Unifying physics by describing a variety of interactions -or even all interactions -within a common framework has long been an alluring goal for physicists. One of the most ambitious attempts at unification was made in the 1910s by Gustav Mie. Mie aimed to derive electromagnetism, gravitation, and aspects of the emerging quantum theory from a single variational principle and a well-chosen Lagrangian. Mie's main innovation was to consider nonlinear field equations to allow for stable particle-like solutions (now called solitons), and he clarified the use of variational principles in the context of special relativity. The following brief introduction to Mie's work has three main objectives. 1 The first is to explain how Mie's project fit into the contemporary development of the electromagnetic world view. Part of Mie's project was to develop a relativistic theory of gravitation as a consequence of his generalized electromagnetic theory, and our second goal is to briefly assess this work, which reflects the conceptual resources available for developing a new account of gravitation by analogy with electromagnetism. Finally, Mie was a vocal critic of other approaches to the problem of gravitation. Mie's criticisms of Einstein, in particular, bring out the subtelty and novelty of the ideas that Einstein used to guide his development of general relativity.In September of 1913 Einstein presented a lecture on the current status of the problem of gravitation at the 85th Naturforscherversammlung. Einstein's lecture and the ensuing heated discussion, both published later that year in the Physikalische Zeitschrift, reflect the options available for those who took on the task of developing a new theory of gravitation. The 1 Our study of Mie has been aided considerably by several recent discussions of his work, including Kohl (2002), Corry (1999), and Vizgin (1994. Born (1914), included in this volume, gives an insightful, influential reformulation of Mie's framework, and Pauli (1921, §64, 188-192 in the English translation) and Weyl (1918, §25, 206-217 ( §26) in the English translation of the fourth edition) both give clear contemporary reviews.