Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:12:40.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pride of Place: The Origins of German Hegemony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Bruce Bueno De Mesquita
Bruce Bueno De Mesquita
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access

Abstract

Using a game-theoretic model of international interactions, the author shows that systemtransforming wars can result from a relatively small dispute between rivals who are basically satisfied with the international status quo. Such wars are likely to be relatively low in costs even if they are profound in their consequences. The possibility of such system-transforming wars is overlooked by the theories of power-transition, or hegemonic, war.

The Seven Weeks' War is an example of a system-transforming conflict that can be understood by combining the insights of theories concerned with differential growth rates and of those derived from the game-theoretic perspective suggested here. The combination of these two perspectives expands the explanatory potential of existing theories of system-transforming wars.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , October 1990 , pp. 28 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Thucydides, , History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Rex Warner (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1954)Google Scholar; Mackinder, Halford, Democratic Ideals and Reality (New York: W. W. Norton, 1962)Google Scholar; Carr, Edward Hallett, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939 (London: Macmillan, 1951)Google Scholar; Organski, A.F.K., World Politics (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1958)Google Scholar; Organski, A.F.K. and Kugler, Jacek, The War Ledger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Random House, 1987).Google Scholar See also Doran, Charles and Parsons, Wes, “War and the Cycle of Relative Power,” American Political Science Review 74 (December 1980), 947–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Modelski, George, Long Cycles in World Politics (Seattle: University of Washington, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, William R., On Global War (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988).Google Scholar

2 Organski and Kugler (fn. 1), 23.

3 Gilpin (fn. 1), 198.

4 Organski and Kugler (fn. 1), 19, 23.

5 Gilpin (fn. 1), 198, 186–87.

6 Ibid., 198–99.

7 Organski and Kugler (fn. 1), 46.

8 For similar views of the causes of systemic wars, see, for instance, Midlarsky, Manus, The Onset of World War (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1988)Google Scholar; Thompson (fn. 1).

9 Selten, Reinhardt, “Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games,” International Journal of Game Theory 4, no. 1 (1975), 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Lalman, David, “Conflict Resolution and Peace,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (August 1988), 590–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powell, Robert, “Crisis Bargaining, Escalation, and MAD,” American Political Science Review 81 (September 1987), 717–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morrow, James, “A Continuous-Outcome Expected Utility Theory of War,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 29 (September 1985), 473–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Idem, “Capabilities, Uncertainty and Resolve: A Limited Information Model of Crisis Bargaining,” American Journal of Political Science 33 (November 1989), 941–72.

11 Lalman (fn. 10).

12 The algebraic representation of the game's payoffs is found in Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman, David, War and Reason (New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar, forthcoming).

13 See ibid, for a more technical treatment of the relationship between the costs of war and the equilibrium conditions for war.

14 For proofs of the theorem, see ibid., and Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de and Lalman, David, “The Road to War is Strewn with Peaceful Intentions,” in Ordeshook, Peter, ed., Models of Strategic Choice in Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1989), 253–66.Google Scholar

15 For ease of presentation, assume that state B is risk-neutral or risk-averse. Let B be uncertain about its own and state A's subjective probability of success. Let B believe with probability β that A's probability of success is low enough that A will not retaliate if attacked. Then, using the notation explained in the Appendix, whether A actually prefers to retaliate or not, B will try to exploit A if β > [αB + φB] / [I − (PB)(GB − LB)]; and A, anticipating this exploitation, will prefer to start a war. A formal proof of this argument can be found in Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman (fn. 12).

16 The Treaty of Gastein was supposed to settle the remaining questions of sovereignty over Schleswig and Holstein that resulted from the Austro-Prussian defeat of Denmark in 1864. Article 1 of the treaty stipulates that the common right obtained by the high contracting parties by Article 3 of the Treaty of Vienna of the 30th of October, 1864, is transferred, as respects the Duchy of Holstein, to his Majesty the Emperor of Austria, and as respects the Duchy of Schleswig, to his Majesty the King of Prussia, without prejudice to the continuation of these rights of both Powers to the whole of both Duchies [emphasis added]. See Malet, Alexander, The Overthrow of the Germanic Confederation by Prussia in 1866 (London: Longmans, Green, 1870), 106–10.Google Scholar

17 The Economist, June 16, 1866, p. 699.

18 See, for instance, Hamerow, Theodore S., ed., The Age of Bismarck: Documents and Interpretations (New York: Harper & Row, 1973)Google Scholar; Holborn, Hajo, “Bismarck: Realpolitik,” Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (January-March 1960), 84–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Simon, W. M., Germany in the Age of Bismarck (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1968).Google Scholar

19 Simon (fn. 18), 30 and 29 (emphasis added).

20 Crankshaw, Edward, Bismarck (London: Macmillan, 1981), 197, 200.Google Scholar

21 For the characterization of crises, see Lalman (fn. 10); Powell (fn. 10); Brams, Steven and Marc Kilgour, D., “Are Crises Rational? A Game-Theoretic Analysis,” presented at the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 28-September 1, 1988Google Scholar; Banks, Jeffrey, “Equilibrium Behavior in Crisis Bargaining Games,” photo dup. (1989), University of Rochester.Google Scholar

22 Department of Military History of the Prussian Staff, The Campaign of 1866 in Germany, trans. Colonel Von Wright and Captain Henry Hozier (London, 1907), 3. A similar sentiment regarding the Austrian penchant for exploitative behavior in negotiations is reflected in Taylor, A.J.P., The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809–1918 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 123–38.Google Scholar

23 Crankshaw (fn. 20), 201.

24 See A.J.P. Taylor (fn. 22), 133, for an illuminating discussion of Francis Joseph's treatment of the Croats in negotiations in December 1866; even after the Seven Weeks' War, Francis Joseph continued to use coercion in dealing with rivals he perceived to be much weaker.

25 Showalter, Dennis E., Railroads and Rifles: Soldiers, Technology and the Unification of Germany (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1975), 52–73Google Scholar, 105–39; quote at 123.

26 Ibid.; Pflanze, Otto, ed., The Unification of Germany, 1848–1871 (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968)Google Scholar; Simon (fn. 18); Palmer, Alan, Bismarck (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1976)Google Scholar; Hamerow (fn. 18); Grützner, Friedhelm, Die Politik Bismarcks, 1862 bis 1871 in der deutschen Geschichtsschreibung [The politics of Bismarck: 1862 to 1871 in German historiography] (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986).Google Scholar

27 Kennedy (fn. 1), 163.

28 Malet (fn. 16), XXII.

29 Palmer (fn. 26), III.

30 Taylor (fn. 22), 129.

31 Comparable indicators for Vienna cannot be utilized as the Austrian discount rate was fixed by the government rather than by auction and was not permitted to fluctuate frequently.

32 The Economist, April 7, 1866, p. 414, and May 5, 1866, p. 535.

33 Simon echoes the sentiment of many historians when he writes, “it is important to remember that it was by no means a foregone conclusion that Prussia would win; pessimism was widespread in the Prussian camp, and the Austrian government was confident of victory” (fn. 18), 30–31. See also Taylor (fn. 22), 126, regarding expectations from the Austrian perspective, and Showalter (fn. 25), 121, for a general view of Prussian weaknesses.

34 Taylor (fn. 22), 126ff.

35 Michaelis, Herbert, “Königgrätz, 1866: Defeat of Liberalism and Universalism,” in Pflanze (fn. 26), 106–13.Google Scholar

36 Taylor (fn. 22), 141. See also Simon (fn. 18) on the formation of Austria-Hungary as a consequence of the Seven Weeks' War.

37 Grützner (fn. 26), 80. “Tatsächlich stürzte eine Welt ein, die Welt des Wiener Kongresses” (author's translation).

38 Crankshaw (fn. 20), 219, 220–21.

39 Illustrated London News 29 (July 14, 1866), quoted in Craig, Gordon A., The Battle of Königgrätz: Prussia's Victory over Austria, 1866 (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1964).Google Scholar

40 The Spectator (London) 39 (July 7, 1866), quoted in Craig (fn. 39).

41 Grützner (fn. 26), 80. “Die säkulare Bedeutung des Jahres 1866 unterschätzen viele deutsche Historiker der älteren Generation. … Dagegen wird heute der deutsche-französische Krieg eher als Epilog einer bereits 1866 inaugurierten Politik eingeordnet” (author's translation).

42 See, for instance, Simon (fn. 18), 22–38; Crankshaw (fn. 20), 189–223; Taylor (fn. 22), 123–40; Grützner (fn. 26), 80–117; Michaelis (fn. 35).

43 The data for this assessment are drawn from Small, Melvin and David Singer, J., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816–1980 (Beverly Hills, CA: ).Google Scholar

44 For a more detailed analysis of the anticipated costs of conflict in light of the theoretical expectations derived from the game, see Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman (fn. 12), and Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de, “Big Wars, Little Wars: Avoiding Selection Bias,” International Inter actions 16Google Scholar (forthcoming).

45 See, for instance, Garnham, David, “Power Parity and Lethal International Violence,” journal of Conflict Resolution 20 (September 1976), 379–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weede, Erich, “Overwhelming Preponderance as a Pacifying Condition among Contiguous Asian Dyads,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 20 (September 1976), 395–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Houweling, Henk and Siccarna, Jan, “Power Transitions as a Cause of War,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32 (March 1988), 7–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kim, Woosang, “Power, Alliance, and Major Wars, 1816–1975,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 (June 1989), 255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 For a full explanation and justification of these assumptions, see Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman (fn. 12).