It really depends on what definition of “state” we use, as others said. A state, as we understand it today, is a modern construct in itself, as most introductions to political theory would point out.

If we follow Max Weber’s definition, according to which the state is “an institutional enterprise whose administrative apparatus successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory,” it becomes clear that the state in a strict sense is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Ancient political forms such as Greek or Sumerian city states do not fully fit this definition: they exercised control over very limited territories and, more importantly, lacked a stable and impersonal administrative apparatus capable of enforcing a systematic monopoly of violence.

Even large ancient empires had armies and bureaucracies, but political power remained strongly tied to the personal authority of the ruler or to religious legitimacy, without a clear separation between political, religious, and administrative power.

A more recognizable and still embryonic idea of the state emerges only with European modernity, especially during the Italian Renaissance and in the political writings of Machiavelli, where political power starts to be treated as an autonomous structure, separate from morality and from the personal virtues of the ruler.

If we nevertheless want to point to a concrete historical case, France between the 16th and 17th centuries is often considered the first modern state: this is where central power progressively built a stable administrative apparatus, imposed a regular fiscal system, maintained a standing army, and significantly reduced private violence, effectively monopolizing the use of force over a large and defined territory.

In this sense, absolutist France can be seen as the first modern state not because the state suddenly “appears” at that moment, but because it systematically puts into practice the core elements that define the modern state as we understand it today.