The History of National Capability: Defining the Unit of Analysis
When evaluating the history of national capability, the first challenge is definitional: what counts as a “nation”?
The modern nation-state is only a few centuries old. Before that, power was expressed through empires, kingdoms, dynasties, city-states, and religious or tribal confederations. This means that any assessment of capability across two millennia must first decide on the unit of analysis. Without clarity, comparisons risk being anachronistic, politically biased, or inconsistent.
Why the Unit of Analysis Matters
Across history, boundaries and political forms have shifted dramatically:
- Was “Rome” in 200 CE the same as “Italy” in 1900?
- Should the British Empire’s 19th-century power be counted solely as the UK, or as a global system?
- Who inherits capability after a collapse — Russia or all 15 post-Soviet republics?
These are not semantic debates. They shape how we measure continuity, disruption, and transformation in capability.
A Historical Rubric
GINC uses a temporal rubric to define the unit of analysis by period. This aligns with the evolution of political organization, from ancient empires to modern states.
|
Period |
Unit of Analysis |
Defining Features |
|---|---|---|
|
0–499 (Classical Antiquity) |
Empires, Kingdoms, City-States |
Capability measured at the level of major imperial powers (e.g., Roman Empire, Han China, Parthia) and independent polities (Athens, Kush, Axum). Religious or tribal confederations are recognized where they held regional power. |
|
500–999 (Post-Classical / Early Medieval) |
Empires and Dynastic Kingdoms |
Fragmented Europe (Frankish realms, Anglo-Saxon kingdoms), rising Islamic Caliphates, Tang/Song dynasties in China, Byzantine continuation of Rome. Capability centered on dynasties and religious empires, not nations. |
|
1000–1499 (High Medieval to Late Medieval) |
Polities (Empires, Kingdoms, City-States) |
More stable monarchies and empires; city-states like Venice and Genoa matter. Capability attributed to political centers of power, not cultural “nations.” |
|
1500–1647 (Early Modern) |
Dynastic Realms / Empires |
Composite monarchies dominate (Spain, Ottoman, Mughal). Sovereignty fluid; dynastic unions (e.g., Spain–Portugal) treated as temporary unless consolidated. |
|
1648–1789 (Westphalian) |
Sovereign Polities |
Treaty of Westphalia codifies state sovereignty. States increasingly territorial: France, Qing China, Prussia, Great Britain (after 1707). |
|
1789–1913 (Nationalist Era) |
Nation-States and Great Empires |
National identity fuses with statehood. Italy and Germany unify; empires persist (Ottoman, British, French). Colonies attributed to cores. |
|
1914–1945 (World Wars & Imperial Collapse) |
Sovereign States and Empires |
Collapse of empires (Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian). League of Nations emerges. Successor states recognized separately. |
|
1945–1990 (Cold War & Decolonization) |
UN-Recognized States |
Nation-state becomes near-universal. Decolonization expands membership. Successors of collapsed states treated independently; Russia inherits Soviet UNSC seat and nuclear arsenal. |
|
1990–Present (Contemporary) |
Nation-States (UN Standard) |
Standardized unit under international law. Contested entities (Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo) acknowledged but flagged. |
|
2100 (Projections) |
Nation-States ± Regional Unions |
Futures may include stronger supranationals (EU, AU, ASEAN) or further fragmentation. Assumptions must be explicit. |
Figure X. Civilizations Timeline
Coding Rules for Continuity
- Continuity: Entities with stable institutional and territorial lineage (e.g., China, England/UK, France) treated as continuous.
- Mergers: When states unify (Italy 1861, Germany 1871), aggregate predecessors.
- Splits: When states fracture (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia), successors treated separately, though major inheritances may be assigned to a dominant state.
- Empires: Capabilities of colonies attributed to imperial cores, unless dominions exercised high autonomy (Canada, Australia by mid-20th century).
- Special Entities: Contested polities (Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo) treated explicitly in sensitivity analyses.
Why Transparency Matters
By codifying the unit of analysis, GINC avoids silent assumptions. Analysts and readers may debate individual coding choices, but they can do so on shared terms. The same logic that attributes Rome’s dominance to the Roman Empire in 200 CE also explains why capability is attributed to the UK as the core of the British Empire in 1850, and to Russia as the successor to the USSR after 1991.
The lesson is simple: nations are not timeless, but capability can be measured consistently if rules are explicit. Defining the unit of analysis is the foundation for any credible history of national capability.
