Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 531 views

    Geography Essay

    Uploaded by

    Zed Hartstein
    Alfred Mahan's sea power theory is more relevant for understanding contemporary geopolitics than Halford Mackinder's heartland theory. Mahan placed importance on naval commerce and command of the seas being critical for an empire, and his focus on the spread of power across strategic global locations informs why countries like the United States seek to maintain naval and military bases around the world today. In contrast, Mackinder emphasized controlling a specific region of Eastern Europe and downplayed sea power, making his theory less applicable to modern geopolitics dominated by global naval powers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Geography Essay

    Uploaded by

    Zed Hartstein
    531 views2 pages
    Alfred Mahan's sea power theory is more relevant for understanding contemporary geopolitics than Halford Mackinder's heartland theory. Mahan placed importance on naval commerce and command of the seas being critical for an empire, and his focus on the spread of power across strategic global locations informs why countries like the United States seek to maintain naval and military bases around the world today. In contrast, Mackinder emphasized controlling a specific region of Eastern Europe and downplayed sea power, making his theory less applicable to modern geopolitics dominated by global naval powers.

    Original Description:

    who fucking cares bruv

    Original Title

    geography essay

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Alfred Mahan's sea power theory is more relevant for understanding contemporary geopolitics than Halford Mackinder's heartland theory. Mahan placed importance on naval commerce and command of the seas being critical for an empire, and his focus on the spread of power across strategic global locations informs why countries like the United States seek to maintain naval and military bases around the world today. In contrast, Mackinder emphasized controlling a specific region of Eastern Europe and downplayed sea power, making his theory less applicable to modern geopolitics dominated by global naval powers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    531 views2 pages

    Geography Essay

    Uploaded by

    Zed Hartstein
    Alfred Mahan's sea power theory is more relevant for understanding contemporary geopolitics than Halford Mackinder's heartland theory. Mahan placed importance on naval commerce and command of the seas being critical for an empire, and his focus on the spread of power across strategic global locations informs why countries like the United States seek to maintain naval and military bases around the world today. In contrast, Mackinder emphasized controlling a specific region of Eastern Europe and downplayed sea power, making his theory less applicable to modern geopolitics dominated by global naval powers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Write a short essay answering the following question: Who is more useful for understanding contemporary Geopolitics: Mackinder

    or Mahan? MAHAN IS MORE USEFUL FOR UNDERSTANDING GEOPOLITICS Alfred Mahan's Sea Power theory is more useful for understanding geopolitics today when compared to Halford Mackinder's Heartland theory. Mahan and Mackinder were influential in their times as some of the first to draw attention to the importance of geography in the power relationships between empires. However, Mahan's broader focus on the role of sea power in maintaining is more useful today than Mackinder's focus of world power being on holding a certain region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Mahan's background as an American naval officer and historian has given him an influence on the geopolitical actions of the United States today. Today Alfred Mahan is more useful for understanding Geopolitics. Alfred Thayer Mahan's theory of sea power is the basis of much of modern geopolitical theory. Mahan's background as a captain in the United States Navy and as a naval historian gave him a background for his theory of The Importance of Naval Power. Mahan's placed great importance on naval commerce for the success of an empire and believed that command of the seas is critical for an empire to protect its own commerce and Strangle the commerce of its enemies during wartime. Mahan believed the ideal form of Naval logistics was in a colonial empire like that of the British that could maintain a network of stations and colonies in vital locations to have reach across the world when it needed. Importance is placed not just on navies but on the sum total of forces and factors, tools and geographical circumstances, which operated to gain command of the sea, to secure its use for oneself and to deny that use to an enemy. (mahan etc etc). The influence of Mahan on the united states is immediate then and now. Mahan's theorising inspired a modernising of the American Navy and for the USA to seek colonies in places like Hawaii and the Philippines. Today the United States Navy is as large as navies of the rest of the world put together, working from a network of allied bases in critical places like northern Australia and Japan to exert its reach across the world, performing a role very similar to that of the Royal Navy in the British empire. Mahan's theory is useful for understanding why countries like the United States have a large interest in holding key strategic locations
    Mahan's theories are more relevant today when compared to that of Mackinder's. Mackinder believed that the railway represented an end of sea power as the most important way of maintaining an empire. With the railway Mackinder believed the most important part of holding an empire was in holding a specific area of territory in Eastern Europe. Mackinder downplays sea power and the United States and says the main focus is on holding this resource-rich heartland. While Mackinder believes in holding this specific territory as being critical Mahan's theory focuses on the total spread of power across the world in strategic locations THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MACKINDER AND MAHAN Mahan's analysis has ended up more relevant Mackinder placed huge emphasis on control over land via railways and the control of territory specifically in central asia meanwhile mahan's focus is on global sea power, not just fleets but Mackinder downplays sea power and says the main focus uis on holding the hearland Mackinders theory is based around observations throughout history while mahan's starts in the 17th century

    so Mahans focus is on the total spread of your power across the world in strategic locations while mackinder emphasises the control over the best land to give you the capability to defeat enemies Mahan actually explains the basic global reasoning behind trying to hold certain places for strategic value that can be extrapolated to be sea or land????

    MAHAN TODAY Mahan is useful in understanding how/why countries like the US assert their power through naval/military bases for example why a base is being built in the NT and why the US has such an interest in places like korea and somalia

    You might also like