Some empires grow from scarcity. Some from threat. But some grow from belief. A nation believes its way of life is superior, that its values are worth spreading, that the world would be better ordered according to its vision. This isn't extraction or defense—this is proselytization.1
The Fire Nation in Avatar: The Last Airbender expands from nationalist pride: "Our nation is enjoying an unprecedented time of peace and wealth... we should share this prosperity with the rest of the world." Not "we need resources." Not "we're threatened." But "our way is better, and we have a right—maybe a duty—to impose it." This is nationalism as an expansionist ideology, and it's psychologically different from the other two drivers.
Nationalism can arise from either scarcity or prosperity. Palpatine's rise to power in Star Wars happened during economic downturn and fear—citizens wanted a "safe and secure society," and nationalism became the response to existential threat. The Fire Nation's expansion came from prosperity—citizens felt confident in their superiority and wanted to share their greatness.
Both generate empires. Both are powered by ideology.
Here's what makes nationalism distinct from resource or security logic: it lives in citizens' minds, not just in government policy.
A farmer in a resource-driven empire knows their taxes fund the homeland's needs. They might resent it, but they understand the transaction. A farmer in a security-driven empire understands fortification is necessary when raiders come. They might grumble, but the logic is visible.
But a farmer in a nationalist empire is taught that their traditions are superior, that their way of life is endangered, that outsiders are threats to their identity. This isn't information about external conditions; this is meaning-making. It's personal, cultural, spiritual.1
This creates a different political problem: a nationalist state must continually teach this ideology to maintain it. Schools, temples, rituals, traditions, celebrations—all become vessels for nationalist messaging. A nationalist empire that stops teaching its ideology begins fracturing, because the ideology has to be lived by ordinary people, not just enforced by rulers.
The Fire Nation's nationalism arises from prosperity—"we are successful, therefore our way is best." But nationalism also arises from threat—"we are losing our traditions, our identity, our way of life is endangered." Both are equally powerful.
In history: German nationalism in the 1930s arose during economic collapse and humiliation (strife-based). Japanese imperialism in the 1930s arose during military success and confidence (prosperity-based). Both expansionist, both nationalist, but originating from opposite conditions.
This matters for your story: if your empire's nationalism comes from scarcity and threat, it's more fragile (once the threat recedes, why maintain it?). If it comes from prosperity, it's more sustainable (success breeds confidence that success will continue). But strife-based nationalism can be more intense—desperate people will fight harder.
Historically, nationalist movements coalesce around a person. Napoleon embodied French revolutionary nationalism. Hitler embodied German nationalism. Palpatine embodied the desire for order and security. The leader becomes the symbol of the nation's values, often claiming to embody the nation itself.
This creates political fragility: when the leader dies or falls, the emotional core of nationalism can suddenly collapse. Or it crystallizes around a new leader. Or it fractures into factions fighting over who best represents the nation's "true" values.
Authoritarian nationalism often trends toward centralized power—not always fascism, but usually toward concentration of authority to enforce the single vision of what the nation "really" is. The more a state depends on ideology to justify expansion, the more it needs unified authority to enforce that ideology across diverse populations.
But this is not automatic. Gandhi's Indian nationalism wasn't fascistic. It was decentralized, pluralistic, independence-driven rather than conquest-driven. Nationalism ≠ fascism, even though fascism usually uses nationalism.
A nationalist empire faces a specific internal problem: what happens to people who don't conform to the national ideology?
Some nations try positive assimilation—creating unifying cultural practices (Rome's Colosseum, Christian religious practice, shared holidays) that help foreigners identify with the empire. Others try negative assimilation—suppressing native languages, forbidding native practices, forcing conformity through repression.
Either approach can work for a time. But both create instability: people often prefer "to die as themselves than live as someone else." Push too hard on assimilation—too fast, too brutal—and you get rebellion rather than loyalty.
This is a narrative tension your empire must navigate: how much diversity can a nationalist empire tolerate while still maintaining its unified ideology? The tighter the nationalist ideology, the less plurality it can sustain. The more plural the empire, the weaker the nationalist cohesion.
Psychology — Ideology Adoption and Group Identity: How do individuals come to believe national ideology is true? Through socialization, repetition, social proof, and personal investment in group identity. A person is more willing to die for their nation if they've internalized the nation as part of their self-definition. This is psychological bonding, not rational agreement. See: Group Identity and Belief Adoption (if it existed; this is a gap) — the mechanism by which individuals adopt collective narratives.
History — Actual Nationalist Movements: Real nationalism follows patterns. Strife-based nationalisms (post-humiliation, post-colonial) are more aggressive and exclusionary. Prosperity-based nationalisms are more confident and expansionist without the defensive edge. Your empire's nationalism will feel more believable if it follows the historical pattern matching its origin condition.
The Sharpest Implication: A nationalist empire's strength is also its fragility. Because the empire depends on shared belief rather than material conditions (resources, defensive borders), it collapses catastrophically when that belief breaks. A resource-driven empire can survive if some resource dries up by finding new ones. A security-driven empire can adapt if threats change. But a nationalist empire cannot survive if its citizens stop believing. The moment propaganda fails, the moment citizens see through the ideology, the moment the nation's "superiority" is exposed as myth—the empire fractures at the foundation. Your story's tension could come from that moment of disillusionment, where a character or faction begins seeing through the nationalist narrative.
Generative Questions: