Philip II and the Big Picture

Tuesday night at the Forrestal Lecture, the speaker repeated to us a quote from Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz: “nothing that happened during [World War II] was a surprise — absolutely nothing except the Kamikaze.” This is not because World War II went just like any other war. In fact, the Island Hopping campaign was nothing like any operation the US had ever undertaken up to that point. The reason US strategists were able to accurately predict the way the war would be fought is due to decades of strategic and technological developments leading up to the war. Nimitz orchestrated the technology and capability for Underway Replenishment which was essential to operations across the vast Pacific Ocean. Strategists focused on mastering carrier aviation, and lethal attack submarines because they would prove essential to American success in the Pacific Campaigns. The greatest military successes in history have always started decades before the actual conflict, and Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire is no exception.

A generation prior to Alexander The Great’s campaigns, his father Philip II spearheaded a massive set of military reforms. The most important of these was the establishment of the Macedonian Phalanx as the fighting formation. The use of Sarissae (long spears) and shields which were lighter weight than traditional Hoplite shields made it both more affordable to be in the military, and made the forces more mobile and effective. These reforms were original and would catch the rest of the world by surprise, because Philip had analyzed the way other armies (specifically Persia) had fought and knew how to exploit their weaknesses. In a speech delivered by Alexander, he described that Philip’s men began as “vagabonds” and through his leadership and strategic vision made them very “capable of fighting”(Arrian, Anabasis 8.9). Although Alexander was a terrific general, he did not accomplish all he did solely based on his own leadership. It was Philip’s tactical and strategic foresight that made all of Alexander’s successes possible.

As Midshipmen, we are primarily focused on preparing to become junior officers in the Navy or Marine Corps. However, some of us will go on to hold flag rank. At that point, your role becomes much more strategically oriented as your focus turns towards the future and the big picture. Even as junior officers, when our role is more geared towards leading enlisted, it is essential that we keep our eyes and mind open to the things around us. The more knowledge and awareness we have about the global climate, the more prepared we will be to institute strategic plans and military reforms which will be crucial to our success not in the present, but decades down the line. It is visionary strategic thinkers and planners such as Philip and Nimitz that make massive military undertakings especially Alexander’s conquering of the Persian Empire possible.

471 Words

-Ben Stanish

Genghis Khan: One of a Kind or Alexander Copycat?

One of the first things I learned about Genghis Khan is that approximately 0.5% of men on the entire planet are his descendents. Considering how big the world is, this speaks bounds to how prolific the Mongol Empire grew in both power and area under his leadership. On the surface, the Mongols and their rise to power are merely a freak historical anomaly. However, history tends to repeat itself in one form or another. The Mongolian expansion across Asia and into Europe is not so different from Alexander the Great’s conquests nearly a millennium prior in the 4th Century, CE.

Both great empires rose from similar political situations with the unification of warring tribes and city states to form large, unified forces. The Macedonian phalanx was an extremely lethal and innovative fighting strategy initiated by Alexander’s father Philip. The Mongols also fought with the technological breakthroughs of the composite bow and siege weapons. Having the most advanced military capabilities of their time made each military a lethal force which could conquer massive swaths of land in relatively little time. In Ibn al-Athir’s The Perfect History, he compares the Mongolian invasions to Alexander when he “conquered the world”(al-Athir). Both Alexander and the Mongols were also viewed as possessing supernatural characteristics. Alexander was considered a demi-god and was frequently depicted with horns in his head, relating him to Zeus. Those who were victims of the Mongolian conquest feared that even God could not stop the merciless horde which descended upon them (al-Athir). These divine interpretations gave both conquerors a sort of supernatural aura to their campaigns.

Unlike many other massive conquests throughout history, neither one specifically intended to spread their culture onto their conquered people. The Mongols were known for their tolerance, however not only was Alexander tolerant of the culture of those he conquered, he even adopted many aspects of Persian culture. After Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, he proceeded to adopt the traditional clothing and customs of a Persian ruler, while still maintaining some of his own cultural practices. His adoption of Persian customs went so far that his fellow Macedonians began to oppose “his vision of a bicultural future” (Demand).

These striking similarities of military innovations, revolutionary regional unifications, and transcontinental conquests coupled with cultural tolerance prove that the Mongolian Invasion was not an isolated phenomenon. These similarities are just another example of the idea that history tends to repeat itself in one way or another. This leads you to question: is any great leader or conquest truly original?

-Ben Stanish

Word Count: 422

Sources:

Demand Ch. 15

Ibn al-Athir, The Perfect History

Art of War or Battlefield Autocrat?

In the popular sci-fi novel Ender’s Game a small group of teenage strategic masterminds command massive swarms of mindless ships and crews in order to defeat their enemy in space. Although interesting, having command over a mindless force seems to be an idea limited to science fiction and video game simulations. However, Sun Tzu’s Art of War goes into detail about warfare of that exact nature. In his works, he outlines how an army should function, and how warfare should be conducted in Ancient China. Laozi, one of Sunzi’s contemporaries echoed his views that “one who is adept at defeating the enemy does not engage him”(Laozi 68). It is extremely costly in economic and human terms, and the ideal means of victory is to subdue the enemy without engaging them at all. But when two forces do engage in battle, the sole actor responsible for the performance of the army is the commander. The troops are to move as a mindless horde and directly follow the orders of the commander which are to be constantly shaped to the tide of battle.

Although these strategies were very successful in Ancient China, they are nearly polar opposite of what we are taught here at the United States Naval Academy. Here we are taught that as leaders, the most important thing is to know and care for the people you are leading. Treating those below you as mindless robots goes directly against the relationship-based leadership we have been preached since I-Day. The biggest advantage of our fighting force lies in our diversity and the wide range of different skills and life experiences sailors and marines bring to the table. Although orders have to be followed in most situations, a questioning attitude is encouraged at many times.

In pure theory, Sun Tzu’s philosophy in Art of War is extremely effective. If the commander is a strategic genius, then they will have full control of the battle, and like a chess grandmaster, will be unstoppable. However, for the culture of a military and its role in society, it is vital that warriors are treated with respect and dignity as real people. When the high up leadership fails, it is vital that warriors can think for themselves with a hierarchy of lower level leadership in order to take the tide of battle into their own hands. In modern warfare, and even ancient warfare, it is vital that forces are not dependent upon the decisions of a single leader, therefore USNA teaches us a much more viable style of leadership to be used as future officers in the Navy and Marine Corps.

Word Count: 436

-Ben Stanish

From Philip II to Robespierre: No Leader Is Great On Their Own

It is one thing to have your name remembered in history, but a whole other thing for “Great” to be part of that name. Alexander the Great was a truly remarkable leader by the success of his military and political campaigns to dominate one of the world’s largest and richest regions. These military campaigns, however, were made possible only because extremely high level of training and tactical expertise of the Macedonian Army. Alexander’s father, Philip II instituted key changes to mold Macedonia to the position which led Alexander to his success. Although Alexander was by many means “Great,” he couldn’t have done so without his father.

Before Philip II, the Macedonian political landscape consisted of a mess of warring aristocratic clans. When Philip gained power, that all changed. Not only was everyone unified, but the culture around the military changed. Traditionally, the method of fighting was through the use of a Hoplite Phalanx. Hoplite armour, however, was extremely expensive, so it essentially restricted warfighting to wealthy landowners. Phillip reformed the military to fight with light, cheap armour, and sarissae (long spears) in order to allow a much greater number of people to serve and fight. Philip’s leadership transformed the Macedonian people from “helpless vagabonds … clothed in skins” to wearing cloaks and “a match in battle for the barbarians on [their] borders”(Arrian, Anabasis 7.9.2-4). Philip was seen as this great unifier who was revered by his troops. He used this power to train his troops to fight extremely efficiently and be among the best armies in the world. Alexander the Great won several battles in which his forces were greatly outnumbered, but the superior tactics and training of his troops were the only thing preventing defeat. Without Philip’s military reforms, Darius would have likely defeated Alexander making him not so great after all.

Napoleon led very successful campaigns to take control of almost all of Europe in the early 19th Century. Napoleon’s rise to power, however, would not at all have been possible without the radical actions of Maximilien Robespierre a decade earlier. Robespierre led the Reign of Terror which began with the execution of the monarch King Louis XVI. The absolute chaos which ensued, ending with Robespierre’s death, caused a massive power vacuum. This enabled Napoleon to step in and be so influential. The radical ideology propagated by Robespierre was instrumental in setting the French up to engaging in a campaign as ambitious as Bonaparte’s. Despite his excellent skill as a general and leadership charisma, Napoleon would not have been able to do what he did, or at least not have the same success, if it were not for Robespierre’s leading of the Reign of Terror.

Nobody can ever do something truly great on their own, including the most legendary historical characters. Alexander and Napoleon alike could have not earned their empires and historical reputations without having their paths paved by Philip II and Robespierre, respectively.

-Ben Stanish

475 Words

From the Pnyx to Capitol Hill, Democracy Has Come a Long Way

American society emphasizes democracy and the Constitution, and we often forget that although our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, democracy has existed for millenia. Back in the Fifth Century, BCE, Athens was governed by a direct democracy in which any citizen could attend the Assembly and debate and vote on legislation. American “democracy” is actually a republic, in which elected officials represent, or at least are supposed to represent the people’s best interests when debating and voting on legislation. Direct democracies often result in mob rule or tyranny of the majority, while representative democracies can bring misrepresentation and institutional oppression. Although both systems have their flaws, the United States’ Constitutional Democracy is a much better form of government than that used in Fifth-Century Athens.

Pericles boasted in his Funeral Oration that nobody “is held back” from democratic participation “because his reputation is not well known, as long as he can do good service to the city”(Thucydides ii.37). This appears to be a great feature of direct democracy, because anybody has an equal opportunity to have a say and make a difference. However, what if that person has no firm grasp on foreign policy, the economy, or voting rights? Although equal opportunity is beneficial to any democracy, there are less radical ways to go about accomplishing it. Allowing people with zero experience with government and politics to have a direct say in decisions made at the highest level is not responsible, as they can be easily swayed and unite with a mob mentality. When a higher proportion of the assembly is more easily swayed, leaders such as Alcibiades can gain influence, causing the failed Sicilian Expedition and the downfall of Athens in the Peloponnesian War.

There is no doubt that a representative democracy poses its own challenges. Rather than the fear of too many people having a direct say in decisions, only an elected few get to author and vote on key legislation. In the U.S. government, for example, the over three hundred million citizens are represented in congress by just five hundred thirty-five Senators and Representatives. Because so few people have a direct say in Congress, it is a big deal when somebody votes against the will of those they represent. Although false representation like this is possible, the people still hold checking power against elected officials. Constituents directly elect their representatives, so if a representative acts unfavorably to those they represent, they will likely not be re-elected, or have potential to further their career in politics. Politicians often start at the local level and work their way up. This enables them to gain experience and expertise by the time they make decisions for the nation as a whole. This prevents against whimsical mob rule decisions, and allows for legislation to be thoroughly debated and audited before it becomes law.

The people deserve to have some say in government, but a direct democracy gives the public a responsibility it cannot sustain. A representative democracy, meanwhile, uses the will of the people to keep its leaders in check, while fostering a setting in which leaders are well educated, and properly informed to make the right decisions on behalf of the nation.

-Ben Stanish

Word Count: 509

In the Face of Oppression, Venezuelans Turn to Tyranny for Salvation

In modern culture, the term “tyrant” has come to mean an evil or unjust ruler. Even the legendary dinosaur Tyrannosaurus Rex’s name literally translates to “tyrant lizard” due to its menacing appearance and capabilities. However, when the term “tyrant” was first used in Ancient Greece, it described a non-hereditary monarch. Many tyrants were beloved by the people and wise and just rulers, while others went on power trips, just as any hereditary monarchs did at the time. The term’s definition in popular culture has moved far from its original meaning, however its proper use may not be entirely a thing of the past. The President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro has been called a tyrant by his people, and the U. S. Government has officially acknowledged the opposition leader, Juan Guaido, as the official president. Despite the fact that they Maduro is a non-hereditary ruler, I believe not only that he is not a tyrant, but that Guaido is.

In analyzing the rise of Pisistratus, Herodotus tells of Pisistratus’s struggles in attempting to rule Athens (Herodotus 1.59). He had to take bold and unorthodox actions in order to establish his tyranny. In the New York Times article “After U.S. Backs Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s leader, Maduro Cuts Ties” by Ana Vanessa Herrero, Guaido swears himself in as the President of Venezuela. This is an extremely unorthodox method to claim power given that he swore himself in while the constitutionally chosen ruler was in power. Herodotus describes Pisistratus as the leader of the mountain people, just as Guaido is the head of the National Assembly, which was elected by the people in what the citizens believe to have been a more democratic election than the one by which Maduro was re-elected.

I believe the Ancient Greek definition of a tyrant is not very meaningful in today’s society since in most nations, leadership is not supposed to be passed down family lines like it was in Ancient Greece. So, I have adapted the original definition of tyranny to be better suited to today’s society as: a ruler who achieves their position in manners other than those prescribed by their respective government. Although Maduro’s rule has been authoritarian and oppressive, his power was achieved through the election system of the Venezuelan government, making his claim to the Presidency valid. Ironically, when the Venezuelan citizens demand “freedom from [Maduro’s] tyranny,” they are really promoting the true tyrant: Juan Guaido. Despite his high appeal and progressive values, as the head of the National Assembly, he has no lawful claim to the title he has assumed.

The idea of tyranny has been demonized in today’s society and as a result, the Venezuelan citizens used it to describe their oppressive ruler, Mr. Maduro. However, many Athenian Tyrants, such as Pisistratus, were beneficial leaders who had the people’s best interests in mind. Despite the fact that Maduro is a tyrant by today’s definition, by a renewed version of the Ancient Greek definition, Guaido is the true tyrant in the political struggle.

Ben Stanish

Word Count: 504

Herrero, Ana Vanessa. “After U.S. Backs Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s Leader, Maduro Cuts Ties.” New York Times, January 23, 2019. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/world/americas/venezuela-protests-guaido-maduro.html.