Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Announcing the Publication of a Book
For the last six years, I have been working steadily – with increasing fervor – on a series of books focused on classical Lacedaemon and on the grand strategy that the Spartans articulated for the defense of that polity’s ruling order. The first of these volumes – The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta: The Persian Challenge – will formally be released by Yale University Press this coming Tuesday.
Amazon has been shipping copies now for something like three weeks, and yesterday the book received its first review in an online publication based in the United Arab Emirates, hitherto unknown to me, called The National. That review I found heartening – for it was not only accurate in its description of the work. It actually caught my drift. Maybe, just maybe, thought I, the book will find its intended audience.
When one writes a book one has high hopes, but it is good also to entertain low expectations. My aim in the series of works that I am writing is to counter what I consider the surrealism of the doctrine that calls itself Realism. The exponents of “Realism” presume that all political communities are essentially the same. They are “state actors” intent on maximizing power, and the conduct of these “state actors” can, so they suppose, easily be predicted. For they are, you see, “rational actors” as well.
I think this set of presumptions mad, and I regard making them a basis for policy as positively dangerous. I would agree with their proponents that all political communities are concerned with their own security, and that this in turn means that one can with some ease track one of their chief motives. But I would argue that “Realism” takes the part for the whole when it abstracts from the question of regime. State actors are not “black boxes.” Each has its own character, and that character is determined by its regime – i.e., by the distribution and disposition of offices and honors that distinguishes its ruling order from that of its potential adversaries. To abstract from its regime, to ignore the imperatives that arise from the peculiarities of its ruling order, is to don blinders. They focus one’s attention, to be sure, but they do so at the price of preventing one from seeing much of profound importance that is going on.
My new book is not, however, as abstract in its argument as this blogpost. It aims to attack the shibboleths of “Realism” by showing what ought to be obvious to common sense – that the grand strategy articulated by the Spartans, that articulated by the Achaemenid kings of Persia, and that articulated by the Athenians had a great deal to do with their domestic arrangements. For, in the diplomatic sphere and on the field of the sword, each was both defending its way of and asserting the superiority of that way of life. To put it simply, in foreign affairs, honor is as important as material interest.
Here, I will offer a single example. To make sense of Xerxes’ invasion of Greece just under 2495 years ago, one must attend to the fact that the Achaemenid monarchs were Zoroastrians of a sort, that they justified their rule as a species of service to Ahura Mazda, and that it was their duty to extend the realm of that great god and to eliminate the realm of his antagonist, the dark lord Ahriman. Xerxes’ invasion was, in short, the first jihad, and this meant that the Great King of Persia was to a considerable degree impervious to the calculations that the so-called “Realists” suppose every statesman constrained by.
If you want to understand what it was that caused Barack Obama to get us into the godawful mess we now find ourselves in, you need only attend to the fact that he is a “Realist” and that he stubbornly entertains foolish notions that one must spend a great many years in the world of American higher education to fully imbibe. To be precise, his calculations are predicated on the presumption that regime imperatives do not matter and that Russia, Iran, and China are all what the “Realists” call “rational actors” – soberly seeking power maximization. I would suggest that no one who knows anything about Russia, Iran, and China domestically would suppose anything of the sort.
Perhaps, however, something good will come from this insane experiment. Perhaps, we in America will have a generation or two of Presidents who eschew “Realism” and pay attention to the cultural and political character of our rivals. After all, an ounce of common sense is worth more than a host of years spent studying “political science.”
Published in History, Literature
That was exactly what I thought. Of course that didn’t stop me from adding it to my Amazon cart..
Excellent. But this other tale needs telling by someone with your skills. It is just too topical, and too grand a saga for some great writer not to bear it witness.
You’re young yet. There’s time to study and do research. ;^D
This is the first book I have ever written that has gone Audible. So I did not think of it.
Young? I will be 67 in less than a month.
For the typical historian, you have at least two more decades, maybe three. Keep working and learning new things. It keeps the brain functioning.
Wow, your photo doesn’t look it. And still working up a storm no less…
Congratulations on the book! I look forward to reading it.
One question. Is this Realism the doctrine that is particularly suited to the American regime, perhaps as it has been (partly) reconstituted by the Progressives and their children since the early 20th Century?
Preordered on Audible. Plan to start the book on 3.5 hour trip to Phoenix for turkey day.:)
Dr Rahe, Looking forward to starting the book on Christmas afternoon. Today it was ordered for me as a Christmas present. Also, Tom and I hope you’ll now have more time to post on Ricochet.
I will spend more time here as soon as I have sent back the copy-edited manuscript for my next book — The Spartan Regime (due out in the spring)
Today while planting trees I finished my previous book and started this one. It’s very good.
One disadvantage of listening on audio is not being able to locate all the places on a map. It has been many years since I read any history of this time, and it took me a while for some of the geography to come back. Some of it.
It was cute the way the reader was brought short several times by unfamiliar names, but after a brief pause, he pronounced them in a rising voice tone and soldiered on. He does OK. Not all voices are easy to listen to while I’m working, but his is fine.
Another disadvantage of listening on audio is that I can’t look ahead to see if there exists any speculation or information on how Sparta developed all of the institutions and practices described in the first part. There is a lot of good analysis of what purpose they served, but one wonders how they came to be.
I thought I had another point or question, and now can’t remember what it was. But tomorrow I have a few more trees to plant, and the anticipation of listening to more of the book should keep me from procrastinating like I did today. Maybe it will come back to me.