--- tags: resources/book, process/todo --- [[Cliodynamics]] [[History]] [[Geopolitics]] [[Dynamics]] [[Demographics]], [[Father and Son Cycle]], [[Hard times create strong men cycle]], [[Pattern and Repertoire in History]] # War and Peace and War Author: [[Peter Turchin]] ## Overview ##### Introduction The core idea of the book is that society or groups of people can be modeled as a dynamical system by looking at the overall behaviour of the group rather than individual behaviour, similar to measuring dissipation of temperature of a gas as the collective behaviour of molecules (rather than at the level of individual molecules). ^b16470 There are three central concepts written about: 1. Th meta-ethnic frontier theory, which explains asabiya cycles (asabiya being cooperation within a group) 2. The demographic structural theory to explain secular cycles 3. The social-psychology theory to explain father and sons cycles ##### Chapter 1: A Band of Adventurers Defeats a Kingdom In the first chapter he describes how the Stroganov brothers captured the khanate just beyond the Ural mountains, being significantly outnumbered. Just a few centuries before this the Mongols (the civilization was in reality a mix of ethnicities) captured the Russian territories. This was largely because the Russian principalities did not coordinate their defenses. The Mongols on the other hand were the greatest military coordinators. They could coordinate across large distances and in silence. He thinks that the this was the reason for their success across the Eurasian continent. > _"...cooperation, or more generally the capacity for collective action, is a key factor in the rise of empires."_ Like the russian principalities before the Mongol invasion, the Khanates came from a large empire that had been split into smaller regions with separate rulers. This contributed to an inability to cooperate. He also writes that oppression and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. small groups can suppress other groups and to do that the oppressor group needs to be internally cooperative. He uses the example of Iraq to illustrate how Saddam used the minority and leaders from different groups to keep the country stable. > _"Why do large empires rise and fall? ... When we stand back and take a long view at the course of this struggle, we are struck by the complete reversal in the fortunes of these two nations (Mongols and Russians). In the thirteenth century, Russia, fragmented into a multitude of bickering principalities, had no chance against the Mongol steamroller. In the sixteenth century, it was the turn of the Russian monolith to roll over the squabbling Tatar khanates. What made Russia evolve from a collection of bickering principalities to a highly centralised state?_ ##### Chapter 2: A Transformation of Russia -- and America -This chapter starts out by describing life on the Muskovian frontier with the Mongol-Turkic empire, which was Muslim. This frontier was divided along religious lines. The threat from the other side of the frontier forced people to self-sacrifice to defend and survive. Successful defense and cooperation led to a growing frontier as the population tested the boundaries of safety just outside of the line of defense. Life on the frontier was also more egalitarian because: 1) labour and service were more valued than in the interior, 2) land was plentiful (many small landowners) and 3) cooperation was critical (money+effort needed to be pooled to survive. Strong emotional and ideological beliefs about "Us" versus "Them" or other nonmaterial motivations are needed to avoid "individually rational, collectively foolish behaviour." Large scale cooperation allows you to get things done. Both positive and negative and has been the driver behind the most atrocious actions too. The american frontier was more divided along racial lines than religious ones and allowed cooperation among diverse groups of European immigrants to America. There was a persistent conflict between Americans and Natives for almost 300 years. Toqueville has a great quote concerning American's ability to collectively organize and act: > _As soon as several Americans have conceived a sentiment or an idea that they want to produce before the world, they seek each other out, and when found, they unite. Thenceforth they are no longer isolated individuals, but a power conspicuous form the distance whose actions serve as an example; when it speaks, men listen.__ From the American and Russian examples it appears that a stark contrast along metaethnic frontiers builds capacity for collective action, unifies people on the same side and drives cooperation. Does this hold generally or is this coincidence? The next few chapters cover the origins of the empires which rose after the fall of the Roman empire. It covers the northwestern, eastern and southern frontiers separately. ##### Chapter 3: Slaughter in the Forest - At the Limites of the Roman Empire This chapter starts by giving an account of life on the northwestern frontier of the roman empire. There were a number of smaller germanic tribes which had to contend with Rome. They learned to cooperate in three phases. Eventually this resulted in the establishment of the largest european empires - the Carolingian Empire. The three phases were: 1. > _War chiefs such as Arminius and Maroboduus banded the independent Germanic tribes together in loose confederations._ 2. > _During the second phase, associated with the rise of the Odin cult and the sacral kingship, the confederations became much more tightly integrated and evolved a high capacity for concerted action._ 3. > _In the third phase, one of the confederations, the Franks, united most of the others within a single territorial state._ All of the major states of the second half of the first millennium came about near the frontier zone, and none arose from the non-frontier area. This adds support to the theory that the metaethnic frontier creates the necessary conditions for cooperation and an empire to form. The exception could be the Byzantine empire, however it was the result of the Roman emperor Constantine moving the capital of Rome to Constantinople. This gave a second wind to the Roman Empire by moving the capital closer to the source where it recruited military strength. > _Contrast this feverish empire building activity by frontier peoples to the complete absence of such efforts in the non-Roman Europe away from the frontier. We know very little about the northeastern quadrant of Europe, inhabited by Finnish and Baltic peoples, but we can be certain that they lived in small-scale communities._ ##### Chapter 4: ## Summary ## Criticism ## My Takeaway ## Ideas from reading - [[Analysing Secular Cycles]]