anatolia and Prehistory of the Balkans
See also: Ancient Anatolians, Ancient kingdoms of Anatolia, and Thracians
Some henges at Gbekli Tepe were erected as far back as 9600 BC, predating those o
f Stonehenge, England by over seven millennia.[39]
The Lion Gate in Hattusa, capital of the Hittite Empire. The city's history date
s back to the 6th millennium BC.[40]
The Anatolian peninsula, comprising most of modern Turkey, is one of the oldest
permanently settled regions in the world. Various ancient Anatolian populations
have lived in Anatolia, from at least the Neolithic period until the Hellenistic
period.[15] Many of these peoples spoke the Anatolian languages, a branch of th
e larger Indo-European language family.[41] In fact, given the antiquity of the
Indo-European Hittite and Luwian languages, some scholars have proposed Anatolia
as the hypothetical centre from which the Indo-European languages radiated.[42]
The European part of Turkey, called Eastern Thrace, has also been inhabited sin
ce at least forty thousand years ago, and is known to have been in the Neolithic
era by about 6000 BC.[16]
Gbekli Tepe is the site of the oldest known man-made religious structure, a templ
e dating to circa 10,000 BC,[39] while atalhyk is a very large Neolithic and Chalco
lithic settlement in southern Anatolia, which existed from approximately 7500 BC
to 5700 BC. It is the largest and best-preserved Neolithic site found to date a
nd in July 2012 was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.[43] The settlemen
t of Troy started in the Neolithic Age and continued into the Iron Age.[44]
The earliest recorded inhabitants of Anatolia were the Hattians and Hurrians, no
n-Indo-European peoples who inhabited central and eastern Anatolia, respectively
, as early as ca. 2300 BC. Indo-European Hittites came to Anatolia and gradually
absorbed the Hattians and Hurrians ca. 2000 1700 BC. The first major empire in th
e area was founded by the Hittites, from the 18th through the 13th century BC. T
he Assyrians conquered and settled parts of southeastern Turkey as early as 1950
BC until the year 612 BC.[45][46] Urartu re-emerged in Assyrian inscriptions in
the 9th century BC as a powerful northern rival of Assyria.[47]
Following the collapse of the Hittite empire c. 1180 BC, the Phrygians, an Indo-
European people, achieved ascendancy in Anatolia until their kingdom was destroy
ed by the Cimmerians in the 7th century BC.[48] Starting from 714 BC, Urartu sha
red the same fate and dissolved in 590 BC,[49] when it was conquered by the Mede
s. The most powerful of Phrygia's successor states were Lydia, Caria and Lycia.
The gymnasium of Sardis, capital of ancient Lydia (c. 1200 BC 546 BC), the success
or state of ancient Arzawa (15th 13th centuries BC).
Walls of the acropolis of Troy VIIa, the site of the Trojan War (c. 1200 BC) tha
t inspired Homer's Iliad.
Antiquity and Byzantine period
Main articles: Classical Anatolia, Byzantine Anatolia, and States in late mediev
al Anatolia
See also: Byzantine Empire, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Achaemenid Empire, and
Successors of the Byzantine Empire
The Library of Celsus in Ephesus was built by the Romans in 114 117 CE.[50][51] Th
e Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, built by king Croesus of Lydia in the 6th centur
y BC, was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.
Originally a church, later a mosque, and now a museum, the Hagia Sophia in Istan
bul was built by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I in 532 537 CE.[52]
Starting around 1200 BC, the coast of Anatolia was heavily settled by Aeolian an
d Ionian Greeks. Numerous important cities were founded by these colonists, such
as Miletus, Ephesus, Smyrna (now Izmir) and Byzantium (now Istanbul), the latte
r founded by Greek colonists from Megara in 657 BC. The firs
9.83 MB, el

Direct Representative Semi others

Oligarchy
power of few
Aristocracy Military junta Plutocracy Stratocracy Timocracy Theocracy Kritar
chy Particracy
Autocracy
power of one
Despotism Illiberal democracy Semi-authoritarian Dictatorship
Hybrids
Anocracy
Power ideology
Monarchy vs. Republic
socio-political ideologies
Absolute Constitutional
Directorial Legalist
Parliamentary Semi-presidential Presidential
Authoritarian vs. Libertarian
socio-economic ideologies
Capitalism Colonialism Communism Distributism Feudalism Socialism
Anarchism vs. Statism
civil-liberties ideologies
Anarchy Minarchy Totalitarianism
Global vs. Local
geo-cultural ideologies
Central City-state National unity World
Politics portal
v t e
A supranational union is a type of multinational political union where negotiate
d power is delegated to an authority by governments of member states. The concep
t of supranational union is sometimes used to describe the European Union (EU),
as a new type of political entity.[1] The EU is the only entity which provides f
or international popular elections,[dubious discuss] going beyond the level of p
olitical integration normally afforded by international treaty. The term "supran
ational" is sometimes used in a loose, undefined sense in other contexts, someti
mes as a substitute for international, transnational or global. Another method o
f decision-making in international organisations is intergovernmentalism, in whi
ch state governments play a more prominent role.
Contents
1 Origin as a legal concept
2 Distinguishing features of a supranational union
3 Supranationalism in the European Union
3.1 Categorising European supranationalism
4 Comparing the European Union and the United States
5 Democratic deficit in the EU and other supranational unions
6 Other international organisations with some degree of integration
7 See also
8 Notes and references
9 External links
Origin as a legal concept
With its founding Statute of 1949 and its Convention of Human Rights and Fundame
ntal Freedoms, which came into force in 1953, the Council of Europe created a sy
stem based on human rights and the rule of law. Robert Schuman, French Foreign m
inister, initiated the debate on supranational democracy in his speeches at the
United Nations,[2] at the signing of the Council's Statutes and at a series of o
ther speeches across Europe and North America.[3]
The term "supranational" occurs in an international treaty for the first time (t
wice) in the Treaty of Paris, 18 April 1951. This new legal term defined the Com
munity method in creating the European Coal and Steel Community and the beginnin
g of the democratic re-organisation of Europe. It defines the relationship betwe
en the High Authority or European Commission and the other four institutions. In
the treaty, it relates to a new democratic and legal concept.
The Founding Fathers of the European Community and the present European Union sa
id that supranationalism was the cornerstone of the governmental system. This is
enshrined in the Europe Declaration made on 18 April 1951, the same day as the
European Founding Fathers signed the Treaty of Paris.[4]
"By the signature of this Treaty, the participating Parties give proof of their
determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they a
re laying the true foundation of an organised Europe. This Europe remains open t
o all nations. We profoundly hope that other nations will join us in our common
endeavour."
This declaration of principles that included their judgement for the necessary f
uture developments was signed by Konrad Adenauer (West Germany), Paul van Zeelan
d and Joseph Meurice (Belgium), Robert Schuman (France), Count Sforza (Italy), J
oseph Bech (Luxembourg), and Dirk Stikker and Jan van den Brink (The Netherlands
). It was made to recall future generations to their historic duty of uniting Eu
rope based on liberty and democracy under the rule of law. Thus, they viewed the
creation of a wider and deeper Europe as intimately bound to the healthy develo
pment of the supranational or Community system.[4]
This Europe was open to all nations who were free to decide, a reference/or an i
nvitation and encouragement of liberty to the Iron Curtain countries. The term s
upranational does not occur in succeeding treaties, such as the Treaties of Rome
, the Maastricht Treaty, the Treaty of Nice or the Constitutional Treaty or the
very similar Treaty of Lisbon.
Distinguishing features of a supranational union
A supranational union is a supranational polity which lies somewhere between a c
onfederation that is an association of States and a federation that is a state.[
1] The European Economic Community was described by its founder Robert Schuman a
s midway between confederalism which recognises the complete independence of Sta
tes in an association and federalism which seeks to fuse them in a super-state.[
5] The EU has supranational competences, but it possesses these competences only
to the extent that they are conferred on it by its member states (Kompetenz-Kom
petenz).[1] Within the scope of these competences, the union exercises its power
s in a sovereign manner, having its own legislative, executive, and judicial aut
horities.[1] The supranational Community also has a chamber for organised civil
society including economic and social associations and regional bodies.[6]
Unlike states in a federal super-state, member states retain ultimate sovereignt
y, although some sovereignty is shared with, or ceded to, the supranational body
. Supranational agreements encourage stability and trust, because governments ca
nnot break international accords at a whim. The supranational action may be time
-limited. This was the case with the European Coal and Steel Community, which wa
s agreed for 50 years with the possibility of renewal. Supranational accords may
be permanent, such as an agreement to outlaw war between the partners. Full sov
ereignty can be reclaimed by withdrawing from the supranational arrangements but
the member state would also lose the great advantages offered by mutualities, e
conomies of scale, common external tariffs and other commonly agreed standards s
uch as improved international trust and democracy and common external positions.
[citation needed]
A supranational union, because it is an agreement between sovereign states, is b
ased on international treaties. The European treaties in general are different f
rom classical treaties as they are constitutionalizing treaties, that is, they p
rovide the basis for a European level of democracy and European rule of law. The
y have something in the nature of a constitution and like the British constituti
on, not necessarily a single document. They are based on treaties between its me
mber governments but have normally to undergo a closer democratic scrutiny than
other treaties because they are more far-ranging, affecting many areas of citize
ns' lives and livelihoods.
Decision-making is partly intergovernmental and partly supranational within the
Community areas. The latter provides a higher degree of institutional scrutiny b
oth via the Parliament and through the Consultative Committees. Intergovernmenta
lism provides for less democratic oversight, especially where the institution su
ch as the Council of Ministers or the European Council takes place behind closed
doors, rather than in a parliamentary chamber.[citation needed]
A supranational authority can have some independence from member state governmen
ts in specific areas, although not as much independence as with a federal govern
ment.[citation needed] Supranational institutions, like federal governments, imp
ly the possibility of pursuing agendas in ways that the delegating states did no
t initially envision. Democratic supranational Communities, however, are defined
by treaty and by law. Their activity is controlled by a Court, democratic insti
tutions and the rule of law.[citation needed]
The union has legal supremacy over its member states (only) to the extent that i
ts member state governments have conferred competences on the union. It is up to
the individual governments to assure that they have full democratic backing in
each of the member states. The citizens of the member states, though retaining t
heir nationality and national citizenship, additionally become citizens of the u
nion.[1]
The European Union, the only clear example of a supranational union, has a parli
ament with legislative oversight, elected by its citizens.[1] To this extent, a
supranational union like the European Union has characteristics that are not ent
irely dissimilar to the characteristics of a federal state like the United State
s of America. However, the differences in scale become apparent if one compares
the United States federal budget with the budget of the European Union (which am
ounts only to about one percent of combined GDP) or the size of the federal civi
l service of the United States with the Civil Service of the European Union.[7]
Because decisions in some EU structures are taken by majority votes, it is possi
ble for a member state to be obliged by the other members to implement a decisio
n.[citation needed] The states retain the competence for adding this additional
supranational competence.[citation needed]
Supranationalism in the European Union
European Union
Flag of the European Union
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government
of the European Union
Executive
[show]
Legislative
[show]
Judiciary
[show]
Central Bank
[show]
Court of Auditors
[show]
Other bodies
[show]
Policies and issues
[show]
Elections
[show]
Law
[show]
European Council
[show]
v t e
Historically the concept was introduced and made a concrete reality by Robert Sc
human when the French Government agreed to the principle in the Schuman Declarat
ion and accepted the Schuman Plan confined to specific sectors of vital interest
of peace and war. Thus commenced the European Community system beginning with t
he European Coal and Steel Community. The six founder States (France, Italy, Ger
many, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) agreed on the goal: making "war not
only unthinkable but materially impossible". They agreed about the means: puttin
g the vital interests, namely coal and steel production, under a common High Aut
hority, subject to common democratic and legal institutions. They agreed on the
European rule of law and a new democratic procedure.
The five institutions (besides the High Authority) were a Consultative Committee
(a chamber representing civil society interests of enterprises, workers and con
sumers), a parliament, and a Council of government ministers. A Court of Justice
 would decide disputes coming from governments, public or private enterprises, c
onsumer groups, any other group interests or even an individual. A complaint cou
ld be lodged in a local tribunal or national courts, where appropriate. Member s
tates have yet to fulfil and develop the articles in the Paris and Rome treaties
for full democracy in the European Parliament and other institutions such as th
e Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions.
Schuman described supranational unions as a new stage in human development. It c
ontrasted with destructive nationalisms of the nineteenth and twentieth centurie
s that began in a glorious patriotism and ended in wars.[8] He traced the beginn
ing concept of supranationality back to the nineteenth century, such as the Post
al Union, and the term supranational is used around the time of the First World
War. Democracy, which he defined as "in the service of the people and acting in
agreement with it", was a fundamental part of a supranational community. However
, governments only began to hold direct elections to the European Parliament in
1979, and then not according to the treaties. A single electoral statute was spe
cified in the treaty for Europe's first community of coal and steel in 1951. Civ
il society (largely non-political) was to have its own elected chamber in the Co
nsultative Committees specific to each Community as democratically agreed, but t
he process was frozen (as were Europe's parliamentary elections) by Charles de G
aulle and other politicians who opposed the Community method.
Today supranationalism only exists in the two European Communities inside the EU
: the Economic Community (often called the European Community although it does n
ot legally cover all State activities) and Euratom (the European Atomic Energy C
ommunity, a non-proliferation community, in which certain potentialities have be
en frozen or blocked). Supranational Communities provide powerful but generally
unexploited and innovatory means for democratic foreign policy, by mobilising ci
vil society to the democratically agreed goals of the Community.
The first Community of Coal and Steel was agreed only for fifty years. Oppositio
n, mainly by enterprises which had to pay a small European tax of less than 1% a
nd government ministers in the Council, led to its democratic mandate not being
renewed. Its jurisprudence and heritage remains part of the European Community s
ystem.
De Gaulle attempted to turn the European Commission into a political secretariat
under his control in the Fouchet Plan but this move was thwarted by such democr
ats in the Benelux countries as Paul-Henri Spaak, Joseph Luns and Joseph Bech as
well as a large wave of other pro-Europeans in all the Community countries.
The supranational Community method came under attack, not only from de Gaulle bu
t also from other nationalists and Communists. In the post-de Gaulle period, rat
her than holding pan-European elections under a single statute as specified in a
ll the treaties, governments held and continue to hold separate national electio
ns for the European Parliament. These often favour the major parties and discrim
inate against smaller, regional parties.[9] Rather than granting elections to or
ganised civil society in the consultative committees, governments created a thre
e-pillar system under the Amsterdam Treaty and Maastricht Treaty, mixing intergo
vernmental and supranational systems. Two pillars governing External policy and
Justice and Home affairs are not subject to the same democratic controls as the
Community system.
In the Lisbon Treaty and the earlier nearly identical Constitutional Treaty, the
democratic independence of the five key institutions is further blurred. This m
oves the project from full democratic supranationalism in the direction of not j
ust intergovernmentalism but the politicisation of the institutions, and control
by two or three major party political organisations. The Commission defines key
legal aspects of the supranational system because its members must be independe
nt of commercial, labour, consumer, political or lobby interests (Article 9 of t
he Paris Treaty). The Commission was to be composed of a small number of experie
nced personalities, whose impartiality was beyond question. As such, the early p
residents of the Commission and the High Authority were strong defenders of Euro
pean democracy against national, autocratic practice or the rule of the strong o
ver the weak.
The idea in the Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties is to run the European Commis
sion as a political office. Governments would prefer to have a national member i
n the Commission, although this is against the principle of supranational democr
acy. (The original concept was that the Commission should act as a single impart
ial college of independent, experienced personalities having public confidence.
One of the Communities was defined in the treaty with a Commission with fewer me
mbers than the number of its member states.) Thus, the members of the Commission
are becoming predominantly party-political, and composed of sometimes rejected,
disgraced or unwanted national politicians.
The first president of the High Authority was Jean Monnet, who never joined a po
litical party, as was the case with most of the other members of the Commissions
. They came from diverse liberal professions, having made recognised European co
ntributions.
Governments also wish to retain the secrecy of their deliberations in the Counci
l of Ministers or the European Council, which discusses matters of the most vita
l interest to European citizens. While some institutions such as the European Pa
rliament have their debates open to the public, others such as the Council of Mi
nisters and numerous committees are not. Schuman wrote in his book, Pour l'Europ
e[10] (For Europe), that in a democratic supranational Community "the Councils,
committees and other organs should be placed under the control of public opinion
that was effectual without paralysing their activity nor useful initiatives".
Categorising European supranationalism
Joseph H. H. Weiler, in his seminal[peacock term] work The Dual Character of Sup
ranationalism, states that there are two main facets to European supranationalis
m, although these seem to be true of many supranational systems. These are:
Normative supranationalism: The Relationships and hierarchy which exist betw
een Community policies and legal measures on one hand and the competing policies
and legal measures of the member states on the other (the executive dimension)
Decisional supranationalism: The institutional framework and decision making
by which such measures are initiated, debated, formulated, promulgated and, fin
ally, executed (the legislative-judicial dimension)
In many ways, the split sees the separation of powers confined to merely two bra
nches.
Comparing the European Union and the United States
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The specific problem is: The table is illegible on mobile (February 2017) (Learn
how and when to remove this template message)
In the Lisbon Treaty, the distribution of competences in various policy areas be
tween member states and the European Union is redistributed in three categories.
In 19th century USA, it had exclusive competences only. Competences not explici
tly listed belong to lower levels of governance.
EU exclusive competence
The Union has exclusive competence to make directives and conclude international
agreements when provided for in a Union legislative act.
the customs union
the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of t
he internal market
 monetary policy for the member states whose currency is the euro
the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries p
olicy
common commercial (trade) policy
Pix.gif
Pix.gif
Pix.gif
Pix.gif
Pix.gif
EU shared competence
Member states cannot exercise competence in areas where the Union has done so.
the internal market
social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty
economic, social and territorial cohesion
agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological r
esources
environment
consumer protection
transport
trans-European Networks
energy
the area of freedom, security and justice
common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in
this Treaty
Common Foreign and Security Policy
Pix.gif
Pix.gif
Pix.gif
Pix.gif
Pix.gif
EU supporting competence
The Union can carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement member sta
tes' actions.
the protection and improvement of human health
industry
culture
tourism
education, youth, sport and vocational training
civil protection (disaster prevention)
adminislism in the colonial era was often framed purely in opposition to col
onial rule and was therefore frequently unclear or contradictory about its other
objectives.[7] According to historian Robert I. Rotberg, African nationalisms w
ould not have emerged without colonialism.[8] Its relation to Pan-Africanism was
also ambiguous with many nationalist leaders professing Pan-African loyalties b
ut still refusing to commit to supranational unions. African nationalists of the
period have also been criticised for their continued use of ideas and policies
associated with colonial states.[7] In particular, nationalists usually attempte
d to preserve national frontiers created arbitrarily under colonial rule after i
ndependence and create a national sense of national identity among the hetrogeno
us populations inside them.[8]
Sub-Saharan Africa
Ghanaian nationalists celebrating the 50th anniversary of national independe
nce in 2007
See also
Africa portal iconCulture portal History portal iconPolitics portal
African Nationalist Movement
African socialism
African studies
African Union
Ethnic nationalism
Organisation of African Unity
Pan-African colours
Types of nationalism
By country
Afrikaner nationalism
Ethiopian nationalism
Libyan nationalism
Nigerian nationalism
Notes
African nationalism
Archived
21 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine.
Rotberg 1966, p. 33.
Davidson 1978, p. 165.
Davidson 1978, pp. 166-7.
Davidson 1978, p. 167.
Davidson 1978, p. 202.
Davidson 1978, p. 374.
Rotberg 1966, p. 37.
References
Davidson, Basil (1978). Let Freedom Come: Africa in Modern History
(First US ed.). Boston: Little-Brown. ISBN 0-316-17435-1..
Rotberg, Robert I. (May 1966). "African Nationalism: Concept or Confusion?"
. The Journal of Modern African Studies. 4 (1): 33 46. JSTOR 159414
.
Further reading
Almond Gabriel and James S. Coleman, The Politics of the Developing Areas
(1971)
Eze, M. The Politics of History in Contemporary Africa
(Springer, 2010.)
Hodgkin, Thomas. Nationalism in Colonial Africa
(1956).
Hussain, Arif. "The educated elite: collaborators, assailants nationalists:
A note on African nationalists and nationalism."
Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria 7.3 (1974): 485-497.
Ohaegbulam, Festus Ugboaja. Nationalism in colonial and post-colonial Africa
(University Press of America, 1977).
Shepherd, George W., junior (1962). The Politics of African Nationalism: Cha
llenge to American Policy.
 New York: F.A. Praeger.
[show]
v t e
Pan-Africanism
[show]
v t e
Africa articles
Categories:
African and Black nationalismPolitics of Africa
Navigation menu
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Search
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Italiano
Edit links
This page was last modified on 4 February 2017, at 01:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License
; additional terms may apply. B
7 Notes
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links
Terminology
The word nation was used before 1800 in Europe to refer to the inhabitants of a
country as well as to collective identities that could include shared history, l
aw, language, political rights, religion and traditions, in a sense more akin to
the modern conception.[11]
Nationalism is a newer word; in English the term dates from 1844, although the c
oncept is older.[12] It became important in the 19th century.[13] The term incre
asingly became negative in its connotations after 1914. Glenda Sluga notes that
"The twentieth century, a time of profound disillusionment with nationalism, was
also the great age of internationalism."[14]
History
The growth of a national identity was expressed in a variety of symbolic ways, i
ncluding the adoption of a national flag. Pictured, the Union Jack of a newly cr
eated United Kingdom in 1801, formed by the merger of the Kingdoms of Great Brit
ain and Ireland.
"Nationalism" is the term historians used to characterize the modern sense of na
tional political autonomy and self-determination from the late 18th century onwa
rds.[15] For example, German nationalism emerged as a reaction against Napoleoni
c control of Germany as the Confederation of the Rhine around 1805 14.[16][17] Lin
da Colley in Britons, Forging the Nation 1707 1837 (Yale University Press, 1992) e
xplores how the role of nationalism emerged about 1700 and developed in Britain
reaching full form in the 1830s. Typically historians of nationalism in Europe b
egin with the French Revolution (1789), not only for its impact on French nation
alism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intel
lectuals.[18]
With the emergence of a national public sphere and an integrated, country-wide e
conomy in the 18th-century the British people began to identify with the country
at large, rather than the smaller units of their family, town or province. The
early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th ce
ntury, and was actively promoted by the British government and by the writers an
d intellectuals of the time.[19] National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and nar
ratives were assiduously constructed by nationalists and widely adopted. The Uni
on Jack was adopted in 1801 as the national one.[20] Thomas Arne composed the pa
triotic song "Rule, Britannia!" in 1740,[21] and the cartoonist John Arbuthnot i
nvented the character of John Bull as the personification of the English nationa
l spirit in 1712.[22]
The political convulsions of the late 18th century associated with the American
and French revolutions massively augmented the widespread appeal of patriotic na
tionalism.[23][24]
The Prussian scholar Johann Gottfried Herder (1744 1803) originated the term in 17
72 in his "Essay on the Origins of Language." stressing the role of a common lan
guage.[25][26] He attached exceptional importance to the concepts of nationality
and of patriotism "he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and
the whole worlds about himself", whilst teaching that "in a certain sense every
human perfection is national".[27]
19th century
Main article: International relations of the Great Powers (1814 1919)
The political development of nationalism and the push for popular sovereignty cu
lminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe. During the 19th century
nationalism became one of the most significant political and social forces in h
istory; it is typically listed among the top causes of World War I.[28][29]
Napoleon's conquests of the German and Italian states around 1800 06 played a majo
r role in stimulating nationalism and the demands for national unity.[30]
Germany
Revolutionaries in Vienna with German tricolor flags, May 1848
In the German states west of Prussia Napoleon abolished many of the old or medie
val relics, such as dissolving the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.[31] He imposed rat
ional legal systems and demonstrated how dramatic changes were possible. For exa
mple, his organization of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806 promoted a feel
ing of nationalism. Nationalists sought to encompass masculinity in their quest
for strength and unity.[32] It was Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck who ach
ieved German unification through a series of highly successful short wars agains
t Denmark, Austria and France which thrilled the pan-German nationalists in the
smaller German states. They fought in his wars and eagerly joined the new German
Empire, which Bismarck ran as a force for balance and peace in Europe after 187
1.[33]
in the 19th century German nationalism was promoted by Hegelian-oriented academi
c historians who saw Prussia as the true carrier of the German spirit, and the p
ower of the state as the ultimate goal of nationalism. The three main historians
were Johann Gustav Droysen (1808 1884), Heinrich von Sybel (1817 1895) and Heinrich
von Treitschke (1834 1896). Droysen moved from liberalism to an intense nationali
sm that celebrated Prussian Protestantism, efficiency, progress, and reform, in
striking contrast to Austrian Catholicism, impotency and backwardness. He ideali
zed the Hohenzollern kings of Prussia. His large-scale History of Prussian Polit
ics (14 vol 1855 1886) was foundational for nationalistic students and scholars. V
on Sybel founded and edited the leading academic history journal, Historische Ze
itschrift and as the director of the Prussian state archives published massive c
ompilations that were devoured by scholars of nationalism.[34]
The most influential of the German nationalist historians, was Treitschke who ha
d an enormous influence on elite students at Heidelberg and Berlin universities.
[35] Treitschke vehemently attacked parliamentarianism, socialism, pacifism, the
English, the French, the Jews, and the internationalists. The core of his messa
ge was the need for a strong, unified state a unified Germany under Prussian super
vision. "It is the highest duty of the State to increase its power," he stated.
Although he was a descendant of a Czech family he considered himself not Slavic
but German: "I am 1000 times more the patriot than a professor."[36]
Italy
Main articles: Italian nationalism and Italian unification
People cheering as Giuseppe Garibaldi enters Naples in 1860
Italian nationalism emerged in the 19th century and was the driving force for It
alian unification or the "Risorgimento" (meaning the Resurgence or revival). It
was the political and intellectual movement that consolidated different states o
f the Italian peninsula into the single state of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. T
he memory of the Risorgimento is central to Italian nationalism but it was based
in the liberal middle classes and proved weak.[37] Two major groups remained op
posed, the South (called the Mezzogiorno) and the devout Catholics. The new gove
rnment treated the South as a conquered province with ridicule for its "backward
" and poverty stricken society, its poor grasp of the Italian language, and its
traditions. The liberals had always been strong opponents of the pope and the ve
ry well organized Catholic Church. The pope had been in political control of cen
tral Italy; he lost that in 1860 and lost Rome in 1870. He had long been the lea
der of opposition to modern liberalism and refused to accept the terms offered b
y the new government. He called himself a prisoner in the Vatican and forbade Ca
tholics to vote or engage in politics. The Catholic alienation lasted until 1929
. The liberal government under Francesco Crispi sought to enlarge his political
base by emulating Bismarck and firing up Italian nationalism with a hyper-aggres
sive foreign policy. It crashed and his cause was set back. Historian R.J.B. Bos
worth says of his nationalistic foreign policy that Crispi:
pursued policies whose openly aggressive character would not be equaled unti
l the days of the Fascist regime. Crispi increased military expenditure, talked
cheerfully of a European conflagration, and alarmed his German or British friend
s with this suggestions of preventative attacks on his enemies. His policies wer
e ruinous, both for Italy's trade with France, and, more humiliatingly, for colo
nial ambitions in East Africa. Crispi's lust for territory there was thwarted wh
en on 1 March 1896, the armies of Ethiopian Emperor Menelik routed Italian force
s at Adowa ... in what has been defined as an unparalleled disaster for a modern
army. Crispi, whose private life (he was perhaps a trigamist) and personal fina
nces...were objects of perennial scandal, went into dishonorable retirement.[38]
Meanwhile, a third major group emerged that was hostile to nationalism as radica
l socialist elements became a force in the industrial North, and they too reject
ed liberalism. Italy joined the Allies in the First World War after getting prom
ises of territory, but its war effort was a fiasco that discredited liberalism a
nd paved the way for Benito Mussolini and his fascism. That involved a highly ag
gressive nationalism that led to a series of wars, an alliance with Hitler's Ger
many, and humiliation and hardship in the Second World War. After 1945 the Catho
lics returned to government and tensions eased somewhat, but the Mezzogiorno rem
ained poor and ridiculed. The working class now voted for the Communist Party, a
nd it looked to Moscow not Rome for inspiration, and was kept out of the nationa
l government even as it controlled industrial cities across the North. In the 21
st century the Communists are gone but political and cultural tensions remained
high as shown by separatist Padanian nationalism in the North.[39]
Beginning in 1821, the Greek War of Independence began as a rebellion by Greek r
evolutionaries against the ruling Ottoman Empire.
Greece
Main article: Greek War of Independence
The Greek drive for independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s and 1830s
inspired supporters across Christian Europe, especially in Britain. France, Russ
ia and Britain intervened to make this nationa
#18
?at? ???st?a???
???f?????, G?????? ??a?d?? (et?f?as?)
Download (PDF) | Read onlineMirrors: [1] [2]Reviews