Maritime Leviathan and Terrestrial Behemoth
Archetypes of Geopolitical Power
Leviathan and Behemoth: Thalassocracy and Tellurocracy in Geopolitical Thought
Throughout human history, the interplay between maritime and land-based powers has shaped the trajectory of civilizations, wars, and global dominance. This dichotomy, encapsulated in the concepts of thalassocracy and tellurocracy, is vividly brought to life when framed through the biblical archetypes of Leviathan and Behemoth—the sea and land monsters of ancient lore. Drawing from geopolitical theories such as Halford Mackinder’s “Heartland Theory,” this article explores how these archetypes symbolize the enduring struggle between sea-based and land-based powers.
Thanks to my readers' generosity, all my articles are free to access. Independent journalism, however, requires time and investment. If you found value in this article or any others, please consider sharing or even becoming a paid subscriber, who benefits by joining the conversation in the comments. I want you to know that your support is always gratefully received and will never be forgotten. Please buy me a coffee or as many as you wish.
The Leviathan of the Seas: Thalassocracy
A thalassocracy represents a maritime power whose strength lies in naval dominance, control of trade routes, and the projection of influence across oceans. Leviathan, the mythical sea monster, serves as a fitting metaphor for the vast and fluid power of maritime states, which are unbound by the fixed geography of land.
Characteristics of Leviathan (Thalassocracy):
Mobility and Flexibility: Thalassocracies thrive on their ability to move goods, people, and armies across great distances with relative speed.
Trade and Commerce: Economic dominance is secured through control of global trade routes and strategic chokepoints, such as the Strait of Malacca or the Suez Canal.
Cultural Diffusion: Maritime empires, such as the British Empire, spread languages, ideologies, and innovations through their extensive networks.
Global Hegemony: Naval superiority enables global reach, allowing thalassocracies to impose their will far from their home territories.
Economic Command and Control: The inherent mercantile structure of thalassocracy—which keeps raw materials, manufacturing, and markets separated—fosters the development of debt-based finance and insurance systems as economic control mechanisms. These usurious structures concentrate power and wealth, enabling maritime powers to exert influence over global trade and economies.
Historical Examples:
The British Empire: A quintessential thalassocracy, leveraging its naval power to build an empire where “the sun never sets.”
The Venetian Republic: A city-state that commanded the Mediterranean through its fleets and trade dominance.
The United States: Often seen as a modern Leviathan, with its navy patrolling the world’s oceans to maintain a “rules-based” international order.
The Behemoth of the Land: Tellurocracy
In contrast, a tellurocracy embodies the dominion of land-based powers, whose strength lies in the control of vast territories, natural resources, and overland trade routes. Behemoth, the monstrous creature of the earth, symbolizes the unyielding, grounded nature of such empires.
Characteristics of Behemoth (Tellurocracy):
Territorial Dominance: Power is derived from controlling large contiguous landmasses and the resources within them.
Agricultural Foundations: Economies are often rooted in the productivity of the land and its natural wealth.
Fortification and Defense: Emphasis is placed on securing borders and building infrastructure, such as roads and railways, to connect internal regions.
Cultural Insularity: Tellurocracies may develop distinct identities shaped by geographic isolation and long-standing traditions.
Credit-Based Economies: Unlike thalassocracies, tellurocracies are more inclined toward credit-based economic systems, such as Alexander Hamilton’s “American System of Economy.” These systems emphasize public credit, industrial growth, and internal improvements, fostering economic independence and long-term stability.
Historical Examples:
The Russian Empire/Soviet Union: A vast tellurocracy that sought to dominate the Eurasian landmass.
The Mongol Empire: Known for its overland conquests and control of the Silk Road.
The Ottoman Empire: Strategically positioned at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, emphasizing control over land-based trade routes.
Rome: A Hybrid of Leviathan and Behemoth
Rome offers a fascinating example of an empire that straddled the line between thalassocracy and tellurocracy, embodying traits of both Leviathan and Behemoth at different stages of its history.
Rome as a Tellurocracy:
Land-Based Expansion: Rome’s dominance was rooted in its territorial conquests across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Its control over vast contiguous landmasses exemplifies tellurocratic power.
Agrarian Economy: The Roman economy relied heavily on agriculture, with estates (latifundia) producing the surplus needed to sustain its cities and armies.
Infrastructure Mastery: Roads, aqueducts, and fortifications symbolized Rome’s ability to consolidate and control its land-based empire, connecting its provinces and ensuring military and administrative efficiency.
Cultural Integration: Rome’s emphasis on law, language, and governance unified its diverse territories under a shared identity, another hallmark of tellurocratic power.
Rome as a Thalassocracy:
Mediterranean Dominance: The Romans referred to the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum ("Our Sea"), reflecting their naval supremacy and control of maritime trade routes.
Trade Networks: Maritime commerce allowed Rome to access resources from across its empire, including grain from Egypt and luxury goods from the East.
Naval Power: Particularly during the Punic Wars, Rome’s naval strength was pivotal in defeating Carthage and asserting dominance over the Mediterranean.
A Hybrid Approach:
Rome’s ability to combine the strengths of both paradigms—land-based consolidation and maritime connectivity—allowed it to achieve unprecedented longevity and influence. This hybrid model enabled Rome to pull its adversaries into domains where it held the advantage, whether through overland military campaigns or naval blockades.
Mackinder’s “Heartland Theory”
Halford Mackinder’s “Heartland Theory” offers a geopolitical framework that underscores the tension between these two archetypes. In his seminal work, Mackinder argued:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the World.”
For Mackinder, the Heartland (central Eurasia) was the domain of Behemoth, where land power could theoretically dominate the globe by leveraging its resources and strategic position. Leviathan, represented by maritime powers such as Britain and later the United States, sought to contain Behemoth by encircling the Heartland with naval superiority and alliances.
This theoretical struggle reflects a fundamental truth: the balance of power between thalassocracy and tellurocracy is central to the history of geopolitics.
The Eternal Struggle
Leviathan and Behemoth are not merely mythological figures; they are enduring symbols of two competing paradigms. Thalassocracies bring dynamism and innovation, spreading ideas and commerce across the seas. Tellurocracies embody stability and rootedness, focusing on the consolidation of land-based resources and cultural identity.
Each excels in its respective domain: thalassocracies command the open seas with speed and adaptability, while tellurocracies dominate land with their entrenched control over resources and infrastructure. However, the struggle intensifies when one power seeks to draw the other into its domain to gain an advantage. For example, maritime powers may attempt to blockade or encircle land powers, forcing them into economic dependency, while land powers may seek to establish inland trade routes and choke maritime access points to undermine naval dominance. This constant push-and-pull defines their interaction, as neither can afford to let the other dominate unchallenged.
In today’s geopolitical landscape, this struggle continues. The frontman United States and its Anglo-European Oligarch controllers — as heirs to the Leviathan tradition — face emerging Behemoths like Russia and China, which seek to challenge maritime dominance through land-based strategies such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the unification of the Heartland.
Conclusion
The tension between thalassocracy and tellurocracy, Leviathan and Behemoth, is not a relic of history but a dynamic force that shapes our world. Understanding this interplay through the lens of Mackinder and biblical archetypes allows us to grasp the deeper forces at work in global geopolitics. As new powers rise and old ones adapt, the struggle between sea and land will remain a defining narrative of human civilization.
Modern physics teaches that things at their smallest degree base apparently consists of discreet individual quanta. Even light, which is perceived as a seamless continuum is composed of individual photons. This is nature, and laws of human life will not deviate for long. To the elite Globalists, the anti-patriotic multi-national corporations and Free Trade ideologues, the world is an economic continuum envisioned as a seamless market. This is a false notion. The world's economy is precisely quantized as individual national units derived from individual national cultures driven by individual praxis. Trade and free exchange does work very efficiently within defined cultural units; but to eliminate separate culture unit individualities is to destroy the entrepreneurial engines of economies. The perceptions of a world-wide market continuum can persist in the absence of base quanta culture units, but that market will ultimately degrade to nothing.
As noted above, the theory of Free Trade had some justification under certain conditions prevailing prior to the Industrial Revolution. Post that event, the theory breaks down, and as the modern historical record demonstrates, “managed trade” through protectionist policies such as tariffs to mitigate replication provides the underpinnings for modern secure economic development. “...it was protectionists that invented American Capitalism. It was under a 40% average tariff that our nation built up for over 150 years. ...it was under protectionism that until 1913 there was no income tax, and no need for it.”1 Trade of valued non-replicable goods is normally desirable, but “free” trade of goods subject to easy replication by competitors will inevitably bring economic displacement and a leveling down to a world-wide mean. Although some undeveloped economies may rise to this mean, all the developed countries would have to severely decline to reach it. Pat Buchanan wrote in his column, “No nation rose to world power on free trade..... Nations rise on economic nationalism; they descend on free trade.” Do free traders ask who will provide the economic engines to the world after the developed economies settle in to torpidity? Can their capital bases be sustained?
As the incessant process commences, it soon becomes evident in our observations with the destruction of the pre-existing capital base of the developed countries. As economist Antal Fekete wrote “Capital accumulation is the result of decades or even centuries of arduous saving by hundreds of millions of individuals that, nevertheless, can be frittered away in a matter of a few years. To rebuild the capital base of society will take a concentrated effort to save for decades to come.” In service to the Globalists, should this capital base be now foolishly destroyed for posterity on the mantra of Free Trade ideology?
Hence, no railways connect the heart of the African continent to Euro/Asia with Israel at key strategic location/cut-off.