Executive Summary

Historical, political, and institutional analysis has long privileged the goals and achievements of major powers—empires, great states, dominant institutions, and hegemonic actors. While such focus is understandable, it is analytically incomplete. This white paper argues that examining the goals, constraints, and outcomes of minor powers is essential for accurate comparative analysis. Minor powers illuminate structural realities, strategic tradeoffs, and institutional dynamics that remain invisible when analysis is confined to dominant actors alone.

By incorporating the perspectives of smaller states, lesser institutions, and marginal actors, analysts gain:

A clearer understanding of structural constraints A more accurate picture of agency under pressure Better tools for counterfactual reasoning A corrective against teleological and triumphalist bias

1. The Problem with Great-Power-Centric Analysis

1.1 Survivorship Bias in Historical Narratives

Analyses that focus only on major powers tend to:

Treat success as inevitability Read outcomes backward into intentions Ignore paths not taken because they failed

Minor powers, by contrast, preserve evidence of abandoned strategies, adaptive improvisation, and near-miss equilibria—all of which are essential for understanding real decision-making under uncertainty.

1.2 Scale Distortion and Misattribution of Causality

Great powers often:

Absorb shocks that would destroy smaller actors Externalize costs onto weaker neighbors Benefit from structural advantages unrelated to strategic brilliance

Without minor powers as comparators, analysts risk mistaking scale advantages for policy excellence.

2. What Counts as a “Minor Power”?

A minor power is not simply “small.” Rather, it is an actor that:

Operates under asymmetric constraints Cannot dictate system-wide rules Must survive through alignment, specialization, or avoidance

Examples include:

Secondary states in multipolar systems Buffer polities between empires Regional institutions overshadowed by central authorities Small organizations navigating dominant regulatory regimes

3. Analytical Gains from Studying Minor Powers

3.1 Constraint-First Strategy Formation

Minor powers reveal:

How goals are shaped after constraints are acknowledged The prioritization of survivability over expansion Tradeoffs between autonomy and security

This produces a constraint-first model of strategy, often more realistic than ambition-first models derived from hegemonic actors.

3.2 Institutional Fragility and Resilience

Because minor powers lack redundancy, they expose:

Which institutions are mission-critical Where governance failure is fatal rather than absorbable How legitimacy, diplomacy, and internal cohesion substitute for force

This is invaluable for institutional analysis in nonprofits, churches, startups, and small states alike.

3.3 Clarifying the Role of External Actors

Minor powers are often acted upon, making them ideal lenses for studying:

Alliance pressure Patron-client dynamics Coercive diplomacy Soft power asymmetries

Their records show how policies imposed by larger actors actually function on the ground.

4. Comparative Analysis: What Changes When Minor Powers Are Included

4.1 More Accurate Typologies

Including minor powers forces analysts to distinguish between:

Strategies that scale Strategies that only work under dominance Strategies viable only in constrained environments

This refines typologies of governance, diplomacy, warfare, and institutional design.

4.2 Improved Counterfactual Reasoning

Minor powers often ask:

“What if we choose neutrality?” “What if we align with a declining power?” “What if survival requires retreat rather than resistance?”

These counterfactuals sharpen understanding of path dependence and contingency, which major-power narratives often obscure.

4.3 Moral and Normative Clarity

Minor powers frequently confront:

Unjust systems they cannot overturn Moral compromises made under duress Tradeoffs between purity and survival

Their experiences provide essential data for ethical analysis, especially in theology, law, and institutional governance.

5. Case Illustration: Small-State Perspective in Late Medieval Europe

In conflicts dominated by great powers, such as those involving France or the Habsburgs, smaller polities like Duchy of Lorraine, Savoy, or Burgundian State pursued goals fundamentally different from conquest:

Preservation of autonomy Control of transit routes Dynastic survival Avoidance of total war

Their partial successes and failures reveal the real cost of geopolitical competition, often hidden by the ultimate victory of larger states.

6. Implications Beyond Political History

6.1 Organizational and Institutional Analysis

In churches, nonprofits, and academic institutions:

Large organizations can survive dysfunction longer Small organizations reveal failure modes earlier Minor actors show how rules function under pressure

6.2 Policy Design and Risk Assessment

Policies tested only on large systems often:

Fail when applied to smaller entities Impose disproportionate compliance burdens Create hidden fragilities

Minor-power analysis improves policy robustness.

7. Methodological Recommendations

To properly include minor powers in comparative analysis:

Normalize for constraint, not outcome Compare actors by problem space, not prestige Preserve failure cases as analytically valuable Treat survival itself as a legitimate success metric Integrate micro-level decisions into macro narratives

Conclusion

Examining only major powers produces distorted analysis—one that overstates agency, underestimates constraint, and mistakes dominance for wisdom. Minor powers, by contrast, operate closer to the structural realities that shape all actors. Their goals are clearer, their tradeoffs starker, and their failures more instructive.

A comparative framework that includes minor powers is not merely more inclusive—it is more accurate, more ethical, and more useful for understanding politics, institutions, and human decision-making under real-world constraints.

In short: to understand how systems truly work, one must study those who could not afford to be wrong.