Nationalism's Impact: Austria-Hungary & Ottoman Empire

Nationalism had a profound impact on the multi-ethnic empires of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Both empires were challenged by ethno-religious identity politics, but they responded differently. While Austria-Hungary adopted a dual monarchy with separate governments and institutionalised minority identities, the Ottoman Empire moved towards a unitary civic identity with a centralist government. The rise of nationalism in the years preceding World War One contributed to the breakup of these empires as nationalist voices insisted on independence and self-governance.

The rise of nationalism in the years preceding World War One

In the years preceding World War One, nationalism was on the rise in the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. Both were multi-ethnic empires, but they dealt with this very differently. The Austro-Hungarian Empire became a dual monarchy with separate governments and institutionalised minority identities. The Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, moved towards a unitary civic Ottoman identity with a centralist government.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was spread across a huge swathe of central and eastern Europe, encompassing the modern-day states of Austria and Hungary, as well as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and parts of present-day Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro. The notion of a shared national identity was always going to be a problem given the disparate nature of the union and the number of ethnic groups involved – most of whom were keen to form their own nation. Until the rise of nationalism in the years preceding World War One, the Empire had managed to incorporate a degree of self-governance, with certain levels of devolution operating alongside the central government. Various diets – including the Diet of Hungary and the Croatian-Slavonian Diet – and parliaments allowed the Empire’s subjects to feel some sense of dual-identity. It was possible to be both a good servant of the Kaiser and proud of Austria-Hungary and identify as a Czech or a Pole. But, increasingly, as World War One approached, nationalist voices began to insist that you couldn’t be both.

The Ottoman Empire, meanwhile, was challenged by ethno-religious identity politics. The Anatolian nationalist movement, for example, never trusted Wilson's peace concept and so distanced themselves from Wilsonian Principles and waged their own independence war against Western Allies.

Some historians have argued that the conflicts between nations within these empires were the main cause of their ultimate demise. According to this view, nations inevitably gravitated towards independence; World War One enabled them to attain it by fatally weakening the forces keeping the empires together. However, recent research has questioned this view. Not only were people’s identifications far more complex and the effects of nationalisms limited, but nationalisms were also rarely in conflict with the imperial framework. On the contrary, most nationalists sought to attain their goals within that framework.

The First World War enabled nations to attain independence

The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was a dual monarchy with separate governments and institutionalised minority identities. The empire was spread across a huge swathe of central and eastern Europe, encompassing the modern-day states of Austria and Hungary, as well as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and parts of present-day Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro. The notion of a shared national identity was always going to be a problem given the disparate nature of the union and the number of ethnic groups involved – most of whom were keen to form their own nation.

The Ottoman Empire moved from the millet system to a unitary civic Ottoman identity with a centralist government. The Anatolian nationalist movement was an exception. Anatolian nationalists, mainly due to the Armenian question, never trusted Wilson's peace concept. Therefore, they distanced themselves from Wilsonian Principles and waged their own independence war against the Western Allies.

Until the rise of nationalism in the years preceding World War One, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire had managed to incorporate a degree of self-governance, with certain levels of devolution operating alongside the central government. Various diets – including the Diet of Hungary and the Croatian-Slavonian Diet – and parliaments allowed the Empire’s subjects to feel some sense of dual-identity. It was possible to be both a good servant of the Kaiser and proud of Austria-Hungary and identify as a Czech or a Pole. But, increasingly, as World War One approached, nationalist voices began to insist that you couldn’t be both.

The Ottoman Empire moved from the millet system to a unitary civic Ottoman identity

Nationalism had a profound impact on the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, both of which were multi-ethnic and faced challenges due to ethno-religious identity politics. While the Austro-Hungarian Empire became a dual monarchy with separate governments and institutionalised minority identities, the Ottoman Empire took a different path. It transitioned from the millet system, which had allowed for separate ethno-religious legal systems, to a unitary civic Ottoman identity with a centralised government. This shift aimed to create a shared national identity among the diverse populations within the empire, which included modern-day Turkey, the Arab world, and parts of Southeast Europe.

The millet system, established by the Ottomans in the 15th century, recognised distinct ethno-religious communities, or "millets", each with its own legal system and religious leader. This system allowed for a degree of autonomy and self-governance within the empire. However, as nationalism rose in the 19th century, the idea of a unified, centralised state became more appealing to the Ottoman rulers. They sought to create a sense of common identity and loyalty among their diverse subjects, moving away from the decentralised millet system.

This transition to a unitary civic identity had far-reaching consequences. It attempted to forge a new sense of Ottoman-ness that transcended traditional ethno-religious boundaries. While the specifics of this new identity varied over time, it generally emphasised shared citizenship, loyalty to the state, and a common cultural heritage. This shift represented a significant departure from the previous system, which had allowed for separate legal and religious communities.

The move towards a unitary civic Ottoman identity was not without its challenges. The empire's diverse populations, including Turks, Arabs, Kurds, and others, had their own distinct cultures, languages, and aspirations for self-rule. As nationalism spread, these groups increasingly sought their own nation-states, challenging the idea of a unified Ottoman identity. The rise of nationalist movements within the empire, such as Anatolian nationalism, further complicated this transition, as these movements often clashed with the centralist government's vision of a unified Ottoman nation.

In conclusion, the Ottoman Empire's transition from the millet system to a unitary civic Ottoman identity was a significant shift in response to the rising tide of nationalism. While it aimed to create a shared national identity and loyalty among diverse subjects, it also faced challenges due to the empire's ethnic and religious diversity. The rise of nationalist movements and aspirations for self-rule ultimately contributed to the empire's collapse, highlighting the complex and transformative impact of nationalism on the region.

The Anatolian nationalist movement

The Ottoman Empire moved from the millet system to a unitary civic Ottoman identity with a centralist government. This was a very different approach to the multi-ethnicity of the empire compared to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which became a dual monarchy with separate governments and institutionalised minority identities.

The rise of nationalism in the years preceding World War One was a key factor in the demise of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The empire encompassed a huge swathe of central and eastern Europe, including the modern-day states of Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia, and parts of present-day Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia, and Montenegro. The notion of a shared national identity was always going to be a problem given the disparate nature of the union and the number of ethnic groups involved – most of whom were keen to form their own nation.

Until World War One, the empire had managed to incorporate a degree of self-governance, with certain levels of devolution operating alongside the central government. Various diets – including the Diet of Hungary and the Croatian-Slavonian Diet – and parliaments allowed the Empire’s subjects to feel some sense of dual-identity. It was possible to be both a good servant of the Kaiser and proud of Austria-Hungary, and identify as a Czech or a Pole. However, as World War One approached, nationalist voices began to insist that you couldn’t be both.

Contemporary analysts were convinced, and many historians have agreed, that the population of Austria-Hungary consisted of nations, and that conflicts between them were the main cause of its ultimate demise. According to this view, nations inevitably gravitated towards independence; the First World War enabled them to attain it by fatally weakening the forces keeping the empire together. However, recent research has questioned this view. Not only were people’s identifications far more complex and the effects of nationalisms limited, but nationalisms were also rarely in conflict with the Habsburg state. On the contrary, most nationalists sought to attain their goals within the imperial framework.

The multi-ethnic nature of the empires

The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were both multi-ethnic. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was spread across a huge swathe of central and eastern Europe, encompassing the modern-day states of Austria and Hungary, as well as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and parts of present-day Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro. The notion of a shared national identity was always going to be a problem given the disparate nature of the union and the number of ethnic groups involved – most of whom were keen to form their own nation.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a dual monarchy with separate governments and institutionalised minority identities. The Ottoman Empire moved from the millet system to a unitary civic Ottoman identity with a centralist government.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire allowed its subjects to feel a sense of dual identity. It was possible to be a good servant of the Kaiser and proud of Austria-Hungary and identify as a Czech or a Pole. However, as World War One approached, nationalist voices began to insist that you couldn’t be both.

The Habsburg Army was characterised by its multilingual and multiethnic soldiers, NCOs and officers. This did not change in the “age of nationalism” throughout the 19th century.

Frequently asked questions