State, History, Cosmopolity

Aristotle asserts that the State is by nature "the end" of all earlier forms of society, citing the village as an example.  Now, if the Whole is prior to the Part, Man is by nature a political animal, and "the state is a creation of nature", the only State that is truly the End of all others is a Cosmopolity.  But, since he does not arrive at that conclusion, he gives no consideration to the inter-State relations that would by necessity constitute the Means to that End.  Instead, it is not until Kant, followed by Hegel and Marx, takes up the topic two millennia later, that those relations are characterized.  However, none of the three is, like Aristotle, a Holist, so their concepts of the development are fundamentally Hobbesian, i. e. the essential motor of which is conflict.  In contrast, a more benign, Holistic, concept might recognize the role played in the gradual development of the eventual Cosmopolity by Communication, Transportation, and Trade.  No doubt war, sometimes terrible, has dissolved boundaries between incomplete Polities.  But, to make it the exclusive principle of History expresses a saturnine view of Human nature that might reflect, in contrast with Aristotle's Ancient Mediterranean orientation, the influences of darker Christian Theology and/or starker Northern European climate.