History is shaped just as much by chance as it is by long-term social and economic trends

[This fantastic essay was the winner in the KS4 category of the WBGS History Essay Prize 2021-22, where the task was to argue whether or not "History is shaped just as much by chance as it is by long term social and economic trends"]

ESA BRISTER

History has been shaped by many things, including by events and by decisions which are almost infinitely variable in their detail. This could be succinctly summarized as being shaped by “chance,” by “trends,” or by a combination of the two. 

Chance may be defined as the possibility of something happening. It is usually understood to be unexpected or at least unlikely. A trend may be defined as a general direction in which something is developing or changing, and will therefore more likely be predictable. However, for the purposes of this essay, which primarily addresses socio-economic trends, I will define these socio-economic trends as the general direction which economies and societies take and in which they tend to act.

An example of how history can be talked about as a series of events dictated by chance is the death of Alexander of Macedon in 323 BCE. Very few long-lasting social or economic trends drove Alexander to begin his invasion. He cited only a 150-year-old conflict between the Hellens and Iranians. Although seemingly long-standing, compared with other trends like urbanisation and the transfer from hunter-gatherers to farming societies to living in cities, over thousands of years, this is a very small timeframe. As per Sir WIlliam Tarn: “the primary reason why Alexander invaded Persia was… that he never thought of not doing it; it was his inheritance,” and P.A. Brunt  writes that “this invasion had been planned and begun by Phillip. It was in name a pan-Hellenic enterprise.” This further emphasises the lack of any larger social forces like migration or economic pushes or pulls that affected Alexander: his decision was purely political. 

Furthermore, Alexander’s early death, and the inevitable youth of his children at the time, were (if one ignores or doesn't believe in a divine plan) decided by chance. This single event would snowball, leading to many different consequences. Not only might his survival have meant the consolidation of his empire and the Hellenistic world expanding massively, but also it would have likely impacted upon how the West - and thus the modern world - would have developed. Had he survived longer, a strong Greco-Macedonian empire might have lead to Rome not being able to conquer the whole Mediterranean. The combined influences of Greece and Rome together on Europe might have altered many aspects of Europe’s development, such as how Chrisitanity would have spread differently had it had different borders to cross. 

Moreover, Arrian’s Anabasis states: “Alexander designed to colonize [sic] the sea-board near the Persian Gulf, as well as the islands in that sea” and that “Alexander was insatiably ambitious of acquiring fresh territory”. Hellenistic influence in Arabia - and India (as Alexander planned further expeditions into northern India, at a very crucial time in Indian history) - would have been far greater had Alexander’s potential empire come into existence along a timeline that crossed over into the modern world. Further influence might have been stretched into “Asia”, a suitably vague area at the time, not limited - as some believe - to Persia. Alexander was a man never seemingly satisfied with the territory he had just acquired. He claimed new territory as his “right through conquest” as per “Alexander, Zeus, Ammon, and the Conquest of Asia” (Ernst A. Fredricksmeyer). This seems to show that chance is the main contributor to the shaping of world history.

However, history was shaped at the same time by social and economic trends, such as during the fall of Rome - or at least its western half. This was a monumental moment, a turning-point in history, as, when the more “Roman” part of the empire fell, the resulting confusion eventually gave rise to “Christendom” and then to Europe. Many elements contributed to the fall, but focusing on one such factor suffices to demonstrate this point. The fall of Rome was partly due to the migration of Germanic tribes who had become a thorn in Rome’s side since the Romans first encountered them. However, in better times Rome could use its huge military power to offset the continuous attempted migration, settlement and incursions of the tribes, which had varying levels of success. But this trend, which lasted millennia, had whittled Western Rome helplessly down to an unstable rotting mess, as good times as under Augustus or Constantine were becoming fewer and fewer in the West. So when Rome - due to other factors - was weak, the incursions could not be stopped. But it was further exacerbated by the Huns. They themselves were not a direct party to Western Rome’s fall but they had displaced such people as the Goths, causing them to flee from their kingdoms - which had been destroyed by said Huns.

This mass migration caused many dominoes to fall: “Rather, a slow build-up of pressure precipitated a crisis among certain Goths, whose retreat westwards provoked a similar response among many of their neighbours” - states Peter Heather in ‘The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire In Western Europe’, published in “The English Historical Review.” This “slow build up” and “retreat westward” would cascade into Germanic tribes crossing the Alps, sacking Rome and the Franks moving into Gaul. The end of a civilisation dawned due to social trends.

I personally believe that chance plays a part in the details of history. As a religious man myself, I believe in God’s plan, but for now let's consider chance as simply the things humans can control within the possibilities that are allowed by God’s plan. Chance can either, by virtue of itself, turn history, like Alexander’s death and the invasion of Persia, or can decide and dictate how different trends end up manifesting in terms of the exact timing of events and the precise participating individuals. However,  from the examples already cited, the most monumental shaping of history is clearly decided through trends that build up over perhaps thousands of years, being added to by the change of climate, knock-on effects and decisions made by often a large number of humans over time. Because of course, something that builds for thousands of years will likely have more far-reaching impacts on shaping history than chance, which lasts for just a moment.

In the end I disagree that chance plays as large a role as socio-economic trends, but there's no doubt that chance has shaped history in many significant ways.

Bibliography

Fredricksmeyer, E., 1991. Alexander, Zeus Ammon, and the Conquest of Asia. Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), 121

Brunt, P., 1965. The Aims of Alexander. Greece and Rome, 12(2)

Worthington, I., 2014. Alexander the Great. London: Routledge.

Heroes, A., 2021. Where was Alexander the Great planning to conquer before he died? — Ancient Heroes. [online] Ancient Heroes. Available at: <http://ancientheroes.net/blog/alexander-future-conquests> [Accessed 2 December 2021].

HEATHER, P., 1995. The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. The English Historical Review, CX(435),

En.wikipedia.org. n.d. History of the Huns - Wikipedia. [online] Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Huns> [Accessed 2 December 2021].