Western Civilization: The Nation-State Part One; Precursors

In modern times we take for granted that the world is (and should be) divided into entities variously called "countries", "nations" or "states" (not to be confused with the subdivisions called states in the United States and Australia). Occasionally we see the borders of a country change, like recently when Russia annexed part of Ukraine, and previously, when the old Soviet Union broke up into its constituent "republics" and Yugoslavia followed suit a few years later. But these are looked upon as anomalies; the default position is that national borders are inviolable and, while adjustments do take place, it is usually frowned upon in international circles. But has this always been the case? Where did this notion start and under what conditions? First let's look at how people were organized before the advent of the nation-state.

Early organization of people into "a people" likely started out as family and clan groupings, sometimes with a designated leader, sometimes not. Nomadic groups would have had no concept of a fixed homeland, still less, borders. Eventually as agriculture and domestication of animals became the norm some idea of land that collectively belonged to a group formed. But this didn't necessarily indicate any concept of nationhood. A group's land was where they lived and they used any limits or borders would be fluid based on changing needs, population, food abundance or scarcity. At some point a warrior culture took hold, possibly as an outgrowth of a hunter/protector class. The biggest, baddest warrior, either as a result of his own battle prowess or his ability to command the loyalty of other warriors, set himself up as the chief. As chief, he would have authority over others, would be their "ruler".

As time went by, some chiefs extended their authority over other tribes, eventually being considered "kings" or "high-kings" over large geographic areas or of ethnic or cultural groups. Most of these kingdoms were considered the property of the king's family and were passed down (either wholly or in pieces) to the king's heirs. Sometimes a kingdom's ruling dynasty lost their kingdom due to war or just dying out, but the idea that the kingdom was the personal property of the king did not change. The extent of a kingdom did not translate into "borders" the way it does in a modern nation. If a king could not control a part of his kingdom, it was usually taken over by a rival or neighboring kingdom. During the age of feudalism, a kingdom remained intact only for as long as his subordinate nobles (dukes, counts, earls etc.) remained loyal. You see a lot of shifting loyalties in the early days of the English and French monarchies, especially after the Norman Conquest, where dukes and counts in France wavered in their loyalty between the English and French kings. As the 1600's opened, Europe was a bewildering patchwork of kingdoms, duchies and principalities. Some concept of "borders" were beginning to take hold, as well as some nascent ethnic nationalism, but the idea of the kingdom as the property of the king was still dominant. There were exceptions, non-monarchical areas ruled by councils of some sort, or even religious leaders, but they were the minority. In addition to the dominance of kingdoms, there was the phenomenon of empires.

In simple terms, empires were generally multi-ethnic or multi-national entities made up from formerly separate kingdoms joined to together by one ruler. Frequently the entities that made up the empire kept their own laws, customs and language, but all answered to the same central authority.

Many of the wars during this period were wars of succession, when there was a dispute regarding who the legal heir to a throne was. various royal families vied for control of different parts of Europe, with a reigning monarch often having no real ties to the "country" that he ruled over.

This began to change with The Peace of Westphalia.