ABSTRACT
Not many historians create concepts that continue to resonate more than a quarter of a century after they first entered the public realm. John Brewer’s Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688-1783, with its model of an English ‘fiscal-military state’, which through its great success in mobilizing resources for war emerged as a leading player on the world stage, has certainly had a long-lasting influence. Since the appearance of Brewer’s book, scholars have debated the strength of the eighteenth-century state; was it stronger than we thought in the past, as Brewer’s model suggests, or was it dependent upon the contributions of local and private interests, beyond its control?1 Some historians argue that British success in mobilizing money, manpower and resources for war rested on a partnership between the central state and autonomous actors;2 others that the distinction between the state and local and private interests is difficult to maintain, as local and private agents successfully colonized the state and thereby strengthened their own local power bases.3 A further sign of the reach of Brewer’s concept is surely its import by historians of other countries; studies have appeared of any number of European and even extra-European fiscal-military states, partly to demonstrate common European trends, and partly to highlight variations and differences.4 The value of such an approach to historians of eighteenth-century Britain is obvious; comparisons enable us to identify more easily the distinctive features of British experience.
