The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third, Edward N. Luttwak (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976). In one of the dozens of notorious interviews of Edward Luttwak that float around the internet, he’s asked how he chose the topic for his PhD dissertation. His answer is that one day at university he had a humiliating social encounter. Immediately afterwards, somebody pounced on him and asked what his dissertation was about anyway. He hadn’t even started thinking about what his topic would be, but he obviously couldn’t say that, and so instead he puffed himself up and made something up on the spot, and he did so by saying the most grandiloquent series of words one at a time like a large language model feverishly choosing the next token to maximize self importance: “The… GRAND….
I find Bret Devereux's writing about the "Status Quo Coalition" [1] to be more optimistic and more convincing. In particular, the economics of warfare have changed drastically (no longer is agricultural land the basis of wealth), so a direct analogy between the Roman empire and present day seems very crude. Devereux knows enough not to make that mistake.
It's true that if you squint, it's a little bit comparable. In modern times, most countries know that wars of conquest are unprofitable, but not all. This might be sort of like the calculation Roman "allies" made.
But not really the same. You might, for example, notice that many countries actually do have their own foreign policies, substantial disagreements with the US, and don't pay taxes to the US.
Excellent essay. Incidentally, this is the earliest use I’m personally aware of of “Grand Strategy” as an expression (I’m sure there are earlier that I don’t know). I tend to associate it with Paradox Interactive’s series of historical themed strategy games.
U.S. wouldn't need to invade; we and our allies would immediately cripple their economy with trade sanctions. Canada and her leaders would also be victim of a spectacular and humiliating smear campaign across the anglophone media until they got back in line, and who's to say a little old fashioned did-it-really-happen CIA magic wouldn't also be employed for good measure.
Not to mention, Canada pitting herself against the u.k. (via the u.s.) would have weird and potentially politically destabilizing effects in both countries, due to their sharing a sovereign, and possibly in the king's other realms as well.
"Seriously, imagine Canada offering to host a Chinese or Russian military base and what would immediately occur."
That's a good question, and I think people who say "the USA immediately invades Canada" possibly haven't thought that through well enough. That isn't to say it wouldn't be on the table with any level of certainty, but that would be a much larger step than I think most people grasp.
When applying the Roman Empire model to the US hegemony, it is also worth noting the differences in the direction of resource flow. The US does not seem to collect any tribute from its "client states", and if anything subsidizes them, which is a stark difference from the Roman model. Now possibly that is because the resources are less exciting than the political backing, but then again, Europe doesn't do much to provide military support. Land for bases, sure, but not a lot of auxiliaries.
In all, the modern US hegemony seems like akin to the Roman Empire's model than the model of a celebrity entourage: lots of hangers on who don't seem to contribute much other than "friends" and a group to hang out with, and possibly connections and a couch to crash on now and again. The older, Cold War era model probably was a bit closer to the Roman model, but even then it is a bit questionable. A new paradigm, with some features carried over, might be necessary.
Luttwak doesn't much mention Roman Britain as I understand it - the Antonine wall/Hadrians Wall part obviously but not that much more..
It might be interesting to read this as as a kind of sequel - https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Britain-Speak-English-ebook/dp/B0B3KWTSYG/
Thanks for this essay! I have a hunch that you won't find many Europeans harboring any doubts about their client relationship to the USA.
I find Bret Devereux's writing about the "Status Quo Coalition" [1] to be more optimistic and more convincing. In particular, the economics of warfare have changed drastically (no longer is agricultural land the basis of wealth), so a direct analogy between the Roman empire and present day seems very crude. Devereux knows enough not to make that mistake.
It's true that if you squint, it's a little bit comparable. In modern times, most countries know that wars of conquest are unprofitable, but not all. This might be sort of like the calculation Roman "allies" made.
But not really the same. You might, for example, notice that many countries actually do have their own foreign policies, substantial disagreements with the US, and don't pay taxes to the US.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2023/07/07/collections-the-status-quo-coalition/
Excellent essay. Incidentally, this is the earliest use I’m personally aware of of “Grand Strategy” as an expression (I’m sure there are earlier that I don’t know). I tend to associate it with Paradox Interactive’s series of historical themed strategy games.
This was excellent, thank you.
As always thank you for sharing!
U.S. wouldn't need to invade; we and our allies would immediately cripple their economy with trade sanctions. Canada and her leaders would also be victim of a spectacular and humiliating smear campaign across the anglophone media until they got back in line, and who's to say a little old fashioned did-it-really-happen CIA magic wouldn't also be employed for good measure.
Not to mention, Canada pitting herself against the u.k. (via the u.s.) would have weird and potentially politically destabilizing effects in both countries, due to their sharing a sovereign, and possibly in the king's other realms as well.
"Seriously, imagine Canada offering to host a Chinese or Russian military base and what would immediately occur."
That's a good question, and I think people who say "the USA immediately invades Canada" possibly haven't thought that through well enough. That isn't to say it wouldn't be on the table with any level of certainty, but that would be a much larger step than I think most people grasp.
When applying the Roman Empire model to the US hegemony, it is also worth noting the differences in the direction of resource flow. The US does not seem to collect any tribute from its "client states", and if anything subsidizes them, which is a stark difference from the Roman model. Now possibly that is because the resources are less exciting than the political backing, but then again, Europe doesn't do much to provide military support. Land for bases, sure, but not a lot of auxiliaries.
In all, the modern US hegemony seems like akin to the Roman Empire's model than the model of a celebrity entourage: lots of hangers on who don't seem to contribute much other than "friends" and a group to hang out with, and possibly connections and a couch to crash on now and again. The older, Cold War era model probably was a bit closer to the Roman model, but even then it is a bit questionable. A new paradigm, with some features carried over, might be necessary.
Great review again, much appreciated!