Monopoly of violence within precise borders is distinctive to the modern state

Evidence

There is a fourth institutional dimension to be distinguished: control of the means of violence. Military power was always a central feature of pre-modern civilisations. Yet in those civilisations the political centre was never able for long to secure stable military support and typically fell short of securing a monopoly control of the means of violence within its territories. The military strength of the ruling authorities depended upon alliances with local princes or warlords, who were always liable either to break away from or directly to challenge the ruling groups. The successful monopoly of the means of violence within territorially precise borders is distinctive to the modern state. So also is the existence of specific links to industrialism, permeating both the organisation of the military and the weaponry at their disposal. The “industrialisation of war” radically changes the character of warfare, ushering in an era of “total war” and later the nuclear age. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 155

Categorization

  • XREF: The industrialisation of war connecting to total war — the backdrop against which Darlington’s Nazi appeasement and the ensuing conflict unfold. — connects to: Armies composed of mercenaries and marginals predate modern states; European states consolidated power through monopolizing violence and administration.; Confinement of sanctioned violence to places was meant to circumscribe it — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 252 (+9 more)

Broader Connections