Risk

"France conquered Europe in self defense."

I've seen this thought offered up by several historians of Napoleonic France, in reference to the series of wars untaken first by the revolutionary republican government and then by Napoleon as he forged his short-lived empire on the continent. The idea is that France felt so threatened by the other regimes of Europe that she felt the only way to preserve her sovereignty was to subdue those regimes first.

Napoleon is known as a conqueror, and rightly so, as his armies rampaged through continental Europe with mostly undeterred success until his fortunes froze on the plains of Russia. But the wars he waged were a self-glorifying extension of the battles fought by France as Europe's monarchies allied in an attempt to squash the revolutionary government. Those monarchies — acutely aware of the implicit threat to their own regimes — would never peaceably allow this "new France" to establish itself. France lashed out in response to a squeeze that it perceived as perpetual.

I believe this dynamic goes back very far, and is probably wedded to our unique ability as a species to think far into the future. When you can think ahead, you can plan, and when you plan, you're playing a game of risk assessment. If x then y, but if n then z. Action vs inaction. The stranger might be friendly, but what are the risks if he isn't? The neighbor tribe is acting oddly. Intentions unclear. Seems like the threat from them would be zero if we just, I dunno, killed them all.

Savagery can overtake people on the individual level at any time, and for purely predatory reasons, but mass savagery in the form of war or genocide usually stems from uncertainty. Some would say "fear" but that's too pat. Fear is usually at play, but that's an emotion, whereas uncertainty is a variable in an equation. It pertains to relative risk in a world where other groups of people are playing the same game. The great generals of history were often known for their "initiative," meaning they forced decisions on their enemy by acting assertively. And often that means acting first.

Eras of hegemonic imperial control are eras of concentrated power, and with it the need to conduct such high stakes risk calculations in a way that usually results in staying your sword. So these eras are able to achieve a kind of peace as a denouement to war. The Pax Romana in the ancient world, the Pax Brittanica in the 19th century, and more recently the Pax Americana following the Cold War. But when those empires fade or collapse, the game gets started up again within the former zone of control, which in America's case since 1991 has touched on damn near the entire planet.

Players need to start crunching the numbers with an eye toward a world after the American Empire. And if the entire history of humanity is any indication, their equations will sometimes result in unsheathing their sword.