Ever wondered about the strategic minds behind iconic events in history? What if Tolstoy and Clausewitz sat down for a cup of coffee? How did the wisdom of the fox and the hedgehog shape the world we live in today? Journey through the pages of history, from ancient Greece to the American Civil War, and explore the intricate dance between ambition and reality.

On Grand Strategy

In 480 B.C.E., Xerxes, the King of Persia, stood at the Hellespont with his massive army, prepared to invade Greece. Despite the impressive sight of two bridges made of hundreds of boats strung together, the king paused to weep, contemplating the fleeting nature of life. 

His advisor, Artabanus, feared the perils ahead, citing the logistical nightmares that could decimate their forces before a single battle. Yet, Xerxes, driven by a prophetic dream and a desire for greatness, dismissed these concerns, believing that great risks yield great rewards.

Fast forward to 1939, and a young Isaiah Berlin, an Oxford don, encounters the ancient Greek poet Archilochus’ line: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." This idea sparked Berlin's classification of thinkers into foxes, who pursue many ideas, and hedgehogs, who focus on a single vision. Berlin’s essay on Tolstoy's "War and Peace" used this distinction to explore the complexities of human thought.

Philip E. Tetlock's modern research on political forecasting echoes Berlin's insights. Tetlock found that foxes, with their diverse and self-critical thinking, made more accurate predictions than hedgehogs, who were often trapped by their grand theories. This distinction applies well to historical figures like Xerxes and Artabanus, illustrating the balance—or lack thereof—between ambition and reality.

This quality can be seen in Lincoln, where the president adeptly combines fox-like adaptability with hedgehog-like clarity of purpose to abolish slavery. Lincoln's ability to navigate immediate obstacles while keeping his larger goal in sight embodies the delicate balance necessary for effective leadership.

In essence, the key to grand strategy lies in aligning lofty aspirations with practical means, much like Lincoln did. Whether in ancient battles or modern political strategy, the wisdom of balancing fox-like flexibility with hedgehog-like focus remains timeless.

Can You Balance the Wisdom of Xerxes, Lincoln, and Modern Political Thought?

Imagine soaring above southern Attica and seeing the shape of giant walls resembling a bone, gnawed clean and tossed carelessly by a satiated god. These walls, constructed around 457 B.C.E., connected Athens to its port city, Piraeus. 

Athens was bustling with around 200,000 inhabitants, while Piraeus served as a crucial naval and trade hub. The walls were solid and imposing, yet awkwardly built from stones, broken columns, and tomb fragments, intended to memorialize Persian depredations.

The immense walls were a response to Persian invasions led by Xerxes, who brought vast resources but lacked a cohesive strategy, resulting in massive losses. In stark contrast, the Greeks, familiar with scarcity, relied on strategic alliances and rivalries to protect their fragmented peninsula. Two prominent strategies emerged post-Xerxes: the Spartans, fierce warriors with an unmatched army, and the Athenians, maritime traders who fortified their cities and boasted a formidable navy.

Themistocles, who advocated for Athens’ wooden walls and later the long walls, envisioned Athens and Piraeus as an impregnable island, immune to land attacks and sustained by sea supplies. However, this strategy led to a conflict with Sparta, eventually culminating in the Peloponnesian War from 431 to 404 B.C.E. Thucydides chronicled this war, emphasizing the importance of truth and the lessons history offers for understanding the future.

Thucydides highlighted the asymmetry between capabilities and aspirations, as exemplified by Athens’ and Sparta’s differing strategies. He also noted the inevitable connection between past actions and future consequences, urging readers to see patterns and resemblances across time.

The construction of the long walls triggered strategic tension between Athens and Sparta. Themistocles cunningly managed negotiations with Sparta, ensuring the walls’ completion despite Spartan objections. This strategic maneuver was a flashpoint leading to the Peloponnesian War, as Athens sought to secure its naval dominance while Sparta emphasized its military prowess.

Pericles, an influential Athenian leader, shaped the city’s culture to support its strategy. He championed democracy and collective participation, appealing to the city, empire, and future generations. His funeral oration celebrated Athens’ distinctiveness and democratic ideals, yet it also revealed contradictions in his strategy, especially as the war intensified.

Pericles’ insistence on the Megarian decree, an economic embargo, exemplified his reluctance to concede, fearing it would undermine Athens’ credibility. This stubbornness contributed to escalating tensions with Sparta, ultimately leading to war.

The Athenians’ defeat in Sicily during the late stages of the Peloponnesian War underscored the dangers of overextension and strategic miscalculations. Their efforts in Sicily drained resources, leaving Athens vulnerable to Spartan advances.

Thucydides’ insights into the Peloponnesian War resonate with modern conflicts, such as the Vietnam War. Leaders’ decisions, driven by the need to maintain credibility, often lead to disproportionate engagements. These historical parallels highlight the delicate balance between strategic objectives and the emotions driving them.

Reflecting on these historical narratives, Thucydides and Tolstoy offer timeless lessons. Their works, whether historical or fictional, connect us to the past and provide guidance for the future, helping us navigate the complexities of human affairs.

From Themistocles to Thucydides: Ancient Greek Walls and the Lessons of History

Half a world away from the Hellespont bridges and Athenian long walls, the ancient Chinese, unaware of Xerxes or Pericles, were preparing a manual on aligning aspirations with capabilities. Sun Tzu’s "The Art of War" is akin to Homer’s epics, offering timeless principles to guide actions. Unlike Greek histories, which depict events and individuals, Sun Tzu's work is a compilation of precepts, procedures, and categorical claims designed to tether principles to practices.

Sun Tzu’s strategies, such as attacking where the enemy least expects and avoiding proffered baits, illustrate leveraging minimal resources for maximum effect. He compares the shape of an army to water, emphasizing the importance of flexibility and adaptation.

Octavian, later known as Augustus, exemplified these principles. Born into an unremarkable family, he rose to become the most powerful man in the "western" world, largely through resourcefulness and strategic foresight. He leveraged limited assets, navigated political treachery, and employed military tactics that mirrored Sun Tzu’s teachings.

One anecdote involves Octavian’s handling of Antony’s and Fulvia’s rebellion. Octavian delegated command to his friends, showing his understanding of leveraging superior skills. His disciplined brutality in executing rebel leaders reinforced his authority.

Octavian's strategic mind also showed in his dealings with Antony, marrying Antony’s sister Octavia to forge an alliance. Despite setbacks, such as the failed Sicilian invasion against Sextus Pompeius, Octavian regrouped and delegated naval command to Agrippa, who meticulously prepared for victory.

After defeating Antony at Actium, Octavian transitioned from navigating crises to cultivating stability. He focused on rebuilding Rome, establishing a constitutional settlement, and commissioning Virgil’s Aeneid to anchor Rome’s identity.

Octavian’s story is a testament to the principles of strategic maneuvering and leveraging strengths against weaknesses. His legacy, like that of Sun Tzu’s teachings, showcases the enduring power of aligning aspirations with capabilities, ensuring resilience and longevity amidst challenges.

How Did Sun Tzu's The Art of War Help Shape Augustus's Rise to Power?

After the Civil War, a young American named George Kennan, not to be confused with his famous Cold War strategist relative, spent two years in Siberia. He was surveying a potential telegraph route between the U.S. and Europe. 

His 1870 book, "Tent-Life in Siberia", reflected on the thin veneer of his Presbyterian faith when confronted with the Siberian natives' deeply rooted spiritual beliefs. Kennan concluded that people's actions are governed by what they vividly realize, not just by intellectual beliefs.

Religions rooted in fear of the unknown have shaped civilizations, but atheism has less historical continuity. Polytheistic faiths posed few problems for state governance, unlike monotheistic religions, which often conflicted with state authority, particularly in Judaism and later Christianity. Edward Gibbon noted that Christianity's rise was due to its proselytizing zeal and promise of an afterlife, which eventually led to a global empire, posing the recurring dilemma of balancing duties to God and Caesar.

St. Augustine, born in 354 C.E., struggled with the concept of original sin and free will. His work, "The City of God", tackled the challenge of reconciling faith with reason and managing loyalties between God and Caesar. Augustine's strategic insights into war and peace emphasized proportionality and procedural prerequisites for just wars, a concept that has influenced thinkers for centuries.

Machiavelli, born in 1469, offered a different perspective in "The Prince", advocating for pragmatic statecraft. He believed in balancing fortune and human agency, emphasizing that rulers must sometimes act immorally to maintain power. Unlike Augustine, Machiavelli dismissed divine intervention, focusing on human actions and their consequences.

Both thinkers used checklists to guide decision-making, connecting aspirations with capabilities. Machiavelli's approach, however, was more utilitarian, emphasizing efficiency and the importance of context in political actions. His work laid the foundation for modern political science, highlighting the necessity of balancing order and justice in governance.

Isaiah Berlin, in his 1953 lecture, argued that Machiavelli's acceptance of competing realisms shattered the idea of a single path to salvation. This realization has led to the modern understanding of toleration and the practical improbability of complete victory for any single dogmatic faith. Machiavelli's legacy lies in teaching us to live with contradictions and to navigate the complexities of political life with pragmatism and flexibility.

From Kennan to Machiavelli: Navigating Faith, Power, and Realism

Augustine and Machiavelli are pivotal figures in Western thought, shifting the dynamics between souls and states. Surprisingly, they outshone the princes they served, who were the celebrities of their time. Princes like Elizabeth I of England and Philip II of Spain were central to their societies, embodying the state and its fortunes.

Elizabeth, as depicted in Virginia Woolf’s "Orlando," was a commanding figure, while Philip, remembered in a sermon as a weaver of a complex empire, faced constant crises. Their contrasting styles reflected the ideas of Augustine and Machiavelli. Philip was driven by religious duty and micromanagement, believing his empire connected the City of Man to the City of God. Elizabeth, more Machiavellian, saw her state as a stage for performance, balancing resources and maintaining autonomy.

Both monarchs absorbed Augustine’s teachings through their Catholic upbringing, though Elizabeth leaned towards Machiavelli’s pragmatic approach. Elizabeth nationalized English Catholicism, while Philip inherited a vast, debt-ridden empire. Elizabeth delegated authority, allowing her subjects freedom in their faith, whereas Philip controlled every aspect of his empire, believing his authority came directly from God.

Philip’s empire was vast and diverse, requiring constant attention and leading to perpetual warfare. He struggled with loyalty, prosperity, and credibility, relying heavily on his faith while often feeling overwhelmed. In contrast, Elizabeth’s lighter touch and strategic foresight, coupled with her ability to pivot and delegate, kept her relatively stable and solvent.

Elizabeth’s reign was marked by her refusal to marry, maintaining a balance of power and strategic alliances. She fostered a single church with multiple ways of worship, prioritizing national loyalty over religious conformity. Her navy’s strategic raids on Spanish treasure ships and her skillful manipulation of court politics kept her adversaries at bay.

Philip’s religious zeal led to the ill-fated Spanish Armada, a grand attempt to invade England, which failed disastrously due to poor planning and Elizabeth’s strategic defenses. Elizabeth’s lightness allowed her to pivot and adapt, ensuring her survival and England’s prominence.

Their contrasting philosophies—Philip’s Augustinian rigidity and Elizabeth’s Machiavellian pragmatism—shaped their reigns and left lasting legacies. While Philip’s grand plans often fell short, Elizabeth’s strategic brilliance and adaptability ensured her place in history as one of the greatest rulers of her time.

Did Elizabeth I's Machiavellian Tactics Triumph Over Philip II's Augustinian Zeal?

In 1588, events in the English Channel sent ripples across the globe. The previous century had seen the Portuguese and Spanish, once minor players, mastering ships and currents to explore and conquer new worlds. Philip II's empire, bolstered by divine favor, expanded rapidly, achieving monumental feats like the conquest of Mexico and Peru. Yet, as the Spanish Armada failed, a new world order began to take shape, paving the way for the rise of the United States.

Elizabeth I cautiously encouraged exploration, letting private ventures take the lead while avoiding direct involvement. This approach led to a diverse and loosely governed set of British colonies, contrasting sharply with the structured and uniform Spanish colonies.

The British colonies, despite their slower start and initial failures, like the Roanoke settlement, eventually thrived due to their adaptability and relative independence. This flexibility laid the groundwork for future American resilience and innovation.

As the British colonies grew, so did their population and ambitions, leading to tensions with the mother country. The American Revolution was fueled by a desire for self-governance and resistance to British control. The Declaration of Independence, crafted by Jefferson and inspired by Paine's "Common Sense," articulated a vision of freedom and equality, even if it glossed over contradictions like slavery.

Post-independence, the challenge was to create a stable government. The Articles of Confederation proved too weak, prompting the drafting of the Constitution. This new framework, defended in "The Federalist Papers" by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, balanced competing interests and laid the foundation for a strong yet flexible federal system.

The United States expanded rapidly, acquiring territories like Louisiana and Florida, often through audacious diplomacy and opportunism. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, articulated by John Quincy Adams, boldly declared the Americas off-limits to European colonization, reflecting a growing confidence and ambition.

Despite internal contradictions, particularly regarding slavery, the young republic managed to navigate its early challenges, setting the stage for its emergence as a global power. The balance between principle and pragmatism, as well as the ability to adapt and compromise, were key to its success.

From Armada's Fall to America's Rise: How Elizabeth I and the Founding Fathers Shaped a New World Order

In the legendary pages of "War and Peace," Leo Tolstoy presents a scene where Pierre Bezukhov and Prince Andrei Bolkonsky encounter Carl von Clausewitz, the intellectual mind behind the theories of war. This imaginative meeting underscores Tolstoy's exploration of the chasm between the strategic theory of war and its chaotic reality. 

Clausewitz himself, a veteran of the Battle of Borodino, stands as a testament to the complex interplay of time, space, and scale in warfare—a theme Tolstoy delves deeply into.

Clausewitz, in his seminal work "On War," offers a vivid portrayal of the battlefield's intensity, contrasting the calculated strategies with the unpredictable nature of combat. His insights into the limits of military theory resonate with Tolstoy's accounts of the chaos during the Battle of Borodino, where plans often unravel in the heat of battle.

Tolstoy and Clausewitz both grapple with the tension between theory and practice, a reflection of their understanding that the unpredictability of war requires both strategic insight and adaptability. Clausewitz’s concept of the "culminating point" in military campaigns, where the momentum of an offensive peaks and then declines, is exemplified in Napoleon’s failed Russian invasion, an endeavor that saw the French emperor's strategic overreach and eventual downfall.

Tolstoy’s depiction of the war, with its focus on human elements and the unpredictability of events, mirrors Clausewitz's view of war as a "paradoxical trinity" involving passion, skill, and politics. Their works collectively capture the irony and unpredictability inherent in warfare, challenging the notion of absolute strategic control.

In examining these narratives, we find two thinkers deeply engaged in the art of strategy, each offering a profound commentary on the nature of war. Through their works, they prompt us to consider the balance between strategic planning and the unpredictable forces of chance and human emotion. Their legacy as strategists is cemented not just in their theoretical contributions but in their recognition of the complex, often contradictory, nature of warfare.

Can Tolstoy and Clausewitz's Views on War Teach Us About Modern Conflict?

John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States, was an extraordinary man who spent his early years in Russia and witnessed the American Revolution first-hand at Bunker Hill. He was a brilliant linguist and diplomat, having served as the U.S. minister to several European countries and as Secretary of State. 

Despite this, his 1824 presidential election was mired in controversy when he was accused of making a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay to secure his presidency. His ambitious agenda, which included proposals for a national university and observatory, failed to gain traction, leading to his defeat in the subsequent election.

Adams' resilience shone through when he demoted himself to serve in the House of Representatives, where he became a staunch opponent of slavery. His persistence led to the eventual debate over anti-slavery petitions and his famous defense of the Amistad captives before the Supreme Court.

In a remarkable historical parallel, Abraham Lincoln, another Illinois politician, rose from humble beginnings to become one of America’s greatest presidents. Lincoln, known for his towering height and self-deprecating humor, was a master orator and debater. His debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, which focused on the moral and legal aspects of slavery, catapulted him to national prominence and set the stage for his eventual presidency.

Lincoln's presidency was marked by the Civil War, a struggle he saw as essential to preserving the Union and ending slavery. His strategic brilliance, coupled with his moral convictions, led to the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared all slaves in Confederate states to be free. This bold move not only weakened the Confederacy but also redefined the war as a fight for human freedom.

Throughout the war, Lincoln demonstrated an uncanny ability to balance military strategy with political necessity. He navigated complex international relations, managed diverse and often contentious cabinet members, and ultimately led the Union to victory. His vision of a unified nation, free of slavery, was enshrined in his Gettysburg Address, where he called for "a new birth of freedom."

Both Adams and Lincoln exemplified leadership through their unwavering commitment to their principles and their ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Their legacies remind us of the power of resilience, moral clarity, and the enduring quest for freedom and equality.

From Adams to Lincoln: The Unyielding Path to Freedom and Equality

During the Civil War, Georgina Cecil found her husband, Lord Robert Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, anxiously sleepwalking, fearing invaders, though they were in England. Lord Robert, later the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury and prime minister under Queen Victoria, was deeply troubled by the United States. 

Despite never visiting, he despised democracy and sympathized with the Confederacy, fearing the Union's military ambitions might revive Napoleonic threats in Europe. This anxiety persisted until his death in 1903. 

After the Civil War, Americans focused on rebuilding and expanding westward, easing national security concerns. Yet, Salisbury worried about Canada's vulnerable southern border and sought good relations with an anti-British U.S. administration. Tensions rose when U.S. secretary of state Richard Olney reasserted the Monroe Doctrine during a Venezuelan boundary dispute with British Guiana, causing friction.

Salisbury, facing rising German power under Kaiser Wilhelm II, chose to eliminate friction with the U.S., yielding on various issues like the Spanish-American War and the Panama Canal. This strategic appeasement aimed to remove an enemy by making concessions.

In 1904, Halford Mackinder predicted the end of the maritime era and the rise of continental powers driven by railroads, foreseeing Eurasia's vast potential. Eyre Crowe's 1907 memorandum warned that Britain's sea power required maintaining continental balances and reassuring maritime states of its intentions, contrasting with the aggressive continental ambitions of Germany under Wilhelm II.

World War I, ignited by rigid alliances and a failure to foresee its devastation, saw unprecedented lethality and disconnection between war's causes and conduct. The war's participants struggled to find purpose amidst the carnage. The United States, initially neutral, entered the war in 1917, influenced by unrestricted German submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram, which proposed a German-Mexican alliance against the U.S.

President Woodrow Wilson aimed to make the world "safe for democracy," proposing the League of Nations to prevent future wars. However, the Treaty of Versailles' harsh terms and the exclusion of Germany and Soviet Russia from the League undermined his vision. The U.S. Senate's refusal to ratify the treaty marked a retreat from international responsibilities.

Meanwhile, Lenin exploited the Russian Revolution, seeing contradictions among imperialists as opportunities. Stalin later industrialized the USSR with American help, despite ideological differences. The Great Depression further strained democracies, paving the way for Hitler's rise in Germany.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, recognizing the interconnected global threats, cautiously prepared the U.S. for potential involvement in World War II while rearming the nation. He extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union, anticipating future alliances against aggressors. Roosevelt's strategic patience paid off when the U.S. entered the war after Pearl Harbor, ultimately aiding in the defeat of Axis powers and reshaping the world order.

Isaiah Berlin, during his wartime work in the U.S., observed America's unique political landscape and its complex alliance with the USSR. His post-war visit to the Soviet Union highlighted the stark contrast between American and Soviet societies, reinforcing his belief in the importance of pluralism and negative liberty.

Roosevelt's leadership, marked by adaptability and confidence, exemplified successful grand strategy, balancing aspirations with capabilities and preserving freedom amidst global turmoil. His approach contrasted with Wilson's idealism, ultimately securing a legacy of stability and democracy in the post-war world.

Did Lord Salisbury's Fears and Roosevelt's Strategy Shape Modern Geopolitics?

Effective leadership requires a balance between ambition and practicality, as demonstrated by historical figures like Xerxes, Lincoln, and Augustus. The distinction between foxes and hedgehogs, introduced by Isaiah Berlin, highlights the importance of diverse thinking and adaptability in achieving accurate predictions and successful outcomes. This balance is crucial, whether in ancient battles, political strategy, or modern conflicts.

Athens and Sparta’s strategies during the Peloponnesian War reveal the complexities of maintaining power and the consequences of strategic miscalculations. Similarly, the rise and fall of leaders like Themistocles and Pericles illustrate the delicate dance between ambition and reality. The wisdom of aligning aspirations with capabilities, as advised by Sun Tzu and exemplified by Octavian (Augustus), underscores the timeless principles of effective strategy.

The historical narratives of Elizabeth I and Philip II demonstrate the impact of strategic flexibility and pragmatic governance. Elizabeth’s ability to pivot and delegate contrasted sharply with Philip’s rigid, religiously driven policies. This difference in approach highlights the importance of adaptability and strategic foresight in maintaining power and achieving long-term success.

The American journey from the Declaration of Independence to the establishment of a stable government reveals the importance of balancing principles with pragmatism. Leaders like John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln exemplified resilience and moral clarity, navigating complex political landscapes to achieve their visions of freedom and equality.

The geopolitical shifts during the early 20th century, influenced by leaders like Lord Salisbury and strategists like Halford Mackinder, underscore the importance of understanding global dynamics and making strategic concessions to maintain balance. World War I’s aftermath and the rise of totalitarian regimes further illustrate the need for strategic patience and adaptability in facing global challenges.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s leadership during World War II, marked by strategic foresight and adaptability, contrasts with Wilsonian idealism, ultimately securing a lasting legacy of stability and democracy. The lessons from these historical narratives emphasize the enduring power of strategic flexibility, balancing lofty aspirations with practical means, and navigating the complexities of leadership and governance.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

On Grand Strategy

John Lewis Gaddis

Ever wondered about the strategic minds behind iconic events in history?

What if Tolstoy and Clausewitz sat down for a cup of coffee?

How did the wisdom of the fox and the hedgehog shape the world we live in today?

Journey through the pages of history, from ancient Greece to the American Civil War, and explore the intricate dance between ambition and reality.

Key Ideas

#1