There have been many attempts to write laws for a world history. This is another try.
What the writer's theory is that large empires start off along what he calls metaenthic frontier. This is a region that separates two or more peoples that do not get along. This conflict is often genocidal. On each side of this border people unite to face the deadly enemy on the other side. Whatever the argument people have is seen as minor compared to the enemy they face on the other side. Overtime an **asabiya** forms which is a collective will and unity. As a group gains this **asabiya** it often gains in power and goes on to form a state or empire. In time as the empire gains in power and wealth, the differences between the have and have-nots grow. Soon the state starts to fall apart as it **asabiya** declines.
I confess that I have doubts about some of his history. For example I am not aware that early Romans dislike for the Gauls was as significant as the writer claims. Early Romans went to war almost every year, Livy's list of Roman conflicts is filled with such battles and wars with neighbouring people. Rome gained this **asabiya** not with its conflict with Gauls which it survived partly because of this **asabiya** but with its conflict with its neighbours. Later with Punic. It was Cathage not Gaul that Cato finished his speeches in the Senate with the phrase "Furthermore, it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed". The cry 'Hannibal is at the gates' was used to frighten naughty Roman children. After Cathage, Rome went after many other people first before taking on the Gauls.
Nor am I convinced the Byzantine Empire was a new empire. The Byzantinians saw themselves as Roman.
Nor am I sure the early history of the French and English states are centered on these metaenthic frontiers as he claims. Again it appears the main enemies were locals that ethnically were close to themselves.
Having said this, I did find many of discussions interesting. In an agricultural where wealth centers on land, I can agree that different classes in a society are greatly affected by changes in workers availability, salaries and rents. Since often, it is the upper-class that is the main consumers, I found in particular fascinating how such conflicts as the Roman Marcus and Sulla help to reduce the weight on society by killing them off.
Some of the comments I disagree with as I am a believer in the great man in history. If say Alexander the great had not been, there probably would never have been a Macedonian Empire, the Persia would probably have survived. Much of our history would be different. Even modern history, would be completely different if say Bismark, Marx, Lenin or Hitler had not lived.
I found disappointing the book has little discussion of the mathematics promised. I was hoping to read something about it here. This maybe different for you though.
