Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe

by Thomas Ertman

For many years scholars have sought to explain why the European states that emerged in the period before the French Revolution developed along such different lines. Why did some states become absolutist and others constitutionalist? What enabled some to develop bureaucratic administrative systems, while others remained dependent upon patrimonial practices? This book presents a new theory of state-building in medieval and early modern Europe. Ertman argues that two factors--local government and sustained geo-military competition--can explain most of the variation found across the continent.

Genres: History, Politics, Political Science, World History, European History, Nonfiction

380 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1997

Reviews

[Robert Høgh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Han skelner mellem politisk regime og karakteren af bureaukratiet. Det første er, groft sagt, om der er skranker på kongens magtudøvelse eller ej. Det er der ikke i de absolutistiske regimer (enevælde), det er der i de konstitutionelle. Det andet er, hvorvidt embedsapparatet er weberiansk eller patrimonalt -- det sidste betyder fx at embederne i staten går i arv. Så det er de to dimensioner, Ertman gerne vil forklare.

Han forklaring på den første dimension er strukturen i de tidlige repræsentative institutioner i middelalderens Europa. Hvis de er stands-baserede (stænderforsamlinger), så bestyrkede de eksisterende forskelle mellem stænderne og gjorde det vanskeligt for samfundet at handle i fællesskab vis-a-vis kongen. Hvis det tværtimod var geografisk baserede tidlige repræsentative institutioner, så var de med til at nedbryde de samfundsmæssige skel og lette koordinationen mellem fx byer, adel og gejstlighed. Hvilket gjorde det lettere at koordinere modstand mod kongens magtcentralisering.

Den anden dimension forklares med, hvornår landet oplever intensivering af den geopolitiske konkurrence. Efter den militære revolution bliver presset fra krig og andre stater betydeligt mere intenst, og hvis det sker tidligt, sker statsdannelsesprocessen også tidligt. Og så sker det på et tidspunkt, hvor den bureaukratiske forståelse er mindre og hvor udbuddet af veluddannede er meget lille. Så man får en dårligere administration, og en patrimoniel en. Hvis det sker senere (ca. efter 1450), så går det bedre -- så er universiteterne begyndt at fungere og der er veluddannede at tage af og bruge i administrationen. Så sen geopolitisk konkurrence -> bedre statsadministration.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ertman gives a very helpful comparative history of the development of different European states, categorizing them as patrimonial absolutist (mainly France and Spain), bureaucratic constitutionalist (England/Great Britain), bureaucratic absolutist (mainly Prussia), and patrimonial constitutionalist (Poland and Hungary). The absolutist/constitutionalist contrast is well-known, but the patrimonial/bureaucratic contrast adds an interesting twist. In patrimonial systems, officials view positions of power as their own property, while bureaucratic systems place a premium on trained and qualified officials.

It's understandable that Ertman favors the British system of strong central government with oversight by a Parliament responsible to local communities within the realm. After all, Britain outmatched its competitors in power, stability, and the ability to finance its wars in the early modern period. It was an age of centralizing states that were at war with each other, and so it makes sense to focus on how the states met this challenge. Yet there does seem to be a conceptual bias toward the centralized nation-state, and I wonder how a book that had a different standard for political development might have looked. I also would have liked to see more on Habsburg Austria.

Those are quite small nits to pick considering Ertman's accomplishment in producing a history of over 1000 years of political development in Western Christendom.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is demanding and a must read interdisciplinary text, which is trying to 'glue' historical development to sociological and modestly phylosophical means of thinking. For a Historian the book seems useless, while for a member of the social science sphere almost unreachable. Meaning, you have to get out of your general understanding and open your mind to new ways of thinking.

[Genevieve · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ertman, who I believe is a political scientist, tries to explain the rise of all modern European states with a four part formula. Right off the bat I was not a fan of his approach. While it is an interesting approach, it ignores lots of historical contingencies.