I read an article today that was based on the Thucydides project, directed by Graham Allison. While reading I grew increasingly skeptical to whether the arguments where based on sound historical reasoning. On the other hand it is research at a respected university. I simply don't feel qualified as a layman to pass judgment. So I turn to you esteemed AskHistorians for help. Is this good or bad history?
I hadn't heard of this until now, but it all seems overly-schematic to me. There are far too many variables in international relations throughout history for it to be possible to reduce everything to an analogy with Athens and Sparta in the fifth century BC, as if Thucydides invented a general rule which would still be applicable 2,500 years later. This article provides a critique of Allison's idea, explaining the difficulty of mapping the dynamic between Athens and Sparta onto modern international relations, and making the crucial point that
I have my doubts about this rather mechanical reading of Thucydides' history, and about whether the father of history meant to propound a general rule of international affairs. Straight-line projections often say something important. They help reveal the context within which power politics unfolds. But human decisions, actions, and interactions matter as much as any measure of national power or any trend the observer may chart — often more so.
Anyone who comes up with a purported general rule of history ends up having to explain away all the exceptions. Models can be useful for understanding the past, but it's also important to acknowledge the role that chaos has to play.