[sudosysgen]

That's completely untrue for Rome, and barely true at all for France in those days.

Roman landowners did not own their land by stealing it from other citizens with large armies. They owned their land by either receiving it from the state as payment, or by buying it. The Roman state had a definite monopoly on violence. In fact, when people commanded armies to take power in Rome, what they were trying to do was to take over the state, and the vast majority of the time those weren't private armies, but State armies that they were misusing.

The Roman state very very much had a monopoly on violence and roman agricultural tenants very very much were renting the landlords privately owned means of production.

Capitalism doesn't magically stop subsistence farming. The advance of science and nothing else makes that possible. The Romans had little interest in advancing fundamental technology because there was no money to be made doing it, and so they never made any advances beyond the domains engineering which were immediately profitable (like weapons and aqueducts and bridges). That's why they made barely any scientific progress in a thousand years.

[Kamq]

> The Roman state very very much had a monopoly on violence and roman agricultural tenants very very much were renting the landlords privately owned means of production.

I call BS here. The Romans basically never had this. During the Republic, you had literal private armies.

And once you get past the Diocletian reforms, the large land owners have enough arms to shield locals from Roman military service. Generally in exchange for service to themselves in agriculture (I believe this is the basis for Europe's system of serfdom).

The type of modern state (or even the concept) we're used to doesn't really emerge until the treaty of Westphalia.

> Capitalism doesn't magically stop subsistence farming.

No, it doesn't. Of course it isn't magic. It just provides an incentive for people to improve things, usually via new technology.

Incentives are surprisingly powerful.

[sudosysgen]

> I call BS here. The Romans basically never had this. During the Republic, you had literal private armies

If you can't recognize that the Roman state had a monopoly on violence for the vast majority of its duration I can't help you. Obviously, it got weaker during its terminal decline - that's how state decline works. As soon as the monopoly of violence weakened the Empire started imploding, and indeed when it was healthy the state did enjoy it's monopoly.

The bucellarii, the private armies which were able to rival the Roman state, only became a thing in the late 300s. Rome fell only a hundred years later. For the vast majority of Roman history armies belonged to the State, and any mercenary formations were negligible - the regime you're describing was due to the Empire crumbling and is indeed what led to feudalism.

> The type of modern state (or even the concept) we're used to doesn't really emerge until the treaty of Westphalia.

Westphalia formalized the modern Eufopean state. But there were a great many similar states before, with a monopoly on violence, a defined political system, since ~4000BC. They just didn't bother formalizing what being a state meant.

> No, it doesn't. Of course it isn't magic. It just provides an incentive for people to improve things, usually via new technology.

Technology maybe, and only in the most basic sense, and Rome is the example. In 1100 years of Roman history, not a single basic scientific discovery was made, because it was completely unprofitable. Technology advanced, yes, but soon enough it was limited by the extremely primitive scientific understanding they had, so they barely made any progress for hundreds of years.

> Incentives are surprisingly powerful.

Practical technological is incentivized in every political economy.

Incentives are surprisingly powerful.