Leadership Through Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire

As we prepare to be future officers in either the Navy or Marine Corps, it is important to not only soak up as much as we can from the Naval Academy, but we should take advantage of the leaders and officers who have gone before us, and learn from their experiences. There are many great officers to talk to on the yard but another way to learn from the past is to study leaders of ancient civilizations. Arguably one of the best leaders from ancient times is Genghis Khan, the first leader of the Mongol Empire.

There are many lessons that can be taken away from the leadership style of Genghis Khan and applied to any midshipmen. Although some see Genghis Khan as a brutal murderer, he was a great leader who was able to unite multiple tribes into one great, and powerful nation. One example of Khan’s leadership style was his emphasis on earning the respect and trust from other tribes in order to gain followers. He displayed this by showing toughness and fortitude in battle against other tribe leaders. Realistically in today’s world, we would not be killing other leaders to get the respect of our followers, however, we can apply Khan’s toughness and fortitude to everyday tasks. We can also ensure we earn the respect and trust of our sailors and marines because nothing will just be given for free.

Another trait that Genghis Khan was known for that can be applied to future officers, was the respect he had for his people. Khan instilled many different rules for his empire in order to ensure that his people were not only respected but protected. Some of these rules forbade the selling and kidnapping of women, banned enslavement, and expelled tribal warfare. In 1219 when Khan and the Mongols went to war with the Khwarezm Empire, the Mongols sent ambassadors to potentially discuss a peace treaty but they were killed by the Sultan people. This enraged Khan for the disrespect they showed to his people who were there only to try and make peace. In return for their disrespect, Khan and his army ravaged the Khwarezm Empire and took all of their land. The respect that Khan had for his people is a quality that every officer needs to have for his or her people. As an officer, if you do not respect and stand up for your people they will not respect you and the mission will not be able to be accomplished.

Genghis Khan is one of the greatest leaders of ancient times and could be studied a lot more in order to get some great leadership qualities from him. Even though times have drastically changed – not everything Genghis Khan did then is acceptable now – he knew how to treat his people, how to bring them together, and how to win no matter what, and these are all traits that every officer in the military needs.

Words: 491

Works Cited

History.com Editors. “Genghis Khan.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 20 Sept. 2018, http://www.history.com/topics/china/genghis-khan.

The Modern Day Crusade Against ISIS

To go on a “crusade” means you are taking part in a major effort to change something usually for or against something. Christians went on their own crusade way back in the second century. They wanted a change in who had control of cities like Jerusalem and Constantinople otherwise known as the “Holy Lands”. They wanted to accomplish this through invading Muslim held land and killing anyone who stood in their way. There is now a new “crusade” going on around the same area but for not exactly the same reasons as the original crusades. These new crusades are also done by people from all different parts of the world and not just from one country. However, despite the differences to the first crusades, this modern day crusade has one main factor in common: they were all fighting for a purpose they strongly believed in.

People from all over the world like the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia are not just volunteering their time, but risking their lives to fight against ISIS in the Middle East. Although some of these men come from prior military experience, and others none at all, they all just want to contribute to the cause. These men have a common goal of defending the innocent and freeing the oppressed from the terrorist control of ISIS. These men even consider themselves to be crusaders, as most of them are Christian men who believe the fight against ISIS is “a biblical war between good and evil” (Duke). One of these fighters, a 37 year old US Army Veteran, named Patrick, explains why he joined the fight in an article by Selwyn Duke: “I have selfish reasons, back home I found no purpose or meaning in life, so I prayed… I prayed for a purpose and meaning in my life. Here I find myself — I don’t know how else to explain it — finding purpose and meaning in helping these people to overcome Daesh [a local name for ISIS].”

These men calling themselves crusaders and calling their fight a “crusade” is a truly fair use of the word. The word “crusade” is defined by dictionary.com as “any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.” I believe these men are on a crusade because they fit this definition by aggressively fighting back against ISIS. These men also believe it is their duty to fight this “evil” that is ISIS, and they will not stop until their goal/cause/idea of eradicating ISIS is complete. This is similar to the Christians during the original crusades, who were not going to stop until they completed their mission of re-capturing the holy lands. Both of these groups of men had a cause for their fighting, and that is why they were both on crusades.

(416 words without quotes)

Works Cited

Duke, Selwyn. “Modern Crusaders Fighting ISIS.” The New American, 20 Feb. 2015, http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/20163-modern-crusaders-fighting-isis.

Sun Tzu vs. USNA

The Art of War written by Sun Tzu is one of the most famous military strategy pieces of all time. However, its lessons not only transfer to combat, but they can be used to learn more about leadership, business, sports, and much more. After reading some of The Art of War, I believe one major over-arching philosophy Sun Tzu gets across is preparation. Preparation is defined as making a plan for what you want to accomplish. However, it also is understanding what you are getting into, what your strengths and weaknesses are, how to exploit them, and knowing when to surrender. Sun Tzu’s main idea is picking only the “battles” you know you will win. Tzu articulates: “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” (Tzu).

Preparation is a huge part of being a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy. Being prepared for events at the Naval Academy is preached to midshipmen right when they first arrive during plebe summer. An early example of this would be when plebes are learning about what it takes to be a midshipman, they are taught that they must be at least five minutes early to everything they have to do. This teaches mids that they have to be prepared for their event by planning ahead their schedule to make sure they arrive at least five minutes early to ensure they are never late to anything. Another example of Sun Tzu’s lessons being relatable to midshipmen is like a military leader studies their battle formations and how to attack an enemy, midshipmen must study their notes and material often in order to succeed in the classroom and pass all their exams. A very important tactic taught by Sun Tzu was being able to pick your battles to ensure victory, and knowing which battles to avoid. This is another lesson that can be related to midshipmen. For example, choosing your major at the academy is a big decision because if you choose something you cannot handle, you are in for a very tough time. This is where knowing your strengths and weaknesses come into play, and knowing which “battle” (or major) you know you can win. For example, I am average at math and science related classes and I enjoy them so I went with an engineering major. However, I am not the best writer, so if I chose to be an English major that would probably be a “battle” I would lose.

Tzu adds, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” (Tzu) Again Sun Tzu explains that knowing your strengths and weaknesses and preparing for whatever your enemy is, you will never have to worry about the result of a battle. Being prepared for whatever you take on at the academy can be easily related back to Sun Tzu’s teachings. If a mid prepares for a test like Sun Tzu prepares for war, they will both be successful.

(472 words without quotes)

Works Cited

Clear, James. “Book Summary: The Art of War by Sun Tzu.” James Clear, 15 June 2017, jamesclear.com/book-summaries/the-art-of-war.

Niklasgoeke. “The Art Of War Summary + PDF.” Four Minute Books, 1 June 2018, fourminutebooks.com/the-art-of-war-summary/.

“Sun Tzu Quotes (Author of The Art of War).” Goodreads, Goodreads, http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1771.Sun_Tzu.

Wikipedia. “Sun Tzu.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Oct. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu.

The Romans Fear for Christianity

When the Romans were first introduced to Christianity, they were scared and a little bit freaked out by it. When you really look at it without your religious background, you can see why they may have thought that. I say you have to look at this situation without your current religious background because depending on what religion you are, you could think it’s crazy that anyone could fear Christianity, but back before the 3^rd CE, Christianity was not as prevalent as it is today. So we have to try and look at Christianity like the Romans did in order to truly understand them.

When I look at Christianity through the eyes of the Romans, I can understand why they feared it. One example of this would be a verse from the Bible that states “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:54). The Romans knew how important the bible was and when they heard about it and especially that verse, they were scared. They heard about these Christians “drinking the blood” and “eating the flesh” of their God and thought these people were insane and were cannibals. Why would anyone want cannibals in their city? What was actually happening was the Christians were eating bread and drinking wine that symbolized the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but the Romans did not understand that.

The Romans feared that Christians could potentially bring the downfall of the Roman Empire due to some of the Christian beliefs upsetting the Roman Gods. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, meaning they only believe in a single god, unlike the Romans who believe in multiple different gods. The Romans would hold sacrifices to honor their gods, but the Christians would not participate because they believed in their one and only God. The Romans were afraid that since the Christians were not honoring their gods, the gods would be displeased and rain down destruction on Rome, ending the empire for good. This is just one more reason why the Romans fear of Christianity was a valid thought at the time.

Due to Christians having a disregard for the Roman Gods, and practicing unorthodox rituals, the Romans had an understandable fear of Christianity. The Romans had a valid fear when it came to Christians because based on what they believed with their religion, what Christians were doing could bring an end to life as they knew it. The Romans were afraid and they had reasons to be so.

426 Words

American or Athenian Democracy?

This experiment of the “American Democracy” did not come out of thin air. The Founding Fathers made sure to take a look at the past before finalizing the democracy we still have in America today. The Founding Fathers reviewed how the Athenians ran their democracy way back in their day and decided they wanted to run things a little differently. America contrasts the Athenians by avoiding the “mob rule,” through having elected officials represent the voices of the people. I agree with the founding fathers and I think this decision is what makes the representative, or American Democracy, better than the direct, Athenian democracy.

One reason why I believe a representative democracy is better than a direct democracy was shown perfectly in our “Reacting to the Past” activity in class. We saw first-hand that when anyone and everyone is allowed into a place like the assembly to help make government decisions, it turns into a screaming match and usually the loudest person wins. That person may not be the best person to make decisions for a nation, but like every other citizen, they deserve to have their voice heard and that’s where a voted official steps in. On the other hand, in the American democracy, the voted official is elected by the people, who can voice their opinions for them. The elected official would be better because he/she would have more experience, more education, and a better understanding of decision making for helping a nation.

The direct democracy is not a reliable form of democracy because anybody can come in and make irrational and unnecessary decisions. However, if it sounds good and the people like it, it will pass. A good example of how this can hurt a nation would be when Alcibiades convinced the assembly in Athens that an invasion of Sicily would be a good idea. Alcibiades was a very aggressive military leader and would change his political views multiple times throughout the Peloponnesian War (wiki). He would eventually flee from Athens to Sparta when charges of sacrilege were brought up against and then, would flee from Sparta after being run out of town for maybe sleeping with the King’s wife (wiki). As you may be able to tell from his history, Alcibiades was a convincing man who was able to get what he wanted. He was able to walk into the assembly and talk his way into getting people to vote for the Sicilian Expedition. This expedition would end up taking a tremendous toll on Athens during the height of the war. At first, twenty ships were sent to Sicily, but by the end, Athens would up sending and losing close to 200 hundred ships and thousands of men. This huge loss left Athens almost defenseless at a crucial point of the war (wiki). This is just one example of a situation that hurt a nation that could have possibly been avoided with a representative democracy.

Work Cited

“Alcibiades.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Sept. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades.

“Sicilian Expedition.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Aug. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition.

Blog Post 1: Tyranny

Jacob Hudson

The West in the Pre-Modern World

Blog Entry #1

When the first tyrants of the world came around, there was a different perspective on them then how they are viewed now. Back before the rise of democracy, a tyrant was still seen as a ruler that ruled over his people in a cruel, oppressive way and seized power with either brute force or it was inherited down. However, before democracy tyrants weren’t necessarily considered a bad thing like they are today. This was because tyrants back then still got a job done even if it meant treating their people like crap. Tyrants still were able to protect, and provide resources for their people, and in doing so there was never much of a bad connotation when it came to the term tyrant. When this new thing called democracy came around people saw how they could be treated, and decided tyrannies were no good and they wanted freedoms and their own rights. As bad as tyrannies are in today’s world, many countries are still led by brutal tyrants. An example of this is the current tyrant leading Sudan named Omer Bashir. Bashir is a true example of a post-democracy tyrant because he oppresses his people, does nothing for them to support them, does not listen to their cries for help and change, and came into power by leading a revolt against the elected government of Sudan.

Bashir is such a terrible tyrant that in 2009, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest as a result of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and the killing of 300,000 civil non-combatant Sudanese people (Suleiman). In my opinion, if you are using the definition of the term tyrant before democracy came around then calling Bashir a tyrant does not make sense. Tyrants before democracy still did things to provide for their people like provide defense and protection in case of an attack, as well as food and resources. Bashir, however, does not care for his people. An example of this would be how Bashir fails to recognize his failing policies and is doing nothing to stop the collapse of his local policy as told by Mahmoud Suleiman. Bashir is certainly a tyrant by today’s standards, because of how terribly he treats his people and how he rules by force.

Suleiman, Mahmoud A. “The Arrogant and Tyrant Omer Bashir of Sudan Remains Cruel and Beyond the Borders.” Genocide in Darfur – How the Horror Began – Sudan Tribune: Plural News and Views on Sudan, 27 Feb. 2018, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article64827.