What is it that explains the great diversity in time and space of the status types that have prevailed

in Europe since
990 A.D. and who converged at the end of European States in different variants of the national State?

Existing Responses

Tilly said that the existing answers to that question are unsatisfactory to any historian of Europe. The options
that currently exist on two points. The first, in that intensity depended on the formation of the State of economic
change and secondly, the influence of external factors in the transformation of the State. The author presents a figure
of the alternative conceptions on state formation, which provides an answer to these approaches.

Statist Analysis

As proposed by Tilly, along the formation of state, there have been many analysts of international relations
that have adopted the statist perspective. Of course, it is of vital importance that States act on the basis of certain
interests, that the international system is anarchic and make certain actors with regard to the interaction of States and
their own interests. The explanations statists have played an important role among historians, sociologists and
scholars of comparative politics. The variant of the statist analysis places the United in an international environment,
without leaving aside that act so fairly individual; hence the social - cultural diversity between the parties of Europe
along the formation of the State.

Geopolitical analyzes

The geopolitical analysis gives great importance to the international system during the formation of the State.
Fromthis are those of which it is composed. As suggested by the author on the basis of this type of analysis, the
relations of States have a logic and a influence itself, therefore, the formation of the State is in response to the
prevailing system of relations between these.

The analysis of the mode of production

As proposed by the text, "What is characteristic of the hypotheses of modes of production is to explain the
logic of feudalism, capitalism, or any other organization of production" (Charles Tilly, 1992, 31). Tilly mentions
Gordon Clark and Michael Dear who conceived the State as the result of the economic and political demands of the
capitalist production of products. From there that the state is involved in the formation and distribution of the surplus
value by trying to maintain their power and wealth. It also proposes that the structural explanations of the State are
based on the assumption of capitalist interests governing within the jurisdictions of the State.

The analysis of the global system

1
 In this type of analysis neo-Marxist theorists amplify the typical Marxist division between capital and labor
to the global level. The characteristics of the state and the relations of the producers and traders of the region with
the global economy are guarantors of the position of the region. The thread of what has been said, the State plays the
instrumental role of the national ruling class, working at the service of that class in the economic field. Scholars such
as Barrington Moore, Jr; Stein Rokkan and Lewis Mumford despite his studies were not able to produce a general
explanation about the variation in the formation of the European states. For example, Moore had as a proposal to
explain him because of that some States had representative systems possibly viable and, on the other hand, others
were characteristic of an authoritarian form of government. Unfortunately their studies focused in his time and left
aside the previous forms of government, thus skewing the results. For its part, Rokkan went in the variability of
European political systems and the possible tendency of States to develop similar political structures. Rokkan died
before they have developed and refined the version or the result of his studies. Finally Mumford created a theory of
urbanism of the threshold. For him, the critical concentration of power and the expansion of the means of production
drove the development of the cities. However, never developed fully their analysis in terms of the transformation of
the States.

The logic of capital and coercion

This part refers to the coercion exerted by those who in defense of their own purposes manipulated, generating
capital cities. In this way the various combinations of capital and coercion produced very different types of States,
thus creating the national States.

Inside the cities, there is a flow of trade and agriculture, which in turn represents the regional economy.
Taking into account that people need others to supply their basic needs; there is great growth of cities and involve a
series of changes.

The coercion determines an area of domain. The means of coercion are concentrated in the armed forces, but
extend to imprisonment, expropriation, humiliation and threats. The two groups of coercion in Europe were the
soldiers and the landowners, there where it is crystallized in Aristocracies. In the light of what was said, capital and
coercion come together not only to exploit, but also to master. The accumulation of coercive means producing States.

The war, the formation and transformation of the State

The means of restraint in the war and internal control generate two problems. In the first place, those who
exercise coercion are required to manage the land, people and goods; equally compromised with the extraction of
resources and the distribution of goods and services. The problem lies in the fact that the administration takes them
away from the earth, and sometimes the interests are opposed to the war. The infrastructure of the tribute of

2
action, administration and supply as exigencies of war, generated by the increase of the armies and navies; bearing
in mind that the rulers are also part of the preparation for the war.

There have been three types of States that have emerged in several parts of Europe since the year 990: empires
receptors of tribute, fragmented sovereignty systems, urban federations and the national states. In the first builds a
strong military apparatus, however almost all of the local administration is in command of the powerful national. In
the fragmented sovereignty systems partnerships are transitory and consultative institutions played an important part
in the war. The United National coalicionan join military organizations, which sometimes come to be administrative
and productive in a central structure.

The creation of the State rarely was designed on the basis of an accurate model; in fact the European princes
hardly behaved efficiently to produce the State to follow. The main components of the national State, such as, for
example, cuts, treasuries, administrations and other were not intended. In fact were the result of the creation and
support of an armed force. It is common to think that only the ruling classes had an influence on the imprint of the
European States, however the population that remained under the jurisdiction of a particular State, also had great
influence; since their resources and activities bearing on the preparation for the war.