The Mongol Empire was built on the backs of the most efficient and effective fighting force the world had seen up to that point. They both amazed and terrified people with their aptitude at warfighting and their ability to create the largest empire the world had ever seen. These nomads, who were able to create an empire larger than Alexander the Great’s in 1/10 of the time and were so renowned for their brutality that they were compared to the Antichrist and determined to be worse than them, were established as the elite fighting force of the age (Athir, 13.1b).

The reason for their ability to be such an effective force at accomplishing their mission can be attributed to their cohesion. Their leader, Ghengis Khan was able to create a Mongolian national identity that unified the different tribes in the area. Whether it was the breaking of horizontal loyalties to clansman by putting tribe leaders in charge of different forces or the personal oaths of loyalty that the Mongols had to swear to him, Ghengis Khan was able to instill the utmost vertical loyalty in his troops by making them have an allegiance to the advancement of the Mongols as a whole. By making the individual troops have the priority of an allegiance to the Khan, he made a relationship between him and his leaders that consisted of men that “do not abandon each other but become protectors of that life” (The Secret History, 13.1a). This united all of his men under one mission and allowed their goals to align to allow the best possible performance.

As an officer in the fleet, it is important to ensure that the men that are under your command are as efficient and effective as possible. This can be done by establishing a goal that they should all work towards and by establishing a strong sense of vertical loyalty to the completion of the mission. When a team is working towards a goal, if any member has different intentions or thoughts on the matter, they can affect the whole process and slow it down. I can use what I learned from the Mongols to ensure that I focus on unifying the people under my command to work single mindedly towards a goal in order to become the best we can possibly be. A relationship towards the furthering of the United States should be strongly ingrained within every person and it is one of my jobs to ensure that this loyalty is deep and secured.

The Mongol empire was one of the most largest empires in the world. By using the different strategies used in forming proper unit cohesion myself, I will be able to become a better officer and develop the people I will lead into people that will truly benefit the nation.

-Eugene Om

Word Count-463

In less than a century, the Mongols managed to create one of the largest empires to ever exist. Their brutal tactics and nomadic style allowed them to continue expanding at an extraordinary rate which was unlike any seen before. This can also be compared to the United States of America and their rise to power.

The Mongols used superior tactics and firepower to completely eradicate everyone in their way and struck fear into the hearts of many. This was emphasized in The Perfect History, where they were compared to the Antichrist and determined to be worse than them. It was mentioned how the Mongols massacred everyone in their way to a point that not even the Antichrist would. The Mongols were also compared to Alexander the Great, and were noted to have even better efficiency and tactics than him and his empire, resulting in achieving a much larger empire in a tenth of the time. (Athir, 13.1b) However, they were also able to rule their empire with tolerance and allowed the territory under their command to have essentially complete self rule. The Pax Mongolica was shown to have tolerance of foreign religions as a primary point and to allow for intermingling of cultures to occur. Apart from paying a tax to the Mongols, life in the area proceeded as usual.

This combined mixture of absolute military superiority and hgh levels of cultural tolerance can also be seen in the rise of the United States. The United States can be considered as a melting pot of cultures, with no laws banning certain religions or establishing others as a designated state religion. Furthermore, the United States grew on immigrants coming from all around the world to form its diverse culture that we have today. However, the expansion of the United States is primarily based on its ability to be dominant over other countries and Native Americans. The primary method of expansion for the Americans was winning wars against weaker countries. Through America’s ability to win wars effectively against other countries and the Native American population, they were able to expand. The American treatment of the Natives was brutal and often inhumane. They saw them as barbarians and treated them as such. They forcibly removed them from areas that they lived in, showing cases of brutality with wars against them. However, once these lands were cleared, Americans allowed people to live on them with relatively general religious freedom.

The differences between the great, brutal but tolerant Mongolian empire and the United States of America with its militaristic methods of expansion while maintaining its symbol as the melting pot of the world are very slim. These two different empires have a large amount of similarities in their characteristics and can be compared very well.

-Eugene Om

Word Count-459

Back during the times of the Roman empire when the Roman polytheistic religion was at its height, Christianity was regarded as a suspicious and immoral religion. It was seen as a potential end to the Roman empire and they did whatever they did to get rid of it. Although there may be some qualms about freedom of religion, during that time, the Romans were justified in their actions in attempting to stamp out Christianity as a result of the existence of ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism is the viewpoint of looking at the world from one’s own culture. This often results in other cultures and religions being seen as “primitive” and strange. This also develops a superiority complex of sorts as people believe that their method of life is the supreme way to live life. Their Gods and their traditions are more right than other people’s Gods and traditions. Especially in the Roman empire, where the size of the empire allowed for great diversity and a common religion was one of the few things allowing for a sense of unity to be established, a new, radical religion could be seen as a disruption.

Furthermore, the Romans did not even know what the Christians did due to not communicating with them. As the Christian religion was so strange and completely different when compared to the Roman polytheistic religion, their traditions seemed alien. It was treated as a disease, as shown in Pliny’s letters to Emperor Trajan where he refers to Christianity as being able to seem “possible to check and cure it” (Pliny 10.96). In these letters to Emperor Trajan, Pliny continuously expresses his confusion regarding the Christian religion with himself not knowing “what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate and to what extent” (Pliny 10.96). The Romans clearly had no idea what Christianity did or what it was and had little interest in finding out as due to their ethnocentrism, saw no reason to.

The Romans saw their own polytheistic religion as the superior one, and consequently inferred that the Christian religion was a threat to the empire. The concept of freedom of religion was not yet present in the empire. The Romans would not simply just allow a new religion to come sweeping in to displace all the traditions and customs that had been in place for centuries. It would completely disrupt everything and even allow for future large scale changes that could lead to the collapse of the empire. The Romans had a justified fear and a want to take the problem out before it became a big issue. Their ethnocentrism made them wary of Christianity and their strange, alien customs and a need to remove it was seen as mandatory in order to continue the Roman empire.

-Eugene Om

Word Count- 434

The Roman Empire was reaching new heights under Caesar. He was popular amongst the people, made reforms to solve problems that had been plaguing the Romans, and forgave his enemies. He was charismatic, strategic, and powerful. Yet, the Senate decided that he was too powerful, and ended up assassinating him, leaving no children and the only relation being a great-nephew that was still only in his teens. Caesar’s rivals saw this as an opportunity, to either seize power or to take advantage of the new, possibly easily swayed heir. Yet, Augustus proved to be more than they expected, being absolutely brilliant as a politician and a leader and establishing himself as one that could not be taken advantage of.

Similarly, when Kim Jong-il died, it was at first, unclear who would take full power. Kim Jong-un was named the heir, but what his exact role was unknown. Due to his inexperience, it was assumed to Kim Jong-un would have a regent to rule for him. Yet he was able to fill the shoes of his father and to solidify his position as the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He even went as far as to eliminate the competition for his position and to any dissenters through purges. His uncle, who was assumed to fill the position of regent was arrested and executed for treachery. His very existence was attempted to be erased, as his close and extended family were also executed. Multiple political purges happened, resulting in the deaths of different members that could threaten Kim’s position as the Supreme Leader.

When Caesar’s great nephew, Octavian, first came to power, other members of the Senate assumed that they could take advantage of him and attempted to do so. Yet he quickly proved his competence by forming the Second Triumvirate with Mark Antony and Lepidus, which was an official alliance between the three that made the most of their military, political, social, and monetary power. He then proceeded to take revenge against those that stood against Caesar, through actions such as driving them “into exile, punishing their crime through the proper-law courts, and afterwards, when they made war on the state, defeated them twice in battle.” (Augustus 2.1) He was nicknamed the Teenage Tyrant as a result of his willingness to exact revenge on those involved in the plot against Caesar through various executions and murders.

Kim Jong-un followed in very similar footsteps to Augustus following the death of their predecessors. Their ability to rule was questioned and attempted to be taken advantage of, and their retaliated with quick and brutal methods that showed their competence and how much they deserved the throne. The quick power struggle which is involved in new rulers proving themselves able to fill the shoes of those before them can be seen as a rite of passage, to ensure that these people are capable of leading the country to greatness. Through our experiences of the past, we can use it to test these leaders and see the strength of these heirs through the trials that they are put through.

-Eugene Om

Word Count-492

TThe Athenian democracy and the American democracy vary greatly, with a major point being the Athenian pure representation, with each citizen being allowed to participate in a council and to vote as they please on issues, against the American representative model, where people are elected to represent a group of people and vote on their behalf. The American representative model is a direct improvement of the Athenian democracy and can be seen as a superior, upgraded way to govern.

The American representative model allows for people to continue their normal lives without having to take extreme amounts of time out of their days in order to participate in government. In the Athenian democracy, people who were unable to take the time out of their days to come to senate meetings were unrepresented due to the fact that they could not survive and make money or food if they came to participate. On the other hand, in America, people do not have to make the sacrifice and journey to the capital in order to participate in a vote, as their representative will vote on their behalf.

The American representative model is also more realistic with a democracy fit for a large nation and population. It is simply not possible to have such a large population of people gather to discuss about a topic and keep it civil and able to be voted upon. The discussions would take too long and there would be too many people focused on advancing their own personal agenda rather than focusing on the good of the whole. An example in the Athenian assembly was shown during Lysias’ Speech Against Eratosthenes, where he felt “compelled by what has occurred to accuse [Eratosthenes]: hence I have been often overcome with a great feeling of despondency” (Lysias 12.3). He clearly wishes to get revenge against the Thirty Tyrants for the death of his brother.

A counter argument for the American representative democracy may be stated in how there are elected representatives who fail to carry out the policies that their constituents may want. However, that is often due to the fact that a certain issue aligns with the party that the representative is from or that the representative may believe that voting another way may legitimately benefit the nation and the people that they serve. Although there may be times where representatives seek to advance their own personal agendas, the benefits of the American representative democracy outweigh the negatives, and the volume to which there are people that seek to advance their own motives is greatly less in the American democracy when compared to the Athenian democracy.

As a result, the American representative democracy, which was formed as an upgrade to the Athenian mob-rule pure representation, is absolutely superior to the Athenian democracy in every way.

-Eugene Om

Word Count-448

The ancient and modern definition of tyranny vary greatly, with the ancient definition being a person who came to power in a non-hereditary way and having neither a positive nor negative connotation while the modern definition of tyranny describes a dictator and has a strictly negative connotation.

The current Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, through his actions and pathway of achieving his position sufficiently fulfills both definitions of tyrant by both being a leader who was elected and not granted his position by birthright while also possessing dictator like qualities. The NYTimes has given an update to his recent actions in the article “After U.S. Backs Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s Leader, Maduro Cuts Ties”, showing how he has cut relations with the United States and demanded the American diplomats leave while also refusing to acknowledge his opposition in the presidential race Juan Guaido. (Herrero) As Venezuelan leaders are elected through a vote and a democracy, Maduro was able to win his position through the people. However, his time as President has been described as one of “political repression, economic mismanagement and corruption”. His reign of power has been described as tyranny and has kept power through reelections that have been denounced as rigged.

Regarding the origin of the word tyrant, the Greek historian Herodotus tells the story of Pisistratus and analyzes how he continuously rose again and again to the position of a tyrant. However, he is popular among the people and a leader, and he was quoted to “administer the state constitutionally and organize the state’s affairs properly and well” (Herodotus, 1.59). This shows the connotation that tyrants had at the time was not negative and could even be positively viewed.

However, although Maduro does fit the definition of an ancient tyrant in that he gained power in a non-hereditary way, his rule can only be viewed as unjust. His mismanagement of national resources has caused more than three million citizens to emigrate and resulted in those that chose to stay having a difficult time in finding basic necessities such as food, water and medication. His control of the military has led to high crime rates and suppression of any movements against his political party. Maduro has also received the backing of countries such as Russia, which is also backing dictatorships in the Middle East with assistance towards Syria and the Assad regime. Maduro’s actions and his firm grasp on power confirms his status as a modern day tyrant. Furthermore, his rise to power was strictly non-hereditary in that he started as a bus driver and worked his way through the ranks of Hugo Chavez’s cabinet, eventually becoming the “most capable administrator and politician in Chavez’s inner circle”. He assumed the position of President after Chavez’s death and kept the position after winning the election in 2013 with slightly over 50% of the votes. He has thus kept his position by decree with powers given to him by the Venezuelan legislature. As his rise and seizure of power was based on his own work and not due to being born into the position, Maduro is also able to fulfill the ancient definition of a tyrant as a ruler who gained the position through a non-hereditary way. Maduro, who has been described as a tyrant, has proven himself to be both definitions of the word through his methods and actions.

-Eugene Om

Word Count- 543