If we examine the interrelationships between states in antiquity, it appears that the most common pattern of operation was a zero-sum game. This is for the reason that over time there have always been at least two superpowers (in the Mediterranean basin and Mesopotamia) that each tried to strengthen its military ability and political influence by way of conquests and grabbing land from the other side
The expression borrowed from game theory and common by everyone is a zero-sum game. The meaning is clear. In a situation of conflict between two parties and it does not matter if it is individuals, groups, organizations or countries, a victory for one is a loss for the other. The opposite situation is that of a game where everyone benefits - WIN WIN regardless of the scope and strength of the parties' profit. This approach finds its place in long-term agreements. In this game, the emphasis is on cooperation and profit sharing. All participants in this game are treated the same.
A common convention is that the mutual relations between democratic countries are WIN WIN. This argument has its own logic and that is that democracies will not try to reach a military or economic conflict between them since they will lose. Each country has a relative advantage in economic areas unique to it and in the state of cooperation and the contribution of each of them to the mutual relations between them in the long run each of them will benefit.
If we examine the interrelationships between states in antiquity, it appears that the most common pattern of operation was a zero-sum game. This is for the reason that over time there have always been at least two superpowers (in the Mediterranean basin and Mesopotamia) that each tried to strengthen its military ability and political influence by way of conquests and grabbing land from the other side. Even if a power entered into an alliance with another country or formed a coalition with small countries, the mutual benefit would be short-lived, for the reason that the strengthening of one alliance would naturally weaken the other power.
The most striking example of this pattern is the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. These were two powers each with their own characteristics. Rome was basically a military power and Carthage was an economic power. If we try to describe with the stroke of a brush the interests of these two powers, Rome increased its power through conquests. Each territory that was conquered had to raise a tax to Rome and in return, the local residents were given a great deal of self-government. In short, they would receive Roman citizenship. For the Carthaginians, the places they reached and established colonies were of commercial importance. These were the economic anchors through which all their commercial activity was carried out. Carthage made every effort to maintain its economic monopoly.
One of Rome's greatest fears was Carthage's takeover of Spain. This had implications in terms of its influence on the western basin of the Mediterranean Sea. This was one of the reasons for the bloody wars between the two powers that led to the destruction of Carthage. Rome itself suffered heavy damages, infrastructure was destroyed, its economy was damaged and tens of thousands of its inhabitants fell in the wars. The situation of Rome was not far from the statement of the king of Pyrrhus "one more victory like this and we are lost". The question that arises is what would happen if instead of fighting each other they cooperated. Recognizing that both would have benefited from this. Rome would have benefited from the economic activity of Carthage - a constant supply of various products and Carthage would have been protected by a country with unprecedented military power. History would probably have looked different.
The obvious conclusion is that in international relations moving from a zero sum game to a situation where everyone benefits requires political readiness and maturity and it took thousands of years to reach this insight. The interesting thing is that this insight was not reached through political thought that has been given much thought since Plato and Aristotle, but through a mathematical branch that developed in the second half of the 20th century.
One response
Many "games" between societies in the ancient world were not zero-sum games. Indeed, the Roman example is a good example because Rome did not seek to destroy the countries it fought but to subjugate them - for its own benefit and their benefit (for its friendship). Even Carthage, its great enemy for 200 years, Rome did not seek to destroy, and only after a third victory over it was it agreed in the Roman Senate that Carthage should be destroyed, that is, an absolute victory should be achieved over it, and not reach an agreement with it for the benefit of both parties.
On the other hand, zero-sum games also characterize many international moves today. The Cold War was actually based entirely on the principle of absolute profits, even though one side was democratic.
While game theory has a lot to offer in the realm of politics and diplomacy, much reading and scrutiny should be done before making statements. By the way, the above insight was also reached in the branch of political thought (and the reading list is too long to present here) but using different terms referring to the exact same ideas.