Paper 2: Early Modern States (1450–1789) — Nature of Power and Rule

· Exact syllabus location: Paper 2, World history topic 5: Early Modern states (1450–1789), subtopic Nature of power and rule.
· Official syllabus focus: political change in the Early Modern period, including the establishment and expansion of colonial empires and the social, economic and cultural impact of expansion on colonial states.
· Nature of power and rule requires: states in ascendancy and states in decline; methods and models of government; changes in political structures/political organization; domestic policies; treatment of subjects; and individual rulers in terms of ideology, nature of rule, ambition and achievements, legitimacy, successes and failures.
· Main exam expectation: use specific examples to build analytical arguments about how rulers and states gained, organized, justified, maintained or lost power.
· Regional requirement: Paper 2 questions may require examples from two different regions of the world. The syllabus examples are suggested, not compulsory, but students must prepare examples from more than one region.

What this subtopic is really testing

· This is not just “what rulers did.” It is about how power worked in Early Modern states: how rulers claimed legitimacy, reorganized government, controlled subjects, expanded authority, and responded to decline.
· Strong essays compare models of rule, not just rulers: for example, absolutist monarchy in France under Louis XIV, bureaucratic-military reform in Russia under Peter the Great, imperial-military administration in the Ottoman Empire, shogunal control in Tokugawa Japan, or centralized imperial rule in Mughal India.
· The central judgement is usually about extent: how far a ruler or state was successful in centralizing power, legitimizing authority, controlling elites, treating subjects, or managing ascendancy and decline.

The IB’s suggested example menu for this topic

· Africa and the Middle East: Ottoman Empire in the Middle East and North Africa; Safavid Persia; Songhai Empire (c1464–1591); Benin Empire; Ajuran Sultanate.
· The Americas: New Spain; British colonies in North America; British–French colonial conflicts; Iroquois Confederation; Spanish conquest of the Incan Empire; Pueblo Revolt of 1680.
· Asia and Oceania: Tokugawa Shogunate; early Qing dynasty; Mughal India; Ayutthaya Kingdom.
· Europe: Ottoman expansion into Europe; Russia under Peter the Great; Kingdom of Granada from 1492; France under Louis XIV.
· These are suggested examples only. In essays, use the examples your teacher has covered, but make sure they allow cross-regional comparison.

States in ascendancy and states in decline

· States in ascendancy are useful for questions about centralization, successful government, legitimacy, or expansion of authority.
· France under Louis XIV demonstrates the rise of royal absolutism: power was presented as personal, dynastic and divinely sanctioned; the ruler used court culture, administration, domestic policy and elite management to strengthen monarchy.
· Russia under Peter the Great demonstrates state ascendancy through reorganization, military reform, westernizing policies, and expansion of central authority over nobles, church and administration.
· Tokugawa Shogunate demonstrates ascendancy through a stable military-feudal model of government, control of daimyo, regulation of social hierarchy, and policies that prioritized order over rapid change.
· Mughal India can demonstrate ascendancy when used for rulers such as Akbar, whose rule is associated with imperial consolidation, administrative integration, and attempts to manage religious and regional diversity.
· States in decline are useful for questions about failure, limits of central power, succession, elite resistance, overextension or weakening legitimacy.
· Songhai Empire (c1464–1591) is useful for decline because it allows students to discuss how powerful states could weaken through external attack, military pressure, or loss of control over trade and territory.
· Ayutthaya Kingdom is specifically framed by the syllabus as involving expansion and contraction, making it useful for analysing the instability of regional power.
· Exam use: for “to what extent” questions, argue that ascendancy depended not only on a ruler’s ambition, but on whether institutions, elites, military power and subject populations could be controlled over time.

Maps of the Ottoman Empire help students visualize an Early Modern state that expanded across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, while also facing later pressures of overextension and administrative strain. Source

Methods and models of government

· Absolutist monarchy — France under Louis XIV: use this for arguments about centralized royal authority, legitimacy, domestic policy, and treatment of subjects. It works well in questions about whether personal monarchy strengthened or weakened the state.
· Bureaucratic reform monarchy — Russia under Peter the Great: use this to show how political structures could be changed deliberately. Peter’s rule is useful for analysing reasons for changes in political organization, especially military needs, administrative efficiency and competition with European powers.
· Imperial administration — Ottoman Empire: use this to show a multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire that relied on military strength, provincial administration, taxation, religious legitimacy and flexible treatment of subject communities.
· Shogunal rule — Tokugawa Japan: use this to show a ruler or ruling house maintaining power through structured hierarchy, control of regional lords, restrictions on movement and contact, and a political model designed to prevent civil conflict.
· Colonial government — New Spain / British colonies in North America: use these examples to connect political organization with colonial rule, showing how European states projected power overseas through governors, councils, charters, trade controls, legal hierarchies and local elites.
· Exam use: compare the model of government before comparing outcomes. A strong answer explains why different political structures emerged: geography, military threats, elite power, religious legitimacy, colonial distance, or economic priorities.

Individual rulers: ideology, ambition, achievement and legitimacy

· Louis XIV of France: best used for ideology, legitimacy, and nature of rule. His rule can support arguments about absolutism, the performance of monarchy, control of nobility, and the link between royal image and political authority.
· Peter the Great of Russia: best used for ambition and achievements. His reign supports arguments that rulers could transform political structures through military, administrative and cultural reforms, but also that reform from above could rely heavily on coercion.
· Akbar in Mughal India: best used for legitimacy and treatment of subjects. He is useful for showing how a ruler of a diverse empire could use accommodation, administration and elite integration to strengthen imperial rule.
· Tokugawa Ieyasu / Tokugawa Shogunate: best used for successes and failures of maintaining rule. It shows that stability could be achieved through limits on political competition, hierarchy, and control over regional powerholders.
· Ottoman sultans such as Suleiman the Magnificent: best used for ambition, achievements and imperial legitimacy, especially where students have studied Ottoman expansion into Europe, the Middle East or North Africa.
· Exam use: do not write a ruler biography. For each ruler, connect actions to one of the syllabus terms: ideology, legitimacy, nature of rule, ambition, achievements, successes and failures.

This portrait is useful for analysing how monarchy used image, ceremony and dynastic symbolism to construct legitimacy. It supports discussion of France under Louis XIV and the political culture of absolutism. Source

Domestic policies and treatment of subjects

· France under Louis XIV: domestic policy can be used to analyse how rulers treated subjects through taxation, religious policy, elite control and the projection of royal authority. Strong essays judge whether domestic policy strengthened the state or produced resentment and long-term weakness.
· Russia under Peter the Great: treatment of subjects is useful for analysing coercive modernization. Policies affecting nobles, soldiers, peasants, church and administration show that state-building often increased burdens on society.
· Tokugawa Shogunate: treatment of subjects can be analysed through fixed social hierarchy, regulation of daimyo, samurai, peasants, artisans and merchants, and restrictions designed to preserve order.
· Mughal India: treatment of subjects is especially useful for comparing religious and cultural management in a diverse empire. A strong comparison might contrast accommodation under Akbar with more contested forms of rule under later Mughals if studied.
· New Spain: treatment of subjects connects political rule to colonial hierarchy, labour systems, indigenous communities, religion and economic extraction. Use it to show how colonial states depended on both coercion and collaboration.
· Exam use: “treatment of subjects” should not become a moral description only. Link it to political consequences: obedience, rebellion, legitimacy, revenue, elite loyalty or resistance.

Political structures changed because rulers faced pressure

· Military pressure: Peter the Great reorganized Russia partly because military competition demanded stronger administration, taxation, training and technology.
· Elite control: Louis XIV and the Tokugawa Shogunate are useful for showing that rulers often changed political organization to reduce the independence of powerful nobles or regional lords.
· Imperial diversity: the Ottoman Empire, Mughal India and New Spain needed structures that could rule different ethnic, religious, legal and social groups across large territories.
· Colonial distance: British colonies in North America and New Spain show that overseas rule required delegated authority, local intermediaries and economic regulation.
· Succession and rivalry: the syllabus also places issues of succession, rivalries and tensions under the wider topic’s challenges, so these can be used to explain why political structures became unstable or why rulers sought stronger control.
· Exam use: a high-scoring answer explains why change occurred, not just what changed. Link political reorganization to threats, opportunities and limits.

Compact evidence bank: examples you can adapt in essays

· France under Louis XIV — Europe — 1643–1715: demonstrates absolutist monarchy, royal ideology, court culture, centralization and the management of elites. Use for questions on legitimacy, nature of rule, domestic policies, and the successes and failures of individual rulers.
· Russia under Peter the Great — Europe — 1682–1725: demonstrates ambitious state reorganization, military reform, centralization and coercive modernization. Use for questions on changes in political organization, ambition and achievements, and whether reform strengthened the state.
· Ottoman Empire — Africa/Middle East and Europe — Early Modern period: demonstrates imperial rule across regions, religious and administrative diversity, military power and later pressures of decline. Use for states in ascendancy and decline, methods of government, and imperial legitimacy.
· Tokugawa Shogunate — Asia and Oceania — from 1603: demonstrates durable shogunal authority, political hierarchy and social control. Use for methods of maintaining order, treatment of subjects, and a non-European comparison with absolutist monarchy.
· Mughal India — Asia and Oceania — 1526–18th century: demonstrates centralized imperial rule, elite incorporation, religious policy and the problem of governing diversity. Use for legitimacy, domestic policy, and success/failure of rulers.
· New Spain — The Americas — 16th–18th centuries: demonstrates colonial state power, political organization, economic extraction and treatment of indigenous and mixed populations. Use for colonial government, treatment of subjects, and comparison with non-colonial states.
· Songhai Empire (c1464–1591) — Africa: demonstrates ascendancy and decline in a major African state. Use for questions on how states rose through trade, military power or administration, and how external pressure or internal weakness could undermine rule.
· Pueblo Revolt of 1680 — The Americas: demonstrates resistance to colonial rule and the limits of state authority. Use when linking treatment of subjects to opposition, rebellion and state legitimacy.

This map helps students see the scale of Mughal rule and why administration, elite integration and legitimacy mattered in a large, diverse empire. It supports comparison with other imperial states such as the Ottoman Empire or New Spain. Source

Comparison: how to build cross-regional arguments

· France under Louis XIV vs Tokugawa Shogunate: both aimed to control elites, but France emphasized personal monarchy, court culture and royal ideology, while Tokugawa rule emphasized military hierarchy, regulated status groups and daimyo control. Use this for similar aims, different models.
· Peter the Great vs Tokugawa Shogunate: both strengthened state authority, but Peter pursued rapid reform and external competition, while Tokugawa rule prioritized stability and controlled isolation. Use this for change vs continuity.
· Ottoman Empire vs Mughal India: both were large, diverse empires where rulers needed administrative flexibility and legitimacy across different groups. Compare their approaches to religion, provincial elites, and imperial administration.
· New Spain vs Mughal India: both ruled diverse populations, but New Spain was a colonial state built around conquest and extraction, while Mughal India was a land-based imperial state with established regional elites. Use this for colonial vs imperial power.
· France under Louis XIV vs Russia under Peter the Great: both strengthened monarchy, but Louis XIV’s power rested heavily on royal image and elite domestication, while Peter’s rested on military-administrative reform. Use this for evaluating different routes to centralization.
· Judgement pattern: “Both states increased central authority, but the basis of power differed: one relied more on ideology and court culture, the other on coercive reform and military-administrative restructuring.”

Exam-use guidance for IB Paper 2 essays

· For “compare and contrast”, organize by criteria: legitimacy, methods of government, treatment of subjects, successes/failures. Do not write one full ruler narrative followed by another.
· For “to what extent”, make a ranked judgement: for example, military reform may have mattered more than ideology in Peter the Great’s Russia, while legitimacy and elite control may be more central for Louis XIV.
· For “evaluate”, include both strengths and limits: a ruler may centralize power successfully in the short term while creating long-term financial, social or succession problems.
· For “discuss”, show more than one factor: ideology, administration, domestic policy, elite support, coercion, and treatment of subjects.
· Strong paragraph formula: claim → syllabus term → named example → evidence → analysis → comparison/judgement.
· Avoid exact memorized narratives. Paper 2 rewards using examples flexibly to answer the wording of the question.

Judgement lines you can adapt

· On centralization: “Centralization was most successful where rulers combined ideology with practical institutions; royal image alone was not enough.”
· On legitimacy: “Legitimacy in Early Modern states came from different sources: divine monarchy, military success, dynastic continuity, religious authority, or imperial administration.”
· On treatment of subjects: “Treatment of subjects was not only a social issue; it shaped revenue, obedience, resistance and the durability of rule.”
· On reform: “Reform strengthened state power when it improved administration and military capacity, but it could also increase coercion and resentment.”
· On ascendancy and decline: “States rose when rulers controlled elites and resources effectively; decline often came when these mechanisms failed under military, economic or succession pressure.”

Exam traps or common mistakes

· Writing a biography of Louis XIV, Peter the Great or Akbar instead of answering the question through nature of rule, legitimacy, domestic policy or success/failure.
· Ignoring the two-region possibility: prepare at least two strong examples from different regions, such as France under Louis XIV and the Tokugawa Shogunate, or Russia under Peter the Great and Mughal India.
· Treating suggested examples as compulsory: the syllabus examples are suggestions, but your chosen examples must be precise and relevant.
· Overusing “absolute power” vaguely: explain mechanisms of power, such as administration, elite control, law, military reform, religion, taxation or court culture.
· Describing treatment of subjects without analysis: always link treatment to political consequences such as legitimacy, resistance, revenue or stability.
· Forgetting decline: the subtopic includes states in ascendancy and states in decline, so be ready to explain failure and limits, not only successful rulers.