Peter Turchin studies the dynamics of ecosystems, and, more recently, the dynamics of human history.  His new book, War and Peace and War , models the rise and fall of empires.

In a welcome move, the Amazon listing for War and Peace and War includes the entire introduction, which is both readable and fascinating.

Is a science of history possible? Can we design a theory for the collapse of mighty empires that would be no worse than, say, our understanding of why earthquakes happen? Seismologists have made great strides in understanding earthquakes. They can even make some limited predictions as to which areas of the earth are likely to be hit next by an earthquake. However, forecasting the precise timing and magnitude of an earthquake eludes them. Can a science of history, similarly, explain why states crumble, and perhaps predict which societies are in the danger of collapse?

Turchin is quite aware that people have speculated on quantitative models of history before; what seems the innovation in his research is he actually builds mathematical models of empires.  He describes three grand cycles of history as relevant to this work: a cycle of the initial formation of empires (named an asabiya cycle after the work of Ibn Khaldun ), a cycle of the economic expense to the state of maintaining elites, and a father-and-son cycle of susceptibility to civil war.  He also readily acknowledges those are not the only historical forces at work, and has a lucid discussion of the scientific method as it applies to building useful models.

War and Peace and War is only just leaking onto Australian bookshelves, so if you can't wait, an example of his model-building technique, as applied to the modern House of Saud, is in this paper (PDF) on his website.  Niall at Whom Gods Destroy originally pointed this out a month ago; what can I say, I'm a slow reader.

The Stainless Steel Elephant

Science fiction is often a cultural inspiration and background for scientists and techies, and I was amused to see that so far as modelling history goes, Peter Turchin's thoughts turned immediately, as mine did, to Isaac Asimov's scientist character Hari Seldon, the psychohistorian.  Turchin's inspiration by Ibn Khaldun reminded me how good SF can be at keeping a mind aware of cultural variation.  I already knew of Khaldun, but only because of Years of Rice and Salt , another SF novel by Kim Stanley Robinson.  The same holds for the theory of the humours, Chinese maritime exploration, survival skills of early nomads, Fineggan's Wake , Nostromo ... now that we no longer have a literary canon, the anti-fashionable eclecticism of SF is not such a bad jumping-off point for a broader education.

There is a joke here about the expansion of SF cliches across other fields of study, but I can't quite find it.

More Reading on Peter turchin

• Peter Turchin
• What Is It Good For
• Edge Effects: Frontier Induced Cohesion
• War and Peace and War and Australia
• The Equality Cycles
• Why No Aboriginal Agrarianism?