U
N
E
S
C
O
–
E
O
L
S
S
S
A
M
P
L
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
WORLD SYSTEM HISTORY – States Systems and Universal Empires - David Wilkinson
©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
STATES SYSTEMS AND UNIVERSAL EMPIRES
David Wilkinson
Department of Political Science, UCLA, USA
Keywords: World system, civilization, states system, universal empire, world state.
Contents
1. Civilizations and World Systems
2. The Character of States Systems.
2.1. Conditions Favorable to States Systems
2.2. Conditions Favored by States Systems
3. The Character of Universal Empires.
4. The Pathology and Survival of States Systems
5. The Pathology and Survival of Universal Empires.
6. Why is there no Universal Empire Today?
Glossary
Bibliography
Biographical Sketch
Summary
"Civilizations" and "world systems" are alternative labels for the largest macropolitical
entities that have existed in human history. These historical civilizations/world systems
may be seen as having two polar types of power structure, the "states system" and the
"universal empire." Each form has certain characteristic accompaniments, which may
promote it, be promoted by it, or both. For states systems, these are diversity, creativity,
self-government and war. For universal empires, they are homogeneity, peace,
repression. Universal empires tend to be late and short-lived formations, but also tend
to recur. Each power structure also has its specific pathologies, which tend toward its
transformation. States systems produce a great power oligarchy, out of which from time
to time emerges a dominant power, which (again from time to time) establishes a
universal empire. Universal empires, though preys to a variety of ills, tend to succumb
because of a failed succession in the monarchic component of the state. A universal
empire seems long overdue in the current global system; but which however shows
signs of having "learned" how to prevent the birth of such an empire by conscious
"balance of power" doctrines and policies of counterintervention, "grand alliance" and
"general war." The destructiveness of modern warfare, as instanced most notably by
nuclear weapons now challenges the viability of the balance-of-power doctrine, for
which no clear substitute has yet emerged.
1. Civilizations and World Systems
“Civilizations” are city-level societies (of any size) each consisting of some number of
cities (with their polities, economies, and cultures) strongly linked in a politico-
economic, military-diplomatic network not a part of any larger such network; in this
sense, any civilization therefore is also a world system (a politico-military network not a
U
N
E
S
C
O
–
E
O
L
S
S
S
A
M
P
L
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
WORLD SYSTEM HISTORY – States Systems and Universal Empires - David Wilkinson
©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
part of a larger such network). It should be noted that civilizations/world systems may
be, but need not be, of global scale; a society of global scale was indeed achieved in the
19th century, but all prior civilizations/world systems were of regional or even very local
scope.
Civilizations considered in their political aspect (and as world systems, in their world-
political aspect) may be seen as having in theory either of two available political
structures: the states system and the world state). There are several alternative labels to
“states systems” for systems of many independent states; Walker’s is “multi-state
system,” Wesson’s “state systems,” Wight’s “systems of states.” Alternative labels for
the world state are “one-state system” and “universal state” (Toynbee’s term). Again
one must note that, while a 21st century world state would of necessity be global in
scale, past “world states” have never been global except in aspiration, but rather
dominant in their own worlds small or large. Theoretically, a world state might be a
cooperative construction with any political form—a constitutional monarchy, a unitary
democracy, a federal republic etc. In historical fact, each past world state has been an
empire, an ethnically diverse territory which has been brought by force under the rule of
one country, that “metropole” usually itself under the rule of a single person. Hence
empirical contrasts must be drawn between states systems, on the one hand, and, on the
other, the only actualized world states, the “universal empires” (Quigley’s term).
At the same time, "states system" and "universal empire" must be understood both as
ideal types, typological terms to which actual power structures will more or less
approximate, and as polar types, ideal types paired to highlight contrast. The
characteristic features of these polar types of world order have been studied, most
notably by Wesson, but also significantly by Toynbee, Quigley and Wight; the
principles of their behavior have been particularly studied by Gulick and Wight. More
detailed empirical and theoretical studies (e.g. Doyle on empire, Buzan and Little and
Cox et al. on historical systems development) have since then advanced, without
superseding, these original and seminal works, whose contentions on e.g. unilinear vs.
multilinear and progressive vs. cyclical development remain subject to discussion.
This chapter will confine its attention to the world orders of ten fairly large
civilizations/world systems. Table 1 indicates their names, along with the dates
(conservatively calculated) between which they had an autonomous "world politics"
with its own power structure. It should be noted that the "Central" system, which is
discussed at greater length in another chapter in this encyclopedia, is the large
multicultural world system which arose in the Middle East in consequence of the
expansion, collision and fusion of the Egyptian/Northeast African and the
Mesopotamian/Southwest Asian world systems c. 1500 BC. In civilizational terms, it is
the union of the ancient, classical, Orthodox Byzantine and Russian, Western and
Islamic “civilizations” (distinguished by Toynbee and his successors Quigley and
Huntington, who emphasize cultural coherence rather than intense interaction as the
prime criterion for defining civilizational boundaries) which despite cultural diversity
and change in fact formed regions or epochs in the history of a single continuously
strongly linked and interactive world system which still endures, and endures alone,
having in its expansion and globalization process absorbed all those others with which it
formerly coexisted.
U
N
E
S
C
O
–
E
O
L
S
S
S
A
M
P
L
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
WORLD SYSTEM HISTORY – States Systems and Universal Empires - David Wilkinson
©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
System Autonomous
after…
Absorbed after…
Mesopotamian -3000 -1500
Egyptian -3100 -1500
Mesoamerican -1100 1520
Andean -200 1530
Indonesian 700 1550
West African 350 1590
Indic -2300 1800
East Asian -1500 1850
Japanese 650 1850
Central -1500 Continues
Table 1. A Roster of Ten Civilizations/World Systems
Table 2 provides a list of the universal empires that have existed in and upon the ten
selected systems; Table 3 gives the dates (pointing out uncertainties) and the principal
states of their states systems, most of which lack proper names. Many of these states
systems were absorbed into the Central system; several universal empires were likewise
so absorbed, but thereby lost their status as universal empires, and became instead either
states of the Central system, or provinces of conquering Central empires.
System Empire Span Duration
Mesopotamian a. Akkadian
b. Ur 3rd Dynasty
c. Babylonian
-2350 to -2230
-2050 to -1960
-1728 to -1686
120
90
42
Egyptian a. Old Kingdom
b. Middle Kingdom
c. New Kingdom
-2850 to -2180
-1991 to -1786
-1570 to -1525
670
205
45
Mesoamerican Aztec 1496 to 1519 23
Andean Inca 1470-1533 63
Indonesian a. Srivijaya
b. Madjapahit
695 to 1290?
1293 to 1389
595
96
West African a. Ghana
b. Mali
c. Songhai
c. 930
c. 1330
c. 1500
?
?
?
Indic Maurya -262 to -231 31
East Asian a. Ch'in-Han
b. Sui-Tang
c. Mongol-Ming-Manchu
-221 to +184
589 to 750
1279 to 1850
405
161
571
Japanese a. Taiho
b. Hideyoshi-Tokugawa
702 to 1336
1590 to 1868
634
278
Central a. Neo-Assyrian
b. Persian-Macedonian
c. Roman
-663 to -652
-525 to -316
-20 to +235
11
209
255
Table 2. Universal Empires of the Ten Systems.
U
N
E
S
C
O
–
E
O
L
S
S
S
A
M
P
L
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
WORLD SYSTEM HISTORY – States Systems and Universal Empires - David Wilkinson
©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
Civilization States System Duration Notable States
Pre-Sargonid to -2350 ? Uruk, Kish, Nippur, Ur, Lagash,
Umma, Elam, Mari, Akkad
Pre-Urnammu -2230 to -
2050
180 Akkad, Guti, Ur, Lagash, Uruk,
Elam, Assyria
Pre-Hammurabic -1960 to -
1728
232 Ur, Uruk, Isin, Elam, Lagash,
Eshnunna, Larsa, Babylon, Mari,
Kassites, Assyria
Mesopotamian
Post-Hammurabic -1686 to
-1500
(fused with Egyptian to
form Central)
States
system
continued
into
Central
Babylon, Sea Lands, Kassites,
Hittites
Pre-Narmer to -2850 ? Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt
First Intermediate -2180 to
-1991
189 Heracleopolis, Thebes
Egyptian
Second Intermediate -1786
to -1570
216 Thebes, Xois, Avaris
Mesoamerican Pre-Montezuma to 1496 ? Mayan city states, Tenochtitlan,
Texcoco, Tlacopan, Azcapotzalco,
Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Tarascans,
Tlaxcala
Andean Pre-Huayna Capac to 1470 ? Cuzco, Charcas, Chimu, Quito
Pre-Srivijaya to 695 ? Srivijaya, Malayu, Kalah
Pre-Madjapahit late 13th
century
? Srivijaya, Singosari, Madjapahit
Indonesian
Pre-Engulfment 1389 to
1550
Continued
into
Central
Madjapahit, Malay states
Pre-Ghana to 10th century? ? Ghana. Songhai
Pre-Songhai 11th century to
1325
? Diara, Soso, Mossi, Manding,
Songhai
West African
Pre-Mali 1433 to 1493? 60? Manding, Songhai, Tuaregs
Pre-Asoka to -262 ? Magadha, Kodsala, Ujjain,
Vamsas, Kalinga
Indic
Pre-Engulfment -231 to
1800
Continued
into
Central
Magadha, Bactria, Sakas,
Kushana, Andhra, Kanauj, Palas,
Gurjara-Prathiharas, Pallavas,
Chalukyas, Pandyas,
Rashtrakutas, Cholas, Ghaznavids
"Spring and Autumn";
"Warring States" -771 to -
221
550 Ch'in, Chin, Han, Chao, Wei,
Ch'u, Ch'i, Lu, Sung, Yen
Pre-Sui 184 to 589 174 3 Kingdoms, W. Chin, 6
Dynasties, 16 Kingdoms, N. Wei,
E. Wei, W. Wei, N. Ch'i, N. Chou,
S. Ch'en, Sui, Annam,
Champa, Nan-chao, Tu-yu-hun
East Asian
Pre-Mongol 750 to 1279 529 Uighurs, Tufan, Nan-Chao, Five
Dynasties, Ten Kingdoms,
Khitans (Liao), Hsi-Hsia, N.
U
N
E
S
C
O
–
E
O
L
S
S
S
A
M
P
L
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
WORLD SYSTEM HISTORY – States Systems and Universal Empires - David Wilkinson
©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
Sung, Jurchen (Ch'in), Ch'i, S.
Sung, Annam, Khmer, Champa,
Wu Yueh, Mongols, Koryo
Japanese Pre-Hideyoshi 1336 to 1590 254 Ashikaga, Yoshino, Enryakuji,
Ikko, various daimyo
Pre-Assurbanipal -1500 to -
663
837 Egypt, Mitanni, Hittites, Elam,
abylon, Assyria, Urartu,
Damascus, Israel, Tyre, Judah,
Ethiopia, Media, Nubia
Pre-Darius -652 to -525 127 Assyria, Armenia, Elam,
Babylonia, Media, Anshan,
Persia, Lydia, Egypt, Libya, Ionia,
Judah, Tyre, Meroe
Pre-Augustan -316 to -20 296 Syracuse, Carthage, Macedonia,
Rome, Seleucids, Egypt, Pontus,
Armenia, Parthia
Central
Post-Roman 235 to present 1770+ Rome, Persia, Byzantium, Arab
Caliphate, Frankish Empire, Holy
Roman Empire, Mongol Khanate,
Ottoman Sultanate, Spain,
Austria, France, Britain,
Germany, Japan, Russia, America,
China
Table 3. States Systems of the Ten Civilizations.
We might note that some states which have been regarded as universal empires were not
so in actuality. For example, the Ummayad and Abbasid caliphates were regional rather
than universal empires in the Central civilization, since they were at all times in contact
and power competition with other states, notably the Byzantine Empire, itself for the
same reason a regional rather than a universal empire. The Mongol Khanate is a
universal empire only to the East Asian system (and there only once it had eliminated
competing states in China); with respect to the Central system, before the Khanate lost
its unity after the death of Kublai Khan in 1294, it firmly controlled Russia and Persia,
raided Poland and Hungary, subjugated Anatolia and Syria, but never controlled
Austria, Egypt, and points west.
2. The Character of States Systems
Certain conditions will favor states systems, other conditions will be favored by such
systems. Examining the two sets of conditions should provide a sense of the peculiar ethos
(character) of the states system.
2.1. Conditions Favorable to States Systems
Under what conditions are states systems more likely to arise and be maintained than
universal empires? There ought to be answers suggested by examining the distribution of
states systems and universal empires in space and time. A very considerable portion of the
lifetimes of human civilizations have been spent under universal empires, but an even
longer period has been spent under states systems—about twice as much: so whatever
U
N
E
S
C
O
–
E
O
L
S
S
S
A
M
P
L
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
WORLD SYSTEM HISTORY – States Systems and Universal Empires - David Wilkinson
©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
conditions relatively favor states systems would seem likely to be more common than
those that do not. Some civilizations—West African, Japanese, Indonesian and Egyptian
especially—seem to have found unity to be their normal form, and have spent most or all
their lives under a universal state. Others—Indic, Peruvian and Mexican in particular—
seem to have been able to do without a universal empire for almost their entire duration.
Any discussion of the preconditions and co-conditions of states systems must be consonant
with these facts.
2.1.1. Geographic Dissection and Openness; Demographic Sparsity and Mobility
Wesson cites the value of geographic obstacles to domination by any state as of some
importance to a states system. It would also seem that an open frontier and a mobile
population (able to escape domination and refound viable states beyond the reach of
existing empires) should favor the continuous formation of new states and therefore the
stabilization and maintenance of a states system despite vicissitudes. A closed frontier and
a correspondingly static population should favor the creation and maintenance of a
universal empire.
2.1.2. Restricted Technology of Movement
Technological changes can reduce geographic obstacles to movement, uproot populations
or fix them in place, and open new frontiers. Any system of rule associated with a
technique of transport and communications (which must have some upper limiting speed)
will find larger territories and populations on the whole more challenging than smaller, to
some upper limiting size beyond which rule cannot effectively be exercised. For any
technology, there will be some largest practicable state. If a world system is larger than
this critical size, it cannot become or remain a universal empire.
2.1.3. Ethnocultural Heterogeneity
A world system which is highly homogeneous in a social and cultural sense—that is, for
instance, having a single common language or a single common religion, or most of whose
population identified itself with a single nation—is more favorable to the development or
maintenance of a world state than is a civilization with a very diverse multilingual, multi-
religious, multiethnic population.
2.1.4. Cheap, Easy and Defensive Military Technology
The prevailing military technology and technique may favor independence or
consolidation, and therefore favor one or the other type of world political structure.
Quigley finds from the Stone Age to modern times a systematic relationship between
cheap, easy "amateur" weapons and political egalitarianism and democracy, and between
costly complex "specialist" weapons and authoritarianism. Such a relation seems to hold
for state size as well as for state structure. Expensive, complex, sophisticated weapons
requiring a large organization of trained military specialists and a substantial revenue base
to maintain them seem to favor the political unification of the system in which they appear.
Cheap, simple weapons suited to individuals or small units, fighting techniques available to
U
N
E
S
C
O
–
E
O
L
S
S
S
A
M
P
L
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
WORLD SYSTEM HISTORY – States Systems and Universal Empires - David Wilkinson
©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
rich and poor, ruler and subject, seem to favor the fragmentation of independent political
units
.
Wright related increases in offensive capabilities to regional hegemonies, wars of
conquest, and Toynbeean universal states. "Offenses produce war and/or empire; defenses
support independence and peace." (Quester). And Quigley finds another systematic
relationship from 4000 B.C. to the present between offensive power and the "size of power
areas." When defensive, territory-holding military technologies and styles—fortifications,
militias, guerrilla warfare, anti-missiles, second-strike capabilities—are in the ascendant,
life is a bit harder for would-be conquerors and centralized rulers, a bit easier for those who
seek to maintain or to establish political independence.
2.2. Conditions Favored by States Systems
2.2.1. Ethnocultural Heterogeneity
In prudential terms, each member of a states system has an interest in its own continued
survival and independence, and therefore in producing or maintaining a nation whose sole
and unique state it will be, hence in distinguishing its language, religion, heroes,
ideologies, symbols, history and other marks of identity from those of other states. It can
do so by homogenizing its population, and by blocking, delaying or controlling
trans-border fluxes of unassimilated people, thoughts and things. This produces
boundaries, and sustains inhomogeneities, inside a civilization. The several states of states
systems tend to establish different religions, languages, ruling houses, polities, economies,
etc. to a significantly greater degree than do the several provinces of universal empires.
2.2.2. Political Freedom and Cultural Creativity
States systems are relatively more likely to foster cultural and political freedom, universal
empires to foster cultural continuity and political stability and order. Functioning republics
and independent commercial interests are more likely to be found in a system of states; the
completion of the Roman universal empire also marks the end of the Roman republic.
Republics were found within the states systems of Sumeria, Greece, and India. "[I]t
appears that the major periods of civilization building have ben those of state systems"
(Wesson). Japanese painting, gardening and drama blossomed between the decay of the
Taiho imperial order and the rise of the Tokugawa. Chinese philosophies were many and
diverse ("Hundred schools") before the Ch'in empire, which repressed most schools of
thought, and again between the fall of han and the rise of Sui.
Sumerian writing predates Mesopotamian unification; and to Sumer are credited "host of
inventions or innovations, including sailing ships, potters' wheels, wheeled carts and
chariots, pottery vessels, dried and then baked bricks, temples with dimensions in hundreds
of feet with arches and domes, cylinder seals…, water clocks, fresco painting and excellent
sculpture" (Wesson). Greek