I agree. The thing defining modern nation-states is the use of accounting methodology(quantities of ships, bars of iron, population demographics etc.) to define

I agree. The thing defining modern nation-states is the use of accounting methodology(quantities of ships, bars of iron, population demographics etc.) to define power in terms of assets on hand and gains from trade, which gradually recast military forces into the previously unrecognized role of "defending property" and therefore enforcing rules of trade. Likewise, early-modern chattel slaves were different from Roman-era slaves precisely because of the heavy influence of market coordination forces: they had fewer rights, were freed less frequently, and were conveniently redefined from "human" to "product" through the development of racism. These things made the early-modern version of the institution easier to coordinate and therefore (speculatively - not that I've seen a formal advancement of this theory) more productive. But it would take the Industrial Revolution for labor efficiency to become recognized in earnest. The pre-modern states, including Rome, had much more haphazard accounts and focused on tributary economics(how to extract more from the population or continue adding to conquests). Defense of property was strictly a thing for nobles or local militia, thus invaders looting cities was a normal occurrence through the medieval period. The Roman state was above the rest in applying a bureaucracy to the task of being the best at managing conquests - and it shows in the quality of Roman engineering, city planning and record keeping. Ghengis Khan achieved a similar, if short-lived, degree of coordination during the conquests, but lacked follow-up institutions that would have turned it into a longer-lived empire like Rome.