How and why in historical explanations
What’s the difference between explaining how something happened and explaining why it did?
When we ask how, we describe the sequence of events and the conditions that shaped them. When we ask why, we connect those conditions to causation, trying to pinpoint the deeper forces at play.
History is not deterministic
The more you study history, the harder it becomes to explain why things unfolded as they did.
Constantine’s rise in 306 CE. At the time, Christianity was a small, esoteric sect from the East. If someone had predicted it would become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, they would have been mocked—like claiming that Hare Krishna will be the main religion of the U.S. by 2050. Similarly, in October 1913, the Bolsheviks were a fringe radical group. No one could have guessed they would soon rule Russia for 70 years.
From a certain angle, it’s purely coincidental that most people today believe in nationalism, capitalism, and human rights.
History is not deterministic. It’s not predictable. It’s chaotic—too many forces collide in systems far too complex.
The two levels of chaos
Chaotic systems operate on two levels.
First-level chaos doesn’t react to predictions. The weather is a good example. Meteorologists can refine their forecasts over time because the weather doesn’t change based on their predictions.
Second-level chaos, on the other hand, does react to predictions—making it fundamentally unpredictable. Financial markets are a prime example. Suppose we had a machine that could perfectly predict tomorrow’s oil price. If it forecasted oil rising from $90 to $100, traders would immediately rush to buy at $90, pushing prices beyond $100—invalidating the original prediction. This self-altering dynamic makes markets impossible to forecast with certainty.
Politics works the same way. If an Egyptian leader in 2010 had known about the Arab Spring in advance, he might have strengthened social controls, potentially preventing the uprising—thus rendering the prediction false.
Nationalism and game theory
Yet history is always written by the victors. And victors always believe they were right.
Postmodernist thinkers describe nationalism as a virus that spread across the world in the 19th and 20th centuries, fueling wars, hatred, and genocide. Once a country becomes “infected” with nationalism, its neighbors often follow.
Game theory explains how destructive patterns can take hold in multi-player systems. The best example: The arms race. Many arms races bankrupt participants without changing the balance of power.
If Pakistan develops nuclear weapons, India follows. Both nations pour billions into arms they hope never to use, while education and healthcare left underinvested. The result? Neither side gains a real advantage. The power balance remains the same, and everyone loses.