Sept 11 2013 Response You know the day we played awesome jeopardy

 *Note* Feel free to skip the first paragraph as it is just a summary of the readings. Read the last sentence though.

Andrew Sandor

Poli480

               During last weeks class we discussed the history and founding of the sovereign state. The three readings by, Jackson, Spruyt, and Tilly, all had mostly differing views from one another. Jackson believed that it was the power struggle between the church and secular leaders, who used political and theological ideas to come out on top, caused ideas to mold and change eventually leading to the Protestant Reformation, and the victory of the secular authorities over the the church authorities. As warfare reigned constant throughout Europe, with no single entity controlling a monopoly on the use of violence at the time, boundaries and lands constantly were changing hands under the feudal system. Tilly suggests that the birth of the sovereign state was a product of the growth of military technologies, as they changed the shape of warfare, and made a need for a central authority to act as the protector of their current realm. He does too emphasis economy, but sees warfare as the most major contributor. As we all know Spruyt had strong objections to the warfare aspect, and instead hammered home his belief, using the French Carpathians as his example, that the sovereign state came from the secular rulers alliance with the towns and merchants; who favored neither the church nor the aristocracy. He also believes that the French Carpathian King's heavy use of Roman Law over church law, also systematically helped him weaken the churches grasp in the region. At the end of the day, when the readings are all said and done, I believe that all three of them are wrong, and that all three of them are right at the same time.

               Each individual argument is massively flawed from the start for one simple reason: it fails to take account of any non-European viewpoint. During the time periods covered by each writer, sprawling sovereign kingdoms ruled in the east; namely China and India. Though these eastern dynasties would change hands from time to time, and their boarders would grow from conquests or recede from failures, this was no different from European sovereign states once they developed. The Chinese in particular maintained a solid central government in its dynastic emperor, ruling by the “mandate of heaven” over the peoples of the land. The emperor was the peoples protector and problem solver when it came to violence, pestilence and famine, and justice within China's boundaries. I would argue first that the Chinese may have actually had the first true sovereign state in its own form.

               Still, we are looking at the rise of the sovereign state through the eyes of Europe, and the three writers of these readings. Each of these writers make very interesting valid points. The problem is, is that each author relies solely on one primary reason for the rise of the sovereign state rather than admitting that it was all of these areas they mention and more, that were equally responsible in their own way for the rise of the sovereign state. I would argue that were one piece of these three authors arguments missing from the equation things may have turned out much differently, but we are not discussing hypotheticals; nor will it help us to do so in our current purpose.

               Jackson is correct in his belief that the political and theological arguments, that secular powers and church powers used to one up the other for power, contributed greatly in the push in new ideas. He is also correct that the secular powers took advantage, as in the case of King Henry the VIII, of the reformation theology of personal access to God, and that by doing so secular powers grew into the idea of the sovereign state. However, I believe that he is wrong that it was this push and pull between these two entities that lead to the reformation. He is missing the truly pious hearts that lead to the theology that caused people like Martin Luther, to stand against wrongs seeking to truly please God and grow the faith. Though German princes and a European king would embrace his ideas, whether in piety or for self gain, the Reformation itself was a spiritually driven occurrence. The genuine spirituality of the people is not the only thing left unaddressed by Jackson. He mentions changing boarders and wanton warfare by numerous parties, but fails to show at all how they may have effected or hindered the sovereign state birth in any real meaningfully ways.

               This is where Tilly comes in to help. Tilly recognized how warfare fundamentally changed life for all Europeans as technology advanced. Fortified castles and advanced weaponry fundamentally changed how people lived their lives, and in what ways they looked to find protection from the numerous dangerous peoples all around them. This indeed lead to a further dependence, of the many peoples in Europe, on their rulers and helped pave the way for the sovereign states that began to pop up all over Europe. Though he emphasizes the importance of economy during this time as well, he still makes it take a back seat in the level of importance to changing warfare.

Tilly altogether fails to mention the religious institution and ideas that controlled the way in which practically all parties in Europe sought to problem solve. This alone is a grievous short sight, and leaves the reader with an incomplete, skewed, picture of the true nature of many of the problems that faced Europeans at the time that lent to the shaping of the sovereign state. Did the change to warfare and technology have a drastic role in the shaping of the sovereign state, yes, but like Jackson's argument it was simply only one piece to the puzzle of the sovereign states birth.

               Here is where we round off with the most aggressive of the writers, Spruyt, who, almost unfairly, paints Tilly as a dimwit in his theory. Using earlier France's Carpathian dynasty, he systematically undermines each of Tilly's, and others, arguments. He basis this on the fact that the French king, using Roman law and allying with the mercantile towns, built up his weak power economically, controlled the aristocracy with bribes, and weakened the hold of the church by secularizing the inner workings of France's government, justice system, and economy. He does this haughty argument for the true source of the sovereign states origin, all while ignoring the fact that he only looking at one single small part of Europe, when as Jackson pointed out, the entirety of Europe was in constant chaos and upheaval. While I would give Spruyt an 'A' for effort, he is sadly as narrowly focused as his peers; if no the worst of them all. Still his point about using economics to financially empower the central government, and the savvy it takes for a ruler to cow so many antagonists at once, should not go ignored as being an integral piece to the state sovereignty puzzle.

               Ultimately, each authors argument falls short of proving there was on truly exclusive cause, over all others, that lead to the birth of state sovereignty. Instead, it is clearly a combination of them all, all sharing an equal piece of the pie, but they are also not alone. There are countless other reasons state sovereignty came into being that non of these authors addressed. Each had far to narrow a view on the subject, which is in itself massive. Like a large majority of Western claimed ideas, technologies, and things in general, the Chinese still currently hold the right in claiming that we stole these things from them. Maybe it is about time that they get on board the 'the intellectual property rights' train.