Full article · 8 min read

How War Helped Build States

The idea sounds harsh, but it has shaped a major way of thinking about political history: war did not just happen between states. In an important theory associated with historian and sociologist Charles Tilly, war helped create states in the first place, and states then helped perpetuate war.

That short formula — “war made the state, and the state made war” — captures a powerful historical argument. It suggests that governments did not simply appear fully formed with clear borders, tax systems, armies, and bureaucracies. Instead, many of those institutions were strengthened or built under the intense pressure of organized violence.

The basic idea behind Tilly’s argument

A state is a political organization that governs a territory and population. A modern state typically has institutions that can raise money, enforce rules, organize armed force, and maintain control over an area. Tilly’s argument is that war was one of the biggest forces pushing rulers to develop those capacities.

Why? Because war is expensive, demanding, and difficult to sustain.

When rulers faced military threats, they needed soldiers, supplies, and long-term coordination. That meant they needed ways to gather resources from the population, especially through taxation. They also needed administrative systems to track people, manage revenue, and direct military activity. In simple terms, fighting long wars pushed governments to become more organized.

This is why the phrase “war made the state” is so striking. It does not mean war was good. War is generally characterized by widespread violence, destruction, and mortality. But the theory argues that the pressures of war helped create stronger governing structures.

Why war creates pressure for stronger government

Long conflicts place extraordinary demands on any political system. A ruler cannot fight effectively on ambition alone. Sustained warfare requires:

resources
organization
command structures
the ability to keep military operations going
control over territory and population

These needs can transform loose political rule into something more centralized and durable.

If a government wants to survive conflict, it must do more than field an army once. It needs regular systems. It needs to collect taxes, distribute supplies, and maintain authority over people who may not willingly sacrifice money or labor. Over time, those wartime demands can strengthen political institutions beyond the battlefield.

That helps explain the second half of Tilly’s idea too: “the state made war.” Once states become better organized, they are often more capable of waging war in return. The very institutions built to survive conflict can also make future conflict easier to sustain.

War, coercion, and state-building

Tilly developed this argument in a work with an equally revealing title: Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992. The word coercion refers to the use of force or pressure to make people comply. In the context of state-building, coercion can include the power to compel taxes, military service, and obedience to authority.

Capital refers to economic resources — wealth, revenue, and the means to finance political power. War often links coercion and capital very tightly. A state needs money to fight, and it may use coercive power to get that money. In turn, successful access to money helps the state maintain military force.

That cycle can harden institutions. A government that can extract resources and organize armed force becomes more state-like. This is one reason Tilly’s theory became highly influential in the study of how states form.

War is political, not just violent

War is not simply chaos. It usually involves organized armed conflict between states, or between governments and organized armed groups with command structures and the ability to sustain military operations. War aims typically involve political, economic, or territorial objectives.

That political dimension matters for state-building. If wars are fought for territory, security, power, or resources, they naturally push rulers to develop systems capable of pursuing those goals. The needs of war often spill into civilian administration, law, finance, and infrastructure.

Even the attempt to avoid defeat can deepen state capacity. Rulers facing threats must know what they control, what they can collect, and who they can mobilize. Those are deeply governmental questions.

A long historical pattern

Military activity has continued across much of the globe since the rise of the state some 5,000 years ago. The article also describes key periods in the intensification of warfare, including the Bronze Age, with the emergence of dedicated warriors and metal weapons like swords, as well as later transformations driven by gunpowder and accelerating technology.

This broad sweep of history helps frame Tilly’s argument. As warfare changed, states also had to adapt. New weapons, new scales of mobilization, and new methods of fighting placed fresh demands on political systems. A state that could not organize resources effectively might struggle to survive against one that could.

The connection between war and institutional development is especially intuitive when warfare becomes more complex. More complex war means more planning, more logistics, and more administration. Logistics is the practical management of moving and supplying armies — food, transport, equipment, and other necessities. Without those systems, military power tends to collapse quickly.

The darker side of the theory

It is important not to confuse “state-building” with moral progress. War may help build institutions, but it also brings immense suffering.

War often causes significant deterioration of infrastructure and the ecosystem, decreases social spending, contributes to famine, and drives large-scale emigration from war zones. It can also involve mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians. In conflict zones, daily life is interrupted, travel becomes difficult, and ordinary people bear enormous costs.

Civilian suffering can be extreme. Most wars have resulted in major loss of life among civilians as well as destruction of infrastructure and resources. Medium-sized conflicts can reduce civilian life expectancy, increase infant mortality, worsen malnutrition, and reduce access to drinking water.

So when people say war helped build states, they are not celebrating war. They are describing a historical mechanism: violence and the need to survive it can push rulers to create stronger systems of extraction, control, and administration.

How this idea fits into bigger theories of war

Theories of war are numerous, and there is no consensus on which motivations are most common. Some explanations focus on economics, some on demography, some on psychology, and others on international power politics.

Tilly’s argument stands out because it is not mainly a theory of why war starts. It is more a theory of what war does to political organization.

That makes it different from ideas such as:

Malthusian theories, which connect war to expanding populations and scarce resources
Rationalist theories, which examine bargaining, information asymmetry, and commitment problems
Realist theories in international relations, which focus on security, hegemony, and shifts in power
Diversionary theory, which suggests leaders may use conflict to rally domestic support

Tilly’s insight is about consequence as much as cause. It says that once war becomes a regular part of political life, it can reshape the institutions that govern society.

Why the theory became so influential

Tilly’s theory of state formation is described as dominant in the state formation literature. That means it became one of the leading frameworks scholars use when trying to explain how states emerged and consolidated power.

Part of its appeal is its clarity. The argument links something dramatic and visible — war — with something structural and long-lasting — the growth of state institutions. It explains why rulers would build systems of taxation, administration, and coercion even when those systems were costly or unpopular.

It also helps explain why states can seem paradoxical. The same institution that may later regulate violence and impose order may have been shaped by centuries of conflict. In that sense, the state is not just a shield against war. It can also be one of war’s historical products.

War has changed, but the question remains

Since 1945, great power wars, territorial conquests, and war declarations have declined in frequency. Wars have also been increasingly regulated by international humanitarian law, and battle deaths and casualties have declined in part because of advances in military medicine.

At the same time, war has not disappeared. Civil wars have increased in absolute terms since 1945, and much combat in the post-1945 period has involved civil wars and insurgencies rather than only wars between major powers.

That shift matters because it raises a modern version of the same question: if war once helped build states, what happens when conflict weakens them, fragments them, or challenges their authority from within?

The older theory still hooks readers because it reverses an everyday assumption. We often think states make war. Tilly asks us to look the other way around too: maybe war helped make states.

The enduring twist

The most memorable part of this theory is its irony. Institutions that claim a monopoly on legitimate force may owe part of their existence to organized violence. Governments can restrain conflict, regulate it, and sometimes prevent it. But historically, they may also have been forged by the need to fight.

That is the twist at the heart of the idea. War is not just something states do once they already exist. In this influential theory of history, war was one of the pressures that helped build the modern state itself.