Nationalizing Empires 2015
DOI: 10.1515/9789633860175-009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Imperial Cohesion, Nation-Building, and Regional Integration in the Habsburg Monarchy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By 1914, Imperial Austria had developed into a nationalising empire, to paraphrase Brubaker's (1996, p. 63–65, 83–84) notion of “nationalising states.” It was not a nationalising empire in the sense of de facto nation states, like the modern British or French empires that nationalised around the ethnic core in the metropolis or the very late Russian and Ottoman empires, which increasingly applied elements of nationalising policies after the respective revolutions in 1905 and 1908 (Berger & Miller, 2015; Breuilly, 2017). Neither was it nationalising in the sense of aiming to create a supranational imperial Austrian nation (Komlosy, 2015; Reifowitz, 2003), because the very essence of the Austrian “state idea” remained true to a monarchic ideal (Haslinger, 2008). Instead, it had become what Stergar and Scheer (2018, p. 576, 584–585) have so pointedly termed a “multinationalising empire.” Developing their concept further, this paper suggests that Imperial Austria was a hybrid between a nationalising state and an empire with two equally valid, and not two competing components.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By 1914, Imperial Austria had developed into a nationalising empire, to paraphrase Brubaker's (1996, p. 63–65, 83–84) notion of “nationalising states.” It was not a nationalising empire in the sense of de facto nation states, like the modern British or French empires that nationalised around the ethnic core in the metropolis or the very late Russian and Ottoman empires, which increasingly applied elements of nationalising policies after the respective revolutions in 1905 and 1908 (Berger & Miller, 2015; Breuilly, 2017). Neither was it nationalising in the sense of aiming to create a supranational imperial Austrian nation (Komlosy, 2015; Reifowitz, 2003), because the very essence of the Austrian “state idea” remained true to a monarchic ideal (Haslinger, 2008). Instead, it had become what Stergar and Scheer (2018, p. 576, 584–585) have so pointedly termed a “multinationalising empire.” Developing their concept further, this paper suggests that Imperial Austria was a hybrid between a nationalising state and an empire with two equally valid, and not two competing components.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Upon uncovering the disparities in interpreting the empire across different periods, it is not surprising that there is no comprehensive study addressing the migration patterns between the two parts of the Monarchy. Numerous significant studies and books by Austrian and Hungarian authors focus solely on either the Austrian or Hungarian part of the Monarchy (Beluszky 2005;Dányi 2000;Dövényi 2001;Fassmann 1986;Fassmann 1999;Hanák 1975;Komlosy 2003;Mikoletzky 1992;Puskás 1990;Steidl et al 2007;Zöllner 1998).…”
Section: Aims and Objectives Of The Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Upon uncovering the disparities in interpreting the empire across different periods, it is not surprising that there is no comprehensive study addressing the migration patterns between the two parts of the Monarchy. Numerous significant studies and books by Austrian and Hungarian authors focus solely on either the Austrian or Hungarian part of the Monarchy (Beluszky 2005;Dányi 2000;Dövényi 2001;Fassmann 1986;Fassmann 1999;Hanák 1975;Komlosy 2003;Mikoletzky 1992;Puskás 1990;Steidl et al 2007;Zöllner 1998).…”
Section: Aims and Objectives Of The Studymentioning
confidence: 99%