Historical sociologists often use Charles Tilly's famous argument—"war made the state, and the state made war"—as a framework for explaining how modern states emerged through long-term historical processes rather than through deliberate design or abstract political theory.
Here's how they typically study state formation using Tilly's approach:
1. They treat state formation as a historical process
Instead of asking what a state should be, historical sociologists ask:
- How did states actually emerge?
- Why did some become strong while others remained weak?
- What historical conditions produced different political institutions?
They compare countries across centuries, especially in early modern Europe (roughly 1500–1800).
2. They examine war as the driving force
Tilly argued that rulers constantly faced military competition. To survive wars, they needed resources to:
- recruit soldiers,
- buy weapons,
- build fortifications,
- maintain armies.
This military pressure forced rulers to create stronger political institutions.
For example:
- Wars became larger and more expensive over time.
- Small kingdoms that could not finance effective armies were often conquered.
- Successful rulers developed more effective governments.
3. They study how rulers extracted resources
War required money, so rulers had to increase their ability to collect resources from society.
Historical sociologists examine:
- development of taxation,
- population censuses,
- land surveys,
- bureaucracies,
- legal systems,
- public administration.
These institutions increased state capacity—the ability of governments to implement decisions throughout their territory.
4. They analyze bargaining between rulers and society
Rulers could not always simply seize resources.
Instead, they often negotiated with:
- nobles,
- merchants,
- towns,
- representative assemblies.
In exchange for taxes or military support, these groups sometimes gained political rights or representation.
Historical sociologists therefore study how war contributed not only to stronger states but also, in some places, to constitutional government and representative institutions.
5. They compare different historical trajectories
Rather than assuming all states develop the same way, they compare cases.
For example:
- England developed strong taxation through negotiations with Parliament.
- France built a highly centralized bureaucracy under the monarchy.
- Some fragmented regions, such as the territories that later became Germany and Italy, remained divided much longer because political power was dispersed.
Comparative historical analysis helps explain why different institutional arrangements emerged.
6. They trace causal sequences over time
Historical sociologists reconstruct chains of events using archival records and historical evidence.
A simplified version of Tilly's causal argument looks like this:
Military competition → Need for larger armies → Greater taxation → Bureaucratic expansion → Increased state capacity → Stronger states capable of waging further wars.
This is why Tilly summarized the relationship as "war made the state, and the state made war."
Common methods
Researchers using Tilly's framework often employ:
- comparative historical analysis across countries,
- archival research,
- analysis of tax records and military expenditures,
- studies of administrative institutions,
- process tracing to identify causal mechanisms over time.
Strengths of Tilly's argument
- Explains why European states became increasingly centralized.
- Connects military competition with institutional development.
- Emphasizes long-term historical processes rather than isolated events.
- Highlights the importance of state capacity, not just political ideas.
Criticisms
Historical sociologists have also identified limitations:
- The argument is based largely on the European experience and may not apply universally.
- It may understate the roles of commerce, colonialism, religion, ideology, and economic development.
- Some modern states formed under colonial rule or through international intervention rather than interstate warfare.
- Contemporary state-building often depends as much on international aid, global institutions, and domestic politics as on military conflict.
In summary
Using Tilly's framework, historical sociologists explain state formation as an outcome of sustained military competition. Wars pushed rulers to extract resources, build bureaucracies, strengthen administrative capacity, and negotiate with social groups. These processes gradually produced the centralized, territorially organized states characteristic of the modern world, while variations in historical circumstances help explain why states developed along different paths.
