Professor Eckstein mounts the first serious attempt to match the theories of modern political scientists to the development of the Roman Republican empire. Adopting theories and terminology from modern theorists, Eckstein shows how the Mediterranean world was structured as a multi-polar anarchy without significant international laws, any way to enforce such laws and with only “compellence” diplomacy as a means of interstate communication. Under such circumstances, the theorists would predict that each state becomes militarized and that states often drift into contests of determination that result in war.
This is precisely the pattern that Eckstein shows prevailed in both classical and Hellenistic Greece and the Mediterranean. When he turns his attention to the early expansion of Rome in central Italy, Eckstein shows how lucky Rome was to survive, much less to expand, surrounded as it was by other militarized states. A discussion of Roman expansion in the western Mediterranean argues that Rome was no more bellicose or militarized than other states in the region.
If Rome was not exceptionally warlike, then how does Eckstein explain Rome’s expansion? Eckstein argues that Rome’s unique willingness to integrate former enemies into a flexible alliance system and even into citizenship allowed the Republic to assemble large resources and to sustain terrible defeats while ultimately prevailing. ( )

I can summarize the main argument of this book in one sentence: Rome did not rise to power because it was more warlike than the other Mediterranean states - others were just as eager to fight. The author hammers home this point again and again. It gets a bit repetitive in the end and I think the book often comes dangerously close to anachronism in applying modern theories of international relations to the ancient world. But I still think this was an interesting and well-written book.