Hacker News Reader

Comment by _Schizotypy | Hacker News Reader

the top down organization of humans and labor, complete with warring states.

I'm rather unsure how this would NOT be considered similar to nation-state organization. Yes, a slightly smaller scale in some cases perhaps but there is still the over-arching governmental authority

edited to add: I love how people down-vote impulsively without context for argument

View on HN

First, you didn't have the strong identification between the nation (in the older sense of "people") and the state. So rather than a single French people, say, there were several: Bretons, Normans, Gascons, etc. Second, you generally didn't have the centralisation and uniformity associated with the nation-state as we understand it today: the king's authority was limited or mediated in parts of his realm, bits of which (sometimes quite small bits) had their own time-honoured and diverse laws/rights/privileges. For example, the Bishop of Durham had quasi-regal powers within his diocese, and the great dukes and counts of France were all but sovereigns within their domains, sometimes with a barely nominal allegiance to the king.

It is apparent that we don't agree on what defines a group of humans to be a sort of 'nation-state'

At which exact point in history would you point to as the defining moment where 'nation-states' begin?

Do you judge all historical concepts purely by how they are in the current day?

Concepts develop over time, those societies are absolutely part of the beginning of current day nation-states no matter how diverse in culture they may have been (which is something we still see today)

In political science, the nation state is commonly understood as a (relatively) recent development and not a feature of medieval Europe. 15th century Spain is sometimes given as one of the first big steps toward the modern nation state, though it would take some time (centuries) for the phenomenon to spread and to develop into something like its modern form. Like anything there's not 100% agreement over where the boundaries are et c., but in common usage and ordinary context, that's what's typically meant. If you're using it some other way you'll be misunderstood unless you define your terms.

> It is apparent that we don't agree on what defines a group of humans to be a sort of 'nation-state'

It's a pretty well-defined term. Obviously you're free to use your own definitions, but I assumed the article was using it in its standard sense, and I did likewise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com