| > That’s kind of true (too some degree at least) if you’re talking about Western Europe. Why do you think it was unique for Western Europe? The East was slightly behind in the feudal disunity phase but it had the same kind of picture: numerous duchies changing sides, one form of serfdom or another and no state representation on the ground. Local population did care about religion and language to a certain extent but didn't care about whatever problems aristocracy had. Dukes jumped sides at will, e.g. between Lithuania, Poland and other power centers in what was left of Kievan Rus. Even more so in pre-Mongol period. > That just a misconception. Their understanding of what a nation was might have been quite a bit different but it did definitely exist. It was fundamentally different. For a commoner the state was not represented locally in any way. They could say something like "in the land of Rus" or even a smaller Zemaitija (aka Samogitia), which was more of a region than a political structure. What mattered was your local priest as well your local duke (or a lesser nobleman). The region of modern Lithuania had a similar disunited structure in late 14th century, maybe a bit more on the archaic pagan kind of phase. I am pretty sure the situation was similar in what became Poland, with szlachta and priests being more important than the state. > That just a misconception. Their understanding of what a nation was might have been quite a bit different but it did definitely exist. What I was pointing out in that comment about Jogaila is exactly that nation-states were basically not known in Europe back then. There were regions, where people understood each other, practised a similar religion and probably had a similar way of life but this was not reflected in power structures the same way modern nation-states represent these things. In fact, the state was not represented in people's daily life until much later. Even more so in Eastern Europe where population density and general economical ties were always much lower. So for Jogaila and his colleagues it was meaningless to think in terms of modern nationalism and patriotism. |