Origins of the First World War — Empires, Balkans, and the Rise of Nation-States
End of Empires and the Rise of Nation-States
The First World War destroyed the entire European political system, including the traditional imperial framework. The Ottoman Empire (Turkey as a new empire), the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the German Empire all collapsed by the war’s end; the French Empire was altered rather than destroyed.
The German Empire would cease to exist as an empire and become a republic; the Russian Empire would transform into Soviet Russia and then the Soviet Union. Other impacted empires disappeared from the map, reshaping the global order.
Some empires persisted in altered forms (France’s imperial structure changed; Germany became a republic). The collapse prompted a shift toward nation-states as a normal feature of global politics.
Before WWI, nation-states were the exception rather than the rule in the world order dominated by empires. After WWI, nation-states became the standard unit in global politics.
This shift raised core questions: how to build, sustain, and rapidly create stable states within a new political order. Those questions are reserved for future weeks; today focuses on the prewar era and its driving processes.
The Pre-War World: Empires, Expansion, and Competition
The war’s roots lie in the relations between empires and the rising tide of nation-states, not only in Europe but in the global imperial system.
The late 19th and early 20th centuries were the age of massive imperial conquests: European powers expanded into Africa and Asia, creating a world largely controlled by empires by the time WWI began.
The era of imperial expansion redefined geopolitics: competition over colonies and trade networks created shifting alliances and resentments that fed into the European conflict.
Unification of Germany in 1871 was a pivotal change on the map. Before 1871, the blue area labeled the German Empire consisted of many smaller states, including a large Prussian core and numerous principalities and dukedoms.
The German unification created a more centralized, powerful German state within Europe and altered alliance dynamics, including potential links to the maritime empires through overseas holdings.
The new German state’s rise contributed to reconfiguring alliances with France and Russia (and affected British calculations about continental balance of power and sea power).
The geography of Europe placed Germany in the middle of competing blocs, which mattered for alliance calculations and regional power dynamics.
This geographic and political position helped spark alliance realignments: France and Russia formed an alliance; Britain and France allied; Britain and Russia also formed an alliance. Germany and Austria-Hungary stood at the center of these competing blocs.
The broader imperial competition extended into the Ottoman Empire, which was weakening and described as the “sick man of Europe.” This weakening created an eastern power vacuum and opportunities for rival empires to press influence.
The Balkans: The Cradle of National States and Imperial Rivalry
The Balkans became a focal point where empire and nation-state tensions collided. The Ottoman Empire’s decline opened space for new nation-states to emerge in the Balkans.
The region’s key states by the late 19th century included Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro, each pursuing independence or autonomy in different ways.
Defining features of these new Balkan states:
They were relatively small, territorially circumscribed entities formed around ethnic-national lines.
They aimed to reflect a nation’s identity (language, religion, ethnicity) in political life and borders.
They sometimes acted as clients of greater empires, yet pursued their own foreign and domestic policies, occasionally pitting empires against one another.
Independent and semi-independent states formed in the Balkans during the 19th century, reshaping the political map and challenging imperial pretensions across Europe.
As the Balkans formed, some states could play empires off one another to maximize their own security and goals; the Balkans thus became a testing ground for nation-state viability and imperial influence.
The legacy of imperial competition in the Balkans fed a sustained conflict trajectory, including the Crimean War (1853–1856), which pitted Russia against an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and Sardinia, with ideological framing around protecting Christian minorities and maintaining balance of power. Dates to know: 1853-1856.
The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 culminated in the Congress of Berlin (1878), spawning Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin that recognized the independence of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, while Bulgaria gained autonomy within the Ottoman orbit. Concurrently, Bosnia and Herzegovina came under Austro-Hungarian occupation.
The treaties of San Stefano and Berlin thus formalized (and delayed) independence in the region and created a new governance dynamic: the empires still sought to control or influence the new states via loans, political influence, and economic leverage, effectively treating them as clients rather than fully sovereign actors.
The expected trajectory for these new Balkan states was continued empire-based control, but the states pursued more autonomy and the ability to conduct foreign policy, sometimes aligning with one empire against another.
The Balkans remained a space of intense competition; the empires’ concern over this area intensified as smaller states began to assert independence more decisively.
Balkan tensions culminated in the Balkan Wars: in 1912, the First Balkan War pitted a coalition of Balkan states against the Ottoman Empire, resulting in Ottoman retreat from much of the Balkans; in 1913, the Second Balkan War pitted Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, and Romania against Bulgaria over territorial disputes. The Ottoman Empire opportunistically pressed territorial claims during this period.
These wars disrupted the balance of power and revealed how quickly regional nationalism could threaten even powerful empires. They also exposed the fragility of post-1878 arrangements and demonstrated how quickly alliance calculations could shift.
Why territory mattered for small states:
Territory provided land and river valleys essential for agriculture (tax base) and economic viability, supporting armies and governance.
Access to fertile land, trade routes, and river networks contributed to taxation potential and military capacity.
Territorial claims were often tied to identity: states claimed populations based on language, religion, or historical memory, but these claims frequently overlapped and conflicted with neighbors.
The Balkans also showcased debates about how to balance governance and identity within larger empires. Some advocated for non-territorial national autonomy as an approach inside empires, aiming to give ethnic groups political voice without dividing territory; others pursued explicit territorial sovereignty and borders.
Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular illustrate the intersection of nationalism and imperial power:
Serbia, established as an independent state in 1878, viewed Bosnia and Herzegovina as land populated by Serbs who could become part of Serbia.
Bosnia-Herzegovina had been occupied (not fully annexed) by Austria-Hungary after 1878, which Serbia saw as a direct threat to its aspirations.
In 1908, Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, inflaming Serbian nationalist sentiment and aligning Serbia with Russia against Austria-Hungary and its allies. The event fed embers of conflict and set the stage for broader confrontation.
The Balkans thus functioned as a focal point where the interplay of nationalism, ethnicity, religion, language, and imperial control produced a volatile mix that would ignite into a wider war.
Serbia, Bosnia, and the 1908 Annexation Crisis: Sovereignty vs. Power
After the 1878 Congress of Berlin, Bosnia-Herzegovina remained under Austro-Hungarian administration but not fully integrated; in 1908, Austria-Hungary formally annexed the territory, marking a significant breach of Serbian and regional expectations for sovereignty.
The annexation damaged relations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, as well as Serbia’s ally Russia (and other powers with regional interests like Italy).
In the wake of Austria-Hungary’s move, Serbian nationalists intensified efforts to counter Austrian influence, including training groups for operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The question of sovereignty and external interference remained central: Serbia argued that foreign involvement in prosecuting or investigating political violence on its territory violated sovereignty; Austria-Hungary pressed for a more intrusive oversight in border territories.
The broader regional context included Russia’s interest in supporting Slavic populations while balancing with other regional powers; Italy maintained strategic interest in the Adriatic and Balkan matters.
The Balkan context helped explain why two wars in the region (Balkan Wars) did not simply remain local but fed into a larger European confrontation, given the empires’ stake in the region and the emerging great-power alignments.
The Catalyst: The Assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the Outbreak of War
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo became the trigger often framed as the starting point of WWI, though the chapter emphasizes it as the culmination of Balkan national politics converging with imperial rivalries.
The assassination was carried out by conspirators connected to the Black Hand, a secret society formed by officers of the Serbian army whose aim was to unite South Slavic populations under a Greater Serbia.
The choice of location (Sarajevo) and timing was linked to Saint Vitus Day, a Serbian memorial day associated with martyrs from the Kosovo battle of 1389. This connection highlighted the symbolic significance of the act in Serbian nationalist memory.
The assassination scene was described as involving careful staging yet complicated by human factors: the attackers froze or hesitated at moments, producing an outcome that could not have been perfectly planned, illustrating how chance and individual actions can shape large-scale history.
The chapter frames the Sarajevo event as a Balkan-centered moment that, combined with imperial interests, precipitated the broader conflict. Christopher Clark’s historiography is highlighted for foregrounding the Balkans as the scene of the war’s origin, rather than merely focusing on the major empires.
The Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia and the Invasion of 1914
In the aftermath of the assassination, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia with a list of demands to investigate and prosecute those behind the assassination and to curb anti-Austrian activities.
Serbia’s response: Serbia did not accept one point, specifically point six, which demanded foreign involvement in the investigation—Serbia viewed foreign interference as an infringement on sovereignty.
Austria-Hungary concluded that Serbia’s response was inadequate and proceeded with invasion planning, initially expecting a quick, local war to quell Serbian resistance.
The Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia triggered the alliance system in Europe, drawing in allied powers and expanding the conflict well beyond a regional confrontation.
The assassination and the vague, conflicting interpretations of the ultimatum’s demands illustrate how imperial power, sovereignty, and national aspirations collided, creating a combustible mix that accelerated toward full-scale war.
The Domino Effect: Alliances, Power, and the Start of World War I
The crisis that began in the Balkans quickly escalated due to the alliance commitments and the strategic calculations of the great powers.
The network of alliances formed around Europe in the pre-war era contributed to a domino effect: once Austria-Hungary mobilized against Serbia, Russia (Serbia’s ally) mobilized in support, drawing in France (aligned with Russia) and Britain (with varying degrees of involvement).
The central position of Germany, bordered by potentially hostile blocs and adjacent to Austria-Hungary, played a critical role in how quickly the conflict escalated into a continental war and then a global one.
The lecture emphasizes that while the assassination was a trigger, the structural conditions—imperial competition, Balkan nationalism, and alliance commitments—made a localized incident into a catastrophe with a global reach.
The discussion also notes the role of chance and human factors in historical outcomes: planning may be meticulous, but decisions, hesitations, and unintended consequences can determine whether a crisis becomes war or is contained.
Historiography: The Balkans as the Scene of the War
Historian Christopher Clark shifts the focus from empires to the Balkans, arguing that the war’s origins lie in the region’s politics and social dynamics, including how small states pursued sovereignty and how empires responded.
Clark’s perspective highlights the role of nationalist ambitions, conspiracy, and terrorism by non-state actors as shaping the pre-war environment, not merely the actions of the great powers.
The Balkans’ politics influenced global war aims, including how Wilsonian ideals of national self-determination would later frame U.S. participation in WWI and its postwar settlement.
The take-home point is that understanding WWI requires a Balkans-centered history of national movements, territorial claims, and imperial responses, rather than a solely empire-centered narrative.
Economic, Territorial, and Strategic Implications of Empire and Nationhood
Territory and population were central to state power: more land and more people increased a state’s tax base, military manpower, and potential to project power.
Territorial expansion created incentives to control river valleys, coasts, and trade routes, linking economic strength to military capacity.
Claims to territory were often tied to population demographics (e.g., co-nationals, shared religion or language) and to historical memory (myths of past statehood).
The overlapping territorial claims in the Balkans produced continual disputes: multiple states claimed the same populations and lands using different arguments (religion, language, ethnicity).
The empires sought to maintain influence by strategic tools such as loans, political influence, and trade control, treating the new states as clients rather than fully sovereign partners.
The region’s non-territorial autonomy idea represented an attempt to balance ethnic/national governance within empires, but the practical historical trajectory leaned toward territorial nationalism and state-building.
Important Dates, Terms, and Concepts to Remember
Crimean War: 1853-1856
Russo-Turkish War: 1877-1878
Congress of Berlin: 1878
Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin (post-war settlements affecting Balkans): 1878
Independence recognized in the Balkans for Romania, Serbia, Montenegro: mathematic context around 1878
Bulgaria: autonomous status within the Ottoman Empire (and later full independence in 1908): 1878, 1908
Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary: 1908-10-06 (date cited as 10/06/1908 in discussion)
Balkan Wars: First Balkan War in 1912, Second Balkan War in 1913
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo: date commonly cited as 28/06/1914; trigger for WWI
Saint Vitus Day and Kosovo memory: symbolic frame tying Serbian nationalism to historical memory (Battle of Kosovo, 1389: 1389)
World War I outbreak: commonly dated to 1914 (global expansion following the Sarajevo crisis)
The term sheets referenced by the lecturer contain dates and contextual notes; dates listed above were noted as important reference points for contextual understanding, not all of which may be tested directly.
Key Takeaways and Synthesis
The collapse of major empires after WWI represents a fundamental turning point in world history, with nation-states becoming the dominant actors in global politics.
The prewar period was defined by intense imperial competition, with Africa and Asia under European control and European powers jockeying for position and influence.
The Balkan region served as the critical hinge of the era: it was a space where nationalist movements could challenge imperial authority and where small states learned to navigate great-power interests.
Territorial claims, ethnic identities, and the pursuit of sovereignty created a volatile mix in which treaties, alliances, and wars overlapped and intensified.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand served as a catalyst for a larger systemic crisis, but the underlying pressures of nationalism, empire, and alliance politics had already created the conditions for a continental war.
Historiography emphasizes the Balkans as central to understanding WWI; recognizing the region’s role helps explain why and how the great powers became entangled and why the war had global repercussions.
Contextual and Ethical Reflections
Imperial competition often produced winners and losers in ways that had lasting humanitarian consequences, including coercion, coercive control of territories, and the suppression of local autonomy.
The shift to nation-states raises questions about ethnic self-determination, minority rights, and the legitimacy of borders drawn amid nationalist fervor and imperial power.
The period’s strategic thinking—using loans, political influence, and coercion to control new states—highlights the ethical and practical challenges of state-building within a framework of imperial dominance.
The case of the Balkans shows how cultural memory, religious identity, and language can become mobilizing forces for political action, with both positive and negative consequences for peace and stability.