{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026948288419519302, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014566642388929352, 'mean_word_length': 5.481132075471698, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Geographies of Empire: European Empires and Colonies c. 1880–1960 (review)

sistance to dynastic authority” (129, 265). He elaborates this point throughout the later chapters, using it to make some intriguing arguments about the comparative development of such states as France and the Holy Roman Empire. It also informs his analysis of international change. He argues that the Peace of Westphalia and the Reformation in general were more consequential than political scientists have appreciated, since they ushered in “signiacant changes in the texture of international politics” and dramatically altered “the balance of power among and within political communities,” and at the same time less consequential, since the Peace of Westphalia was neither the end of religious and dynastic war in Europe nor a watershed event in the development of the sovereign state (287). Thus, Nexton directly challenges not just current international-relations theory but also the popular historical theory of “confessionalization,” for he argues that the Reformation was in many ways merely “an interruption in longer-term processes of state and system formation” (287; emphasis in original). Such challenging ideas appear throughout this valuable and impressive work, which will surely spark a great deal of discussion among scholars of early modern politics and international relations.