I've just read Ecksteins Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome (Hellenistic Culture and Society) as recommended on the Master Book List by /u/hainesftw.

​

It argues (briefly) that while Rome was very militaristic/aggressive as many historians have emphasised, that this is not helpful for explaining its success as the climate of interstate anarchy meant that all significant powers were similarly militaristic/aggressive. Ultimately Eckstein argues that Rome's success was instead due to increased manpower as a result of more successful alliance systems, being able to integrate both individuals and states into Roman citizenhood or semi-citizenhood.

​

I found it very convincing for the most part, but conscious that while I've read books that assume more cultural explanations I've never read someone directly arguing at length for this position, in terms of setting out evidence that Rome was uniquely violent etc compared to historical peers.

​

Also, while structural realism as depicted in the book makes a lot of sense to me, I do wonder how far the state-eye-view can by maintained - Eckstein himself talks about dynamics among elites and the 'opacity' around how powerful states are surely depends upon an elite's eye-view. It's not entirely clear to me why 'acting in the interest of the state' would necessarily be the primary pressure on leaders and writers identified as realists (e.g. Thucydides) often place huge emphasis on how factional interests steer policy. While the metaphor is imperfect, it reminds me a little of older evolutionary arguments that take 'group selection' for granted and their critique by organism-centric or gene-centric views.