我承认意大利在地缘上存在一种边缘性的权力真空优势 但这和其社会内部封建性的分权是两码事 如威尼斯而言 建立了一套类似早期罗马的寡头共和国的体制 尽管不能算是君主专制 但权力的集中性已经比同时期其他地区的封建领主采邑制要高多了 正是这种“despots”政治把意大利推向了文艺复兴的极盛，以及最终意大利城邦体系也正是因为统一和集权还不够才衰落 这基本都是常识性的问题 大英百科全书里写的很明白
While the history of each Italian city-state is, of course, unique, the history of Italian politics is most significantly the history of the despots. In Italy, they achieved amazing levels of preeminence and the tools of diplomacy and espionage that they developed to retain their power set the standard for international relations throughout the Renaissance and into our own Modern era. Although Italy opened the door to the enlightenments of the Renaissance and the eyes of Europe turned to her for artistic guidance, her rulers continued to be split by their own squabbles. This lack of unity left Italy incapable of mounting successful defenses against the foreign invasions and occupations that were to come in the sixteenth century.
你不能因为法国不符合姨学历史观的叙事就否认法国和法革对资本主义和近代化的贡献，这在外人看来是没什么说服力的，事实上英法在15世纪亨利七世和路易十一时代就是绝对主义君主制建立最早的国家 英法的共性大于英荷的共性 ，甚至英国的君主专制还要比法国早一些 只不过后期光荣革命的君主复辟淡化了英国早期集权化和中间暴力革命的色彩
至于荷兰共和制 你说“邦联”也好，虽然一般人认为是“联邦”，其建立也是与其地区先天薄弱的封建性有关 而且按照你封建分权就是低费啦就能迎合资本主义的理论 资本主义也应该在同时期周边更封建更分裂的德意志和波兰崛起才更对，至于荷兰共和国后期是怎样衰落和丧失霸权的 也是小国寡民且集权不足无法适应近代化要求的原因，与意大利城邦的衰落异曲同工
but in the end the Netherlands was a country with limited population and a relatively uncentralised system of governance (it was centralisation of the British system that gave them such enduring success). Given these limitations it was inevitable that Dutch power would decline in comparison to that of other states once their systems of governance and taxation became more modernised.
简格兰特在War and the State in Early Modern Europe: Spain, the Dutch Republic and Sweden as Fiscal-Military States给的结论
