003 Causes of War Lecture 9 Hegemonic Stability Theory Part 1
Summary
TLDRThis lecture explores hegemonic cycles and their impact on warfare, challenging traditional balance of power and deterrence theories. It delves into the concept that a hegemon's decline can trigger large-scale wars and discusses the significance of general wars, which have historically accounted for the majority of war deaths. The lecture also examines the rise and fall of various hegemonic powers, the influence of naval dominance on global trade, and the potential implications for the current international system, with a focus on the United States and the emerging power of China.
Takeaways
- 🌟 Hegemonic Cycles Theory suggests that a single powerful state (hegemon) organizes the international system and its decline can lead to large-scale wars.
- 📊 Hegemonic Cycles Theory rejects the balance of power and rational deterrence theory, emphasizing the accumulation of rivalries over time.
- 🏰 The lecture discusses major systemic wars, highlighting the importance of general wars which account for 90% of war deaths from 1494 to 2001.
- 🛳️ European states, with their colonies, have historically controlled the world's naval power, enabling them to dominate global trade and influence.
- 🔄 The script explores the concept of power transitions, where the rise of a new power challenges the existing hegemon, potentially leading to war.
- 🚢 Naval power is a critical factor in determining hegemony, with control over the seas allowing states to shape international trade and security.
- 🌍 The lecture provides historical examples of hegemonic shifts, including the rise and fall of powers like the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and current U.S. dominance.
- ⚔️ General wars are identified as prolonged and costly due to the balancing of power, multiple fronts of conflict, and the complexity of achieving a unified settlement.
- 🕊️ Pax Britannica exemplified a period of peace under British hegemony, suggesting that peace is more likely during the reign of a single dominant power.
- 🔧 The script discusses various theories of hegemonic cycles and war, including Organski's power transition theory and the long cycle theory.
- 🏛️ The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is noted as a turning point in political science, marking the birth of modern sovereign states with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Q & A
What is the main premise of hegemonic cycles theory in relation to war?
-Hegemonic cycles theory posits that a particularly powerful state, or hegemon, organizes the international system and leads the main coalition. The decline of the hegemon leads to challenging powers, and it's the actions of these powers that can lead to large-scale war.
Why does hegemonic cycles theory reject the balance of power concept?
-Hegemonic cycles theory rejects the balance of power because it assumes that there is always a hegemon that organizes the international system, rather than a balance of powers maintaining stability.
How does hegemonic cycles theory relate to enduring rivalries?
-Hegemonic cycles theory fits with the enduring rivalries perspective as it views disputes and crises as being chained together over time, similar to how rivalries accumulate and escalate.
What is the significance of general wars in the context of war deaths?
-General wars are significant because the 10 identified general wars account for 90% of all war deaths, compared to thousands of other interstate conflicts and disputes between 1494 and 2001.
What is the definition of general wars as mentioned in the script?
-General wars are defined as wars which include most of the world's major powers, defined as states that constitute at least 10 percent of the world's total power.
What was the role of the European states in shaping the world's naval power dynamics?
-European states, particularly through their colonies, have controlled the world's naval power due to heavy state financing and key technologies such as ocean-going ships, the compass, and chronometers. They continue to control this power today.
How did the Chinese naval explorations in the 15th century impact global naval power?
-Chinese naval explorations led by Admiral Zheng He were extensive but were later abandoned due to a shift in political ideology and power structure. This abandonment is seen as a missed opportunity for China to potentially colonize regions like Australia and the Americas before Europe.
What is the concept of 'status inconsistency theory' in the context of war?
-Status inconsistency theory measures the differences between national aspirations and the distribution of benefits. It suggests that this distinction can lead to war, as countries may demand more respect or power relative to their perceived status.
What is the power transition theory as proposed by Organski?
-Power transition theory, proposed by Organski, suggests that wars between the most powerful states occur as two states pass or are about to pass each other in total power. It implies that war happens when one state is in relative decline.
Can you explain the significance of the War of Dutch Independence in the context of hegemonic cycles?
-The War of Dutch Independence was significant as it involved three of the five great powers at the time and marked a shift in power dynamics. The Dutch revolted against Spanish rule, and with British intervention, they eventually emerged as challengers, taking over international shipping and beginning their period as a maritime hegemon.
What are the key factors that lead to long and costly general wars according to Belani?
-According to Belani, general wars are long and costly due to several factors: the balancing phenomenon that creates evenly balanced sides leading to military stalemate, the disappearance of neutral states that could restrain disputes, the fighting on multiple fronts that makes victory unlikely, and the difficulty in reaching settlements within and between coalitions due to the multitude of interests.
What does the script suggest about the future of international institutions if the US were to decline?
-The script suggests that if the US were to decline, institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization might fail or be replaced. These institutions are seen as having been set up for America's benefit during its period of hegemony and may not persist without its influence.
How did the Thirty Years War contribute to the concept of modern sovereign states?
-The Thirty Years War led to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which is considered the birth of modern sovereign states. It established the concept of a state having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, shifting allegiance from the church and local potentates to the state.
What was the impact of the naval power on the control of world trade during the Dutch hegemony?
-During the Dutch hegemony, naval power allowed the Dutch to shape and control world trade. They were able to stop trade where they didn't want it to happen and replace the Spanish and Portuguese as maritime hegemons, thus dominating global commerce.
Outlines
🌍 Hegemonic Cycles and the Causes of War
This lecture introduces the concept of hegemonic cycles and their impact on warfare. It challenges the balance of power theory by suggesting that a single powerful state, or hegemon, organizes the international system and leads coalitions. The decline of the hegemon can prompt challenges from other powers, leading to large-scale wars. The lecture also critiques rational deterrence theory, arguing that disputes in rivalries are longitudinal and accumulate over time, aligning with the enduring rivalries perspective. The focus is on systemic wars, particularly world wars, which are defined by the involvement of most of the world's major powers. The lecture aims to explore the causes of these general wars within the context of hegemonic cycles.
🛳 Naval Power and the Shifting Geopolitics
The second paragraph delves into the significance of naval power in global military strategy, noting the control of about 90 percent of the world's naval military power by the US, its European allies, and Russia, with the Chinese, Japanese, and Indian navies as significant non-European forces. It discusses historical large-scale naval operations, such as those by the Chola dynasty and the Chinese fleet under Admiral Zheng He, and how technological and strategic shifts led to the decline of naval powers like China during the Ming dynasty. The paragraph highlights the enduring influence of European naval dominance from the time of Albuquerque and the importance of naval power in shaping global trade and geopolitical landscapes.
🏰 The Italian Wars and the Emergence of Systemic Conflicts
This section discusses the Italian Wars as the first systemic conflict and general war, spanning from 1494 to 1517. It involved King Charles VIII of France's invasion of Italy and the subsequent formation of a counter coalition including the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, England, and others, which eventually defeated the French. The paragraph also covers the rise of the Habsburg Empire and the impact of the Italian Wars on the balance of power in Europe. Additionally, it touches on the exploration and conquest led by figures like Vasco de Gama and Christopher Columbus, which brought immense wealth and power to the Iberian states, setting the stage for their dominance in global commerce.
🌐 Power Transition Theory and its Implications for War
The fourth paragraph explores AFK Organski's power transition theory, which posits that wars between the most powerful states occur as they pass each other in total power. Wars are more likely when a challenger state is stronger than the hegemon but loses due to a weaker coalition. The theory also includes status inconsistency theory, which suggests that a discrepancy between national aspirations and the distribution of benefits can lead to war. The paragraph provides examples from history, such as the rise of the US as a challenger state and the peaceful transition of power from Britain after World War II, highlighting the conditions under which power transitions can lead to war or peaceful succession.
📊 Power Transitions and the Correlation with War
This section presents a detailed analysis of power transitions and their correlation with the onset of wars. It discusses the findings from the Correlates of War dataset, which show that a small number of states have been involved in a disproportionate number of conflicts. The paragraph challenges the distinction between revisionist and status quo states, suggesting that these categories do not consistently predict conflict initiation or targeting. It emphasizes the significant increase in the likelihood of war during periods of rapid relative power shifts and highlights the power transition as a strong predictor of war, with examples from various historical power transitions.
🏛 The Dutch and the Rise of Hegemonic Naval Powers
The sixth paragraph examines the rise and fall of hegemonic powers, particularly focusing on the Dutch during the 17th century. It discusses the Dutch's dominance in international shipping and their eventual decline in the 18th century, which allowed the French and English to rise. The paragraph introduces long cycle theory, which seeks to explain the periodic dominance of a single powerful state, or hegemon, in the international system. It also touches on the importance of naval power in maintaining a hegemon's influence and the economic and technological factors that contribute to the rise and fall of these powers.
🚤 Naval Power and the Dynamics of Hegemonic Stability
This section delves into the research by Modelski and Thompson on naval power and its role in hegemonic stability. It discusses the outcomes of challenges to a hegemon by land powers versus maritime powers and the subsequent shifts in hegemony. The paragraph outlines the historical waves of hegemonic powers, from the Portuguese and Spanish to the Dutch, English, and finally the United States, highlighting the naval dominance each held during their respective periods. It also considers potential future challengers to the current hegemon, possibly China or India.
🌐 The Concentration and Deconcentration of Naval Power
The seventh paragraph discusses the importance of naval power concentration and its decline as indicators of a hegemon's strength. It presents a chart showing the rise and decline of naval power concentration, reflecting the dominance and subsequent challenges faced by various hegemonic powers throughout history. The paragraph also considers the implications of a new hegemon's victory, such as the restructuring of the international system, the establishment of new international institutions, and the shift in trade structures.
🛡️ The Thirty Years War and the Birth of Modern States
The eighth paragraph explores the Thirty Years War as a systemic conflict that involved multiple great powers and resulted in significant changes to the political landscape of Europe. The war, which began as a religious conflict within Germany, expanded to include broader territorial disputes and efforts to dominate Europe. The paragraph discusses the high casualty rate, the involvement of various European powers, and the conclusion of the war with the Treaty of Westphalia, which marked the emergence of modern sovereign states with a centralized monopoly on the use of force.
🏹 The Wars of Louis XIV and the Struggle for European Dominance
This section examines the wars of Louis XIV, which included six of the seven great powers of the time. Louis XIV's ambition to dominate Europe, particularly given France's large population, led to conflicts with the Dutch, Spanish, Austrians, Germans, and English. The paragraph covers the British naval dominance and the wars over control of India and North America. It also discusses the military strategies and alliances of the period, including the Battle of Blenheim and the role of key figures like the Duke of Marlborough.
🏛️ The War of Spanish Succession and the Balance of Power
The tenth paragraph discusses the War of the Spanish Succession, which involved five of the six great powers. The conflict centered on the succession in Spain and the opposition of the English, Dutch, Germans, Austrians, Prussians, and Portuguese against France. The British expanded their empire in North America during this time, securing territories and engaging in conflicts with the French. The paragraph highlights key figures, military engagements, and the strategic importance of naval power in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Hegemonic Cycles
💡General Wars
💡Power Transition
💡Naval Power
💡Status Inconsistency
💡Long Cycle Theory
💡World Wars
💡Free Trade
💡European Hegemony
💡Coalition Warfare
💡Technological Advantage
Highlights
Hegemonic Cycles Theory posits that a hegemon organizes the international system and its decline leads to challenges and large-scale wars.
Balance of Power and Rational Deterrence Theory are rejected by Hegemonic Cycles Theory due to the longitudinal nature of rivalries and disputes.
General Wars are defined by the involvement of most of the world's major powers and account for 90% of war deaths.
The significance of World Wars in the context of General Wars and the puzzle of their occurrence.
Historical examples of large-scale conflicts that were not coordinated, such as the Chinese and Roman wars against the Persians.
The Mongol conquest as a potential global war, despite the lack of coordination among opponents.
The shift in naval power from China to Europe and the impact on global exploration and colonization.
The importance of European state financing and key technologies in establishing naval dominance.
The concept of 'winner takes all' in naval power and its implications for global trade domination.
Power Transition Theory by Organski, linking wars to shifts in power between the most powerful states.
The role of coalitions in the outcomes of power transitions and the impact on the international order.
Status Inconsistency Theory and its link to the initiation of wars due to unmet national aspirations.
The War of Dutch Independence as a significant systemic conflict and its impact on European power dynamics.
The Thirty Years War as a complex conflict involving religious, political, and territorial disputes among major powers.
The Treaty of Westphalia and its role in defining modern sovereign states and the concept of state allegiance.
The Wars of Louis XIV as a series of conflicts aimed at French domination in Europe and the resulting opposition.
The significance of naval power in maintaining hegemony and the transition of naval dominance over time.
The impact of economic and demographic forces on the shifting of global power and influence.
Transcripts
hegemonic cycles and war
one this is the first of two lectures
on hegemonic cycles and war there is
hegemonic cycles in war two which
follows this so make sure you see
both
lectures here you can see at the bottom
a review of french soldiers by luke the
14th and you can see in the top right
corner a picture of the
john churchill the duke of marlborough
who defeated
louis xiv troops at the battle of
blenheim
so hegemonic cycles theory rejects
balance of power
because it has the underlying assumption
that at all times
you have a hegemon
or a particularly powerful state that
organizes the international system and
leads the main coalition
and that it's the decline of the hegemon
that leads to
challenging powers
and it's
the actions of those challenging powers
that leads to large-scale war
hegemonic cycles theory also rejects
rational deterrence theory
because
disputes that occur
in rivalries are longitudinal they
accumulate over time
so hegemonic cycles fits in
with the enduring rivalries perspective
of how disputes and crises are chained
together
so
we're going to survey in this lecture
every major systemic war the general
wars the world wars
and there's an essential puzzle here
which is why do world wars occur
general wars matter as we saw earlier
because the 10 general wars that have
been identified account for 90 of all
the war deaths
compared to the thousands of other
interstate conflicts disputes in the
period between 1494 in 2001
what we mean by general wars are wars
which include most of the world's major
powers defined as states that constitute
at least 10 percent of the world's total
power
of course it's a complicated definition
there are some different causes for
general wars and we're going to look at
some of these causes in the context of
hegemonic cycles
some or all of these theories apply to
some extent to all general wars
now there were wars before that in some
sense could be described as world wars
because they occurred on different
geographic
continents
but these were never coordinated
chinese general panchao
and
the romans
the roman military under vespasian
were both engaged in the war against the
persians led by valigases at the same
time
around 100 in the common era 8100
but this attack was not coordinated
here you can see a picture of emperor
vespasian of the roman empire
the chinese had been to central asia
around this time
the mongol conquest could also
constitute
a global war the mongols attacked
simultaneously egypt the dalmatian coast
in the adriatic
india they conquered java and indonesia
they made a landing in japan
and they basically secured everything
else in between
yet those that opposed the mongols were
not particularly coordinated although
they might have sent embassies to each
other
for example the crusaders cooperated
with the mongols against the mamluks in
egypt
so there have been 10 general wars there
is some dispute
of the identity of the 10 general or
world wars
these wars are all dated from about 80
1500 100 because it was at this time
that the europeans came to dominate the
world's oceans far beyond the capacity
of any non-european state to resist and
this rendered the european states
invulnerable to foreign or non-european
conquest
the europeans were seeking to trade with
eastern asia by bypassing the heavily
taxed caravan roots dominated by the
muslim states particularly the turks
european capability was based on the
convergence of heavy state financing
and key technologies such as ocean-going
ships the compass and various mechanical
chronometers and mathematical means to
navigate
the european states and their colonies
continue to control
to this day
though they may not forever the us and
its european allies plus the russians
control about 90 percent of the world's
naval military power
the chinese and japanese navies are the
only significant non-european naval
powers plus maybe the indian navy
there were earlier large scale
naval operations that occurred across
continents
chola which is here
sent a fleet
down to java the indonesian empire of
majapahit
and destroyed it
in ad-1025
this here is a depiction of
a ship from that era
at the pyramid at borobudur
at the foot of mount merapi outside
yogyakarta in java
which was when
zhang
the chinese eunuch admiral
led the chinese fleet in its attempt
to explore the world using naval power
in the period 1405 and 1433
and these included
landings and
basically kidnappings of of hostages and
the king in sri lanka
so it had a military aspect to it and it
carried large numbers of soldiers for
landings
but when china shifted to
neo-confucianism and away from unix
towards
family control of the bureaucracy
the attack on
the eunuch
power structure led to the destruction
of the ships the ships were burned and
further attempts to engage in naval
exploration were abandoned
china has ever since
regretted
abandoning
this program
it can be imagined that if china had
kept up its naval explorations it would
have been china not europe that would
have colonized australia and north and
south america 50 years after
the chinese ships were burned
albuquerque showed up in the indian
ocean
and took over control of the oceans that
last to this day
here's a comparison of some of the
chinese ships compared
to the ships that columbus had
that discovered north america it should
be qualified though that the chinese
ships were not very durable and didn't
last very long
whereas some of the european ships of
that age
would last almost a century
so
a size comparison is not the only issue
that matters there's other components of
technology
and this is just to show that over time
geographies shift
power
now the white band which is indicated as
me is middle east and it indicates that
the about about a quarter of the world's
population lived in the middle east
around uh 400 years before christ or 400
years before the common era
but over time other regions
became more agricultural and their
populations grew enormously so we have a
constant historical shifting
that is caused
in an underlying fashion by economic and
demographic forces
so this is the world
when the europeans took over when
albuquerque entered the indian ocean and
took control
of the world's ocean surface
you have a fairly large population in
europe india and china
and japan
and smaller populations in the rest of
the world
this was the political division
europe was very divided but you can see
the ming empire
you can see the empire muslim
assaulting it at delhi
uh the timurid turks the white sheep
turks
the mongols
and empires elsewhere so this is the
political map
into which
uh the world
began in 1500 and and this is where the
story begins for these general wars
so the first war was the italian wars
this is the first systemic conflict
and the first general war of world war
it went from 1494 to 1517 french valois
king charles viii invaded italy and
occupied naples in a first step to
reconquer constantinople in jerusalem
it provoked a counter coalition of the
maximilian first of the holy roman
empire in germany spain england venice
milan the swiss and pope alexander vi
and they eventually defeated the french
the spanish commander was gonzalo de
cordoba in italy and you can see him uh
depicted here the soldiers fought with
an act boos which is a form of hand
cannon which you can see uh
at the top of the page and yet the
introduction of the spanish square in
which pikeman and akbusier were able to
coordinate
this would later be vulnerable to canon
but at this time and with this type of
technology when canon were not that
mobile the spanish square dominated the
battlefield
so here you have the habsburg empire in
yellow which united the territories of
spain
austria
the netherlands and what is today
belgium and southern italy and made it a
major power in europe
and the italian wars occurred in the top
right map and you can see here the
different sub-states over which the
spanish and the french fought
now on the world's oceans the genovese
financed
uh the portuguese
sponsored vasco de gama's discovery of
the route to india in 1498
and the spanish sponsored columbus's
discovery of the american mainland in 14
uh 1490s
and this brought tremendous wealth and
power to the iberian states
now the geneves were obviously trying to
outdo the venetians who traded directly
with the turks and the arabs
alfonso albuquerque
was the portuguese sailor who led a
small flotilla with small cannons
and his conquest of asian trade between
1507 and 1515 in which he defeated the
african muslim egyptian persian indian
and the southeast asian fleets and he
seized control of world trade
portuguese strategy as early as 1415
was to seize control of the slavery
routes that were coming out of west and
east africa and so they seized sautome
on the west african coast and zanzibar
in the east african coast and then the
indian ocean and then the maluca islands
where much of the spice trade
originated in the world
and through this they were able to
dominate the world fiscally here you can
see where the
fleets
from portugal went and you can see in
the blue dots where they set up
bases
here you can see the spanish and
portuguese
coastal empires and in the americas
where the spanish landed in mexico
central america
and in the andes
so there was for at least a century
significant domination by the spanish
and portuguese of global commerce and
they were nevertheless
english and in this case dutch raids
that eroded it near the end of the
century
now it's been a very peculiar phenomenon
that at sea there's been a winner take
all phenomenon in which the strongest
naval state typically dominates almost
all of the world's oceans at the same
time
this has been because of the ease of
movement across the world's oceans and
this has permitted rapid accumulation of
domination of them by navies with only a
slight technological advantage over
their opponents if one navy is only
slightly more powerful than the other
it'll take it only a short amount of
time to complete the conquest after
which it will dominate trade and make it
difficult for its opponents to
accumulate the resources in order to
oppose it and build a navy
if you lose your navy and the trade that
goes along with it it could take you up
to a hundred years to recover
economically
the chinese bayang fleet was destroyed
by the japanese in 1895 and china did
not begin rebuilding its fleet until the
1990s and it wasn't until really 2000
and the 2010s that china had rebuilt a
fleet that was respectively strong
russia lost their fleet in 1905 to the
japanese and they didn't rebuild their
fleet
to a respectable strength until the
1970s
so each naval state imposes a system of
free trade in which they use force to
obtain permission to sell goods in the
markets of other states and because the
state tends to be economically and
financially stronger it generally
sells these goods at an advantage in
1842 the british east india company
attacked china and compelled it to seed
hong kong and permit the british to sell
goods within the chinese market which
included textiles and opium
in 1868 admiral perry of the u.s navy
threatened to shell tokyo if the
japanese did not grant the u.s trade
access to the japanese market
so we have our first theory and this
comes from
afk organski's power transition theory
this is
the principle hegemonic stability theory
of war so it unites a hegemonic
stability theory and the phenomenon of
war
organski conducted statistical tests and
found that wars between the most
powerful states of any period occur
as the two states pass or are about to
pass each other in total power in other
words war happens when one of the states
is in relative decline
in every power transition there is a
status quo state which is the
established power which is in relative
decline and which has an interest in
preserving the current international
order
there's also a challenger or revisionist
state which seeks to overturn the
international system and defeat the
status quo power
the challenger state is normally rising
rapidly in power in comparison with the
status quo states and wants therefore to
take over the international system
now in 1980
this
study was updated and it was found that
war starts when a challenger is stronger
than the hegemon
but it tends to lose because it has a
weaker coalition
so germany grew very quickly and
surpassed the english economy at the
beginning of the 20th century but
germany ultimately lost because it
couldn't create a coalition
to resist
uh the british
now a satisfied challenger state will
inherit and not overturn the
international system
after world war ii the english were too
weak
to be a global hegemon they basically
couldn't
continue to dominate the system
after two world wars against germany
the americans were a challenger state
they wanted to replace england
but there was no war the americans
inherited the system from the english
because in general the us was satisfied
with the commercial structure that the
british had set up
so here you would see
the type of coalition structure between
the dominant and the dissatisfied states
or the status quo power the satisfied
powers and their challenger or
revisionist states so the dominant
states on top
most of the great powers and many of the
middle powers and some of the small
powers are associated with the dominant
state
the dissatisfied states are led by a
great power
and some of the middle powers and the
smaller powers
now one of the aspects of organski's
theory is status inconsistency theory
this measures differences between
national aspirations and the
distribution of benefits and it's been
found that this distinction or this
difference has been found to lead to war
so you can imagine a country like china
today
demanding more respect particularly in
the south china sea reclaiming
its status
as a recipient of tribute
in the several hundred kilometers around
its borders
so war occurs during the power
transition when a challenger state
almost approximates the power level of
the dominant status quo state and its
allies however before the challenger
state surpasses the status quo state the
status quo state typically begins a
preventative war
to defeat the challenger before the
transition actually occurs by this
conception we would expect a war started
by the us against china
war is more likely in a power transition
during abrupt downward or upward shifts
in power changes
a rapid rise of power like
resulting from industrialization which
is what made the us powerful between say
1870 and 1910 leads to externalization
of domestic dissatisfaction
so very often countries when they're
changing domestically if they have some
desire to satisfy a domestic goal they
very often focus outward
now outcomes vary sometimes the status
quo state retains power and sometimes
the challenger state dominates
so here you can see the red power which
is growing
but the orange state is growing more
quickly
and so there's different opportunities
of war either at the red arrow the
status quo state can attack the
challenger or once the challenger has
surpassed the status quo state it can
violently reorder the international
system
here you can see a power transition and
it actually lists various different uh
inflection points where war could occur
between different states you have a
lower upper and you have the first and
second inflection points and there were
23 such power transition points
occurring between 1815 and 1975 and
these are grouped mostly
in the crises and the disputes leading
up to the first world war
now take note
the status quo challenger distinction is
not the same as the rational deterrence
theory approach
the deterrence theory is far more about
who attacks first not who wants to
change the system
now here you can see a chart of great
power and genera and and non-uh general
wars
these are wars involving the great
powers
this is an exhaustive list
of power transitions
it shows the name of the war it shows
the initiator the target
and
the outcome of the country that
initiated the conflict
here's some ongoing and historical power
transitions we can see the power of the
ottoman empire
in the 16th century
and how they went into a steep decline
and then effectively disintegrated
we can see the rise of china at the
extreme
right we can see france
which is a middle power then became a
great power in the 1720s under louis xiv
but then fell behind england
we can see the netherlands
and the rise of sweden
and the rise of
russia and the soviet union
and of prussia and germany and of japan
and all the opportunities there are for
these transitions leading to war
so what's the criticism it was found in
the correlates of war data set that 30
states accounted for 70 percent of all
mid initiation and were the targets in
sixty percent of mids
initiation and target correlations
indicate that revisionist and status quo
distinctions do not carry well in
multiple incidents
so
countries that initiate or are the
target of disputes are not necessarily
the
cha the uh status quo states being
attacked by the revision estates
rapid relative shifts increase the
likelihood of war
by 800
times
so
power transition is enormously powerful
predictor of war
so we get to our second uh
general or systemic war the war of dutch
independence from 1585 to 1609 it
involved three of the five great powers
so a majority of the great powers at the
time while most of europe was involved
in a catholic protestant civil war the
dutch revolted against spanish rule and
in 1585 the british intervened on their
behalf provoking the unsuccessful
spanish armada the spanish attempt to
invade england
the end of the war crippled the spanish
attempt to dominate europe and the
world's oceans and the dutch
emerged as challengers and ultimately
took over
international shipping
here you can see a queen elizabeth
and next to her is the spanish armada in
1588
you can see on the map on the right the
path the spanish armada took and they
were never able to achieve a landing on
the british coast and a great many ships
were wrecked
you can actually see here in the picture
in 1603 a british ship firing cannon
against a spanish ship
you can see again the pike and musket
squares used by the spanish in the top
left
you can see on the top right a map of
holland and what is today uh belgium
and the battleground uh in which the
dutch hid behind their dikes
and threatened to flood whenever the
spanish captured territory you can see
on the left of the the spanish aqui
and below you can see the prize the
portuguese conquered indonesia and the
spice islands of the malukas that you
can see in the
colors brown in the extreme
right of the map
and then the dutch took over
during this period they were able to
dominate the seas and then they
basically excluded the portuguese from
indonesia and the dutch were to control
indonesia for several more centuries
so you can see in the left the 1559 the
pre-revolt spanish holland
and then in the map on the top
right you can see in
1580 holland's become partially
independent with the support of the
english you got the huguenots in france
and the complex diplomacy of the period
and again you can see some spanish
alcabusia
going to battle
these are of course dutch merchants and
you can see the shift in overseas trade
the dutch
were predominant
in the 17th century but then went into
rapid decline in the 18th century and
the french and the english were able to
dominate
and replace the dutch
so the second theory is long cycle
theory and hegemonic wars
there are a set of theories grouped
under the title of long cycle theory
that seeks to explain the periodic
dominance of the international system by
the single most powerful state which is
termed a hegemon and the transition of
power from one hegemonic power to the
next
typically occurs through or during a
general or world war
the precise timing of these hegemonic
states
is in perpetual scholarly dispute
but there's a general consensus on the
broad outlines of the succession and its
nature the hegemonic cycle started with
the rise of europe in world affairs
around ad-1500
the statistical evidence is that
hegemonic wars follow the pattern of
probing
adjusting and then you have a hegemonic
war and you have 100 year cycles between
1494 and 1973.
for hegemonic states
they invariably had preeminent naval
power that was grounded in commercial
and technological dominance for example
today the u.s navy is the largest in the
world and probably strong enough to
defeat every other navy
as long as these states are dominant
they shape the structure of the
international system particularly
commerce
typically pursuing free trade
but this free trade is predatorial when
the dutch
were free trading with england they
would dump goods on the english market
but then their navy would interfere with
british merchants that tried to export
british goods to other ports
but as these
hegemons become overextended in
defending their interests where they
divert money to build navies and not
engage in commerce they fall behind
technologically to other states that are
investing more in their economy
and ultimately they fall behind
commercially to a rising challenger
for example the uk
in the mid 1850s accounted for 58
percent of the world's economy
the british were an industrial
powerhouse they manufactured in england
more than the rest of the world combined
but by 2006 the british had declined to
only 2 percent
of the world's economy
the british spent too much money on a
large navy and not enough on research
and development and reinvestment in new
technologies
when germany rose
they focus not on the iron industry like
the english but on steel and chemistry
and surpassed the english economically
and industrially with these new
technologies
because the dominant state obtains
resource benefits by controlling the
international system
they rarely make room for challengers
so the us has a very little interest in
giving up its domination of the
international financial institutions
like the imf of the world bank
or institutions of dialogue
like the united nations if the us were
to release what influence it has in
those institutions particularly the
financial ones the american dollar would
become more vulnerable
to the policies
of other countries and this would
disadvantage the u.s
for a hegemon trade and financial power
in the form of banks matters more for
maintaining naval dominance than natural
resources such as say wood
you can always buy natural resources
the british navy got its wood from the
baltic what is today lithuania latvia
estonia and finland
and from new brunswick
and
from
parts of asia
there's no large trees in england
sufficient to build its large navy
so the british power was not based on
natural resources it was based on
commerce and the ability to buy the
resources they need
now if the challenger is a naval power
it defeats and takes over the empire of
the preceding status quo naval power and
becomes the new status quo naval power
we saw this with the dutch
who supplanted both the portuguese and
the spanish with their global naval
power
now what do i mean by naval power well
most states in those days had very poor
roads and unless you were china you
didn't have a very large canal system so
almost every country in the world had
coastal shipping
but if a state wanted to trade with its
neighbor that was not simply up or down
its coast it would have to go into the
open oceans and there
the portuguese controlled many of the
global choke points they could stop
countries from going through the choke
points like for example
cape town in south africa
so
the dutch were able to shape trade and
stop trade where they didn't want it to
happen and ultimately the dutch replaced
the spanish
and the portuguese as maritime hegemons
now modelski and thompson have done a
lot of research on naval power
particularly as it applies to hegemonic
stability for them the challenger if
it's a land power is defeated but it so
weakens the hegemonic state that another
maritime power then inherits the
position
so we think of the anglo-dutch defeat of
france
this weakened holland enough
that the british then became the hegemon
the british defeat of germany weakened
england enough that the u.s then
replaced the english by the middle of
the 20th century
now there's been significant
disagreement on the actual general wars
that were hegemonic wars
but the periods roughly coincide in the
following waves
so 1494 to 1585 you got the portuguese
and the spanish and we think of spain as
a naval power but it wasn't the spanish
actually didn't have a royal fleet they
had a few ships that carried
bullion gold and silver from south
america the mines of potosi
and you had ships that traded with china
and came from manila but the portuguese
actually had a state fleet in 1475 the
portuguese wiped out the spanish fleet
off the coast of west africa and it took
centuries for the spanish to rebuild
their fleet so spain was a terrestrial
power with some naval capacity where
portugal was a truly global naval power
they were these portuguese and spanish
were challenged by the dutch
in the war of dutch independence the
dutch replaced the spanish and the
portuguese
the dutch were then the hegemon for
about a century
and then the english challenged them
during the wars of louis xiv
and england replaced the dutch
the english then had a standoff against
the french
the french were ultimately defeated the
british
went from mercantilism to
industrialization and so were able to
survive for another century and then
they had to
confront germany and japan in the first
and second world wars and then england
was weakened economically and then the
us rose up and then because of nuclear
weapons we had a cold war and ultimately
the soviet union
collapsed
and so
what
are we looking at now for the next
challenger probably china
but why not india
so these are
the um
disputes of which are hegemonic and you
can see here
long cycle global powers
spain portugal which is in the left most
column it tells us which of these
countries are the great powers at what
time you've got jack levy's
definition which comes from his uh book
on his statistical calculations of when
are the great powers you see that jack
levy excludes portugal as a great power
and then you've got singer and small
singer is jay david singer who founded
the correlates of war project
and he has a different definition of
what are the great powers of course the
correlates of war is only from the
post-napoleonic period
this is
a graph from the book
called sea power in global politics by
george mandelski and william thompson
and they focus on naval power because
they believe that it's the main
instrument for hegemons to dominate the
entire planet so they focused on all
aspects of naval warfare
for them global power is one that has at
least fifty percent of oceanic naval
power
um
and you have concentration that goes to
fifty percent of total power of a
hegemon after a war so after you have a
major war it's amazing how much
concentration of power there is in one
country's naval power and then when that
country loses its advantage and you have
a deconcentration this then leads to a
systemic war because challengers rise up
build navies and are able to take on
that main country
napoleon built a navy he he joined it
together with the spanish and at the
battle of trafalgar the british
inflicted a severe defeat
uh during uh the industrialization of
china
they the chinese built the bayang fleet
but the japanese destroyed it and the
japanese then built up their own fleet
in the 1890s in the 1910s and 1920s 30s
and 40s
you have uh the rise of uh germany
building a very large fleet in the lead
up to world war one
in world war ii germany didn't have a
very powerful fleet
in and of course in the first world war
uh the jab the the german fleet was
destroyed uh not destroyed but damaged
severely at the battle of jutland and
then spent the rest of the war in port
and then ultimately in 1917 the sailors
declared themselves socialist and went
on strike and that was the end of the uh
german fleet in world war ii you had
several pocket battleships that were
destroyed in individual engagements like
the bismarck the sheer the tier pits the
ignite snow the scharnhorst
prince eugene
and i think that was a cruiser and then
during the cold war the soviet union
built a fleet consisting of several
carriers
and large fleets of submarines and now
china is building up their fleet so
fleets matter and you can see in this
chart
the rise and decline of concentration so
when the values are high it indicates
that a country has enormous naval power
and when it goes into decline it
indicates that there are challengers and
so uh the bottom part the bottom end of
some of those um lines go as low as 20
so a challenger like england
in say the beginning of world war ii
only had let's see according to this
chart
had about 30 percent of the world's
naval power
with the rest of it being controlled by
the u.s and japan and other countries
like italy and germany
so victory by a new hegemon brings a
restructuring of the international
system which typically includes a new
set of international institutions and
structure of trade so the un is a
product of u.s victory in world war ii
and if china surpasses the u.s we can
expect the u.n to be closed down and
replaced with a chinese institution
perhaps in shanghai
world commerce did not exist until the
european navies specifically the
portuguese cleared the trade routes of
hostile navies in the 16th century you
did have trade
but it was much more difficult to travel
across the world as a merchant sailor
when the portuguese
wiped out all the smaller fleets
it basically left uh commercial commerce
to the control of the hegemons now just
because uh the portuguese controlled the
oceans didn't free it for everyone
the portuguese basically allowed those
countries that were friendly to it to
trade on its roots
so the command of the world's oceans has
since passed to the dutch than the
british and now the u.s navy
in each period free trade is
preferentially established around the
hegemonic power because it enjoys a
temporary technological and commercial
advantage
during dutch hegemony british traders
condemned free trade as a dutch
conspiracy to dominate world trade but
after the english surpassed the dutch
and took over domination of the world's
oceans
and trade it was the british who
championed uh free trade and it was the
dutch who argued that free trade was a
british conspiracy to dominate the
world's economy and trade
periods of peace have been periods of
preponderance by a single hegemon and
periods of war have been periods of
decline of that hegemon
you think of the examples of pax
britannica when the british were
dominant in the in the late 19th century
the world was generally peaceful there
were very few wars very few large
systemic wars but when britain went into
decline the germans built a fleet and
the english could be challenged the
british pulled their fleet out of every
ocean and concentrated the fleet
in europe
just so they could deter the german
fleet and as a consequence they lost
control of the world's oceans
what would happen to the us
rather to the united nations the world
bank
and attempts at liberalizing world trade
to the world trade organization if if
the u.s were to go into sharp decline
some would argue that it would fail
since these are in essence institutions
set up for america's benefit at the
beginning of its period of hegemony at
the end of the second world war and
could not persist without it
now look at the reader that i've given
you there's an article by jack levy and
there are other theories of these long
cycle theories that lead to war there's
arnold toynbee a famous historian bill
thompson and george madelski robert
gilpin charles doran and verena and they
all have variations
on the long cycle theory
now here's our third
systemic or general war it's the 30
years war from 1618 to 1648 and included
six of the seven of the world's great
powers
the thirty years war started as a
protestant catholic civil war in germany
but spread to include a habsburg or
spanish austrian versus french attempt
to dominate europe
the catholic side included spain austria
and the holy roman empire of germany
against the protestant germans sweden
and france a third of germany's
population 8 million people were killed
mostly to starvation
the war was also
concluded by the 1648 treaty of
westphalia which in political science is
used to indicate the birth
of modern sovereign states as we
understand them as having a monopoly on
the legitimate use of force in other
words people no longer gave their
allegiance to the church and to a local
potentate they now gave it to the state
who are you willing to die for are you
willing to die for your king or are you
willing to die for the pope
here you can see cardinal richelieu on
the
right and count tilly who's the flemish
catholic leader on the left
so this is the map of europe at the time
in 1634
and you can see that you got england and
france
and the kingdom of poland and the
russian empire
here's the world population at the time
in 1648 huge increases in china india
and europe
this is the world situation map and you
can see the domination
of the americas and the coasts of africa
by european commercial powers
this is the battlefield occurring within
germany during the 30 years war
this is the battle of lutzen in 1632 and
you can see gustavus adolphus the
swedish leader on the bottom center in
the bottom left
and you can see wallinstein the austrian
leader on the bottom right
so here we have a third theory of
general wars
by belani
now
blaney argues that general wars are long
and costly for a variety of reasons
now we spoke earlier about belani but
here we're examining the
extent of conflict and the constant of
hegemonic conflicts
now blaney argued that balancing
phenomenon creates two evenly balanced
sides that lead to a military stalemate
that's why general wars end up being so
long and costly
neutral states that could restrain a
dispute from escalating to war all
disappear because all the major powers
take sides and there's no one left in
the middle to destroy conflict
one of the reasons the soviet union was
concerned about invading europe and
fighting nato was because of the
strength of china one-third of the
soviet military was deployed in siberia
and in the east
to deal with the threat of china so the
soviets military force was divided
between two adversaries so the soviet
union would have to be significantly
desperate or china would have to be very
weak or distracted for the soviet union
to have invaded western europe
number two general wars produce fighting
on multiple fronts that makes victory on
all fronts unlikely
because you have efforts that are
divided
number three settlement is difficult
within and between the coalitions
because of the multitude of interests
that need to be coordinated
normally
these allies settle on the lowest common
denominator which is the complete
destruction of the enemy
but this goal is very often unattainable
and it makes the war drag on for years
number four general wars eliminate the
restraining effect of the threat of
third-party intervention leading to a
lack of restraint in the scale of war
and the type of weapons used
chemical weapons used in world war one
because germany and the allies had
become desperate
the war was going on forever and
seemingly every major power in europe
was involved so there was no consequence
to using chemical weapons
in world war ii the u.s dropped nuclear
weapons on japan because there was no
country to criticize the us every
country in the world every major power
was either an ally of the us
or an enemy targeted by the us
now here we're going to look at the
fourth systemic conflict
these were the wars of louis xiv between
1689 and 1700 it included six of the
seven great powers
francis louis xiv sought to dominate
europe especially as france's population
was by then the largest in europe
france's economy did not require a
colonial empire because it had very
fertile soil and a lot of agricultural
production
louis xiv was opposed and eventually
contained by the dutch spanish austrians
and the germans and the english
the british during this period came to
dominate the oceans and supersede the
dutch the british and french began their
wars over the control of india and north
america
so at the top
you can see the british soldiers at
blenheim
you can see at the bottom french
soldiers of louis xiv training and you
can see the duke of marlboro the british
leader
of the austrian
and the
dutch forces and the english forces that
along with prince eugene ultimately
defeated louis the 14th army
here you can see a portrait of louis xiv
and you can see on the top right the
1692 battle of stenkirk between the
dutch and the spanish and on the left
you can see the map
and france had a very strong defensive
system but louis xiv imagined that he
could cross the rhine go into the holy
roman empire would have stayed germany
and eventually fight his way
uh to the ottoman empire and then get to
jerusalem
and it was seen by some english as sort
of a totalitarian catholic crusade even
though louis xiv was not particularly
catholic in the spanish reformation
sense
or counter-reformation sense
here you have
the duke of marlborough at the battle of
blenheim
which is in the sketch
and you can see on the top the
the siege of turnai which is also a
sketch and shows the duke of marlborough
this is one of the sieges that occurred
during one of marlborough's
campaigns against louis xiv
this is the chicken marlboro at the
battle of mount plaquette in 1709 you
can see a painting of
marlboro in the bottom right
this is the french warship la couhon
and you can see in the top right jean
colbert who established the french navy
at the end of the 1600s and on the
bottom right is the uk's royal sovereign
warship in the late 1600s
and this is the battle of la hogue in
1692 in which an anglo-dutch fleet
destroyed a french fleet
now the fifth systemic war is the war of
the spanish succession from 1701 to
1714. it included five of the six great
powers the french and austrians clashed
over succession in spain the english
dutch germans austrians prussians and
portuguese opposed and eventually
defeated france
the british expanded her empire during
this period in north america
they secured newfoundland and acadia
essentially they captured what is today
nova scotia and they ethnically cleansed
the french-speaking acadians many of
whom went to louisiana
the french leader here is depicted on
the top right claude louis hector who's
who executed the war for louis xiv
you've got a scottish soldier on the
bottom left
and you got north american aboriginal
negotiators in england in 1710
and the bottom central picture is the
british navy in the caribbean in 1710.
so this is the map of the period of the
spanish succession you can see spain
united with
the french and the various coalition
efforts to break those two states apart
and here on the left you can see an
english buccaneer in the caribbean 1710
these are basically state sponsored
pirates
and on the right you can see the british
occupation of menorca a strategic island
today spanish in the mediterranean in
1713.
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
World Systems Theory - Explained
18th Century Warfare: Crash Course European History #20
E.H. Gombrich 'A Little History of World' 37. Across the Seas
Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory - The Contemporary World
TERMINALE HGGSP : conquêtes, affirmations de puissance et rivalités
Is war between China and the US inevitable? | Graham Allison
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)