Redirecting History in the Study of International Relations: Pt 3
This is my 3rd blog post in this series I am doing.
If you haven’t read the earlier posts, here’s the two previous posts (I recommend reading them in succession):
In The Discourses Machiavelli looks at the political reasons for the expansion of Rome during the Third Samnite War in 293 BCE. However, Machiavelli also draws on the generals of the Peloponnesian War and other ancient rulers of antiquity up until the medieval era in which he was writing in. Machiavelli discusses the utility of historical knowledge, reality and appearance, prudence and moderation (259), ingratitude (267), human commonalities, the power struggle (275), equality (248), and the human condition (268), among other things. As for the composition of this volume, The Discourses are comprised of three books which I will discuss in succession.
Book One
In Book One Machiavelli comments on Roman affairs that are intrinsic to the state. Machiavelli discusses how a city is established, citing Athens and Venice as examples. He discusses the homicide of Romulus by his brother Remus and Titus Tatius and pardons Romulus for this crime because he was acting for the greater good. This can resemble the line of thinking seen throughout the Peloponnesian War where justice was an instrumental rather than intrinsic good, often used to justify self-interest rather than act as a good in itself.
Machiavelli proceeds to discuss which leaders were the most effective and why republics are difficult to keep in power if they have taken over power from a monarchy, which leads to a discussion of freedom and why a free society is valuable. Machiavelli believes that dictatorial power is necessary for maintaining a Republic and indeed writes that the Romans were the freest citizens of the past. Republics are “slower to act” than a prince, Machiavelli argues (259). Therefore, where there is an immediate threat, republics are more “reliable” than princes (259). This can be contrasted with Cleon’s appeal during the Mytilenian Debate where rashness was needed, Cleon argued.
Book Two
Book Two is about the growth of the empire outside its borders. Machiavelli discusses whether virtue or fortune gave the Roman empire an upper-hand (270), how Rome came to power (281), how Rome declared war on neighboring nations (291), how to get ahead if you come from nothing (310), the false belief that humility is important (312), that fortresses and walls are not as useful as they are made out to be, making the case by pointing to Sparta (352), and much more. To simplify, thematically, The Discourses can be understood as a blend between Thucydides and Sun Tzu.
Book Three
Book Three is primarily concerned with what specific men did for Rome to find examples of leadership. It can be contended that Machiavelli argues from a basic premise that all humans are the same and thus looks at history because, as King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes, “Nothing is new under the sun” (1:9). Once again, realists glorify history and find patterns between human actions to simplify the complexities of human behavior. We can not make the same conclusion Machiavelli made today, for reasons that I have already given. We can, however, still appreciate Machiavelli’s grasp of history and learn from the past through his writing.
In particular, we can appreciate Machiavelli’s novel approach to his discussion of the importance of liberty. Machiavelli argues that government by free people is much more beneficial than the government by princes (316). This can be summarized with a statement at the beginning of Book Two: “Experience shows that cities never have increased in dominion or riches except while they have been living in liberty” (329). Similarly, Sun Tzu thought of national unity as “an essential requirement of victorious war” only attainable by a government that did not oppress the people (62). The paradox in The Discourses is worth pointing out.
Machiavelli & Liberty
Liberty, for Machiavelli, should be preserved at all costs. However, corruption is bound to creep in because “the nature of men is ambition and suspicious” (201). It is because of this that Machiavelli turns to the examples of generals in Book Three that are meant to guide the people. His ambition is to show “how deeds of individuals increased Roman greatness, and how they caused many good effects” (423). Their show of virtue can prevent corruption from creeping into society. He, thus, makes the same conclusion as Heilke whom I have discussed earlier. So far, I have summarized the three classical realist writers, Thucydides, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli and outlined a brief discussion of justice. Now I will look at the themes of (1) dominion and power and (2) human nature in the texts and show where we can learn from the texts or not.
Dominion and Power
The basis of dominion and power lies in the idea that other neighboring nations are composed of different people. It is because of this difference between people that tribes, cities, and nations dominate one another. Samuel Huntington in his article, The Clash of Civilizations, writes that from history, we can decipher that “differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts” (25). Differences are intrinsic and the desire to eradicate difference, even more so. Machiavelli spends the most time on dominion and growth and advises as to how to expand. In summarizing his view, it is important to notice how difficult it is to apply to current affairs.
Machiavelli writes that there are two ways to grow as an empire: (1) by friendliness and (2) by force (281). He argues this point by contrasting Sparta and Athens. Both were militarily fierce forces and were administered by the “best laws” (282). However, they were never able to achieve the height of power that the Roman empire was able to. The difference being that the Romans were disorderly and not as well-governed as their Greek predecessors. The founder of Sparta, Lycurgus, did not permit new inhabitants to Sparta due to his belief that it will “frustrate his laws” (282). It only follows that this resulted in little to no growth in population even with the enslaving of citizens from neighboring city-states.
Machiavelli points out that if one would rebel many others would follow as a means of escape from dominion because it is natural for citizens to desire freedom (282). Machiavelli’s advice for expansion is arguably less compelling than his point that humans intrinsically desire freedom and that it should be given to them. The latter claim should be showcased to each dictatorship and oppressive regime today. If they do not listen to the hypocritical leadership of Bush or the Clintons, then perhaps they would listen to the realist, Machiavelli.
Human Nature
Humans Desire Freedom
Next, I will discuss human nature within the texts. When the Athenians in Book One justify their rule as an empire to the Athenians, they claim that all are motivated by fear, honor, and interest and that they are not an exception (43). Further, they claim that “[P]raise is due to all who, if not so superior to human nature as to refuse dominion, yet respect justice more than their position compels them to do” (43). In other words, the Athenians are stating that it is only within human nature to fight for their self-interest. They argue that they have acted moderately up until now and should be praised because of it.
Humans Desire Power
As much as humans desire power, Thucydides points out that they also desire freedom. He writes that “It is just as much in men’s nature to rule those who submit to them, as it is to resist those who molest them” (256). Machiavelli comparably claims that a population never forgets what it is deprived of if it holds intrinsic value, such as freedom, especially if they are “reminded of it every day” (472). Rightly so, Machiavelli expects people to be vengeful of those that take freedom from them (276).
Humans Are Often Not Simply Good or Evil
Apart from an intrinsic desire for freedom, humans are also hardly ever good or bad. As was mentioned above, Brasidas is portrayed as a heroic figure by Thucydides and is frequently contrasted with Cleon. It is, however, notable that even Brasidas lies (289). This can testify to the understanding that human nature contains both order and chaos and in many respects it is not simply black and white but requires intricate thinking. Generals are not merely good or bad but individuals that at times behave in either ethical or unethical ways.
Humans Desire Role-Models
It is also within human nature to seek an identity and desire idols to look up to. Here, once again, we can contrast Cleon and Brasidas. Later, Cleon is thought of as weak and incompetent by his soldiers, which made them unwilling to fight with him (305). Brasidas paradoxically argues that he can “preach to others [what he] can practice [him]self” (307). It is important to the Spartan endeavor that the identity of a “Spartiate” is upheld (307). The identity of the Spartan is that of “zeal, honor, and obedience” as emphasized by Brasidas in his speech to his soldiers (307). In Cleon’s last battle, Thucydides writes that Cleon had “no thought of fighting” and “fled” from the field which resulted in his captivity by enemy forces (308). Nonetheless, Brasidas fought courageously and was wounded as a result of it (308). Frankly, I believe that I would be able to comprehend the utility of acting decently without analyzing a passage from a book of antiquity. It is different to take logical arguments of Mill or Hume to argue against tyrannical regimes and to look at the example of Brasidas to point out the benefits of not acting hypocritically to gain followers.
To use another example, we can take the Athenians’ endless pursuit for expansion which led to their downfall to illustrate the point that perhaps America too will come to a similar end. However, this point can be made without the use of any examples from history. Neither Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, nor Augustine the Great, are needed to show that endless expansion has negative effects. More importantly, from the limitless list of examples, rulers are never able to learn from the past. It seems to be in the human condition to do as you choose and disregard historical examples.
The Conclusion of This Series
In this essay, I have argued that classical realist writers are not the primary source to understand and solve the problems of international relations today. I have looked at texts from Thucydides, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli to show that examples from the past are irrelevant and often ethically ambiguous.
That is not to say, however, that these classical texts should not be read and dissected but rather that they should be appreciated for different reasons: for their originality and insight into human behavior.
In my view, arguments for righteous behavior are more effective if made by appealing to contemporary examples and logic.
Only then can we persuade separatists to stay, nationalists to globalize, xenophobes to seek difference, and dictators to abandon arms.
Citations
- Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016, doi:10.1057/978–1–349–95076–8.
- Heilke, Thomas. “Realism, Narrative and Happenstance: Thucydides’ Tale of Brasidas.” American Political Science Review, vol 98, #1, 2004, pp. 121–38.
- Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes.” By Thomas Hobbes, Free PDF, Ebook | Global Grey, Global Grey Ebooks, 2019, www.globalgreyebooks.com/leviathan-ebook.html.
- Huntington, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, 1993, pp. 22–49. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20045621. Accessed 23 Feb. 2020.
- Machiavelli, Niccolo, et al. The Discourses. Penguin Books, 2003.
- Thucydides, et al. The Landmark Thucydides a Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War.
Before you go…
🗣 I love connecting with fellow thinkers. Find me on Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, or Instagram.
I’d love if you’d share the article on Facebook/TWITTER if you want your friends to benefit from it in some way at all.
I write to keep you thinking and to keep me thankful and reflective. Cheers and until next time,
keep reflecting.
