A question regarding the fall of empires

[icydawgfish]

I've been pondering over this for the past couple of weeks, but I'm very curious as to how the common people of an empire as well as its elite and leaders handled the collapse of their respective empires. I'm thinking of the more modern colonial empires such as Spain, France, Britain, as well as empires like Austria, the Ottomans, Russia, etc. due to nationalism, but I suppose it could also be applied in a more limited sense to older empires such as the caliphates, the Romans, Byzantines, and Greek successor empires and other pre-modern states. Did people just go about their business, was it a blow to their pride as a citizen of that state? Did they just continue with life, not really caring? And how did the upper crust, the leadership and the elites react? Any answers pertaining to this would be awesome, and thanks in advance.

[Ludicus]

I'm very curious as to how the common people of an empire as well as its elite and leaders handled the collapse of their respective empires.

Depends on how fast does the collapse happen, and the negative impact of the severity of the process.
In Portugal, for instance, in 1580, the Spanish takeover strenghtened the need of of the Portuguese to believe that king Sebastião had survived Alcazarquivir Battle of Ksar El Kebir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Portuguese of the period, nothing could have been more difficult to admit than the possibility that the glory of the previous two centuries had come to an abrupt end with the dead of their king. The Portuguese blamed themselves, they believed that God had wished to punish them for their sins.
As Mary Brook points out, in A King for Portugal, the Madrigal Conspiracy, 1595-1595

"...defeat at the hands of the Moors was something to be accepted with resignation, but not the death of the heirless young monarch. Portugal was not ready to believe that Sebastião was dead. Sebastianism, particularly in the years immediately following the battle of Alcazerquivir, is one of the most dramatic and startling examples of a nation´s stubborn adherence to a belief to a hope, in spite of facts, reason, and logic to contrary.Today the term Sebastianism usually produces, or is accompanied by, an indulgent smile. It is shrugged of as a fanatical, flash-in-the pain, hysterical wave taken seriously by only the lunatic fringe. To a certain extent this evaluation is accurate; but we often forget the the persistent belief in Sebastian´s return was a serius threat to Philip II´s political control during the last decades of the sixteenth century, that it gave birth to four impostors, any of whom, with a little more skill and a little more luck, might have sparked a revolt agaisnt Spanish dominion, and that it furnished the emotional rallying point among the Portuguese folk that kept alive the desire for national independence during the sixty years of of Castillian occupation. After the early 17th century, sebastianism lost its ties with reality, although it still had enough power to attract an intelligent , learned man like Father Antonio Vieira"
Amazon.com: King for Portugal: Madrigal Conspiracy, The, 1594-95… -

Sebastianism is part of Portuguese of Portuguese mithology and culture.
It means:

"...waiting for a hero that will save Portugal and lead it to the Fifth Empire, and known as Eu nacional (national Self). There are possible mentions of this hero in The Prophecies of Nostradamus when it mentions the "great one of Portugal". Fernando Pessoa also wrote about this hero-to-come in his epic Mensagem (The Message) supporting his ideas on predictions and myths.
The Prophecies: Century VI (6) - Quatrain LXXXV (85)
The great city of Tarsus by the Gauls Will be destroyed, all of the Turban captives: Help by sea from the great one of Portugal, First day of summer Urban's consecration.

The Fifth Empire, known as Quinto Império in Portuguese is a mythological concept which became widespread after the publication of the poem A Mensagem, by Fernando Pessoa. The Fifth Empire is not a mere territorial empire. It is a spiritual and linguistic body which spreads throughout the entire world. It represents the ultimate form of fusion between material ( science, reason, intellectual speculation ) and spiritual knowledge (the occult, mystical speculation, cabalism). It is the pinnacle of all the work undertaken by the previous empires ( according to old principle of the translatio imperii ), which are the following under Pessoa's point of view:
First Empire - Ancient Greece, all knowledge and experience extracted from the ancient empires;
Second Empire - Roman Empire, expansion of the First Empire's culture and knowledge;
Third Empire - Christianity, fusion between the First and the Second Empires, with the absorption of several eastern elements (such as Judaism);
Fourth Empire - Europe, spreading throughout the entire world the outcome of the previous empires.
The Fifth Empire, led by "the hidden one" (O Encoberto in the poem, an allusion to Sebastianism), will unite the entire world spiritually and culturally, led by the Portuguese Nation.

-----

In more recent times, two consequences of the Carnation Revolution were a collapse of the economy and dislocation of hundreds of thousands of people who returned from the colonies to Portugal as refugees. From May 1974 to the end of the 1970s, over a million Portuguese citizens from Portugal's African territories left those territories as destitute refugees - the so-called retornados.
The profound psychological and emotional impact certanly had serious consequences.
As Warner put in, in 1994: “Refugees involved in voluntary repatriation are not returning home. They are, in fact, returning to their country of origin, but no more.”

[Salem1]

The collapse of the Swedish empire created a national spirit longing to recreate it which lingered on for around two centuries but grew increasingly romantic and aloof with time. However there were also people who resigned to Sweden's fate as an irrelevant minor nation and in the end pretty much everyone went over to this view, as people increasingly felt the reality of Sweden's inability to demographically, economically and industrially compete with other powers.

On the whole, I would think that Swedish people were quite gloomy and bitter about it since it lended some significance to an otherwise insignificant nation. At least if I put myself in the average peasant's shoes back then, I would feel better being a peasant in a strong country on its way to fulfilling its ambitions than a place which had been beaten and reverted to being a poor backwater.

What Sweden needed if it was to recreate its empire was basically a Swedish version of Stalin; someone who could take nothing and turn it into something. Sweden only had such people before and during the empire, after the empire's collapse Sweden was plagued by incompetence and conservatives.

[Their Law]

Britain suffered what was called a post imperial malaise up until the Falklands war in the 1980's. From 1945 onwards British foreign policy could be aptly summarised as 'loosing territory'. Generally it a a despondency towards foreign affairs in general, which trickled down towards society in general. This probably wasn't helped by the recession in the 70's and the increasing paralysis of the British economy, at one point the country was known as the sick man of Europe.

For the generation that grew up in the 30's and 40's that's a huge change, going from THE major power in the world, to one of many 2nd rate powers in the space of 10 years. I'd argue that society still suffers from it today. British nationalism still brings up negative con-nations with imperialism and there is a tendency to rely on past glories rather than push forward on to new things.

[Lord Tomyris]

British nationalism still brings up negative con-nations with imperialism and there is a tendency to rely on past glories rather than push forward on to new things.

I guess that's because British national identity has always been imperial - right from the moment of the union the English and Scots (and Welsh!) were together engaged in imperial enterprise, something which helped draw them together and give them common purpose, as did a fierce Francophobia and anti-Catholicism. Without the empire, and with the UK an ally of France in the EU, British identity is that much less defined.

[icydawgfish]

Very interesting stuff regarding the Portugese, but what about Spain, it collapsed much more quickly than the British did, they dismantled theirs in around 50 years while Spain lost hers violently in 10.

[icydawgfish]

self serving bump

[Magno]

Spain lost its empire for several reasons, it wasn't just abrupt but also a process that began with poor administration of its overseas colonies. In Puerto Rico there was a lack of Spanish soldiers which led it to be taken by England and Holland. The fact that Spain did not allow its colonies to trade with other nations, not even each other, caused much despleasure against Spain, (spawning rebel movements in americas). However these colonial insurrections were not enough to topple the mighty empire. With the inclusion of the fact that Spain was constantly fighting wars and rebellions (primarily in its german possesions) it drained its coffers and demoralized its population as well as the devaluation of spanish coin due to massive supplies of silver bullion from the americas coupled with Spains inability to administer/spend that money effectivley caused poverty to insue in a gold choaked kingdom. To a point the biggest blow to the Empire however came from Napoleon, as his taking of Spain severed its contact with its colonies caused them to fall into massive depressions due to trade ceasing almost completely giving revolutionaries the breathing room they needed to organize themselves against the crown. The finisher to the empire was the US kicking it when its down policy with the spanish american war which finished spain off.
Key causes to failure:
Poor administration
conservative economic policies
restricting of freedoms
lack of free trade
heavy taxation
too many wars at once
heavy involvement on religous conflicts
1Spanish war of succesion
2Napoleon
3USA(all three back to back)

[Tiberios]

Even though Denmark wasn't exactly an empire, the fall of Denmark as a major North European power did leave significant national trauma. It started with the Napoleonic Wars and climaxed with the defeat in the 2nd War of Schleswig.
The loss of our navy and Norway in 1814 caused some shock in Denmark and the nation was virtually bankrupt. The feeling of being a significant northern European power however, lingered on somewhat and the victory in the First War of Schleswig, 1848-1850 only furthered the, unrealistic, belief that Denmark was still able to stand up to Prussia and the German states on her own. However when the Prussian and Austrian armies defeated Denmark in 1864, it came as a major shock. The danes where shocked that our army, already heavily outnumbered and outgunned was further weakened by inept leadership, unfinished reforms and political intereference, was unable to stand up to the combined Prussian-Austrian armies. There had been a completely unrealistic belief in our army's ability to win a war over any German state.

The impact on this defeat was severe; Schleswig was completely lost and the nation learned the hard way that we had become a minor power. it also effected the nation in the way that from 1864 to the end of WW2 all danish government tried to keep Denmark neutral and did all they could not to provoke Germany. Only after neutrality failed in WW2, did the danish government change it policies.

[Nissedruva]

Even though Denmark wasn't exactly an empire, the fall of Denmark as a major North European power did leave significant national trauma. It started with the Napoleonic Wars and climaxed with the defeat in the 2nd War of Schleswig.
The loss of our navy and Norway in 1814 caused some shock in Denmark and the nation was virtually bankrupt. The feeling of being a significant northern European power however, lingered on somewhat and the victory in the First War of Schleswig, 1848-1850 only furthered the, unrealistic, belief that Denmark was still able to stand up to Prussia and the German states on her own. However when the Prussian and Austrian armies defeated Denmark in 1864, it came as a major shock. The danes where shocked that our army, already heavily outnumbered and outgunned was further weakened by inept leadership, unfinished reforms and political intereference, was unable to stand up to the combined Prussian-Austrian armies. There had been a completely unrealistic belief in our army's ability to win a war over any German state.

The impact on this defeat was severe; Schleswig was completely lost and the nation learned the hard way that we had become a minor power. it also effected the nation in the way that from 1864 to the end of WW2 all danish government tried to keep Denmark neutral and did all they could not to provoke Germany. Only after neutrality failed in WW2, did the danish government change it policies.

Wouldn't you say that the start of Denmark decline as a northern power started already with the peace of Brömsebro in 1645? The wars that followed more and more (according to me) marked the weakening of the Danish state to alone act as a serious power in the north. It did not happen over a night but the tendency, atleast acording to me, is quite clear.

On the whole, I would think that Swedish people were quite gloomy and bitter about it since it lended some significance to an otherwise insignificant nation. At least if I put myself in the average peasant's shoes back then, I would feel better being a peasant in a strong country on its way to fulfilling its ambitions than a place which had been beaten and reverted to being a poor backwater.

So you actually mean that you would rather be a Russian peasant in the 18th century than a Swedish one (most swedes were more like farmers)? Despite the backwater and poor state that Sweden was, before, during and after the "empire" the peasant/farmer's had quite high influence and freedom and a majority of them owned their own land's compared to their kind in other more "glorious nations". I also fail to understand how you can seriously believe that the comon people during Sweden's time of glory were any happier, i would say it was more the opposite. The terrible losses in manpower, people's sons and fathers, were accepted due to various reasons like loyalty, fear of retribution etc but hardly anything the people preferred, the average farmer most certainly just wanted peace in his own region.
In short i believe most people of the lower classes didn't care about how glorious the nation was, the war mongering revenge spirit that marked Sweden during the 18th century came mostly from semi aristocrats and burghers but as always it was the lower classes that payed the price on the battlefield.

[Salem1]

Wouldn't you say that the start of Denmark decline as a northern power started already with the peace of Brömsebro in 1645? The wars that followed more and more (according to me) marked the weakening of the Danish state to alone act as a serious power in the north. It did not happen over a night but the tendency, atleast acording to me, is quite clear.

I would agree with this, Denmark got shafted in the 30 Years War and then its final decline was decided during middle of the 17th century. After that, Denmark gradually stopped being able to act in force as an independant political power which is my textbook definition of decline. The shock of the century would've been the loss of Scania, which would probably have had around the same effect as the loss of Finland in Sweden. Except that Sweden never tried to take Finland back and Denmark always failed.

So you actually mean that you would rather be a Russian peasant in the 18th century than a Swedish one (most swedes were more like farmers)? Despite the backwater and poor state that Sweden was, before, during and after the "empire" the peasant/farmer's had quite high influence and freedom and a majority of them owned their own land's compared to their kind in other more "glorious nations". I also fail to understand how you can seriously believe that the comon people during Sweden's time of glory were any happier, i would say it was more the opposite. The terrible losses in manpower, people's sons and fathers, were accepted due to various reasons like loyalty, fear of retribution etc but hardly anything the people preferred, the average farmer most certainly just wanted peace in his own region.
In short i believe most people of the lower classes didn't care about how glorious the nation was, the war mongering revenge spirit that marked Sweden during the 18th century came mostly from semi aristocrats and burghers but as always it was the lower classes that payed the price on the battlefield.

No that's not what I meant, I meant as a reflection on Sweden's past - I would rather live in a strong than weak and beaten Sweden. This is not another one of my harsh criticisms I assure you

Happier? no. Not happier, hell no - but I would think that they felt at least a bit prouder of Sweden if they were to ever spare the nation as a whole a thought and not just how well the crops are growing right now. They are humans after all, we naturally feel proud being part of a strong community. I think the Swedish peasants are amongst the ones that have endured the poorest conditions in Europe without revolting and such and for that you have to give them credit, no matter the reasons, to have endured a lot of hardship and swallowed it.

That's what I think is disgusting about Sweden's history from the 18th century onwards and why I generally don't care much about that time period. There's just something in the air when I read about it that tells me Sweden got worse internally than it would've been had it remained on the path of the late 17th century. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Swedish ''empire'' actually did any good to the common dude as it obviously only caused suffering and the rich to get richer, but I think Sweden would've been better off internally if the ''empire'' hadn't fallen.

Anyway this isn't really the thread for this... but I was planning on starting a thread on causes for strong nations to go to weak and even irrelevant. My first focus would be on the Scandinavian nations. Wanna join in?

[Nissedruva]

No that's not what I meant, I meant as a reflection on Sweden's past - I would rather live in a strong than weak and beaten Sweden. This is not another one of my harsh criticisms I assure you

Happier? no. Not happier, hell no - but I would think that they felt at least a bit prouder of Sweden if they were to ever spare the nation as a whole a thought and not just how well the crops are growing right now. They are humans after all, we naturally feel proud being part of a strong community. I think the Swedish peasants are amongst the ones that have endured the poorest conditions in Europe without revolting and such and for that you have to give them credit, no matter the reasons, to have endured a lot of hardship and swallowed it.

That's what I think is disgusting about Sweden's history from the 18th century onwards and why I generally don't care much about that time period. There's just something in the air when I read about it that tells me Sweden got worse internally than it would've been had it remained on the path of the late 17th century. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Swedish ''empire'' actually did any good to the common dude as it obviously only caused suffering and the rich to get richer, but I think Sweden would've been better off internally if the ''empire'' hadn't fallen.

Anyway this isn't really the thread for this... but I was planning on starting a thread on causes for strong nations to go to weak and even irrelevant. My first focus would be on the Scandinavian nations. Wanna join in?

Well i understand what you are getting at but i feel that you amongst many others overate the sense of nationalism among common people pre 19th century. I just wanna share my opinion.

Im among the people that acknowledge that there was a sense of nationalism among the Swedish populace in the 17-18th centuries albeit in quite small quantity (some historians argue that there weren't any at all, i don't agree). There are several cases, like in Dalarna where the populace armed themselves (with encouragement from the state) to make raids into Danish-Norwegian territory, the parishes of Särna and Idre perhaps being the most famous example where 200 dalecarlian farmers led by a priest conquered it in 1644. Was this due to nationalism? Perhaps to some degree but i find the question more complicated (see below). There are also example of farmers from småland and skåne trading with each other, and making secret non aggressive pacts whilst Sweden and Denmark fought a wars on national scale.
So without being any sort of expert on the area my point of view is that there was a nationalism but quite weak, it was however sometimes awoken in border regions i times of war when for instance the opposing side made raids into the farmer's land or when a newly conquered region is taken away privileges or maybe as a preemptive cause "to save you land's from the enemy, strike first".
After all the sense of community was far greater on the regional scale than the national, farmers often lived and died in the same area seldomly traveling to places more than a couple of miles away. But sometimes i believe that regionalism easily can be confused with nationalism as armed populace in border regions can be marked with "fighting for king and country" while they in reality more likely only sought to protect their families and homes, fighting independently but under the mark of the specific nation. However this might have varied from case to case.

Otherwise the population in two neighboring regions in different countries (atleast in the case Sweden-Denmark-Norway) probably had more cultural and community ties than distant regions in the same country. My own family tree give witness to that as i had ancestors in Härjedalen prior to the peace at Brömsebro that crossed the border into Hälsingland and married with people from Järvsö.

After all the sense of community was far greater on the regional scale than the national, farmers often lived and died in the same area, seldomly traveling or relocating to places more than a couple of miles away.

I support your thread idea.

[Tiberios]

Wouldn't you say that the start of Denmark decline as a northern power started already with the peace of Brömsebro in 1645? The wars that followed more and more (according to me) marked the weakening of the Danish state to alone act as a serious power in the north. It did not happen over a night but the tendency, atleast acording to me, is quite clear.

Well we could debate this for ages. Anyway, even if it weakened Denmark, one of Denmarks golden ages were from 1700 to 1814. Denmark did have one of the worlds largest navies. The reason I used this was that the defeat of 1864 were much very severe. After the wars with Sweden, Denmark was, or at least considered itself, a Northern European power. That was definatively put to death by the Napoleonic Wars and the defeat in 1864.

[icydawgfish]

Spain lost its empire for several reasons, it wasn't just abrupt but also a process that began with poor administration of its overseas colonies. In Puerto Rico there was a lack of Spanish soldiers which led it to be taken by England and Holland. The fact that Spain did not allow its colonies to trade with other nations, not even each other, caused much despleasure against Spain, (spawning rebel movements in americas). However these colonial insurrections were not enough to topple the mighty empire. With the inclusion of the fact that Spain was constantly fighting wars and rebellions (primarily in its german possesions) it drained its coffers and demoralized its population as well as the devaluation of spanish coin due to massive supplies of silver bullion from the americas coupled with Spains inability to administer/spend that money effectivley caused poverty to insue in a gold choaked kingdom. To a point the biggest blow to the Empire however came from Napoleon, as his taking of Spain severed its contact with its colonies caused them to fall into massive depressions due to trade ceasing almost completely giving revolutionaries the breathing room they needed to organize themselves against the crown. The finisher to the empire was the US kicking it when its down policy with the spanish american war which finished spain off.
Key causes to failure:
Poor administration
conservative economic policies
restricting of freedoms
lack of free trade
heavy taxation
too many wars at once
heavy involvement on religous conflicts
1Spanish war of succesion
2Napoleon
3USA(all three back to back)

I'm aware of the political and economic reasons for the fall of many of these empires, but the question pertains to the social aspects, particularly in regards to nationalism and and the common man, how they and their world view were affected by these events.

[icydawgfish]

Are there any first hand sources easily available regarding the Danes?

[Tiberios]

I haven't been able to find any good book or articles in english.

[Radosław Sikora]

You would be interested in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was in many ways similar to modern democracies (at least it was much closer to modern democracies than any other European country of that period).
How the Poles (polictical class / nobility) and their world view were affected by the fall of the state?

1. They were confused.
Think about people, who lived in the time of the weakening of the country. They didn't know their future, while they were surrounded by informations which contradicted each other. One faction said 'we have to do xxx to recovery'. Another one said 'we can't do xxx to recovery; we have to do yyy...'. Common people were not experts and didn't know what would be better to do to save the country. Even now, in 21th c. historians don't agree with each other what would be better to do, to prevent the fall of the country.

2. Confused people had a tendency to keep a status quo. The country needed revolutionary changes, but confused people were not sure, which revolutionary changes were better and therefore there was a tendency to keep a status quo, which was already known and which didn't demand any effort.

3. When the country was weakened enough, people were confused and they didn't reform the country, there was a strong tendency to ignore public affairs. People tooke care only about themselves and their families.
PLC was not an absolute monarchy, with 1 man responsible for the politics of the state. PLC was as strong as the will of its citizens. PLC had a civil society with all its advantages and disadvantages. Involving of citizens in a public affairs was a key factor of its power.

4. When the country was already weak enough, firstly the elites (these men who had the most to lose), then common people, looked for a protection of somebody stronger (they looked for protection outside PLC).

5. People were looking for scapegoating. That could be either ethnic or religious minority.