The Development of the State

I read through J. R. Strayer's On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State; has something critical or an alternate history ever been written in response? I think it is proper to look for the origins of the development of the modern state in what preceded it, especially in the growth of the bureaucracy needed as a tool for the centralization of power by kings. Strayer thinks that the state is a good thing because of what it is able to achieve (greatness) that smaller polities cannot - things which are probably condemned by those on the left today. I'll grant that there may have been a necessity to the growth and centralization of the king's power in coping with competitotrs anda external threats, but was it good absolutely? What was lost in terms of true self-rule and strong communities? Stayer argues that the rise of the state required the switching of loyalty from family and local communities (and the Church) to the state. But he does not explain why this happens, especially since he claims that nationalism could be an impediment to the development of the state as well as as an aid. The displacement/mobility that results from the dispossession of land and the concentration fo wealth in the hands of the few takes place relatively later, does it not? What are the earlier factors that contributed to the destruction of local communities, assuming that this took place in addition to the transference of loyalties. It seems possible to have a relatively strong communal life while professing a greater loyalty to the state of which one's community is a part.