The term territorial state is used to refer to a state, typical of the High Middle Ages, since around 1000 AD, and "other large-scale complex organizations that attained size, stability, capacity, efficiency, and territorial reach not seen since antiquity." The term territorial state is also understood as “coercion-wielding organizations that are distinct from households and kinship groups and exercise clear priority in some respects over all other organizations within substantial territories.” Organizations such as city-states, empires, and theocracies, along with a number of other governmental organizations, are considered territorial states; however, tribes, lineages, firms, and churches are not.Tilly (1990), pg. 1-2.
Unlike the old lordships organised as a personal union, the sovereignty of a territorial state was based on its land or territory and not on membership of a dynastic family or other personally-related rights. Juridical sovereignty is not necessarily required as the main characteristic of statehood. The modern understanding of sovereignty, which was introduced in the 16th century, did not exist until the 19th century and so did not yet apply. Rather, a territorial state reflects the exclusive use of physical force within some type of geographic territory.Abramson (Winter 2017), pg. 100-101.
The territorial state shares many characteristics with the institutional, geographically defined state typical of the modern era.
Predecessors of the territorial state The first sign of state existence dates back to 6000 BC. Written and pictorial records from a settlement called Jericho maintain the existence of heavy urbanization for over two thousand years but throughout their history, states have only encompassed a small portion of the earth.Tilly (1990), pg. 2. Cities emerged around the same time period between 8000 and 7600 BC and eventually merged with states to create city-states that ruled for a few thousand years. City-states were often centered with a capitol controlled by a priest that collected offerings from the surrounding lands. By 2500 BC, some cities began developing into empires that ruled by force and tribute and from then on, the existence of states and cities were central to the great civilizations. The formation of towns and cities allowed for the creation of small independent states, which led to the emergence of large territorial states.Abramson (Winter 2017), pg. 97.
Ancient Egypt Originally, Ancient Egypt was ruled through a strong central government in which Egyptian kings, or Pharaohs had complete say over political, economical or military matters. The transition to the adaption of territorial states can be seen during the reigns of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (2040–1640 BC), and the Egyptian New Kingdom (1550–1070 BC). Due to natural causes, the Old Kingdom fell and gave way to the Middle Kingdom where several merchants began to gain power and deviate from the pharaoh's power. This deviation introduced a form of territorial state due to the introduction of independent rules and power from that of their nation. During the reign of the New Kingdom, diplomatic relations were established with the Hyksos and Hitites, where they each had sovereign communities within their nations that acted as territorial states.
India After the collapse of the Harappan Civilization in 1700 BC, India underwent a transition from complete territorial rule to sovereign territorial states. During this time, Indo-Aryans and the Vedic peoples made way into the territory of India and made a set of religious texts known as the Vedas, hence the time period known as the Vedic Age (1700–600 BC). With Hinduism also on the rise, it gave way to independent states where each had to maintain peace and order with other neighbouring independent states. Unlike most independent states, there were differences in power among those residing in India. This however did not last due to the Mauryan Empire preventing sovereign states from acquiring power. The Mauryan Empire lasted from 272 BC to 231 BC in which the death of the last ruler Asoka allowed the next empire (the Mughal Empire) to re-establish new sovereign states.
Inca The Inca Empire (1430 to 1530 AD) had developed to become a territorial state. It is estimated that the rule was imposed through an administrative system of 8 to 12 million people. Territories were divided into 80 provinces that were ruled by the Inca government and that was divided by rulers. The formation of the provinces ever under the rule of small political groups. Borders were watch to oversee who would enter and leave. Inca rulers would have people live in open settled areas for the land to be used, worked and watched. Much of the agriculture formation of land was terracing. Many laborers would work on new agricultural land. Rulers were in control of all agricultural work as well as other man labor work such as llama herding, and pottery.
Tarascan State The Tarascan state (1300 to 1530 AD) was contemporary with and an enemy of the Aztec Empire against which it fought many wars. The Tarascan empire blocked Aztec expansion to the northwest, and the Tarascans fortified and patrolled their frontiers with the Aztecs, possibly developing the first truly territorial state of Mesoamerica.
Rise of the territorial state There are a few accepted theories on the emergence of territorial states and they both concern money and war with each stressing one over the other. The mainstream view of territorial state formation emerged around the 12th century as a consequence of the transfer of royal sovereign rights for a particular region to a feudal lord. This meant that within territories unrestrained feudal jurisdiction gave way to a larger central authority that maintained a more stable territory through bureaucracy, a skilled and qualified army, and taxation. This is unlike the medieval hierarchical structure of control and jurisdiction that was in a state of perpetual uncertainty threatened by a shift in the balance of power. The idea of sovereignty emerged from a struggle of power between authoritative institutions like "emperors and popes, popes and kings, and kings and emperors."Herz (1957), pg. 475. The idea of a "collective" of nations that maintained a "rule of law" that offered a more stable security from the abuses typical of the medieval hierarchical authority and power structure.Herz (1957), pg. 474. Within ancient rulers it was important that their state/empire foundation was constant with ethnic diversity, growth of population, economic and ecological diversity and an organized bureaucracy.
Coercion It has been debated amongst scholars that a main motivating factor in territorial state formation was the control and exploitation of the territorial resources by force, which was the main source of revenue for the state. It was important to maintain control over the areas resources because failure to do so resulted in a loss in revenue, which weakened the states authority. People will always recognise the authority of the political unit that offers protection and security. It is widely considered that the only states to have emerged were the ones that could compete in war with other territorial states that resulted in states forming large military forces with technological and tactical advantages.Abramson (Winter 2017), pg. 107. Designated the military revolution, in Europe between 1500 and 1700 occurred a high frequency of wars that got bigger and lasted longer. This allowed for "changes in the art of war" in which better tactics evolved, the size of the army grew substantially allowing for the considerable growth of armed states. This model of the territorial state maintains that war and state formation are independent of economic development occurring only as a consequence of war.Tilly (1990), pg. 6.
Capital The other competing theory maintains that there is a definite stronger link between commerce and territorial state formation. The spirit of "exploration and commerce" that began as maritime routes and destination points on a map eventually gave way to the idea of a bound world as a place of outlined territories. In the 15th century the creation of global sea passages that connected the world together in a true world economy of trade and transportation. Economies on almost every continent that once were separated became connected in a global maritime trading system where risk was distributed more evenly and demand and supply networks became larger as a result which encouraged economic cooperation.Richards (1997), pg. 198-99. The growing global market economy, state populations, and economic ambitions encouraged the intensification of the use of land by territorial states to increase agricultural production for commercial markets.Richards (1997), pg. 202. The economic and legal systems present in the territorial state indicated some form of government regulation and cooperative use of territorial land and water. Territorial jurisdiction consists of deciding patterns of land-use including the behavior of the people living within territorial lands. Territorial states became fixed to local and expanding global markets for the economic capital that they produced.Richards (1997), pg. 202-03.
These growing global market economies also allowed for many "prosperous urban centers" to be able to counter any opposing threats from neighbouring rulers. Without any urban or commercial growth being found in a particular area, the chances of a large territorial rule happening increases. This can be seen with such nations like France or England in which monarchs forcibly took control of these territories. As seen later on, the increase in prosperous cities correlated with the increase in consumer demand. This insatiable demand led to more global exportation and importation among transnational city states.
Unification Another quality that territorial states required was a form of unification under a common executive. Even in the territories that had separate branches of power or semi-independent political units, it is necessary that these branches or political units adhered to a single executive entity. For Example, all of the counties that were part of the Bavarian branch of the House of Wittelsbach fell under a single territorial state. Even though these counties were partially independent, they still fell under a common executive, which was the Bavarian branch of the Wittelsbach family.Abramson (2016), pg.103 The Palatinate branch of the House of Wittelsbach was a different territorial state, because even though the executive of this state stems from the same family, the Treaty of Pavia separated the two branches, resulting in two separate territorial states. Through the recognition of a shared executive, the separate smaller political units are able to qualify as part of a single territorial state. Feudal territories also should not be treated as part of a territorial state, unless they are integrated into a larger political unit that falls under the rule of a common executive.Ambramson (2016), pg.104
Scholars state that it is important to analyze the power dynamics of the separate units that fall under a common executive to decide whether or not they form part of the territorial state. For instance, in situations where monarch divides their territory between their heirs, and these new executives develop separate political units, the territories no longer can be considered a single territorial state. In other instances where the larger common executive does not have economic or militaristic control over the smaller semi-independent political unit, then the smaller political unit cannot be considered part of the territorial state.
Cartography