[_Schizotypy]

the top down organization of humans and labor, complete with warring states.

I'm rather unsure how this would NOT be considered similar to nation-state organization. Yes, a slightly smaller scale in some cases perhaps but there is still the over-arching governmental authority

edited to add: I love how people down-vote impulsively without context for argument

[dghf]

First, you didn't have the strong identification between the nation (in the older sense of "people") and the state. So rather than a single French people, say, there were several: Bretons, Normans, Gascons, etc. Second, you generally didn't have the centralisation and uniformity associated with the nation-state as we understand it today: the king's authority was limited or mediated in parts of his realm, bits of which (sometimes quite small bits) had their own time-honoured and diverse laws/rights/privileges. For example, the Bishop of Durham had quasi-regal powers within his diocese, and the great dukes and counts of France were all but sovereigns within their domains, sometimes with a barely nominal allegiance to the king.

[_Schizotypy]

It is apparent that we don't agree on what defines a group of humans to be a sort of 'nation-state'

At which exact point in history would you point to as the defining moment where 'nation-states' begin?

Do you judge all historical concepts purely by how they are in the current day?

Concepts develop over time, those societies are absolutely part of the beginning of current day nation-states no matter how diverse in culture they may have been (which is something we still see today)