Essay about Mackinder or Mahan

Better Essays

Who is more useful for understanding contemporary Geopolitics: Mackinder or Mahan? Use a major power to illustrate your points.
In the current century that we live, the world is becoming a smaller place from the effects of technology and globalisation. In the 19th and 20th century, the theoretical works of Mahan and Mackinder were drivers of geopolitical thought. Both theorists’ have a similar framework where they studied political power, military strength and how they were affected by geographic space. In the modern era, geopolitics is very similar to traditional thought, which is why these theorists, in particular Mahan, are arguably still applicable to contemporary geopolitics.
The ideologies that are held together by Mackinder and …show more content…

His second trident, grammar, provides the rules of preparing for warfare and naval readiness. It consists martially and operational in nature, through production and overseas markets and bases.
Holmes and Yoshihara (2010) come to appreciate the relevance of Mahan’s logic, more than his grammar. The grammar of combat is out-dated, providing that the last fleet engagement was at the Leyte Gulf in 1944. An extremely relevant question regarding the United States’ need for an immediate fleet is extremely relevant. An interesting discussion made by Holmes and Yoshihara (2010) addresses the questionable issue about the United States needing to have high-end ships and criticises the mindset in which the nation has regarding contemporary geopolitics and outcomes for the future of naval warfare.
Mahan used six principles that primarily affect a nations ability to become a powerful sea power: geographical position, physical conformation, extent of territory, size of the population, character of the people, and character of the government. Parker (2003) stated these conditions “were valid requirements for national power in the late 19th century, are valid requirements for national power

Get Access