Spengler’s Theory of Recurring Phenomena of World Wars in High Cultures
The German historian and philosopher Oswald Spengler is best known for his work "The Decline of the West," in which he proposed a cyclical theory of the rise and fall of civilizations. Spengler's theory suggests that civilizations undergo a predictable life cycle, marked by recurring phenomena that include periods of intense conflict, such as world wars, destabilizing them and creating the conditions for authoritarian rule known as Caesarism. This paper explores Spengler's theory by examining historical examples of major wars within various high cultures and their subsequent shifts towards centralized, autocratic rule. So what does Spengler say about the World War period phenomena and its role in creating Caesarism?
What stands is only the historical fact of an accelerated demolition of ancient forms that leaves the path clear for Cæsarism. But the same is true also of the wars, in which the armies and their tactical methods become more and more the creation, not of the epoch, but of uncontrolled individual captains, who in many cases discovered their genius very late and by accident…Similarly, in every Culture, the technique of war hesitatingly followed the advance of craftsmanship, until at the beginning of the Civilization it suddenly takes the lead, presses all mechanical possibilities of the time relentlessly into its service, and under pressure of military necessity even opens up new domains hitherto unexploited — but at the same time renders largely ineffectual the personal heroism of the thoroughbred, the ethos of the noble, and the subtle intellect of the Late Culture. In the Classical world, where the Polis made mass-armies essentially impossible-for relatively to the general smallness of Classical forms, tactical included, the numbers of Canna, Philippi, and Actium were enormous and exceptional-the second Tyrannis (Dionysius of Syracuse leading) introduced mechanical technique into warfare, and on a large scales Then for the first time it became possible to carry out sieges like those of Rhodes (305), Syracuse (213), Carthage (146), and Alesia (52), in which also the increasing importance of rapidity, even for Classical strategy, became evident It was in line with this tendency that the Roman legion, the characteristic structure of which developed only in the Hellenistic age, worked like a machine compared with the Athenian and Spartan militias of the fifth century. In China, correspondingly, iron was worked up for cutting and thrusting weapons from 474, light cavalry of the Mongolian model displaced the heavy war chariot, and fortress warfare suddenly acquired outstanding importance. The fundamental craving of Civilized mankind for speed, mobility, and mass effects finally combined, in the world of Europe and America, with the Faustian will to domination over Nature and produced dynamic methods of war that even to Frederick the Great would have seemed like lunacy, but to us of to-day, in close proximity to our technics of transportation and industry, are perfectly natural…At the very outset of the Chinese Shan-Kwo period we find the utter annihilation of the State of. Wu-an act which in the preceding Chun-tsiu period chivalry would have made impossible. Even in the peace of Campo Formio Napoleon outraged the convenances of the eighteenth century, and after Austerlitz he introduced the practice of exploiting military success without regard to any but material restrictions. The last step still possible is being taken in the peace treaty of the Versailles type, which deliberately avoids finality and settlement, and keeps open the possibility of setting up new conditions at every change in the situation. The same evolution is seen in the chain of the three Punic Wars. The idea of wiping out one of the leading great powers of the world -which eventually became familiar to everyone through Cato’s deliberately dry insistence on his “Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam” -never crossed the mind of the victor of Zama and, for all the wild war-ethics of the Classical Polcis, it would have seemed to Lysander, as he stood victorious in Athens, an impicty towards every god. The Period of the Contending States begins for the Classical world with the battle of Ipsus (301) which established the trinity of Eastern great powers, and the Roman victory over the Etruscans and Samnites at Sentinum (195), which created a mid-Italian great power by the side of Carthage. Then, however, the characteristic Classical preference for things near and in the present resulted in eyes’ being shut while Rome won, first the Italian south in the Pyrrhic adventure, then the sea in the first Punic War, and then the Celtic north through Flaminius. The significance even of Hannibal (probably the only man of his time who clearly saw the trend of events) was ignored by all, the Romans themselves not excepted. It was at Zama, and not merely later at Magnesia and Pydna, that the Hellenistic Eastern powers were defeated. All in vain the great Scipio, truly anxious in the presence of the destiny to which 2 Polis overloaded with che tasks of a world-dominion was marching, sought thereafter to avoid all conquest. In vain his entourage forced through the Macedonian War, against the will of every party, merely in order that the East could thenceforth be ignored as harmless. Imperialism is so necessary a product of any Civilization that when a people refuses to assume the role of master, it is seized and pushed into it. The Roman Empire was not conquered the “orbis terrarium” condensed itself into that form and forced the Romans to give it their name. It is all very Classical. While the Chinese states defended even the mere remnants of their independence with the last bitterness, Rome after 146 only took upon herself to transform the Eastern land-masses into provinces because there was no other resource against anarchy left. And even this much resulted in the inward form of Rome – the last which had remained upright-melting in the Gracchan disorders. And (what is unparalleled elsewhere) it was not between states that the final rounds of the battle for Imperium were fought, but between the parties of a city – the form of the Polis allowed of no other outcome of old it had been Sparta versus Athens, now it was Optimate versus Popular Party…When, in 104, the urban masses of Rome for the first time lawlessly and tumultuously invested a private person, Marius, with Imperium, the deeper importance of the drama then enacted is comparable with that of the assumption of the mythic Emperor-title by the ruler of Tsin in 288. The inevitable product of the age, Cæsarism, suddenly outlines itself on the horizon. (Decline of the West Volume 2, 419-423)
To explain the confusing nature of this quote. In his typical fatalist sense, Spengler discusses the inevitable transformation of warfare and political power throughout history from the organic reflection of a healthy culture to degeneration, leading to the rise of Cæsarism—a form of rule characterized by individual leaders with unchecked power. Spengler describes how ancient military tactics were rapidly dismantled, paving the way for powerful new weapons, unheroic strategies, and individual captains who often rose to prominence by chance. This highlights the shift from personal heroism and noble warfare to a focus on mechanical and mass warfare, driven by technological advancements and the pragmatic necessity of speed and mobility. As in the Classical world, the introduction of mechanical techniques in warfare by leaders like Dionysius of Syracuse marked a significant change. The Roman legions, evolving in the Hellenistic period, functioned more like machines than earlier militias. Similarly, advancements in iron weaponry and cavalry tactics transformed military strategy in China. This evolution has culminated in dynamic methods of warfare in Europe and America, reflecting a deep-seated Faustian desire for domination and efficiency. Spengler further illustrates how war evolves from a noble contest to strategic annihilation of states, seen in events like the Punic Wars, where obliterating cities and genocide become normalized by pragmatic politicians removed from traditional culture and religious mores. Spengler argues that imperialism is an inevitable outcome of any civilization, as seen in Rome’s reluctant transformation into an empire. This progressive decline of warfare from jousting knights restricted a code of honor to mechanized warfare, nuclear weapons, and now drones that kill soldiers cowering in trenches shows a progressive change in warfare from idealized honor to realistic pragmatism, which happens at a historical inflection point. This point in history sees the exhaustion of the heroic ideal for cold-blooded efficiency. This change can be pinpointed to the world war phase of culture. This world war period creates the unification of a culture group under a new hegemonic power from the fringes of the culture and thus lacks a sense of tradition and thus has a more pragmatic sensibility, allowing them to conquer the cultural space unburdened by cultural mores of war that limited one power to gain control. While the civilizational power is victorious, their victory causes the destabilization of their cultural sphere and sets up the pre-conditions of Caesarism. I will present all the examples that fit with the Spenglerian notion of warfare's progressive degradation and Caesarism's formation across world history.
Greco-Roman Civilization: The Punic Wars and the Wars Against Hellenic Successors States
In Greco-Roman civilizations, I can detect two “World War” phases of military expansion, first for the Greeks and second for the Romans.
The “World War” period of ancient Greek culture dates from the Peloponnesian War starting in 431 BC to the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC. The victory over Persia in the Greco-Persian Wars (499–449 BC) marked the beginning of Athens' ascendancy as a rising star in the Greek world. Athens emerged as the leader of the Delian League and turned the alliance into a maritime and mercantile empire. The power and wealth from Athens’ new empire created a cultural and economic renaissance, resulting in the high point of Greek culture, traditionally known as Classical Greek civilization. Under the democratic dictatorship of Pericles (495–429 BC), Athens saw the construction of architectural marvels such as the Parthenon and cultural achievements in philosophy, drama, and the arts. Nonetheless, the golden age of Athens was not the universally celebrated event that we, from a historical perspective, make it out to be. Sparta and her allies in Corinth and Thebes feared the growing democratic hegemony of Athens making a play to conquer the Hellenic world from the established balance of power maintained by Sparta, as Thucydides states in The History of the Peloponnesian War, Book I, Chapter 23
The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon, made war inevitable.
Tensions reached a boiling point when Athens backed the democratic faction in a civil war in the Corinthian colony of Epidamnus on the island of Corcyra (modern-day Durrës in Albania) to expand their influence. This sparked open warfare between Corinth and Athens, further triggering the Peloponnesian War outbreak in 431 BC. This protracted conflict between Sparta and Athens, backed by their allies, was marked by the bloodiest war to date fought by the city-states of Greece. Athens and Sparta did not look to seize the hinterland or settle slights of honor but intended to wipe out their opponent and place Hellas under their hegemony. After nearly three decades of warfare, both Athens and Sparta were rocked to their core in financial and demographic terms as both suffered defeats that would have killed other lesser cities. They also dealt with internal strife, sapping their strength internally. Both great powers were reaching the breaking point of their cultural capacity and risking societal collapse. However, it was Sparta, with substantial financial and naval support from Persia and willingness to become a naval power (because of Athenian unwillingness to devote the bulk of their resources to a land war that would benefit Spartan strengths), that allowed Sparta to defeat Athens in 404 BCE.
The Athenian empire collapsed, and Sparta imposed an oligarchic government in Athens, collapsing Athens’s golden age. However, Spartan hegemony proved unstable and short-lived. The tumultuous and brief period of Spartan Hegemony (404–371 BC) faced immediate pushback from the Spartan rule of Hellas. The harshness of Spartan rule and its inability to manage the complex alliances and rivalries within Greece led to widespread discontent. Athens may have been just as tyrannical as Sparta in their imperial rule, but they were smarter operators as they used their democratic ideology, cultural cache, and wealth as a velvet glove to mask their iron fist. Compared to Sparta, a hard society free of diplomatic nuance and niceties made them terrible political operators. Moreover, Sparta's focus on military dominance strained its resources and exposed its weaknesses. Sparta, in treating friends and foes alike like helots (slaves) to be dominated, caused the Greek world to ignite in revolution. The Democratic revolution of Thrasybulus overthrew the Spartan-backed Athenian regime of the 30 tyrants in 403 BC, and the revolt of Thebes in 379 BC placed Sparta’s hard-won empire into doubt. As it created a dangerous foe in the Boeotian League led by Thebes. The culmination of this Hellenic revolt against Spartan rule was the Corinthian War (395–387 BC) of a coalition of Greek city-states, including Athens, Thebes, Corinth, and Argos, with Persian backing, waged another Peloponnesian scale war against Sparta.
This conflict ended inconclusively, brokered by Persia in the Peace of Antalcidas. While Spartan hegemony was not defeated, her inability to restore her imperium resulted in the draining of her limited financial and human resources, highlighting the precarious nature of Spartan hegemony over Greece. The Corinthian War also saw the rise of Thebes as the major contender of Greek domination as when war broke out again between pro-and anti-Spartan coalitions, Thebes would mortally wound Sparta at the battle of Leuctra in 371 BC. The battle marked a turning point in this Hellenic World War as the Theban general Epaminondas achieved a stunning victory over Sparta, crippling her army and collapsing her empire in the subsequent peace. The battle of Leuctra would herald Theban Hegemony (371–362 BC), yet Thebes, unlike Sparta and Athens, lacked the institutional, demographic, and financial resources for an empire. More damming, Thebes, after the death of the hero of the Theban war, Epaminondas, lacked a strategic vision to establish a lasting hegemony.
The fragile imperium would kickstart the final phase of the Hellenic World War period as the rise of Philip II in 359 BC to the throne of Macedon, a kingdom on the fringes of the Hellenic world. The Macedonian Ascendancy (359–336 BC) over the Greek world began with Philip II’s political and military reforms that would create the famous Macedonian army of phalangists, heavy Agema (companion) cavalry, siege and engineering core, and standard cores of local and barbarian archers and javelin units which revolutionized and broke with the convention of Hellenistic Hoplite warfare established in the Greek dark age some 500 years previously. Philip, unlike Sparta, skillfully navigated Greek politics by forming alliances and exploiting rivalries such as diplomatic offensives and limited wars that undermined any attempt by the Greek world to unify against the creeping Macedonian influence. The decisive moment came at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC, where Philip's revolutionary combined arms tactics defeated the Hellenic coalition army led by Athens and Thebes. This victory cemented Macedonian dominance over Greece and marked the end of the classical city-state era and the establishment of the Macedonian Hegemony. Philip established the Corinthian League, effectively uniting Greece under Macedonian rule, ending the world war period with the Hellenic great powers of Athens, Thebes, and Corinth subjugated, and exiling Sparta to the political wilderness. From 336 BC onwards, after Philip's assassination in 336 BC, his son Alexander the Great inherited a unified Greece. With the Hellenic world united behind him, Alexander embarked on the next stage of Spenglerian development, the period of Imperialism, where Alexander extended Macedonian rule across Persia, Egypt, and into India in an unprecedented campaign of conquest. This period, from the aftermath of the Greco-Persian Wars to the rise of Macedonian dominance, exemplifies Spengler's concept of a world war period. The cyclical rise and fall of hegemonies—from Athens to Sparta, Thebes, and finally Macedon illustrates the dynamic and often tumultuous nature of political power in ancient Greece. Each phase of dominance brought significant cultural, military, and political changes that made the Greek cities more demographically, culturally, and monetarily exhausted, allowing for the unification of Greece under Macedonian rule and the spread of Greek culture throughout the known world.
The Second World War period of Greco-Roman civilization is Rome in the first century BC. For Greco-Roman civilization, the world war period stretching from 264 BC to 146BC created a period of constant warfare where Rome waged two almost parallel great wars against the parallel rising threat of the Phoenician Republic of Carthage and the established powers of the Hellenistic Empires or the Successors of Alexander, culminating in the destruction of Carthage and the sack of Corinth. Rome's expansion from a city-state in central Italy to a Mediterranean superpower was marked by a series of decisive conflicts against Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms, beginning with the First Punic War and the Illyrian War. The First Punic War (264-241 BC) marked Rome’s first overseas expansion, where the Republic challenged Carthage for the control of Sicily from the declining hegemony of the Greek city of Syracuse. Rome’s opponent, Carthage, a Semitic trading empire based out of modern Tunis, was a parallel force on the rise in the Western Mediterranean. Rome bested Carthage on land, but the conflict also marked Rome's transition from merely a land power to (much like Sparta) adapting and mastering naval warfare.
The First Punic War began the conflict between these great Republics as Carthage was down but not out of the fight. While Carthage was licking its wounds, Rome crushed their primordial Celtic foes at the battle of Telamon in 225 BC and was drawn into the post-Alexandrian politics by the phenomena of Illyrian raiders. Rome was not ignorant of the Greeks and the danger they posed. Rather, their war with Pyrrhus of Epirus, much like Alexander’s intrusion into India’s world war period with the Indian warlord Porus at the battle of the Hydpasies River, highlighted the Romans to the dangerous potential of Imperial Hellenistic armies. As stated previously, the phenomena of Illyrian raiders raiding Italian soil during the Romano-Celtic war of 225 BC entangled Rome in the Illyrian Wars of 229-219 BC against Queen Teuta of Illyria, demonstrating Rome's expanding influence in the Adriatic region. Rome’s conquest of Illyria and Epirus after this conflict placed Rome on the fringe of the maelstrom of the post-Alexandrian world. However, Rome, unlike Alexander and his reluctant return to Persia from India, Rome would instead dive in head first and insert itself into the wars of the Diadochi, much like Macedon did during the wars of the Greek city-states. Nonetheless, Rome’s attention on Greece had to be put on hold as the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) would kick off with Hannible’s capture of the allied Greek city of Saguntum. This second conflict was a pivotal struggle between Rome and Carthage and her Celtic allies, famously led by Hannibal's invasion of Italy via the Alps. The war saw monumental battles such as Cannae that decimated Rome’s citizens and aristocratic demographics and put great strain on the Roman system. Yet eventually, Rome came back and defeated Carthage in Italy, Spain, and finally at the battle of Zama, resulting in a Roman victory and the complete destruction of Carthage as a major power. Concurrently, Rome fought the First Macedonian War (214-205 BC) against King Philip V of Macedonia after the Macedonian monarch sought to aid Hannibal against Rome. Macedonia and their Achaean League allies sought to capitalize on Roman distraction to allow Macedon to capture Roman holdings in Epirus and Illyrian, while Macedon and the Achaean League jointly sought to capture Roman-friendly Greek states.
The war had no victory, but 5 years later, the Second Macedonian War (200-196 BC) erupted. With Roman attention fully freed after the Second Punic War, Rome launched a serious Invasion of Greece, resulting in the defeat of Philip V at the battle of Cynoscephalae, resulting in Macedonia becoming a client kingdom and Roman guarantees of Greek freedom. Rome could not rest on her laurels as the mighty Hellenistic Seleucid Empire under their Emperor Antiochus III the Great, who was consolidating the Hellenistic world under his banner, creating the idea that they would reunite Alexander’s realm. It was Seleucid designs on Ptolemaic Egypt (a Roman ally), Seleucid support for anti-Roman sentiments in Greece, and clandestine support for Macedon that would spark the Syrian or Roman–Seleucid War (192-188 BC) against the Seleucid Empire and then the Third Macedonian War (171-168 BC) where the Seleucids and Macedonia with their allies attempted to push Rome out of the Hellenistic world. Despite some early Hellenic successes, Rome defeated Antiochus III at the battle of Magnesia (190 BC) and crushed Macedonia at the battle of Pydna (168 BC). The victories over the Seleucids and Macedon had the same effect as the defeat of Carthage but the domination of the Hellenistic homeland of Greece. Roman hegemony was not fully secured as Macedon, with the Achaean allies, and Carthage launched their last bids for freedom from Roman rule. The Fourth Macedonian War(150-148 BC) was a short and sharp affair, as Rome systematically dismantled Macedonian power and influence in Greece, turning the birthplace of Alexander into a Roman province.
Finally, we have the last phase of Rome’s World War period with the Third Punic War (149-146 BC) and the Achaean War (146BC), where Carthage and Corinth were wiped out completely, signifying the collapse of Punic and Hellenistic independence, marking the end of major external threats to Roman power in the Mediterranean basin, creating the Roman Empire in all but name. Following the defeat of Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms, the Roman system became a victim of its own success. As this period witnessed the mass importation of slaves and the concentration of wealth among the elite, resulting in the collapse of the middle class, political polarization would create the rise of popular generals with cults of personality, exemplified by figures such as Scipio Africanus, political corruption, and private wars and civil wars conducted by Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar. All of these factors, as a result of the wars of the first century BC, eroded traditional Republican values and institutions, creating societal chaos and foreshadowing the rise of Augustus and the transition of Rome from Republic to Empire.
In both the Greek and Roman worlds, their societies experienced periods of intense conflict, which created the conditions for the collapse of the prior decentralized world order that errored traditional political institutions, economic realities, and cultural norms that allowed the rise of charismatic military leaders, economic shifts, and the polarization of society, resulting in the emergence of centralized authority and the decline of republican governance. All paving the way for the consolidation of power under imperial rule.
Indic Civilization: The Mahājanapadas Wars to the Formation of the Mauryan Empire
The Mahabharata, which narrates the Kurukshetra War, saw the unification of the Vedic Indo-Aryan people into one polity known as the Kuru Kingdom, like how Charlemagne united the Germanic peoples of Western Europe. Much like Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire, the Kuru Kingdom collapsed into a period of warring city-states; this period after the fall of the Kuru Kingdom in the 6th century BC to the 4th century BC in ancient India is known as the Mahājanapadas period. The Mahājanapadas were sixteen powerful and influential kingdoms or aristocratic republics that emerged in the Indian subcontinent around the 6th century BC. These states vied for supremacy, leading to frequent conflicts and wars, much like the wars between city-states wars in ancient Greece. The Mahājanapadas Wars were characterized by shifting alliances, territorial expansions, and the consolidation of power among dominant players, such as Magadha, Kosala, Vatsa, and Avanti.
Battles were often fought over resources, trade routes, and territorial control. As time progressed, like in ancient Greece, the intensity of violence and growth of army sizes escalated the city-state warfare into a world war period, ala King Porus’ army that faced Alexander. Among the Mahājanapadas, the kingdom of Magadha emerged as a dominant power under rulers like Bimbisara and Ajatashatru. Magadha's strategic location, fertile lands, and effective military organization, much like Athens and Sparta, expand its influence over neighboring states. This process would accelerate under the Nanda dynasty, which succeeded the Haryanka dynasty in Magadha and continued this expansion through aggressive military campaigning. The conquests of the Nanda Empire would set the precedent of a Vedic empire that could legitimately consolidate its power, breaking free from the traditional city-state model. This new rule of Indian politics would set the stage for larger conflicts and the eventual rise of imperial ambitions under the Mauryan Empire.
However, in 326 BC, the arrival of Alexander the Great in the Indian subcontinent would give us a historical lens into the size of these late Mahājanapadan armies. King Porus had 20-50 thousand infantry, 2-4 thousand chariots and cavalry, and 100s of elephants. It must be said that Porus was a minor frontier lord of a lesser kingdom in the Mahājanapadas wars. Therefore, the larger Mahājanapadas and the Nanda Empire must have had monstrous-sized armies, so much so it made Alexander withdraw from the subcontinent because of his men’s lack of desire to fight the elephant armies of the Mahājanapadas and the Nanda Empire. Alexander’s effect on Indian politics during the Mahājanapadas wars was short-lived but profound in its significance, as the arrival of the Macedonians highlighted the vulnerability of fragmented the Mahājanapadas to external threats but also started a long process of cultural interactions between Indian and Hellenistic cultures.
Chandragupta Maurya, supported by the political strategist Chanakya or Kautilya, used the chaos that Alexander brought to the region and capitalized on the decline of the Nanda Empire to create a more lasting solution to the Mahājanapadas wars. Chandragupta and Kautilya, with their bandit army, started operating on the exterior of the Vedic world in the Indus Valley and boarding Greek lands much like Philip and Rome. Chandragupta started to wage a series of wars to capture one Mahājanapadas after another, building his strength and his forces until he defeated the Nanda empire in his conquest of Magadha. His military successes against the Nanda dynasty and subsequent expansion laid the foundation for the Mauryan Empire around 322 BC, which created the first pan-Indian imperial power. The period from the Mahājanapadas wars to the rise of Chandragupta Maurya fits with Spengler's concept of a world war period. These centuries were marked by intense conflicts, state consolidation, and transformative political developments that reshaped the Indian subcontinent. The transition from fragmented kingdoms to centralized imperial rule under the Mauryan Empire brought political stability and facilitated cultural integration and economic prosperity. Thus, while distinct in its cultural and geopolitical context, ancient India's experience of World War periods parallels broader patterns observed in civilizations like the rise of Macedon and Rome undergoing profound political and societal transformations.
Ancient Egyptian Civilization: Wars Against the Hyksos, Nubians, and the Rise of the New Kingdom
The next high culture that seems to have experienced a "world war period" is the ancient Egyptian civilization. This "world war period" can be applied to the period encompassing the Second Intermediate Period, which was dominated by the native Egyptians who were fighting a war of liberation against the invading Hyksos and Nubians who played a role in collapsing the Splendor of the Middle Kingdom, culminating in Egypt expelling the foreign causing the New Kingdom or the Egyptian Empire.
The Middle Kingdom of Egyptian, the peak of Egyptian civilization, was one of three golden ages (or ages of cultural, military, economic, and political dominance) experienced by ancient Egyptian civilization. However, a combination of political decentralization and civil war, economic decline, and widespread corruption, compounded by an invasion of the Semitic Hyksos and the Nubians of Kush, created the post-apocalyptic reality known as the Second Intermediate Period (1782-1570 BC).
The Hyksos controlled the northern region, a Semitic people who established their capital at Avaris and ruled as the Fifteenth Dynasty. The Hyksos people seem to have immigrated from modern-day Israel and Palestine to Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and became the ethnic majority or plurality in the Delta region of Lower Egypt. That could explain why, during the Second Intermediate Period, Semitic foreigners could conquer northern Egypt during the decline of the Middle Kingdom and the fragmentation of Egypt into smaller, competing entities. Presumably, Hyksos-dominated areas created a new kingdom, creating the 15th dynasty and challenging the traditional Egyptian hegemony. Making the Hyksos conquest not an invasion per se but a demographic replacement via immigration in times of plenty.
The other threat facing Egypt was the Nubians, under the Kingdom of Kush, who used the collapse of the Middle Kingdom to conquer large swaths of southern Egypt that were traditionally populated by Black Africans. The Nubians, like the Hyksos, were, at this point, heavily influenced by Egyptian culture, which created their own bid for control of Egyptian civilization. The native Egyptian rulers, the new Sixteenth Dynasty, were reduced to the Royal capital of Thebes and its hinterland in Upper Egypt. The Sixteenth Dynasty started as vassals to the Hyksos but eventually revolted and started a two-front war against their Hyksos overlords and the invading Nubians under the Pharoah Seqenenre Tao. His son Kamose continued that war and weakened the Hyksos but died in the struggle. Then, the throne was passed to his brother Ahmose, the founder of the Seventeenth Dynasty, who spearheaded the resistance against both the Hyksos and Nubians. Ahmose, with a newly reformed professional Egyptian army equipped with Nubian bows and Hyksos chariots, would eventually capture the Hyksos capital of Avaris and drive out the Nubians, restoring ethnic Egyptian sovereignty around 1550 BC. The restoration of Egypt under the Ahmose and the Seventeenth Dynasty would hail the New Kingdom Period or the Egyptian Empire, characterized by its aggressive and expansionist policies, but also laid the foundations for one of the most prosperous and culturally rich Empires in ancient history.
Ancient Chinese Civilization: From the Spring and Autumn Period to the Qin Wars of Unification
Chinese civilization provides another clear example of this Spenglerian formula of city-states unified into an Empire by a dramatic and bloody age of warfare, as the period from the Spring and Autumn Period to the Qin Wars of Unification represents this transformative epoch in Chinese history. Marked by fragmentation, relentless warfare, and political maneuvering, this era originated from the Zhou dynasty's authority fragmentation and the rise of powerful states vying for dominance. The eventual unification of China under the Qin Dynasty not only established the first centralized Chinese Empire but also set the stage for enduring cultural and administrative legacies for all Chinese dynasties to the Qing and Red dynasties (The Chinese Communist Party)
The Spring and Autumn Periods began with weakening the Zhou dynasty's central authority. China splintered into regional lords or feudal princes, and increasingly acted autonomously, leading to a fragmented political landscape like the Greek city-states after the Bronze Age collapse and the Kuru Kingdom that collapsed into the Indian Mahājanapadas. This period saw the rise of influential states such as Qi, Jin, Chu, and Qin, which engaged in constant warfare and diplomacy to expand their territories and influence. These warlord states experienced relentless conflicts during this period known as the Warring States Period (475-221 BC). Alliances were frequently formed and broken, and military innovation became crucial. The states developed new strategies and technologies, such as chariots and advancements in iron weaponry, to gain advantages over their rivals, which marked an escalation in the scale and intensity of warfare. Much like the first series of war after the death of Alexander the Great created the key Hellenistic Kingdoms (Macedon, Egypt, Seleucids, Pontus, Greco-Bactria) or the Nanda conquest removed many Mahājanapadas, the number of competitive states in China was reduced from dozens to seven dominant Kingdoms, that being the Qin, Chu, Zhao, Wei, Han, Yan, and Qi.
Much like Hellenic Diadochi, these states engaged in protracted wars and implemented significant administrative and military reforms to strengthen their positions. However, it was the state of Qin under the leadership of figures like Duke Xiao and Shang Yang, much like Rome’s manipular legion over the phalanx and the Macedonian phalangite over the Hoplite, broke with tradition and sought to create a Kingdom that would break the deadlock with the implementation of legalist principles. These legalist principles centralize the power of the Qin state to establish an efficient bureaucratic system, standardization of law, and land redistribution. These reforms also enhanced their military capabilities with merit-based military leadership, mass conscription, and military infrastructure such as roads and canals to facilitate troop movements. These reforms allowed the Qin to field larger, more disciplined armies and more efficient states to manage their resources better than their rivalries. The state of Qin, like Macedonia and Rome, was on the fringes of Chinese civilization and thus could conduct its reforms in relative peace. Then, under the command of King Zheng, would launch what has become known to history as the Qin Wars of Unification (230-221 BC). Much like Rome with its legions, the Qin used their professional army to systematically defeat the remaining warlord states of Chu, Zhao, Wei, Han, Yan, and Qi.
Around 221 BC, King Zheng, who later became Qin Shi Huang, China’s First Emperor, successfully unified China, marking the end of the Warring States Period and the beginning of the Qin Dynasty. Qin Shi Huang, like Ahmose, Chandragupta, Phillip II, and Emperor Augustus, consolidated his rule and centralized power by standardized weights, measures, and currency and initiated the construction of extensive infrastructure projects such as the Great Wall. The centralization efforts also included the codification of laws and the suppression of dissent, exemplified by the infamous burning of books and killing of scholars. The Qin dynasty, much like the Spartan Hegemony, was short-lived because of the brutal nature of the Qin Shi Huang rule, causing his dynasty to fall. However, the Qin laid the foundational framework for the subsequent Han dynasty and the enduring structure of imperial China. Therefore, the period from the Spring and Autumn Period to the Qin Wars of Unification exemplifies Spengler's concept of a world war period within Chinese civilization. These centuries of relentless conflict, state consolidation, and transformative reforms led to the creation of a centralized Chinese Empire, reflecting the profound impact of this “world war” period on the trajectory of Chinese history.
Ancient Mesopotamian Civilization: Sumerian City State Wars and the Rise of Akkadian Empire
Moving on, we can see the same phenomena in ancient Mesopotamian civilization. The ancient Mesopotamian civilization, particularly during the late 3rd millennium BCE, experienced significant political and military upheaval. The constant warfare between city-states among Sumerian people mirrored China, Greece, and India and eventually gave rise to the Akkadian Empire, which established a new era of political unity and imperial rule, illustrating Spengler's concept of a world war period characterized by intense inter-state conflicts and transformative societal changes.
The early Mesopotamian civilization consisted of a collection of city-states such as Ur, Uruk, Lagash, Umma, and Kish. Each city-state was independent, with its own ruler and patron deity, leading to frequent conflicts over resources, trade routes, and territorial boundaries. These Sumerian wars, like in ancient Greece, China, and India, were driven by competition for dominance in southern Mesopotamia's resource-rich and agriculturally fertile region. One of the most notable conflicts during this period was the prolonged war between Lagash and Umma, primarily over the fertile region of Gu-Edin. This conflict is well-documented in the inscriptions of the Lagash ruler Eannatum, who claimed victories over Umma and established a brief hegemony over other Sumerian city-states. However, such dominance was often short-lived due to the persistent and cyclical nature of inter-city warfare, much like how Sparta replaced Athens and Thebes from Sparta. Keeping with the companion to ancient Greece, the city of Kish, like Athens or Sparta, with rulers such as Enmebaragesi and Mesilim, attempted to establish a defining hegemony over all other Sumerian cities. However, the brief dominance of Kish was toppled by a coalition of Sumerian city-states that continued to resist centralized control, resulting in the geopolitical board leading to ongoing conflicts. By the mid-3rd millennium BC, the constant warfare among Sumerian city-states had weakened their individual power, making them vulnerable to external threats such as the rise of Akkad.
Sargon of Akkad, who rose to power around 2334 BC, capitalized on the weakened state of the Sumerian city-states like Qin Shi Huang, Ahmose, Chandragupta, and Phillip II conquered the all Sumerian cities through a series of military campaigns, including Uruk, Ur, and Lagash, and established the Akkadian Empire. His reign marked the transition from fragmented city-states to centralized imperial rule, unifying Mesopotamia under a single political entity. The success of Sargon can be attributed to the establishment of a centralized bureaucracy and the introduction of standardized systems of taxation and governance, which mirror the Qin and Macedonian periods of centralization of government. With its professional soldiers and advanced logistical capabilities, the Akkadian military enabled the empire to maintain control over vast territories and suppress rebellions, which again mirrors the Qin, Macedonian, Egyptian, and Roman reform of their militaries from levies to professional forces. The Akkadian Empire, after Sargon, would not last long as after his grandson Naram-Sin, the empire shortly declined due to internal strife and external pressures and was replaced by the Sumerian Empire or Third Dynasty of Ur. The Empire of Akkad created the standard model of imperial rule in Mesopotamia of centralized authority and imperial expansion, which influenced subsequent Babylonian and Assyrian empires that attempted to outdo Sargon. The incessant warfare in Mesopotamian history and the rise of the Akkadian Empire under Sargon the Great underscores the transformative impact of military and political consolidation, mirroring broader patterns of civilizational evolution as articulated by Spengler.
Western Civilization's World War Period: From World War I to the Cold War American Imperium
From the early 20th century through the mid-20th century, Western civilization experienced a series of devastating conflicts that reshaped global geopolitics and societal structures. Oswald Spengler's concept of a "world war period" comes in many ways from his own experience of the First World War. While he did not see the conclusion of Western Civilization’s World War period, with an American victory, he very much predicted its outcome with his framework to understand the cyclical nature of civilizations marked by intense conflicts and transformative geopolitical shifts. Applying this framework to Western civilization, we can trace a series of wars and geopolitical developments from World War I through the Cold War, bringing us to highlight parallels to the various prior civilizations examined in this paper. The clear starting point is the period before 1914, much like the Post Alexandrian period, Europe post the defeat of Napoleon created a concert of Great Powers such as France, Britain, Prussia then Germany, Austria/Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy, Turkey, and minor players such as Belgium, Spain, and Serbia. The United States of America, like Rome or the State of Qin, was a growing power on the Fringes of Western Civilization that was connected to but antagonistic with its civilizational brethren. Thus, like the Wars of the Diadochi of Macedon and Seleucid Empire vs Ptolemaic Egypt, Pergamon, Aetolian league which dragged Rome into the Wars of the Hellenistic powers, World War I (1914-1918), a conflict between the German, Austro-Hungarian Empires, and Ottoman Empires vs the British, French, and Russian Empires that dragged in America into European Imperial politics. WW1 was characterized by industrialized and trench warfare, which created massive armies and massive casualties. As we described above, while not comparable in a statistical sense but in a relative sense, the battles Rome waged against Carthage and the Hellenistic Empire, the Wars of the Qin, or Chandragupta’s battles against the Nanda would have been the World War 1 scale battle of their era, which would kill thousands of men, horses, and elephants before the creation of industrialized weapons. Therefore, it’s not surprising that while in other periods, the World War period ranged between 50-150 years~ WW1 caused the collapse of empires way faster, expediting and condensing the horrors of war within 4 years. The end of the war was not the end of violence, as the interwar period (1919-1939) witnessed political instability, economic turmoil, ideological extremism, wars, and civil wars across Europe. The Russian Civil War, the Finish Civil War, the Baltic Wars of Independence and the German Friekorp adventurism, The Weimar political violence between monarchists, communists, liberals, and fascist paramilitaries, the Hungarian civil war and the Romanian-Hungarian War, the Greco-Turkish War, ethnic violence between Austria, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, and the Spanish Civil war among the many wars, civil wars, revolutions, and coups that dominated Europe in this so-called era of peace. This matches the ancient Roman cases between the man Punic and Macedonian wars that Rome, Carthage, and Macedon had their own minor wars and internal struggles going on between the main conflicts like the Mercenary Wars and the Barcid Conquest of Spain for Carthage waged between the First and Second Punic Wars as an example. The reason for the interwar period was that low-level warfare was pushed by international treaties like the Treaty of Versailles, which failed to bring lasting peace. Instead, they sowed seeds of resentment and economic hardship in Germany, such as in Carthage and Macedon. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union, coupled with the Great Depression, exacerbated social tensions and set the stage for renewed conflict just as Carthage and Macedon, angered by their defeat, sought to rearm and challenge Rome again instead of accepting defeat. Thus, World War II engulfed the world in total war, pitting Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan) against Allied powers (United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and others) could be compared to the Second Punic War and Second Macedonian War/Syrian War. The war saw unprecedented destruction, gargantuan armies, and technological innovation. The defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan by the Allied powers like Carthage and Macedon by Rome reshaped global power dynamics, leading to the onset of the Cold War Imperium of the American Hegemony. The Cold War (1947-1991) emerged as a geopolitical and ideological struggle between the Western bloc led by the United States and the Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union. This period saw the proliferation of nuclear weapons, proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, and global competition for influence. The United States, in particular, assumed a global leadership position, establishing military alliances (NATO), promoting economic integration (Marshall Plan), and engaging in ideological competition with communism. The trajectory of Western civilization from World War I through the Cold War reflects Spengler's concept of world war periods. These conflicts were not merely isolated events but transformative phases that reshaped Western Europe's political, economic, and cultural landscape. The rise of American hegemony in the aftermath of World War II, akin to Rome's imperial ascendancy after its wars with the Hellenistic world and Carthage, demonstrates cyclic patterns of hegemonic rise, conflict, and consolidation. Thus, by examining these historical periods through the lens of Spengler's frameworks, modern readers can discern patterns of societal transformation and global power dynamics that echo throughout Western civilization's history. Therefore, as observed in World War I and II, paralleling the Roman wars of expansion, Western civilization has grappled with profound social and economic inequalities, demographic challenges, political corruption, and a crisis of democratic governance. Similar to historical patterns, modern issues such as mass immigration and the impact of artificial intelligence on employment echo ancient concerns about slavery and its effects on societal structures. These pressures have exacerbated popular discontent, spurred ideological divisions, and fostered the rise of charismatic leaders—echoes of the cults of personality seen in ancient Rome. Oswald Spengler's theory of the cyclical nature of civilizations offers a compelling framework to understand how world wars recurrently destabilize high cultures. Across diverse societies, from Rome to modern Western civilization, intense periods of conflict lead to overextension in the pursuit of global dominance. This overextension strains economies, fractures political unity, and weakens social cohesion, ultimately paving the way for a shift toward Caesarism. In response to these destabilizing forces, societies often consolidate power under autocratic rule. Caesarism emerges as a mechanism to restore order and efficiency, centralizing political authority, militarizing society, and implementing institutional reforms.