Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a highly accomplished political scientist, and that really comes across in this book. As someone who loves history and is married to a political scientist, this was a fascinating read. It's amazing that laws written in the middle ages still indirectly impact modern European politics. Be warned: though expertly crafted, the book felt very dense. This was by no means a light or easy read. But if you're looking for a hardcore history or political science book, this may just be the thing you are looking for.

Very dense nonfiction, not altogether overly convincing, but makes interesting points about Western civilization and it's influence.

Idk why I requested this book in the first place. I'm into history but sometimes it's too much for me.
Thanks Netgalley and the publisher for the ARC

Truly awful. I can't believe the this author even read about the period. I know that everyone wants some original take. Sometimes the takes are original because they are simply so absurd as to be laughable.

As a historian, I found this to be an incredibly enjoyable read. It was well-written and informative, without being dry/dull/boring. I highly recommend this to anybody who is interested in historical politics.

I was really excited to have the opportunity to review The Invention of Power, but I'm not entirely sure the book and the title match up.

The sheer amount of research put forth in this work is really very impressive. de Mesquita has quite literally done his work and I have learned a great deal. Although I studied game theory in grad school, the era at the center of this book is not one with which I am terribly familiar, so The Invention of Power has taught me a lot about the history of and dynamics of the institutions and the rulers, both secular and religious, during the 900-1300s. That being said, I also don't have much of a background with which to critique the assumptions and theses put forth by de Mesquita.

It does feel as if some of the conclusions may be a bit premature or overly generous based on the evidence offered. While I have no doubt that the Concordats set the stage for a massive shift in power and control of much of European life during this timeframe, I am not entirely convinced by de Mesquita's assertion that these seemingly small events led to the existence and spread of "western exceptionalism," as is claimed. I have no doubt that they did lead to some rather incredible shifts in European society that certainly spread throughout the continent, and even the world, but I am personally missing the link to them being the purported smoking gun.

For those who are looking for an easy-to-understand book on the subject, I would advise that this book is a bit heady and reads like the books I read in my doctoral program.

Thank you to Net Galley and the publisher for the eARC in exchange for an honest review.

The title is somewhat of a misnomer. This book is about how power shifted, not about its invention. The author purports that the signing of the concordats in the 1100’s shifted Western European power struggles between the church (popes) and secular nations (kings/emperors/etc) to create Western Exceptionalism – the idea that Western European civilizations are more prosperous, freer, and less violent than other civilizations. It is interesting to read about the extent that these concordats seem to have helped create this development.

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita analyzes many factors and statistics to prove his point. He aims to disprove theories that are based on some variant of “Europeans have a superior culture”, “Europeans are harder-working, smarter people”, or “Europe’s God and religions are superior”.

Elsewhere, throughout most of history, the head of the government and the head of religion were the same person(s), or one was clearly subservient to the other. It is only in Europe, once the Holy Roman Empire was created by the pope to protect himself, the church and his papal states; that fierce political preeminence between the pope and Europe’s secular rulers was inevitable.

The author’s arguments establish that the “famous thesis of Max Weber, that Protestantism created northern Europe’s work ethic and prosperity, is backwards. The terms of the concordats incentivized a more successful work ethic in northern Europe” which “contributed to the rise of the Protestant Reformation”.

The concordats changed the rules and gave secular rulers greater bargaining power in some cases. The wealth or poverty of the area then affected the secular versus religious leaning attitude of the chosen/accepted local bishop and this caused further differences in wealth, Power, etc. During the Commercial Revolution, greater wealth induced greater secularism and greater secularism induced greater wealth. It is unclear if secular bishops stimulated growth or if growth attracted secular bishops; but both directions show the spiral building.

The author’s arguments seem to be well researched and are explained very well, but I find it difficult to believe that Western Exceptionalism could be caused by this one “big bang” event (or actually, the signing of three concordats). Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about the era or most of the factors discussed to have an intelligent opinion agreeing with or contradicting the ideas presented. In my mind, it seems that there must have been other things going on that contributed; rarely can historic changes be drilled down to one causative factor. Regardless, it is true today that Europe’s wealthier, more democratic, healthier, and more lawful countries are those that were covered by the concordats and this treatise is definitely worth a read for anyone interested in the history of why Western civilizations rose to such power.

Bueno de Mesquita takes the novel approach of using game theory to trace the roots of "western exceptionalism" to the Concordats of London, Paris, and most importantly Worms (aka Verms) in 1122. I'm not great at game theory, and I had to read the book twice to really get his arguments, but he makes a strong case that the 187 year Concordat period was foundational in establishing separation of Church and State in Germany, England, France, and other regions covered (Netherlands, Belgium, some other small regions).

I had not known the tactics the papacy used to quash economic development in the papal states, not least using the Knights Templar banking empire to finance economic warfare against the Holy Roman Empire. That is some history that's going on my to-read list once I get out of antiquity and return to my medieval reading.

The factors used in analyzing the "Concordat game" include per capita income, life expectancy, quality of life, proximity to major trade routes, etc., as well as rating bishops' secularity vs papal loyalty, diocese proximity to the Vatican, and so forth. I am not sold on every factor. I found it odd that Bueno de Mesquita does not address what it means to be near a major trade route in any meaningful way. Where did these routes come from? Were they affected by tribalism or racism? Were they tolled? Were they restricted to people of particular ethnicities? What about ports? What about kingdom or papal import tariffs? I don't know if these issues mattered to the game theory test or not, because the author doesn't address them.

I'm also not entirely sure what constitutes the "Europe" of the book. Clearly, all of Western Europe counts, but Eastern Europe is not mentioned other than to acknowledge that the Eastern Orthodox Church exists. That's fine, but where exactly is the Orthodox split? What about Poland? Hungary? I realize Eastern Europe is not exactly contained in the Concordat region, but Bueno de Mesquita so often refers "Europe" as a whole, I am confused by what is meant.

I'm also leery of the author's conclusions tying papal dominance to European countries & their former (or continued) colonies who continue to have lower scores on quality of life indices, per capita income, etc., because imperialism happened and continues to happen. Political science is profoundly involved in studying the effects of medieval imperialism on the modern world, and erasing those effects from this study seems kind of sketchy. How does the Concordat Game stand up in light of overt or covert policies refusing investment in or penalizing trade with areas populated by out-groups? There is substance here for any number of articles tracing where the logic follows and where the logic fails against the tide of human prejudice.

TBF, I'd like to see those articles. If you write one, link me.

At any rate, I'm fascinated by the idea that so-called "Western Exceptionalism" is rooted in 187 years of codified, incipient separation of Church and State, and despite everything that happened after 1309, including epic plague, famine, war, etc., the Concordat era may have had a lasting effect. The statistics here deal with an incredible amount of data to prove the connection, and it's certainly a more appealing idea than the racist/ethnocentric alternative. I just wonder what else was going on. What other factors existed in a pie chart of monarchical resistance to a corrupt medieval Church? Because while the Concordat game argument is persuasive, history is rarely down to just one thing. I want to see the complex of inputs that interreacted, how, and when.

ARC.