Military deterrence in history: a pilot cross-historical survey

State University of New York Press • Albany • Published In • Pages: ??•
By Naroll, Raoul, Bullough, Vern L. , Naroll, Frada

Hypothesis

Geographical factors do not promote territorial gain, considering strategy (the winning of entire wars) rather than tactics (the winning of a particular battle) (338)

Test

Test NameSupportSignificanceCoefficientTail
Point-biserial correlationPartially supportedabove .10not supportedOne-tailed

Variables

Variable NameVariable Type OCM Term(s)
Propinquity Of Conspicuous State And Conspicuous RivalUNKNOWNLocation
Territorial GainUNKNOWNInstigation Of War

Related Hypotheses

Main AuthorHypothesis
Naroll, Raoul"Territorial gain proved unrelated to one-sided benefits [subsidy, women or honors conferred by one state on its rival] or trade. However . . . there may be a relationship between cultural exchange and territorial gain" (339-340)
Naroll, RaoulThere are some indications that military preparation promotes territorial gain. Defensive stance correlated negatively with territorial gain, while quality of armed forces correlated positively. However, territorial gain showed no relation to border fortifications, and none to strength, mobility or prestige of armed forces (337)
Naroll, Raoul"We find no evidence that diplomacy . . . [furthers] the success of . . . states in gaining territory. . . . The only substantial relationship uncovered offers no comfort [to the hypothesis that diplomacy promotes territorial gain. We found that] the more territory a state is losing, the more active its diplomats" (point-biserial -.50, p = .01) (338, 339)
Naroll, Raoul"Our findings suggest that centralized states or those led by experienced rulers tend to do well in the game of power politics [i.e., gain territory], while hereditary monarchies tend to do less well, as do states divided by civil war" (340)
Ember, Carol R.Mobility will be associated with larger territorial size of property