This may be the most interesting book I’ve ever read:

Published in 2002, Philip Bobbitt’s Shield of Achilles is a comprehensive look at the events of human history through the lens of war and constitutional order. In Homer’s Iliad, the inspiration for the title of this book, Achille’s mother Thetis convinces Hephaestus to forge her son armor to replace that which he lost in battle. Hephaestus forges a shield engraved with images of war. But the shield illustrates an epoch of which war is only one factor. It is also engraved with images of feast, celebration, the wider universe and civilization. War is only one factor in a much larger cosmic order, and all of these factors feed the others.

When Bobbitt was originally working on this book, he had two separate volumes in mind: State of War and State of Peace. These were consolidated into one book, as the state of war and peace is vastly intertwined, just as the imagery on Achille’s shield. This book is not an easy read. Bobbitt goes as far back as the beginnings of the state as it emerged during the Renaissance, through the end of the Cold War, and beyond. If you do not have a deep knowledge of 15th-16th century wars, it can be difficult to follow. But Bobbitt does a great job of tying it all together to show how the state has achieved legitimacy over centuries.

Bobbitt’s main thesis is that there have been distinct constitutional orders since the state emerged. Each epochal war brought an end to the existing constitutional order and brought about a new one. These orders are ratified by treaties negotiated by the global society of states, and each state has legitimacy based on the promises it makes to its constituents. For example, in 1494, Charles VIII of France invaded Italy. Up to this point, the princely states of Italy were small, regional principalities and fiefdoms. In many cases, their defense wasn’t even internal, they hired mercenaries (Condottiere). As warfare methods advanced through innovations like gunpowder and cannons, the mercenary warfare waged by the small princely states was no longer economically feasible.

Innovations bring changes to the constitutional order. Princely states could no longer raise revenue necessary for defense, and the kingly state evolved from here. A greater central authority could draw larger revenue via taxation, which in turn could afford standing armies loyal to the kingdoms. This was how the kingly state gained legitimacy from those it governed, it offered protection. This pattern repeats over centuries. The princely state became the kingly state, which became the territorial state, which became the state-nation, which became the nation-state. Each new form of state was initiated by treaties approved by the players on the global stage: Augsburg 1555, Westphalia 1648, Utrecht 1713, Vienna 1815, Versailles 1919 and Paris 1990. These six treaties all signaled an end to the previous constitutional order and started a new one. This also in turn created a new form of state, which needed to lay a new claim to legitimacy from its constituents. The Shield of Achilles: a layer of contrasts in which we see war in relation to peace.

When he gets to modern times, Bobbit views the 20th century as one “long war.” The new constitutional order began with the advent of the nation-state. The nation-state begins with the consolidation of top-down government in the name of bettering the welfare of the entire nation. This replaces the state-nation, which was best embodied by the original federalist structure of the United States. Towards the end of the 19th century, we see a mass formation of nation-states across the globe. Germany under Bismarck. The unification of Italy. The “second founding” of America under Lincoln. And although it’s not exactly the same, the Meiji Restoration of Japan.

Bobbitt claims that the “long war” of this nation-state phase begins with World War I and ends with the 1990 Peace of Paris that welcomed the former Soviet countries into the Western world. In his view, the long war was a war between three constitutional orders: liberal democracy, communism and fascism. Fascism was discredited and lost legitimacy after World War II, and communism was discredited with the fall of the U.S.S.R. I have some disagreements with this, the distinction between fascism and communism is a surface-level difference. If you read Mussolini’s own writings on fascism, he talks an awful lot about the merger of industry and state. Fascism is just communism under a different name, but Bobbitt’s point still stands, we can say the long war was a battle of liberal democracy vs. authoritarianism.

A more substantial point of contention I have is over the period of the long war. I would argue that it does not begin with World War I, but the French Revolution. The wars that Napolean waged across Europe directly lead to the mass consolidations of power that created the nation-states. Fear of Napolean’s armies required an equal response. More advanced forms of warfare and enormous standing armies were a direct result of Napolean. So were the global alliances that lead to World War I. Regardless, the fall of communism did signify a global paradigm shift and this long-game approach to human history is something you don’t often see, which is why I found this book so rewarding.

Things get really interesting when Bobbitt predicts the next phase of the international order. He believes that a market-state will replace the nation-state. The nation-state was all about welfare and safety of the citizen, while the market-state will be about giving citizens maximum opportunities. I am on board with this. Despite the scare tactics that you hear on television, total war has been discredited. The United States has been involved in numerous skirmishes post-Cold War, but we do not wage total war like we did in the 20th century. In the future, economic war will become the norm. Sanctions, trade wars, larger global corporations. I would like to hear Bobbitt’s thoughts on cryptocurrencies, as this book was published before this phenomenon. A global democratic decision on currency could also massively delegitimize the state by allowing the individual free trade, free of government monopoly on commerce. Could the market-state reverse the centuries-long trend of larger central authority and return government legitimacy to the people? Only time will tell. The market-state is something we should keep an eye on going forward.

Bobbitt’s Shield of Achilles really gets the gears grinding in your head, not just on the past, but also on how humanity’s relations with the state can change going forward. Not a book for beginners, but highly recommended, nonetheless.

You can purchase The Shield of Achilles here.