What pre-1492 country was the closest one to a modern state?
Athena?
Achaemenid?
Rome?
Sassanid?
Abbasid?
Andalus?
Northern Song?
Egypt (Mid Fatimid~early Mamluk)?
Southern Song?
Heian Japan?
Jura South India?
>>878865
Rome literally WAS a country.
Achaemenid qualifies also.
Iceland
Britain, circa 1942
>>878865
The Roman Empire in the early 4th century AD is by far the closest. Complex state bureaucracy. Stated owned and private factories. Professional military. I expect China probably hits most of those buttons too.
>>878963
I'd say Rome pre-crisis of the 3rd cent. was more modern, given that post crisis Rome became a more and more agrarian society as the instability and the divisions stopped people and merchants travelling as freely as they did earlier, leading to the breakdown of the trade system and causing all kinds of economic issues.
I'd say high principate (Nerva-Antonines) Rome is about as close as one can get; centralised military, professional volunteer army with state provided equipment and logistics corps, government funded military industrial complex, fully operational internal mercantile system, fully operational(-ish) state bureaucracy, public services, industrial revolution tier goods production, planned cities, even a welfare and pensions system. Not even Ming China comes anywhere close to what Rome had at its height.
Tb h Rome at its height was more similar to a 21st century nation state than some 19th century empires (looking at you, Russia).
>>878865
hellenistic greeks
>>880040
Fuck to the no
England in 1491.
>>878865
Probably 1491 Britain and France and Ottoman Empire.
Other than that definetly Rome and China.
>>880040
Hellenic Athens perhaps.
>mentioning Rome had a bureaucracy when Song China is in the list
>>880027
>I'd say Rome pre-crisis of the 3rd cent. was more modern, given that post crisis Rome became a-
No. The early Roman Empire was great as a time of peace and prosperity, but it was essentially an ad-hoc civilisation. There was no state. The entire empire was run from the emperor's house by a bunch of slave accountants. There was no bureaucracy at all. The provincial governors were just mates of the emperor sent out with a few officers.
Just because shit was peaceful and serene didn't mean that it was because it was an organised modern state. It was probably peaceful because people didn't get taxed much and didn't have to complain about the massive state that arose after Diocletian which people gradually started to resent and eventually rebel against (i.e. bagaudae) The modern state is nothing like 1st century Rome, but it is incredibly similar to 4th century Rome.
It didn't have a military industrial complex in the early empire, it was literally just private small businesses making all of the weaponry and armor. It did not have public services, they were constructed by individual aristocrats and it was never any different, antiquity had no concept of providing public services in exchange for taxes, taxes were for the army only. Goods production was haphazard. The cities were not planned by any central authority, despite the memes. Everything was based on locals trying to copy Rome, or Roman officers in militarised zones just doing the same shit over and over since they knew it worked.
>welfare and pensions system
Are you taking the piss? I can see the pensions thing, but welfare? Ancient Rome is probably the most anti-welfare, anti-poor, non-progressive state in history. There are entire books about the subject, with all of them concluding that the Romans didn't give shit aside from a few tiny examples like 70 poor Romans being fed and schooled in Italy in Trajan's reign which was trumpeted as the rare exception.
>>881238
And? They did have Bureaucracy, Romans. It was some of the finest in Europe untopped until Modern Euronig States showed up.
>>878865
A lot of Anglo-Saxon historians argue that the kingdom had qualities of a modern state, you had a shared cultural heritage, a currency system that involved skillful use of inflation and interest(under certain kings), a complex legal system that in theory worked from the top of society to the very bottom through the witan, and other aspects I can't remember.
Obviously there are a lot of problems with this argument too, but it's interesting and i've never seen anyone mention it on this board.
>>881387
Early 10th century England is probably a very high contender. People seem to forget that it was probably the only strong, unified and centralised kingdom in western Europe at that time. Presumably it's because it was crushed by William the Conqueror in a single battle after the Saxons had marched all the way up to York and then down to the south coast within like 3 days.
>>878873
Althingi represent.
