Nomads Of Central Eurasia

Section II:

Units have gone from nomads and tribes to city-states, empires, and states. States formed as the primary unit or actor as the international system itself became more integrated politically and economically. Prior to this though, different systems yielded different actors; the actors or units of international politics have changed throughout history. From the nomads of the Caucus region, to European city-states, and finally to the post-WWII sovereign state, those who participate in international systems have transformed through the sense of identity, nationalism, and common history.

The international system of Central Eurasia consisted primarily of nomads like the Scythians, Huns, Mongols, Junghars, Hsiung-nu, and others (Beckwith,

The primary actor of Central Eurasia was the warrior or war lord, specifically the leader of the comitatus or the warriors that surrounded him (Beckwith, 2011). The comitatus reflects a key component in the Central Eurasian, nomadic system. The system contained settled nomads (early Franks and Goths), and moving nomads like the Huns or Mongols (Beckwith, 2011). Unlike the later international system, their identity was not tied to the land, but they spread their culture to cities or periphery states as they interacted with Persians, Greeks, or the Chinese, trading along the Silk Road or sometimes raiding (Beckwith, 2011). The Silk Road and trade in general were critical for the nomads in the Caucus region. Beckwith (2011) explains that the “major driving force behind their interest in trade was the need to support their

It formed in 1356 in an attempt to organize towns for matters of war and trade, and the league “could raise an army, conduct foreign policy, decree laws, engage in social regulations, and collect revenue” (Spruyt, 1996, p. 126). Through this perspective, the league could basically perform similar tasks of a state. While the association allowed towns to organize, members still retained certain levels of independence internally, but in the league itself, members acted “collectively on affairs that might not pertain to all of them” (Spruyt, 1996, p. 152). Essentially, the city-league appeared to be a legitimate contender against the sovereign state. However, in explaining what made the leagues fail, Spruyt (1996) argues that “defection and freeriding in the Hanseatic League were driven by mutual distrust between the towns and the decentralized institutional arrangements of the Hansa,” and overall, the Hanseastic League could not compete with sovereign states and could not get all members to commit to international agreements, which rendered the unit relatively useless against states and the Treaties of Westphalia (p. 164 & 170). By 1667, the Hanseatic League ended (Spruyt, 1996, p. 154). Ultimately, the city-leagues or city-states were too decentralized, which made unit interaction difficult when the sovereign state arose with more centralized authority over its people and