When did states begin to develop permanent and controlled borders?

>>3322464

Once the Roman Republic gained control of the Italian Peninsula, they had what was essentially comparable to a modern nation-state, with Rome as capital of course.

Early Modern Era, more closely 18th century when diplomacy started developing into its own branch and precise international agreements slowly started emerging.
>>3322470
>Rome was comparable to a modern nation-state
God the amount of bullshit i read on this fucking board.

>>3322475

>Rome was comparable to a modern nation-state

No, the Italian peninsula, under Rome's control, was comparable to nation-state. Rome itself was merely the capital.

>>3322485
No, it just wasn't.

>>3322496
Oh boy are you going to spend the next 20 posts arguing the notion of a nation state is completely alien outside of the 19th century and going forwards again?

>>3322496
Than what makes a nation a nation-state?

>>3322517
Look. Roman term natio exclusively derived what we would call ethnicity. It literally means birth, being born somewhere specific, being native to somewhere specific. Political meaning of the term natio as we know was completely foreign to them, they did however have political concept of citizenship and cultural concept of Romanitas, but those are complete different.

Now if you had any knowledge whatsoever about the ancient Italic populace, their demographics, their culture, languages, their numerous tribes and ethnicities, you would understand that they simply didn't belong to a Roman natio, which was itself of purely Latin stock. There were Etruscans, Samnites, Osci, Umbri, the fucking Greeks and Gauls, long after they've been conquered by Rome.

It would take literally centuries for Italic populace to gain Roman citizenship, which is not in any way comparable to modern notion of a nation. Even after they gained citizenship they were still of whatever natio they were before. Romanitas was something different, it was a cultural influence and it had nothing to do with citizenship. There were fully Romanized peoples in the Empire that never gained citizenship rights.

>>3322548
Different guy but, Even though the Roman republic and empire both operated on the status of heritage and land you were from, how does that not make it a nation-state? Does everyone need to have equal status?

>>3322537
Nothing. Nation itself is a mish-mash term that is supposed to represent cultural identity, There wasn't a single cultural identity in Rome except for the concept of Romanitas, which was never really political.

>>3322569
I can't wrap my head around a nation being about a singular cultural identity. If we play by that definition, then almost no nation or at least a large portion of modern "nations" is nothing I guess? Like the nation of India has hundreds of different peoples group who see their people groups before calling themselves Indian.

>>3322561
The fact that Italics fought bitterly for citizenship rights in the Social War and the fact that Roman state fought them back to not let it happen proves that they had nothing comparable to the concept of nation-state. The Italics fighting for citizenship did not fight to destroy their own natio, they simply fought for political and economic rights.

>>3322585
Nation is an identity. It is a sense of belonging, and it literally derives from the root i explained earlier.

When we talk about Rome we talk about the State. When we talk about Roman citizen rights we correlate them with the State, not the nation.

>>3322464
Borders have been a concept as far back as agrarian societies have existed.