The author of a book about Riga that I’m reading pointed out that one reason for the Livonian War in the mid-1500s was the collapse of the feudal order and the rise of central states. However, the trigger was Ivan IV of Muscovy claiming Livonia as his patrimony, his personal inheritance from a distant ancestor (he based his claim on an event in the 1000s.) One result of the conflict was the end of the feudal state of the Livonian Order, the loss of independence of the city-state of Riga (such as it had been), and the domination of the Baltic by Poland, Russia, and Sweden*.
All this got me musing about the rise of the idea of a state, then nation state. Northern Europe was divided up among tribes multiple times, then started settling out into kingdoms. After the Chalcolithic, or Copper Age, it was not uncommon for a war lord or chieftain to come to power, beat up or convince others to follow him, and run the place. Then his brother, son, or son-in-law might take over, or might not. In some places, the pattern went in different directions, such as the Roman Republic, which then developed/evolved/lapsed into the Empire. Not all parts of northern Europe had this pattern, much to the mild surprise of certain anthropology types, but this general pattern continued and spread until it applied to much of the European mainland by AD 900 CE or so. Meanwhile, in Russia, the principality of Rus developed at Kiev during the 900s.
It seems that in Europe, people first formed roughly egalitarian clans or super-clans (tribes, sort of). Sometimes this included farming or livestock raising, in other cases the environment was such that they could be gatherer-hunter-(fisher) without needing to raise crops, or in some cases being able to farm. Depending on where the people were, this might last as late as 1200 BC/BCE, when for some reason, people started living in more stratified groups, often in settlements that had some form of wall or ring-ditch to show in and out. This could be for trade, with greater specialization leading to a more hierarchical society, or the need for a war leader of some kind leading to the same outcome. It didn’t happen all at once. No one woke up, looked at the sun and stars and said, “Oh, hey, the Bronze Age has arrived! Let’s build a hill fort.”
Eventually, hereditary chieftainships developed, with the males in a certain lineage or small number of lineages dominating politics within the group. Conquests of territory and spoils from raids or war became “mine.” This really seems to have developed in what we call Late Antiquity (or for some of us, the Dark Ages), when places became the personal property of whoever controlled the warriors who captured or protected it. Places were “mine.” That mindset lingered well into the later Middle Ages, even into the Early Modern period, with monarchs determined to protect their patrimony and even enlarge it for themselves and their family. Not for the prestige of the nation, not for the country, but it was their property to be protected, improved, and developed. This could be good, or really lousy, or lots of things in between. That mindset of ownership was the key.
When an American says, “my country,” it has a different sense than “my car,” or “my dog.” If you were a Habsburg, or a Rurid, or Welf, “my country” was the same as my armor, my castle, and my herd of cattle. It wasn’t even country, but “lands,” literally. England went a different way, for a number of reasons, although even there the Tudors in particular tended to look at the place as personal property (unless reigned in by Parliament, and even then the king or queen had the final say. [You cheese off Henry VIII. Go on. Feel free. I’ll watch from, oh, Lübeck.]).
I got to thinking about this when I was reading a history of Riga. The city-state belonged to German merchants, sort of, the bishop of Riga, in theory, and then it got messy. Really messy. The Sword Brothers and then the Livonian Order and Teutonic Knights wanted it, and more importantly the trade and income it brought in. That made things complicated enough, including the city hiring pagan mercenaries to defend them from the Christian knights.
Then along came the wars of Ivan III and later Ivan IV. Their wars were about getting land and people and trade goods for themselves, not for “Russia,” not for the glory of the dynasty, but personal gain. They wanted to control trade to make themselves rich and to fund the wars ongoing against the Tatars and other Mongol groups. Nationalism had no role in it. The Ivans beat up on everyone, German traders, Russian merchants, Estonian and Latvian and Courlander peasants, whoever got in their way or didn’t submit fast enough. But it wasn’t nationalist or ideological.
In a really strange way, it was refreshing to read about someone beating up on the neighbors purely for personal gain, without any attempt to drape an ideology or cause over it. While others pontificated about spreading the faith (whichever one), or reuniting the nation, or shaking off dominion of a different nation**, back then on Muscovy’s western border it was, “I want their stuff, including their land, and more stuff. So either they submit and pay me a lot of stuff, or I beat the living daylights out of them and take over. Either way works.”
Then, again starting in England and France and a few other places, the idea develops of a country that is far more than just the dynasty running it, or appearing to run it. Eastern Europe missed this development for a long time, despite what some will claim about Hungary’s Golden Bull and some of the powers of the Polish sejm. The liberum veto of Poland is very, very different from Parliament proving rather firmly that the king rules at the pleasure of elected members of a legislature.
I think only the US, maaaaaybe Australia and a few other places have had popular “buy in” to the idea that the country belongs to everyone, and we all have a say in things, and all get to enjoy the benefits of the place. Europe and even England seems to be defaulting more toward “us who share the language/faith/history/ancestral territory, and the rest of you.” That didn’t end happily the last few rounds, but who knows. I do know that when a Vladimir Putin says “my country,” he’s using the older, traditional sense of “I own it.”
*They took turns. Baltic history makes the history of Central and Eastern Europe almost simple and easy to follow. Almost.
**Remember, nation meant the people with a shared history and language and faith and who controlled everyone else. So the Polish nation was originally the nobles of Poland-Lithuania. Rather different from the middle-class and upper-class nationalists of the 1800s, and very different from some of the modern “peasant-nationalists” today. (Who are actually socialist-nationalists, and seem to get deeply confused if they ever stop and analyze what they are espousing.)
Cat Rotator's Quarterly 
I suspect there are more than a few jurisdictions where the “The Kingdom is mine” is embedded in the legal framework, somewhere.
In England e.g. the freehold/leasehold system is ultimately based on a legal framework established by William the Conqueror, where the Monarch owns all the land, and what is bought/sold/given/otherwise transferred are the freehold and leasehold rights over the land, not the land itself. (However, in practice the freehold owners can be treated as the owners of the land, and this is now normal in everyday usage.)
Very confusing, and when/where is probably the most important way to ‘untangle’ the beliefs/ownership/patrimony… Yet another reason I’m glad I’m an American, and don’t have to play that game.
OTOH, the Feclaration of Indepwndwnce hit King Gwoegw ans his appointed agents, many selected and pushed by Parliament via threats to the Purse. A Parliament has many grasping hands, and disavows collective or individual responsibility for pillage. It’s easier to deal with a king and relatively small royal family.