If nationalism didn’t exist before the 1800s, then why did people constantly revolt when ruled by neighboring kingdoms with the exact same religion? Medieval peasants might not have written essays about nation-states, but they clearly understood ‘these foreigners are not our people
As I understand the problem here is mixing up nationalism as a political ideology with usual knee-jerk patriotic movements. This is something I ponder too, right, because oftentimes the libshit historians hammering this point don't come across as arguing from an uninvested position. But as I understand the difference is people have always tended to instinctively recognize the concept of the nation (whatever they called it) and the intuition that a nation should be free without having ideas like popular sovereignty/consent of the governed, some weird national egregore, stuff like that.
Like, we don't spell nationalism with a capital N, but it's kind of like Josephus with the Zealots or Armininus in the Teutoburg Forest is little-n "nationalism," while this state-building shit where, be it republic or monarchy or dictatorship, the central govt cultivates a strong state by getting buy-in from the people to psychologically identify
with the state, that's capital-N Nationalism. If that makes sense? Like you go read Hegel and there's creepy shit in there about worshipping the state as the manifestation of the divine on the Earth. It's this specific perspective on how human society should be arranged that goes beyond just it being natural to be ruled by your own to the idea that it's normal for nations to be the collective decision-makers for everything, instead of, say, feudalism, or multiethnic empires, or city-states, or just whtaever peasant anarchy people get up to. And since all this stuff shades into each other - the similarities between people are real, but the dividing line is arbitrary and socially chosen for reasons - you get campaigns to destroy regional cultures to force adherence to a central standard and what not.
Same attitudes, just different levels of... investment in it.
Kind of like capitalism, right? Capitalism has existed literally forever in some fashion, but there's just people fucking around trading with each other and then there's having an entire society that is structured around trade as its main method of coordinating labor.
It would have sucked. Unpopular take, but it would have sucked. The dev diaries showed they had no interest in making anything other than a wargame in the Cold War. It would have been shallow as piss. Even the name itself tells you everything you need to know, it's like some high schooler's mod.