The Thucydides Trap

Though a term that was coined recently, Thucydides was perhaps the first person to describe this "trap", in which the established regional or global power worries about the growing strength of a certain rising power and the two rival powers end settling the matter of who's top dog through war. During periods of power transitions between nations the risk of this happening is greatest. One group did a study on major power transitions in the past 500 years and found that 12 out of 16 of these were associated with a war between the two powers.
Major power transitions historically include Spain-to-England, (most recently) UK-to-USA, and (upcoming) USA-to-China.
Of course, these power transitions can be prevented, such as whenever the rise of the German and Japanese Empires was thwarted in the first half of the twentieth century during the two world wars. Other times, however, they can be seen coming from a mile away and they happen as if fate were directing it. Sometimes this transition happens slowly over the course of many decades or even centuries.
Discuss.

Dassault Papillon: I read Thucydides once. Big mistake. I was trying to appear as a vein intellectual, but the truth was Thucydides was very boring to read. He even admits on the first page of his book that it will bore you.

Anyways, it seems that the general idea is that the only way to stop a powershift is preventive war. A notable example would be the Punic Wars, in which Carthage would of gained increasing power had it not challenged Rome.

Sometimes this does not always apply though. The Roman Empire, for example, fell under increasing pressure from multiple factions, not just a singular entity. Although with that said, this is what led the Byzantine Empire to predominance.

As a counterpoint, power often shifted in Europe without war during the 1700's.

This occured half the time, while in other instances, this still applies. Like the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth to Russia, the defeat of the Hapsburgs in the Austro-Prussian War, the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War.

An example of one nation which shifted power through war and through other means, is Germany, which rose by defeating France, collapsed in WW1, and rose again through ideological radicalism before WW2.

Blackflag: Thucydides is ok IMO. It's Xenophon that you really need to avoid.

admin: Ah, so we have an aspiring vein intellectual?

Please, share your deepest thoughts on the scholarship of Thucydides.

What was the most riveting part for you in his description of the Peloponesian Wars?

admin: Also, why Xenophon?

Disregarding the fact that he wasn't even a historian like Thucydides, his stuff is a hell of a lot more thought provoking.

Blackflag: Xenophon shared the history of his times. Saying Xenophon was a mere statesman is like saying Thucydides was a mere general. In fact Xenophon is a very useful source because he essentially covers most things Thucydides doesn't ... unfortunately Thucydides actually covers the more interesting parts of the war.

My favourite part is the funeral oration for Pericles. Thucydides could definitely write well. Of course this is a cop out rather like my favorite single part of the bible is the beatitudes, but it's true.

And no, I'm not aspiring, I've already proven myself in classics scholarship.

admin: And no, I'm not aspiring, I've already proven myself in classics scholarship.
Cocky one

Not to me you haven't

Blackflag: Want to debate that Carthage would have gained increasing power had it not challenged Rome?

admin: Since that is my stance, I would have to be Pro.

But you really are one of the most vein people I know, so in that essence, you meet half the criteria required to be a vein intellectual.

Blackflag: And you can't even spell vain right multiple times, so you fail half the criteria in my book.

admin: Wow, only the most vein person in the world would take the opportunity to point out grammar mistakes on the internet

Blackflag: And only the least intellectual would:
a) not know the difference between spelling and grammar, and
b) continue to make the same mistake in a reply post, even though they themselves admit its a mistake

admin: a) not know the difference between spelling and grammar, and
I was testing whether you would be vein enough to point that out

continue to make the same mistake in a reply post, even though they themselves admit its a mistake
The most vein person would definitely take a second opportunity to point out the mistake a second time

Blackflag: Well since what I'm pointing out is that you're not an intellectual, thanks for conceding the point.

Blackflag: "Vein" is not the correct spelling of the word related to vanity.

admin: Absent of rebuttal is not the same as an admission of concession, mr intellectual

Blackflag: No, I was pointing out that your post before this one had a logical error in it that essentially did amount to a concession.

What you said was: "The most vein person would definitely take a second opportunity to point out the mistake a second time"

The key here is "the mistake", which you probably MEANT in reference to YOUR spelling mistake.
However, my point wasn't to make a fuss over spelling, but rather to demonstrate your mistake of not being an intellectual.
Since you referred directly to the "mistake" I was "pointing out", that means its my intention that becomes relevant, not yours
Moreover, the fact you call it a "mistake" necessarily means that you concede it is wrong.
Something cannot be correct and a mistake, because that's a contradiction of terms.

So it's not your absence of rebuttal that I am judging you for, but rather that your words literally did concede whatever point I was making, provided that this "point" was also a "mistake". And since it was, I was not mistaken.

This is why anyone who thinks they should be any sort of intellectual should probably first learn at least the basics of evaluating a logical expression.

admin: Overcompensating AND wrong!

Don't be upset, at least you are still veinity stricken.

Blackflag: I generally find that when somebody feels the need to respond to logic with a personal attack, that's when they're really starting to get desperate.