quo; however, due to the nature of the structure, the group’s interest superseded the need for any state to take over others. Thucydides was correct in his assumption that some of his understanding of human nature would last through into the future. The structure of the system in both examples are remarkably similar even after almost two thousands years they still have many of the same underling principles. In both systems, the main powers were responsible for the weaker states. Since the security dilemma was a concern of all the states, they mostly all strove to maintain the balance and ensure their survival. However trust and the inevitability of war differ greatly. This was most likely due to the differences in polarity of the structure. The Greek city-states were bipolar having only two main powers in the area. This was quite different than Europe's multi-polar system of five main powers. The actual political differences arose out of the availability of trust. Athens and Sparta had no other major powers to rely on if the other state became too strong. It was up to the two states to control the system. Whenever any action was carried out by one of the states, the other would become immediately concerned. However, in the Multi-polar system if one state begins to become too threatening, one or more of the other states could be trusted to unite and control the first power. This concept present in the multi-polar international stage managed to keep all states relatively equal and make a large systemic war very implausible. The one systemic conquest in the European system was that of Napoleon's French nationalist. Napoleon no longer saw that the balance of power was in France's best interests, and therefore went against it. The Napoleonic war would not have succeeded if not for the rise of French nationalism, which created a much stronger attacking force than any of the other powers combined. In addition, Napoleon's brilliant idea...
