War Made the State and the State Made War

330 Words2 Pages
Charles Tilly’s statements of “War made the state and the state made war”(1975, 42) is derived from the characteristics of the Nation State. That is defined as a state that self identifies as deriving its political legitimacy as a sovereign territorial unit. Here, the state is a political and geographical entity whereas the nation is a culture and/or ethnic entity. ------------------------------------------------- Tilly believes that only the strongest states in Europe survived the “giant-competition” of warfare (1975, 42). In the writing of ‘Warmaking and Statemaking as Organized Crime,’ he tells a story of capital, sphere of exploitation, and coercion, realm of armed forces. According to him, the main characteristic of the state is to use coercion to sustain its existence. State making began with the effort to monopolize the means of violence within a given territory. And as war became more expansive and expensive due to expansion of territory and military innovation, respectively, only states with a sufficient capital and large population could afford paying for security to survive in the hostile war era (Taxation was created to allow war-making). Furthermore, Tilly emphasized the application of cultural control through developing national languages and education systems. Alternate explanation for emergence of modern states is the aspect of trade and adaptation. During the 12th and 14th centuries, there was a vast increase in trade when conventional systems of churches, empires, feudalism were ill equipped to handle the matter. The best example of such sovereign state that adapted to pressures of trade was France. Furthermore, supporters of this alternate explanation claim that if the war created states, they would have all become states immediately. ------------------------------------------------- Although,

More about War Made the State and the State Made War

Open Document