Review of International Studies (2003), 29, 301–319 Copyright © British International Studies AssociationDOI: 10.1017/S0260210503003012301* I would like to thank Richard Burgess, David Fott, Nancy Kokaz, Friedrich Kratochwil, RichardNed Lebow, Clifford Orwin, Christine Sylvester, Melissa Williams, and two anonymous reviewers forhelpful comments on earlier drafts of this essay.1Robert Gilpin, ‘The Theory of Hegemonic War’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18:4 (Spring1988), pp. 591–613; 596–7.2Frederick C. Crews, The Pooh Perplex (New York: Dutton, 1965), p. 19.Why International Relations theorists should stop reading ThucydidesDAVID A. WELCH*Abstract. Many regard Thucydides as the first genuine International Relations theorist and awriter of continuing, even timeless importance. His history of the Peloponnesian War iscertainly a remarkable work that obviously has had an enormous influence on the develop-ment of the field. Its influence, however, is largely pernicious. This article explores why.In summary, according to Thucydides, a great or hegemonic war, like a disease, follows adiscernible and recurrent course. The initial phase is a relatively stable internationalsystem characterized by a hierarchical ordering of states with a dominant or hegemonicpower. Over time, the power of one subordinate state begins to grow disproportionately;as this development occurs, it comes into conflict with the hegemonic state. The strugglebetween these contenders for preeminence and their accumulating alliances leads to abipolarization of the system. In the parlance of game theory, the system becomes a zero-sum situation in which one side’s gain is by necessity the other side’s loss. As thisbipolarization occurs the system becomes increasingly unstable, and a small event cantrigger a crisis and precipitate a major conflict; the resolution of that conflict willdetermine the new hegemon and the hierarchy of power in the system.Robert Gilpin, ‘The Theory of Hegemonic War’1Not for nothing is the sycophant Pooh eventually invested by Christopher Robin as ‘SirPooh de Bear, most faithful of all my Knights’. It is a worthy ending to a series of talesin which every trace of social reality, every detail that might suggest some flaw in thecapitalist paradise of pure inherited income, has been ruthlessly suppressed. Only,perhaps, in the ominous old sign beside Piglet’s house do we glimpse the truth that thiscommunity of parasites is kept together through armed intimidation of the proletariat.‘TRESPASSERS W’, says the sign, and Piglet’s facetious exegesis of this as hisgrandfather’s name only reminds us more pointedly of the hereditary handing-on of theso-called sacred law of property.Martin Tempralis, ‘A Bourgeois Writer’s Proletarian Fables’2Let me confess at the outset that I do not mean my title to be taken literally. Everyeducated person should read Thucydides. What I mean is that those of us in the fieldof International Relations (IR) who do read him and think him important shouldstop abusing him.3We should stop trying to bend him to our will by making himspeak to debates about which he would understand little and care even less. Weshould stop treating him as a mirror for our own assumptions, convictions, andbiases. We should stop competing for his imprimatur. And, perhaps most import-antly of all, we should stop trying to reduce his subtle and sophisticated work to aseries of simplistic banalities.Lest the reader fear that I am going to engage in an attack upon others, I includemyself in the group I propose to criticise, because I have come to the realisation thatI have unwittingly abused him as much as anyone. It is true that I find my ownreadings of Thucydides more compelling than others’, but it seems difficult to avoidthe conclusion that this conceit is hard to justify in the light of the arguments Ipropose to make below. What I have to say, in other words, I offer in a spirit of self-criticism.Nor do I propose to single out specific IR theorists as particularly heinousabusers. I speak of the field generally. The pathologies we exhibit are both commonand extremely difficult to avoid. Those of us who abuse Thucydides do not do soconsciously or intending any disrespect: it seems we simply cannot help ourselves.But the net result of the abuse, taking in the grand sweep of the development of IRtheory, has been pernicious. Our mistreatments of Thucydides have encouragedhabits of selective reading, misattribution (or at least unjustifiable attribution), theconfusion of evidence with authority, and anachronism, the net result of which hasbeen a distortion of the proper intellectual development of the field and the largelyunproductive use of a potentially very useful text.Two obvious questions arise. The first is whether the fault here lies withThucydides or with IR theory. The answer is a bit of both. To use a currentlypopular expression, the two simply do not play well together. The second question iswhether there is some way to fix matters – or, to put it another way, whether there issomething IR theorists might do differently to inspire me to write another articletitled, ‘Why IR theorists should start reading Thucydides again’. I will offer a fewpreliminary thoughts on this question toward the end of the article.I will begin with a general discussion of Thucydides’ text and certain key featuresof it, with the aim of moving fairly rapidly to a deeper discussion about the processof interpretation, the principles that should govern it, and pitfalls that accompanyit.4I will then move to a discussion of what IR theorists can justifiably take from itand what they cannot. I will conclude by addressing the two questions I raised in theprevious paragraph.302 David A. Welch3I endorse Hollis and Smith’s useful convention of capitalising International Relations (IR) whenreferring to the discipline, and using lower case when referring to its subject. Martin Hollis and SteveSmith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 10.4All in-text references to Thucydides’ history are to Robert B. Strassler and Richard Crawley (eds.),The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (New York: Free Press,1996).An entrée: what exactly were those Spartans doing anyway, and are they us? All who approach Thucydides even for the first time will surely appreciate that theyare in the presence of a truly