"All great civilizations, in their early stages, are based on success in war"

Kenneth Clark's quote, "All great civilizations, in their early stages, are based upon success in war", encapsulates a point of view on how military expertise has actually historically been a fundamental aspect in the increase of civilizations. This statement recommends that before societies can flourish in the arts, sciences, and governance, they need to initially protect themselves through force or strategic dominance.

Throughout history, early civilizations frequently broadened and combined power through dispute, utilizing victories to accumulate resources, land, and impact. For example, the Roman Empire initially grew through decisive fights and conquests, which enabled it to control large territories, access a variety of resources, and assist in trade paths. This expansion through war laid the groundwork for Rome's political and cultural hegemony, promoting a period of peace and stability referred to as the Pax Romana-- a time throughout which arts and architecture thrived.

Similarly, ancient civilizations like Egypt and Mesopotamia saw durations of growth and success following military conquests or defensive successes. The capability to protect borders or dominate neighbors not only supplied physical security however frequently enhanced the morale and unity of a civilization. Success in warfare might result in increased status and power, which in turn attracted competent individuals and promoted trade relations, contributing substantially to a civilization's development and advancement.

Nevertheless, Clark's assertion likewise invites us to consider the broader ramifications of equating early success with martial strength. It evokes the question of sustainable growth-- whether civilizations that increase through war can shift into periods of lasting peace and cultural achievement. History has actually revealed diverse paths where some civilizations, like the Mongols, had a hard time to maintain cohesive empires beyond their military exploits, while others effectively incorporated war achievements into enduring legacies that emphasized cultural or intellectual developments.

In summary, Clark highlights the paradoxical relationship in between war and civilization-building, explaining the apparently needed role of dispute in laying the foundational stone for what could become a great civilization. It underscores the double nature of war as a force of destruction and development, shaping societies in their infancy and eventually affecting the course of human history.