Introduction
Strategic history
War and the fear of war have been by far the most powerful among the influences that
have shaped the course of international relations over the past two centuries. It is the
central thesis of this book that the history of the use and threat of force enables us to make
sense of the main currents of events. What is strategic history? It is the history of the
influence of the use and threat of force. Strategy, and strategic, sometimes is a contested
concept, and the term is widely misused (Gray, 1999: 17). This text adapts and adheres
strictly to a slightly amended version of the definition given by the Prussian soldier Carl
von Clausewitz (17 8 0–1 8 31), whose ideas and significance are explained in Chapter 2.
Strategy refers to the use made of force and the threat of force for the ends of policy
(Clausewitz, 1976: 177). This book is not a military history. The strategic focus ensures
that our prime concern will be on the instrumentality of military power. Furthermore,
notwithstanding the primacy of the strategic, the mission here does not comprise a
reductionist effort to conflate the rich and interweaving strands of history into a single
mould. The analysis is heavily political throughout, because it is only the political context
that gives war its meaning.
The term ‘strategy’ frequently is employed in such a way that it is not clear whether
the author means military strategy or grand strategy. The latter embraces all the
instruments of statecraft, including the military. In that perspective, discussion and
interpretation necessarily lose any special focus upon force. The high relevance of the
concerns of grand strategy is recognized in the treatment of war’s contexts in Chapter 2.
The book could hardly be more explicit in that regard. But this analysis maintains as
its primary focus the influence of force, and the threat of force, upon the course of history.
That is the plot.
The history of the international relations of the past two centuries lends itself all too
easily to understanding within the framework provided by military strategy. The strategic
perspective does not explain everything, but it does capture the major currents of change
and continuity, provides for a unity of interpretation, and certainly offers by far the most
persuasive explanation of what happened, why and with what consequences. War has
made the modern world more than has any other influence. That claim needs amendment