Compare and Contrast Iseri (2009) and Mackinder (1904)
In 1904 Sir Halford John Mackinder wrote the journal ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’ which influence nearly three generations of strategists and changed the way politicians and military men saw the world. Mackinder saw history as a battle between the land-based powers and the sea-based powers. Over time all the land in the world had been discovered, fought over and claimed so the world had now become a ‘closed’ system. Therefore greater powers would now struggle for world hegemony and the victor would then be able to set up a world empire. In the journal, ‘The US Grand Strategy and the Eurasian Heartland in the Twenty-First Century’, Emre Iseri describes how the US and other great powers are always looking for ways to gain more power in order to feel more secure. He links the ways in which these great powers try to attain more power with Mackinder’s Heartland theory in several ways. …show more content…
If any power were to gain control and power over the heartland then they would have control over the world-island and so would be able to gain power of the world and set up a world empire. If a power was able to do this, control the Eurasian Heartland, there would be no conquering it. Even if all the sea-based powers were to join together against this great power, their efforts would be null. In time the ‘pivot state’, “would reach open waters, and, with the resources of the "world island" behind it, it would be unstoppable;" as stated by Mackinder in his article. Mackinder’s theory is contained in his famous
In 1904 Sir Halford John Mackinder wrote the journal ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’ which influence nearly three generations of strategists and changed the way politicians and military men saw the world. Mackinder saw history as a battle between the land-based powers and the sea-based powers. Over time all the land in the world had been discovered, fought over and claimed so the world had now become a ‘closed’ system. Therefore greater powers would now struggle for world hegemony and the victor would then be able to set up a world empire. In the journal, ‘The US Grand Strategy and the Eurasian Heartland in the Twenty-First Century’, Emre Iseri describes how the US and other great powers are always looking for ways to gain more power in order to feel more secure. He links the ways in which these great powers try to attain more power with Mackinder’s Heartland theory in several ways. …show more content…
If any power were to gain control and power over the heartland then they would have control over the world-island and so would be able to gain power of the world and set up a world empire. If a power was able to do this, control the Eurasian Heartland, there would be no conquering it. Even if all the sea-based powers were to join together against this great power, their efforts would be null. In time the ‘pivot state’, “would reach open waters, and, with the resources of the "world island" behind it, it would be unstoppable;" as stated by Mackinder in his article. Mackinder’s theory is contained in his famous