Thucydides was a Woke or Putin?

This article is a speculative exercise. It attempts to answer how Thucydides might view modern concepts based on the principles in his work. The topics discussed—from modern ideologies to specific states—do not appear in his ancient text. This analysis is an extrapolation of his known worldview.

Table of Contents

Thucydides was a Woke?
Thucydides and the Analysis of a New Power
Secularism and Religion: An Analyst, Not an Enemy
Thucydides on the Modern Political Spectrum
Choosing a Modern System of Governance
Summary
Works Cited
More Topics

Thucydides was a Woke?

The writings of Thucydides have survived for 2,500 years. They remain relevant because he was not just a chronicler of events. He was a profound analyst of power, fear, and human nature. His work provides a timeless framework for understanding conflict.

But how would his radically pragmatic and secular mind interpret our modern world? What would he think of our ideologies, our leaders, and our global power struggles? By applying his own methods of analysis, we can build a fascinating picture.

Thucydides and the Analysis of a New Power

If Thucydides were to analyze the rise of Muslims and Islamic states, he would do so with cold objectivity. His analysis would never be theological. He would not concern himself with the tenets of faith, forms of worship, or claims of sanctity.

Instead, he would conduct a completely pragmatic and power-focused analysis. He would ask a series of sharp, practical questions.

What are the material causWorks Cited
Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.Thucydides. The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. Edited by Robert B. Strassler, translated by Richard Crawley, Simon & Schuster, 1998.es behind the rise of this new power? He would examine its economic structure, military organization, and geographical advantages.
Does this belief system unite people? Does it provide them with a common purpose and motivation? Does it increase their effectiveness in war?
What kind of threat does this power pose to established empires? What kind of fear does it create in its rivals?
How do they manage their empire? How do they treat conquered peoples? Do they rule justly, or do they oppress?

For Thucydides, a faith like Islam would be viewed as a powerful social and political force. He would see it as a phenomenon that mobilizes states, motivates armies, and changes the geopolitical balance. He would study it as a factor that shapes the character and goals of a power, just as he studied Athenian democracy or the Spartan oligarchy.

Secularism and Religion: An Analyst, Not an Enemy

Was Thucydides completely secular? In his historical method, the answer is a firm yes. He was the first historian to systematically explain events through human agency, not divine intervention.

But this does not make him an enemy of religion. He does not attack or belittle faith. Instead, he takes its effects on people very seriously. He examines it like a sociologist. He notes when religious superstition leads to military disaster, as with Nicias and the lunar eclipse. He observes how the fear of the gods collapses entirely under the pressure of the plague.

For him, religion is a powerful social force that shapes human behavior. It is not something to be hated, but something to be understood.

The term “liberal” is a modern concept that does not fit him. He shows no particular concern for individual freedom of belief. His only concern is whether beliefs—religious or otherwise—hinder the rational decision-making of the state. His supreme value was always the survival and power of his city, Athens.

Thucydides on the Modern Political Spectrum

Placing Thucydides into a modern political category is an anachronistic exercise. But based on his core principles—realism, state supremacy, stability, and competent leadership—we can see where he might stand.

Communist, Woke, Neoliberal, Egalitarian? He would be none of these. His analysis is not about class struggle (Communism) or the global free market (Neoliberalism). It is about state power. Ideologies based on individual identity, rights, and social justice (Woke, LGBTI rights, Egalitarianism) would be alien to him. He was an elitist who trusted in the wisdom of great leaders, not the masses.
Authoritarian? Yes, this is the closest description. He would not support a crude or irrational tyranny. But he would defend a system that looked like what he said of Pericles’s rule: “in name a democracy, but in fact the rule of the most capable citizen.” He idealized the rule of a pragmatic leader or a skilled elite who could guide the people for the good of the state.

Choosing a Modern System of Governance

Putin or Aliyev Style? Thucydides would lean significantly toward this model. These systems prioritize state sovereignty, national interest, and the centralization of power. They are skeptical of what they see as the weaknesses and debates of liberal democracy. His power-focused realism (Realpolitik) and desire for stability align well with this model. He would understand, and likely respect, their pragmatic and tough-minded focus on state power.
Trump Style? Absolutely not. Trump’s style is populist. It appeals directly to the emotions of the crowd and challenges established institutions. Thucydides despised demagogues like Cleon, whom he saw as leaders who played on the public’s anger and whims. He would view this style as a direct threat to rational statecraft.
European (UK) Style? Probably not. He would likely find modern liberal democracies weak and indecisive. Their long debate processes, focus on consensus, and emphasis on individual rights would seem foreign to his cold analysis of power. He would likely see these systems as naive, ignoring the harsh reality that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

Summary

On Analyzing New Powers: If faced with a new force like the Islamic states, Thucydides would ignore theology and focus entirely on its power dynamics, organizational strength, and strategic goals.
On Religion: He was a methodological secularist who analyzed religion as a powerful social force. He was not an enemy of religion, but he was critical of how superstition could lead to disaster.
On Ideology: He would reject modern ideologies focused on individual rights or economics. His worldview was state-centric, elitist, and pragmatic. The closest modern label would be authoritarian.
On Leadership: He would likely prefer a strong, rational, state-focused leader who practices Realpolitik (like Putin). He would reject populist leaders (like Trump) and would likely view liberal democracies (like the UK) as indecisive.

Works Cited

Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.Thucydides. The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. Edited by Robert B. Strassler, translated by Richard Crawley, Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Your Daily Dose of News, Insights, and Global Exploration.