Part of romanticism is that it conveniently forgets, in all its pastoral paean to the "unquantifiable" and its "critique of science," that science is the reason we wear clothes and don't still sleep in our own shit.
Yes we are so high above those shit sleeping lions, aren't we?
I see it more as a dynamic, or a spectrum. Reason is on one side and Romanticism is on the other, and it is not about where you are on the spectrum, but that you adopted that dynamic in the first place. You would essentially be adopting both by adopting one.
Another argument is the one that the greeks made, that man did not invent his clothes, but that they were a manifistation of a need. A man did not invent a chair, but this and that happened, and one convenience led to another, and eventually man had chairs.
Romanticism and Nationalism both were not a rejection of science either, but rather something that manifested from a need. Nationalism was born of a need for a united state and romanticism came from the distance growing between man and nature.
Finally, a lot of romantics were very fond of science and it's probings, but one thing that they did rebell against was reliance on technology. Surely they benefitted from those clothes, and who with any sense would sleep in shit? But, they saw no benefit in constant comfort and convenience, and if they had it their (idealistic) way, they would say to hell with technology all together, and the clothes as well.