Politics and Society in Modern

Europe
Feudal decentralization and state
centralization over the long run of
history.

Valeria Bort

SPE1, UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST

Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................... 2
Agrarian societies........................................................................................................ 2
Early states................................................................................................................ 2
Feudal decentralization and modern state centralization.........................................................4
Conclusion................................................................................................................ 6
Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 7

Introduction
Political science scholars have long been concerned with the evolution of mankind, and its
choices along the path. This essay will try to analyze the evolution of men in a social and
political context. Starting from the point that man is by nature a social animal (Aristotle,
1999)1, this paper will elaborate on human communities, namely the state. According to
Hobbes, the creation of state was inevitable (Hobbes, 1651)2, hence it is a subject of outmost
importance.
Firstly, the pre-state societies -- the agrarian societies will be discussed; secondly, the early
states. After that, the decentral feudalism and the central modern nation will be tackled. The
paper will be finished with a conclusion.

Agrarian societies
At first people lived outside of any community, in a state which Hobbes calls state of nature.
(Hobbes, 1651) But, realizing that there were dangers that put their lives at risk, people
formed communities to protect each other and to be safer. The first communities of people
recorded were the hunters and the gatherers. They lived in the world of 10,000 BC, were a
man might live all his life without meeting anyone from another group or tribe. (Britton,
2009)3 After the appearance of farming it was only natural that hunter-gatherers were
absorbed into, or eliminated by, the encroachment of agriculture. It meant that people didnt
resort anymore mainly on hunting and gathering in order to survive. From this point on,
people would settle down and would grow their own food. This is what Daniel Chirot thinks
that can be called a revolutionary change, the Neolithic revolution. (Chirot, 1994)4
Furthermore, societies which we call agrarian societies emerged. They were different from
everything that existed before because people would maintain their own crop and farmland.
From now on, people would stay longer in one place, tying themselves to one piece of land.
People from agricultural societies would have other habits and occupations, but their main
part of surviving gravitates around cultivating the land.
Agrarian societies have been the most common form of socio-economic community of
recorded human history. Because there were large discrepancies of space and time, there is no
homogenous culture, however there are some certain similarities. (Chirot, 1994)
Agrarian societies firstly appeared in Mesopotamia. This region covered todays Syria, Iraq,
Israel, and parts of Egypt, Lebanon, and Iran. They also lived in Asia, modern day China, and
India. (Chirot, 1994)
1 Aristotle, Politics. Kitchener: Batoche Books. (1999)
2 Hobbes, T., Leviathan. London: Green Dragon in St. Paul church-yard .(1651)
3 Britton, P., The World of Hunter-Gatherers. Retrieved from
http://www.timemaps.com/hunter-gatherer. (2009, May 15)
4 Chirot, D., How Societies Change. Seattle: University of Washington.
2

Early states
Daniel Chirot claims that the phenomenon of state creation can be traced back at around
3,000 BC, which means about 5,000 years ago. (Chirot, 1994) A state is a special kind of
community. According to Giafranco Poggi, a state must be differentiated from other
organizations operating in the same territory, it must be autonomous, it must be centralized,
and its divisions are formally coordinated with one another. (Poggi, 1990)5
According to Max Weber, the state is a human community that (successfully) claims the
monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. It is a relationship
of men domination men. (Weber, 1919)6 Still, humans dont naturally like to follow orders,
hand over what they produce, and lose their independence. (Chirot, 1994) Nevertheless,
during the course of history people had to learn to be obedient and to follow the rules of those
in power, because that was the social contract that ensured their safety. Nonetheless, people
would not obey easily. In the most cases leaders had to inflict violence and force so they
would be obeyed. In the recently formed states, we almost invariably find extreme levels of
cruelty carried out by the leaders against their people and even against their own kind in order
to awe the general population into submission. Human sacrifice is not at all uncommon in
such early state societies. (Chirot, 1994) In latter form of states, it wasnt necessary to use
such extreme methods of inflicting obedience, such as human sacrifice. Better established,
latter states have different methods of coercion, such as taxation. Inca Empire is an example
of an early state in which violence and human sacrifice was used in order to enforce
obedience.
Living in a new order also means creating new communities and new cultures. Henceforth,
the original centers of state formation created long lasting cultures. Being put in new
environment of living, people adapted and started thinking about how they can make their
living better. As a consequence, they started to think about the world around them, ask
questions and try to give answer. In this way, they thought about how life should be lived,
how should a state look like, how should it function. As a result of their thinking about the
world around them, different religions emerged. Through religions early people described
how should a community of people behave and created for themselves a world above them in
which they believed life would be better. This was a response to their everyday struggles.
The aftermath of them developing their culture are all the great cultures from the present
which have their roots at the beginning of human communities. From the Americas to ancient
China people developed great cultures, which made their life easier and more pleasant. All of
the worlds major religions came from the three areas of the Old World that were also homes
to the original states: the Middle East, India, and China. In all of them, stable solutions to the
problems of creating stable belief system were worked out. (Chirot, 1994)
From the Middle East there came a fierce form of monotheism in which the Universe was a
beginning and an end, the forces of good and evil fought and at the end the forces of the good
5 Poggi, G., The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospective. Cambridge:
Polity. (1990)
6 Weber, M., Politics as vocation. Bavaria: Facet Books. (1919)
3

won. Judaism, Christianity and Islam came from the Middle East. Indian religion stressed the
unending cycle of life, in which a creature after dying transforms in another creatures, living
or not living, and only by living a virtuous life one could escape the endless cycle of rebirth
and the torture of living by moving into a higher form of life. Indian religion didnt move to
monotheism, or towards a logical conception of universe with a beginning and an end, a
universe with a God given purpose. In China, the Empire administration invented their own
religion Confucianism, which arguable isnt a religion at all, considering that a religion
should have some form of divinity, a God or more. Through this religion they rather
emphasized social ethics and responsibility than a divine plan for the universe.
At some point, religion was a way to keep the state working without falling apart. Still,
creation of a religion was sometimes not enough to keep a state together and there were
different circumstances in which the rulers of a state would lose control of the state and it
would become an easy target for raids, sicknesses, and poverty.

Feudal decentralization and modern state centralization

Transforming religious thought in such a way that all the strata of the society - both the elites
and the oppressed majority - could be hold together was only the beginning of the problems
concerning the governing of an agrarian state. There was also the problem of the inevitable
tensions between kings and their administrators, nobles, and priests as well between the
capital of the state and the outlying provinces. (Chirot, 1994)
The bigger the agrarian state the greater were the problems concerning its governing. It took
many years of statecraft to make possible the existence of large empires that would
comprehend most of the world population.
There were different problems that constituted the impediment for developing big states and
empires. One of them is the problem of transportation. If there was no efficient method of
transportation the state could not evolve. The use of horses, cattle, sails in ships is what made
transportation possible. The use of runners on a developed road system is what made the Inca
Empire possible in the 15th century CE.
Still, the problem of transportation is a rather mechanical problem. There was a problem of
administrative nature that prevented agrarian states to develop, namely the tension between
the centre and the peripheries. Local elite wanted to keep as much of the revenue collected
from taxes as possible, but at the same time the capital needed as much revenue as possible
otherwise it got weak. This problem caused division within the state, the kind of division that
led to the destruction of the Inca Empire and to the Roman Empire, also it led to the division
of China.
This was a problem of decentralization which the agrarian states tried to solve in many ways.
China partially solved this problem in the 3rd century BC, but it couldnt stop the tensions
from reappearing until the end of the imperial rule in 1911. (Chirot, 1994) It could repeatedly
reunite though because it institutionalized a unified exam system guided by the Confucian
principles. They created a class of bureaucrats appointed by merit, based on the examination,
who shared common culture and loyalty to China. This is a system that worked so well that
even today much of the policy of China and Korea is based on Confucianism.
4

China and the Roman Empire succeeded in creating a centralized governing at about the same
time, in about the 3rd century BC. Roman Empire was becoming a great empire in the western
world and China was unified for the first time under the rule of Qui Shi Huangdi. In both
cases, the states could escape the troublesome situations by creating a centralized
bureaucracy. In China it was possible only by destroying the local leaders.
For creating a centralized state there was needed a high population density, adequate
transportation and weapons, good agricultural technology and a bureaucratic system. It was
possible only in the 3rd and 4th centuries BCE for such great powers as Rome and China to
realise it.
Holding together great territories for the agrarian states was a hard task, but several types of
institutions were tried in order to succeed. It was possible to use officials who were rotated
regularly so they would not gain enough power in a region and threaten the power of the
centre. But paying was a problematic task in the economies of agrarian states that generated
little spare cash, so the officials were allowed to retain some revenue from the taxes they
took. Still, the idea was that they should give more to the centre than retain to themselves.
After their term was over they would have to live that region and move to another one.
Allowing officials to exploit a particular territory as if it were theirs but then forcing them to
give it up is called a prebendal system of administration. (Chirot, 1994) Also, there was the
possibility to let officials stay in one region for a long time and even gain property rights
there. This is a problematic method for the centre power, because if officials could stay a long
time in a place and even obtain property they could gain too much power and challenge the
centre. Even if they didnt challenge the central power, they would leave the territories as
legacy to their children, and they would become hereditary owners of that given territory. So,
it would be very hard to take back those regions from the officials. This system is called
feudalism. (Chirot, 1994) This two systems were the extremes, between them being different
compromises.
In all of this fight for the exertion of power did not affect only the elites and the ruling power,
the peasants who were the majority were the most affected by the system. They had to pay
exorbitant taxes to both officials and central government and all of them wanted as much
money as possible. In the Greek policies the differences between the rich and the poor were
very visible, especially when money were introduced. Overtime, and especially following the
introduction of money, the richer class, whose status had once been based on land ownership,
began to accumulate wealth from investments and loans they made, in effect increasing the
difference between rich and poor. (Cartwright, 2013)7
Even though the agrarian states solved the problems of administration, only when industrial
societies developed it was possible to ensure the bureaucrats with enough money without
periodically ruining the population.
Henceforth, only after the French revolution and the Napoleonic time the state started to
function more like a centralized institution. In the 19th century can be observed the creation of
a centralized bureaucratic state and of state institutions: the parliament, the ministries, and the
judiciary. People started to get registered and more countries got frequent elections.
7 Cartwright, M., Polis. Retrieved from Ancient History Encyclopaedia:
http://www.ancient.eu/Polis/. (2013, June 6)
5

Conclusion
This paper has discussed the concept of a state and how first states appeared. It elaborated on
first human communities -- hunters and gatherers, and on agrarian states. Also, it tackled
feudalism and modern centralized states.
In conclusion, in order to create a centralized state there was needed a high population
density, adequate transportation and weapons, good agricultural technology and a
bureaucratic system. It was important to create a centralized state because big territories
could not be controlled unless there was a central system. As a consequence of
decentralization were constant riots and rebellions, the state could not stay united and none of
those who were part of the state could enjoy the benefit of being safe inside the state. Great
empires, such as Inca Empire and Roman Empire, fell because they became weak and were
easy targets for invaders.
The centralization was an actually possible thing after the French revolution when a
centralized bureaucracy was created and state institutions were developed.

Bibliography
Aristotle. (1999). Politics. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Britton, P. (2009, May 15). The World of Hunter-Gatherers . Retrieved from
TimeMaps: http://www.timemaps.com/hunter-gatherer
Cartwright, M. (2013, June 06). Polis. Retrieved from Ancient History
Encyclopedia: http://www.ancient.eu/Polis/
Chirot, D. (1994). How Societies Change. Seattle: University of Washington.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Green Dragon in St. Paul Church-yard.
Poggi, G. (1990). The state: Its Nature, Development and Prospects. Cambridge:
Polity.
Weber, M. (1919). Politics as vocation. Bavaria: Facet Books .