Scholarly definitions of nationalism often characterize the nation as the supreme object of loyalty (a ‘jealous god’). Such restrictive definitions are unwise because they needlessly exclude a wide range of pro-national beliefs and practices. Demonstrating this, however, is harder than often thought, because the close linkage between nation and jurisdiction seems to entail a prioritization of national attachment over other identities. More pluralist accounts of nationhood, such as those of Margaret Moore or Charles Taylor, only partially resolve this dilemma, which requires consideration of the ultimate sacrifices entailed by war and conscription. Yet these cases of ultimate sacrifice should be understood not as endemic to nationhood alone but to all forms of strong communal attachment, when faced with existential threat. As it is this threat, rather than nationhood per se, that drives nationalism to take absolute forms, restrictive definitions may justifiably be rejected.