The Shield of Achilles

The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History is a work of military nonfiction by Philip Chase Bobbitt. First published in 2002, the book explores the cyclical nature of war and peace, and how we may prevent future conflicts. The book was nominated for the 2003 Arthur Ross Book Award, and it is very popular with critical reviewers. Bobbitt is an author who primarily writes about military strategy, constitutional law, and constitutional theory. He previously taught constitutional law at the University of Texas and served on the External Advisory Board for the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Shield of Achilles is comprised of two major parts, “State of War,” and “States of Peace.” The first part, “State of War,” explores the most significant conflicts of the 20th century. It also considers how the State was defined prior to the 20th century, and how these definitions set the stage for war in the 1900s.

The second part, “States of Peace,” looks at international law reforms and evolving State relationships. Bobbitt examines treaties, including the Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna, and he considers which consequences flowed from them. He also asks questions about what the future holds for the State, and the possible impact of commerce and financial competition on constitutional relationships.



In “State of War,” Bobbitt considers how the definition of a “State” changed radically as a result of 20th-century conflicts. Bobbitt proposes that, in the 20th century, States defined themselves by their military and financial successes. Essentially, powerful countries won wars and generated wealth. States gained their legitimacy through conquest, and these “legitimized” States ruled the world. International relations in the 1900s, Bobbitt argues, was characterized by wealthy, powerful States supporting each other’s agendas.

Because the State created its own legitimacy, Bobbitt says, the State maintained its constitutional status at any cost. State citizens cared about preserving their homeland and protecting its borders. The State tapped into this passion to legitimize war. If, for example, the State said that war was the only way to keep a country safe, the people consented.

Bobbitt concludes that this constitutional consent between citizens and leaders characterized the 20th century. Put simply, since the State emerged through war, it could only sustain itself through war. The problem with this reliance on aggression is that even the smallest constitutional slight resulted in declarations of war. War became a vicious cycle.



War, Bobbitt explains, is nothing new. For centuries, leaders fought for supremacy and sovereignty. For example, medieval and renaissance princes taxed their subjects to pay for war. Borders were very aggressively maintained, and war became increasingly expensive. Bobbitt suggests that the wars characterizing the 20th century came about, at least initially, because dynastic regimes clashed with new democratic principles.

In “States of Peace,” Bobbitt considers the fallout from late 20th-century conflicts. He explains that the entire concept of the State changed. Once, only the State could challenge another State. There was no such thing as an international body holding countries accountable to each other. There was, most critically, no such thing as international law. International law, Bobbitt concludes, is essential to preventing and managing conflict.

The main challenge the world faced when establishing international law was obtaining the consent of individual territories. A global institution could not achieve legitimacy without consent. For the first time in history, Bobbitt notes, countries voluntarily handed over some of their power and sovereignty to another entity.



Now, while a country protects itself, it also protects others from harm. There is such a thing as international diplomacy. Consequently, a nation places sanctions on other countries if they fall short of international law. Although international law comes with many benefits, there are also dangers associated with it.

The problem, Bobbitt notes, is that we’re entering an age where a select group of people run the world. Countries voluntarily cede huge powers to international bodies. Very small groups lead these international agencies. It’s unclear who these leaders answer to, because they do not represent any single nation. It will be interesting, Bobbitt observes, to see how international law develops in the 21st century and beyond.

The Shield of Achilles exposes a problem with traditional approaches to constitutional theory. Historians often study individual conflicts without looking at how they fit together. When historians do study trends and patterns, they never study constitutional law. Instead, they study rights, suffrage, and socioeconomic changes. While it’s crucial that we understand these areas, we can’t fully understand them without seeing how they fit into a larger constitutional theme.



Towards the end of the book, Bobbitt muses on where the world is headed. He considers that we are moving towards market countries, or groups of commercially linked territories. The traditional concept of the State, with clear physical borders and domestic land areas, is eroding. One day, there may be no such thing as borders between countries at all.