Grain or fish? The geopolitical evolution of land and sea powers

The most important contradiction in history has emerged between the land-based way of life and the way of life that opens up to the sea.

I recently read the book "Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States" (Koç University Press) by American anthropologist James C. Scott, first published in 2017, which re-evaluates the agricultural revolution and the emergence of the first sedentary states, one of the most important turning points in human history. In other words, it explains how the state and institutionalization emerged after hunter-gatherer humans transitioned to a sedentary life. Scott assesses the role of grain production—the turning point in the transition from hunter-gatherer nomadism to sedentary society—in the development of the first civilizations, particularly in Mesopotamia, primarily as a tool for strengthening authority. Thus, he examines its role in the capacity of states to collect taxes, monitor the population, and establish central authority. Scott argues that the replacement of other food sources with grain in food security and trade benefited the state, not the people. Contrary to the traditional view that people transitioned to agriculture to build a safer, wealthier, and more advanced civilization, Scott argues that the hunter-gatherer life was healthier and more flexible in many respects. According to him, grain agriculture specifically facilitated the emergence of states. This is because grains such as wheat, barley, and rice were measurable, storable, and taxable products. The first states relied heavily on grain production to collect taxes, monitor labor, build armies, and control the population. Ultimately, Scott's thesis led to the practice of the grain-producing continental state we see today. However, over time, the sea state, which derives its power from the sea and fish, emerged to challenge the continental state that derives its power from grain.

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN LAND AND SEA

Although Scott draws attention to the contradiction between the hunter-gatherer and the sedentary grain state, the most important contradiction in history has emerged between the land-based way of life and the way of life that opens up to the sea. In other words, human history is the history of the long and uninterrupted competition between Land Powers and Sea Powers. This competition is as much a history of the relationship humans establish with space as it is military or economic. When we look at today's geopolitical struggle, we see the reflections of the relationship between land and sea, or grain and fish. The geopolitical process of human history is often told through the agricultural revolution, the birth of states, and the rise of empires. Land offers a defined, measurable, and controllable area. On land, the goal is to reach natural borders to facilitate defense. By accessing rivers, mountains, hills, and the coastline, at least one side of the defense is secured. A continental state that reaches the sea faces a new challenge. The sea is the representative of a world that is constantly in motion, has variable boundaries, and is difficult to control. Compared to the movements of nature on land, the sea is much more irregular and dependent on unpredictable natural dynamics. For this reason, while land power produces order, hierarchy, and centralism, sea power has produced mobility, trade, and interaction with the outside world.

The difference that emerged between the state order shaped around the grain silos of the Sumerians and the trade networks established by the Phoenicians through ports and ships continues today. The roots of current debates, ranging from global supply chains to seabed energy resources, and from fisheries to maritime jurisdiction areas and the Blue Homeland (Mavi Vatan), actually extend back five thousand years. Therefore, to understand geopolitics, one must look not only at the borders of states but also at the economic and geographical conditions that gave birth to those states.

THE SUMERIANS AND THE CONTROL OF GRAIN

The first major state organizations in history emerged in Mesopotamia. The Sumerians, who lived their golden age between 3500-2000 BC, not only established city-states (Uruk, Ur, Lagash, Kish) but also laid the foundations of central administration, bureaucracy, and recording systems. At the center of this development was grain. The Sumerians became the first civilization to control grain. According to the late Muazzez İlmiye Çığ, one of the most important Sumerologists Turkey has produced, the Sumerians were one of the first great civilizations to develop writing, establish city-states, and lay the foundations of human history in the fields of law, education, literature, and state administration. As James C. Scott points out in his book, grain is not an ordinary agricultural product. Grain is a measurable, storable, transportable, and taxable product. These features are extremely critical for the emergence of states. Because a state can only establish permanent sovereignty over a population it can count and tax. According to him, grain production forced human communities to live in specific regions. Thus, humans ceased to be moving hunter-gatherer groups and turned into sedentary populations that the state could control. This transformation was not only economic but also political. For the first time, the state had the opportunity to regularly register people, collect taxes, provide forced labor, and build an army when necessary.

According to Scott, the emergence of writing among the Sumerians was also related to this need. The first examples of cuneiform were not developed to write epics or produce philosophy, but to track grain stocks, worker numbers, and tax records. Thus, writing became a bureaucratic tool before it became a cultural one. Silos were the strategic centers of this system. Because grain does not only produce economic value, it also produces political power. The ruling class that controls the silos also controls the life resources of the society. Therefore, the Sumerian-type state is essentially a control and supervision mechanism shaped around grain. In short, power is based on the land and the resources produced by the land. The population is fixed, registered, and under the surveillance of the central authority.

THE MOBILITY OF THE SEA AND THE PHOENICIANS

In contrast to the land order represented by the Sumerians, the Phoenicians developed a different model of civilization on the Levant coast in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Phoenicians, who stood out in maritime, shipbuilding, and trade and lived their golden age between 1200-800 BC, established port cities in Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos. They realized the beginnings of the Greek and Latin alphabets. Their power did not stem from the static nature and size of the land, but from the mobility offered by the sea. The Phoenicians did not have large agricultural basins. Food security was dependent on marine resources. In return, they established one of the first great maritime trade networks in history by building ports, trade centers, and colonies along the Mediterranean.

This network, extending from Carthage to the coasts of Spain, and from Sicily to the Eastern Mediterranean, created a model of power different from land-based states. Herodotus of Halicarnassus (450 BC), the historian of antiquity, emphasized their superiority in maritime by writing that the best ships in the Persian navy were provided by the Phoenicians. Similarly, the famous Ionian historian of the Roman period, Strabo (30 BC), who lived in Amasya, states that the Phoenicians became the masters of the seas thanks to their colonies that spanned the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians were not just merchants; they were one of the first great seafaring civilizations to turn the sea into a strategic power element. In the maritime world, power is measured by the density of connections. In this context, what was important for the Phoenicians was not to occupy a region. It was essential to direct the trade of that region. On the other hand, while the greatest advantage of the sea is mobility, this feature makes dynamic control by the state difficult. A continental state can count, tax, and register people. However, it is not possible to control merchants, sailors, and commercial connections constantly circulating at sea to the same extent. Because control requires records. While the Sumerian cuneiform, which they invented around 3000 BC to control grain and taxes, was a complex system for accounting and recording, the Phoenician alphabet that emerged 2000 years later was an alphabet that facilitated fast communication for trade. Viewed from this perspective, it can be said that the Phoenician model is one of the first globalization experiences in history.

The Continental and Maritime Balance of Empires

Empires that managed to become lasting powers throughout history did not rely solely on land or solely on sea power. The secret of their success was their ability to bring these two powers together. Rome is one of the most successful examples of this. The Roman Empire was initially far from the sea. Having created a strong continental (land) state by controlling large agricultural basins, Rome entered into a massive struggle in 264 BC with the seafaring Carthage, the descendants of its neighbors the Phoenicians, for control of the Western Mediterranean. The Carthaginians sent Rome's first navy, which they had drawn into a storm, to the bottom of the sea along with its 100,000 sailors. Rome responded by building a larger navy. This also met its end at the bottom of the sea in another storm two years later. Upon this, Rome sent its third armada, but its fate did not change. Finally, the fourth fleet won the war in 241 BC because Carthage could not replace the massive losses it had suffered. Rome later made the Mediterranean Mare Nostrum, or "Our Sea," and connected maritime trade to its own system. Therefore, Rome's power did not come solely from its legions or solely from its navy. Its power stemmed from its ability to combine grain silos and ports within the same strategic system.

A similar situation was valid for the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries. While the fertile agricultural lands of Anatolia, the Balkans, and Mesopotamia fed the Ottoman land power, dominance over the Bosphorus, the Dardanelles, the Aegean, and the Eastern Mediterranean gave the empire sea power. During the rise of the Ottoman Empire, the sea power created with both Istanbul and the Navy of the Barbary States balanced the massive land power and made it a power spreading across three continents. After the defeat at Lepanto in 1571, its sea power shrank rapidly, triggering the empire's period of stagnation and subsequent collapse.

The British Empire represents another form of this synthesis. As an island nation, England established a global system by controlling sea routes despite limited land resources. However, this system could only be sustained to the extent that it was connected to production centers on land. When the First World War lasted 2 years longer than expected, all the trade networks and flows of the small island nation were disrupted. This situation upset financial balances and accelerated borrowing. In the end, the war was won geopolitically, but the economic collapse brought an end to the Pax Britannica. France has strived to be both a continental and a sea power throughout its history. Although the USA maintains its superpower existence today as a sea power rather than a continental power, it is experiencing the difficulties of having rapidly downsized its navy after the Cold War. China, on the contrary, was a continental power for many years, but today it has been able to build a truly super sea power.

In short, history shows us that one-dimensional power models are not long-lasting. Lasting power is born from the ability to manage land and sea together.

GLOBAL CIRCULATION STRATEGIES

In today's world, sovereignty is not limited to protecting land borders. The security of maritime transport lines, the control of energy corridors, the protection of maritime jurisdiction areas, and access to global trade networks have also become inseparable parts of sovereignty. Today, approximately 90 percent of the world economy is transported via maritime trade. Crude oil and LNG, all kinds of bulk cargo including grain, container shipping, and critical maritime straits form the backbone of the global system. For this reason, the geopolitics of the modern age is largely shaped around the control of seas and logistics corridors. China's Belt and Road Initiative, the United States' global maritime dominance, Russia's search for access to warm seas, and Indo-Pacific strategies are actually current versions of the same historical struggle.

Today, the seas have also become the main arteries of data circulation. A large part of global internet traffic is carried via submarine fiber optic cables. Therefore, the seabed is now also a field of information sovereignty. Modern sea power will be measured not only by warships, merchant fleets, and ports, but also by the capacity to protect these critical infrastructures. The great powers of the future will be states that can dominate not only the sea surface but also the seabed.

GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY BALANCE

Today, the importance of sea power is not limited to the security of energy transport lines or trade routes. It is also the fundamental determinant of food security and, in particular, protein security. In a world where the population has reached approximately 8.2 billion, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), approximately 45 percent of global calorie consumption is provided directly from grain products. Wheat, rice, and corn form the basic nutritional backbone of humanity. However, a significant portion of this grain is not consumed in the countries where it is produced; it reaches global markets by being transported across oceans and seas. Approximately 90 percent of grain shipments in world trade are carried by sea. Similarly, fertilizer itself, an indispensable part of agriculture, and its raw materials are also shipped via the seas. For example, one-third of the world's fertilizer needs pass through the Strait of Hormuz. As a result of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, a serious fertilizer shortage and famine, especially in Africa, are expected in the coming period.

Similarly, the consumption of fish and aquatic products, which is an important element of global protein security, is also increasing rapidly. Today, approximately 3 billion of the world's population obtain at least 20 percent of their daily animal protein needs from the seas.

Therefore, the disruption of sea routes is not only an economic crisis but also a direct food and protein crisis. The fluctuation created in world markets by the Black Sea Grain Corridor during the Russia-Ukraine War is the most recent example of this. The merchant marine fleet is therefore not just an economic tool, but a strategic guarantee of national security, food supply, and social stability. Just as states that protected their grain silos in the past survived, states that can protect their merchant fleets, ports, and transport lines at sea today will be able to maintain their food security and economic independence. In other words, in the 21st century, the security of grain silos now depends more on the safety of maritime transport lines than on land walls.

CONTINENTAL AND MARITIME BALANCE IN THE GEOPOLITICS OF THE FUTURE

In world history, continental powers (e.g., Germany, Russia) expanded the state, while maritime powers (the Netherlands, England) connected the world. States like Rome and the Ottomans, on the other hand, were able to remain on the stage of history for a long time by melting these two legacies in the same pot. The situation is no different today. States that rely only on land power face the risk of being left out of global circulation. Structures that rely only on maritime trade, like Greece, become fragile without a strong political and economic foundation. Therefore, the geopolitics of the future will be shaped by states that can bring grain silos and ship holds together in the same strategic mind. The struggle that began five thousand years ago between Mesopotamia (Sumer) and the Eastern Mediterranean (Phoenicia) continues to live on today in energy lines, maritime jurisdiction areas, global supply chains, and doctrines such as the Blue Homeland. The sovereigns of the future will not be those who only manage the land or only control the seas. The true determinant will be states that can bring the order of land power and the mobility of sea power together within the same geopolitical vision. This synthesis will continue to be the fundamental condition for being a great power in the future, just as it was in the past.

CONCLUSION

Although Turkey is surrounded by seas on three sides, it has developed its geopolitical thinking largely on a land-centered basis for many years. However, the majority of Turkey's foreign trade is conducted by sea, its energy security depends on maritime transport lines, and its economic prosperity is directly affected by activities at sea. Therefore, for Turkey in the 21st century, the vision is not just to protect maritime jurisdiction areas. It is mandatory to develop a holistic strategy in the fields of a strong merchant fleet, advanced port infrastructure, seabed mining, marine technologies, marine sciences, fishing capacity, the use of living resources, and maritime security. For this reason, the Blue Homeland is not just a maritime jurisdiction area or security doctrine, but also a development and future vision that supports Turkey's economic independence, food security, and strategic sovereignty.

When the Blue Homeland approach is evaluated in this context, it is not just a maritime jurisdiction policy. It is also an attempt to complement Turkey's historically land-centered state reflexes with a sea-centered strategic vision. The Blue Homeland approach can also be read as an effort to combine Sumerian-type land-based power with Phoenician-type circulation logic. The state's productive, regulatory, and protective capacity is brought together with the mobility offered by the sea within the same strategic framework.