What would you say is the first modern state?
France.
San Marino, or it at least behaved like one.
Better question OP, why is Westphalia seen as the first modern sovereign state when it answered to the Holy Roman Empire?
>>1119002
Probably France
>>1119023
By that logic no one in the European Union is a sovereign state
>>1119043
I stand by that logic
>>1119031
Not him but, probably because of the various centralization efforts made by various french monarchs in the middle ages.
>>1119002
Republic of Venice
>>1119002
Well what's your definition of a Modern State?
Sumer
The US of course. Complete political, religious, ideological, military and civic autonomy from the day it was created. She answers to no one.
France.
First state, and first nation (in the Western sense).
>>1119031
It appeared long before the US even existed. The French state could be said to exist already in the 13th century depending on your definition, but in any case by the time of Richelieu it was the full modern sovereign state with all its attributes.
United States of America
>>1119065
Prussia then?
>>1119065
>they were a Catholic institution that in effect answered to the Roman Catholic Church.
lmao, how is it every single Protestant is taught this shit as children? Did your parents tell you that your family is Lutheran or whatever so you don't have to follow the orders of the evil Pope like all the Catholics must?
Anyway, returning to reality, not only was the French clergy under the king's control, but even the Papacy itself was France's bitch throughout history.
>>1119031
>France.
It's some of the Italian City States, particularly the Republics, you nutters
>Constitution/Charter
Check
>Identity revolves around a community of citizens not whose royal house is in charge
Check.
>That said: Citizenship.
>Centralized bureaucracy
Check.
Medieval, Charter-ruled City States in Europe were the true "Modern States." There's a reason why Modern Nation States ripped off shitloads of institutions from City States. There's a reason why you're CITIZENS.
And Early USA is barely fucking centralized to even qualify.
Anyway "modernism" is a cancerous progressivist meme anyway.
>>1119243
The term citizens and all the rest comes from ancient Greece and Rome, it has nothing to do with medieval city-states, which were just patrician families and various guilds fighting over a few hills or commercial interests. Their charters were no more constitutions than the Magna Carta was, nothing but a treaty designed to regulate negotiations between interest groups.
The modern state, designed to serve the public interest as a single body, with a government, a civil service and a complex administration, which holds nothing above the "raison d'État", that is France.
Ennui.
>all these people saying France
Absolute Monarchies were never modern, it took the revolution to make them modern
>>1119191
No need to get defensive friend, I'm just pointing it out. You're saying yourself that the Papal State and the French were pretty much intertwined at one point, having to rub up to the Pope to keep your legitimacy as a nation doesn't sound very modern at all.
>>1119512
We're talking about the modern state as an institution. Not about "omg you don't even have a black lesbian transgendered president yet that's like so not modern".
>having to rub up to the Pope
It was the Pope that had to suck up to France to keep his mitre. In the 13th century the Pope tried to meddle in French affairs, so the French king had him kidnapped, got a Frenchman elected Pope, and then fucking moved the Papacy out of Rome and into France. That's how much he had to "rub up to the Pope".
>>1119524
But there are no modern western institutions capable of dominating the Papal State, ie infringing on the sovereign right of another state/institution. If the French monarch was capable of imposing such a will, then France at that time wasn't a modern state.
The Soviet Union
>>1119002
In b4 I get slammed for this, but Qin China. Albeit totalitarian, but still - organised production lines that are essentially mass production with chains of accountability for quality, households gathered into a systemised distribution of taxation, large relatively meritocratical bureaucracy, trained standing army, innovation in the field of tactics and agriculture, philosophical 'blood and soil' philosophy found in the writings of Shang Yang. There's really nothing comparable until the 1800s.
>>1119667
t.gomie
>>1119407
>lol theyre not modern states because they failed to live up to ideals kekekek.
>u kno what lived up to ideals? FRANCE.
Go make some ETERNAL ANGLO/ HRE Le meymeys, you French cuck.
>>1119683
China technically doesnt fit the (western) eurocentric view of modernity.
Though it did have institutions that could be considered modern such as a meritocracy and cebtralized bureaucracy.
>>1119724
Eh, are we going to allow ourselves to be cuckholded by the chastity device of 'muh freedoms,' /his/? I understand your point, but I think anyone with a viable perspective rejects the whole 'democracy uber allas' fallacy.
'Modernity' if it can really be reduced is either sophistication of government or the level of direct accountability/meritocracy in a governmental system, alongside a stable, planned economy. Technology/freedoms are irrelevant since those are really just subjective trappings who don't have a direct bearing on organisation in the fundemental sense.
>>1119714
You seem to be having a few issues that are unrelated to this thread.
>>1119002
The Dutch Republic
Ubaid, probably.
If Singapore and Monaco can be countries today and only be cities, then ancient city states with a centralized monarchy can be states.
Otherwise, probably England has a decent claim to it what with the territory being basically the same since the 930s. At the time, France really hadn't come into being, it was West and East Francia.
The Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway existed in the 880s a good deal earlier than united England. Denmark in particular basically held the exact same territory, plus the little bit of Skane it would hold until the 1600s. Denmark stronk, Denmark ancient. Kongen leve!
The Wiki article on states by date of formation says this:
Iran (3200 BC) because of the Proto-Elamites
Egypt (3100 BC) Narmer
Vietnam (2879 BC) Van Lang Confederacy arose under Kinh Duong Vuong
North Korea (2333 BC) Legendary Founding of Gojoseon
India (2000 BC) Unification by Legendary Emperor Bharata
Georgia (1300 BC) ???
Sudan (1070 BC) because of the Kingdom of Kush
Greece (800 BC) general traditional date for the beginning of Greek civilization
Sri Lanka (377 BC) Anuradhapura Kingdom
South Korea (300 BC) Jin state established
Mongolia (209 BC) Xiongnu Empire formed.
Somalia (200 BC) Early Somali city-states formed
Armenia (190 BC) ???
Ethiopia (50 BC) Axum founded
San Marino (301)
Japan (400) Unified state emerged during the Kofun period
United Kingdom (519) Kingdom of Wessex founded
Pitiful silly France is seven places farther down the list, formed in 843 with the Treaty of Verdun establishing West Francia, although some sources say "France" itself didn't come into being till 988.
>>1120530
You didn't understand the question. There's several definitions of "Modern state" but OP clearly didn't mean "state that exists today".
>>1119002
Who cares? What are the stakes of the question?
>>1119002
Napoleonic France
>>1119023
Westphalia isn't seen that way? What are you talking about?
Do you mean the peace of Westphalia? Which established that the polities of the Holy Roman Empire were sovereign states?
>>1120673
Oh wait, so it's the Peace of Westphalia that brought about the idea of modern recognized sovereignty between co-existing states rather than the Westphalia itself?
Well I fucked up, thanks for letting me know.
>>1122639
And the Peace of Westphalia was made by France, so we're back where we started.
The Netherlands/Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën obviously.
Napoleonic France is a meme answer.
