My knowledge and understanding of the Han dynasty and, more specifically, its emphasis on Confucianism, will be useful to me as an officer in the fleet. The Han dynasty is one of the greatest dynasties that China has ever seen. Under Han Wudi, who was emperor from 141-87 BCE and is considered the greatest of all Chinese emperors, the Chinese empire saw great development. He made several economic reforms, including building a canal that linked several economic regions, the taxation of merchants, and establishing government monopolies on salt and iron, all of which increased the general wealth of the empire.

However, one of the most important changes that Han Wudi and subsequent emperors made to the governance of the Chinese empire is the implementation of Confucianist policies. Confucianism places an emphasis on order and harmony and highly values education. Confucian’s teachings preach the essential goodness of humanity, and emphasize five main relationships in which it is essential to maintain balance in order to establish good conduct and harmony. These five relationships are: ruler-subject, father-son, elder-young brother, husband-wife, and friend-friend. In each of these relationships, the person listed first is the one in power. However, the “inferior” person in the relationship is still responsible for ensuring that the more “superior” person acts appropriately. Therefore, they both have a responsibility to each other to keeping each other in check, which creates a healthy power dynamic in their relationships. This is one concept that Confucian and, resultantly, the Han dynasty preached that will be useful to me as an officer. As a leader, it’s important to show respect for people no matter their background. Therefore, this balance in a relationship in which both parties are responsible for maintaining the good order is really relevant in the armed forces, where, regardless of rank, people have to show respect for each other, or else nothing will get done.

Not only does there exist a mutual respect between these individuals, but there exists a reciprocity that every leader should seek to establish with their people. For example, in the father and son relationship, the father was expected to be loving, and the son was expected to be reverential. Both individuals not only respect each other, but demonstrate loyalty to each other, which is key in a leader-follower relationship. Additionally, this type of relationship establishes harmony, which, although seemingly the contradictory to the concept of the military as a whole, is key to maintaining operational success. If there is a disconnect in the chain of command or if people do not maintain the balance in relationships, nothing can get done on a ship or in a command. People need to be linked to each other in some way, which is where harmony has a role in the Navy.

One of Confucius’ analects is “When one rules by means of virtue it is like the North Star – it dwells in its place and the other stars pay reverence to it”(The Analects of Confucius, 2.1). “Virtue” can mean many things in this context, however, since harmony and respect are key components of Confucianism, I take virtue to be synonymous with these two terms. Confucius points out that it’s important to rule through harmony and respect, and people will start to look towards you for guidance. This is an important lesson that I can take with me to the fleet, and is one that was highly valued in Han society as a result of its key place in Confucianism.

–Katie Mackle

Word count: 549

Sources:

Confucius. The Analects of Confucius : a Philosophical Translation. New York :Ballantine Books, 1999.

The Mongol Empire parallels the modern Islamic State (ISIS) in various ways, including in the high level of terror that they instilled, their militaristic and expansionist tendencies, and their lack of an official “home”. Prior to their expansion, the Mongols existed to the north of China. They were nomads, separated into different tribes but ultimately united by Genghis Khan, who hurdled them into a crusade of conquest throughout the Asian continent. Still, though they were united, they remained highly mobile, which enabled them to not only move and attack quickly, but also build and maintain a widespread presence. This mobility ultimately enabled them to launch brutal attacks for expansion. The terror they instilled is epitomized in Ibn al-Athir’s “The Perfect History”, in which he describes the Mongolian period of expansion as “the greatest catastrophe and the most dire calamity… which befell all men generally”. In his eyes, the Mongol reign is the worst thing to have happened up to that point. In these attacks, as described by al-Athir, they were not only quick, but also extremely violent, slaughtering whole civilizations. In addition to being quick and violent, they were highly efficient. They employed trickery in their invasions, feigning withdrawals and then launching a surprise attack, using hostages as human shields, and exaggerating the size of their armies with dummies on horseback. This trickery, in addition to their speed, instilled terror in the people they conquered, which was only furthered by Genghis Khan’s clear desire to continue expanding (his desire to conquer is one of the main reasons why the Mongols were able to be so successful in their expansions).

Similarly, the modern terrorist organization ISIS is clearly militaristic, with expansionist visions and no clear bounds of functioning, paralleling the Mongol Empire. Although not technically a regime, ISIS functions and identifies as a state, with one of their ultimate goals being to establish a recognized Islamic State known as a caliphate. However, ISIS lacks an official “home”, as did the Mongols, which is one of the main reasons why they were able to be successful. Neither regime was tied down to defending specific land because their people moved continuously as they expanded, which put them at an advantage to other stationary empires. This also allows ISIS (and the Mongols) to be highly mobile. This mobility, similarly to the Mongols, enables ISIS to instill widespread fear because they have no boundaries- they commit acts worldwide, so nobody truly feels “safe” from them. Additionally, ISIS has a similar expansionist mindset. Although they don’t necessarily want to conquer all of the Middle East, they do want to push other governments and national boundaries so that they can establish their own state. Furthermore, the means by which they achieve their goals, similar to the Mongols, is through acts of violence. The same way the Mongols were able to use terror to their advantage in their attacks by throwing bodies into cities before they attacked and by using hostages as shields, things that contributed to their inability to be stopped by an outside force, ISIS launches violent attacks in varying places in order to show what they are capable of and to establish themselves as a threat. The terror from these militaristic and violent acts alone is enough to shake entire nations to the core. Although these militaristic acts aren’t in efforts to conquer, they have psychological effects that parallel the Mongolian physical gains.

Overall, although ISIS doesn’t exercise the same tolerance as the Mongols and hasn’t conquered vast amounts of land, they do instill the same degree of terror as a result of their mobility and militaristic, violent acts which enables them to establish a firm global presence.

–Katie Mackle

Word count: 600

Sources:

The Perfect History  by Ibn al-Athir (I used the copy from our primary sources from last week)

Spodek ch. 12

Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” has a deep focus on the importance of logistics in war, placing a greater value on planning and thinking as opposed to reacting, and it outlines the many ways in which an army can be successful in war. It explores the roles of “making of plans”, the “strategic offensive”, and “the fray” in warfare, among others, and explains how each of these aspects contribute to war strategy. Some aspects of these strategies overlap with the tactics taught here at USNA that we then go on to use in the Navy and US military in general, however some clash in fundamental ways.

Tzu’s chapter on the “Making of Plans”, although maybe not intended to, provides a general summary of his military strategy. In this chapter, he emphasizes the importance of “The Way, Heaven, Earth, Command, [and] Discipline”(Tzu 4), the “Five Fundamentals”, in victory in warfare. It is in these fundamentals that we simultaneously see the key similarities and differences in Tzu’s tactics and the tactics taught at USNA. “The Way” emphasizes man’s dedication to their leaders; while dedication to leadership is a key aspect of our military strategy, we aren’t taught that our people should be “of one mind” with us. Instead, diversity is encouraged, and while we want close followers, we don’t want robots following us just because we are occupational leaders. “Heaven” emphasizes balance, which isn’t a tactic that we’re taught here at all. As an officer, your primary task is to lead your people, and you’re dedicated to that aspect of the job 100% of the time. “Earth” talks about analyzing your surroundings and gauging your environment, something heavily emphasized at USNA, since paying attention to detail is key to any military operation. “Command” outlines the key traits of a leader, describing a leader as wise, courageous, of integrity, compassionate, and severe. Except for “severe”, all of these are emphasized here at USNA. USNA values different leadership styles, and being severe is not always the best way to approach leadership, however these other listed traits are core traits of an officer, as emphasized by USNA. Finally, “Discipline” emphasizes organization in the military. This fundamental overlaps the most with USNA-taught tactics. Discipline here starts at I-Day and has no rest, and it is injected into every part of our life because of how big of a role it plays in the US military. All of these fundamentals speak to the importance of preparation in warfare, since all of them are things that must be practiced and planned prior to battle.

I think that the American military strategy that is taught here at USNA is more effective. In China’s history, it has gone through a series of periods of unrest both between and during the reign of different dynasties. China’s past is, therefore, unstable, largely as a result of many of its military policies that hurdled them into conflicts or clashes of varying degrees. America, on the other hand, while involved in varying armed conflicts, has actually grown stronger because of our military. In the case of China, I think their military actually destabilized the country at some points, but in the US the military actually provides stability. I think this can be attributed to America’s emphasis not on balance but on choice. Command is pretty subjective in the US military and there is no one right way to be a good leader, but Tzu’s strategy very clearly outlines the “rights and wrongs” to command. Overall, therefore, while there is significant overlap between Tzu’s ideas and the tactics taught here at USNA, in general, USNA-taught tactics are more effective because of the results they yield in the American military

–Katie Mackle

Word count: 600

Sources: 

Sun Tzu, “Art of War”

Alexander the Great’s unstable rule of Macedon, ultimately seen in his insecure administrative structures and habits and his inheritance of a chaotic kingdom, parallels President Trump’s presidency in the United States. After Alexander’s father Phillip died, Alexander did not immediately inherit the throne; the way that he ultimately came to power was violent, a result of his murdering any possible threats to his aspiring kingship. Even when he did inherit the throne, his rule wasn’t immediately accepted. Although he was Philip’s legitimate child, he was technically only half Macedonian, and, at the time, being “full-blooded Macedonian” was widely viewed as an incontestable trait in the king. Even throughout his reign, Alexander was never completely accepted and supported by the people. His ability to “win over” the people came through a strength that was projected as violence. Consistently, any opposing party was violently murdered, Macedonian or not, as in the case with Darius II and with those who initially threated his inheritance of the throne. Additionally, Alexander inherited a throne that did not yet have stable control of its conquered states. Plutarch studied the story of Alexander, writing, “Alexander was but twenty years old when his father was murdered, and succeeded to a kingdom, beset on all sides with great dangers and rancorous enemies”(Plutarch). Alexander, therefore, as if not facing enough political opposition, inherited no shortage of enemies, and the revolts endured throughout his rule.

America’s current political leadership similar issues today. Although we are not necessarily in a “regime change”, we did have a recent change in presidency after 8 years under the leadership of Obama, who had considerably different tactics than our current president. The parallels lie in the presidential race between President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While there was no violent battle for who would ultimately win presidency, the election was about as politically dirty as an election can get. Presidential debates were cluttered with personal digs, to the point where sabotaging the other became embedded in both candidate’s platforms. This mirrors the violence seen in Alexander’s rise to the throne, and Alexander’s continued violence against opponents, considering we still see President Trump taking digs at political opposition, like Kim Jong Un. Furthermore, President Trump was elected by such a small margin that his presidency has remained continuously contested, as was Alexander’s leadership. Although President Trump has not faced any literal revolts, he has been faced with firm opposition by the democratic party, as seen with the current debates on funding to build the wall and the possibility of presidential impeachment. This opposition is hopefully where Alexander the Great’s reign and President Trump’s presidency will diverge. We currently do not know the outcome, as politics are in a deadlock and President Trump is technically in the “winning” position with the national emergency still in place. He has, similarly to Alexander the Great, implored an aggressive tactic that Congress is struggling to overturn as a result of the divide in the Senate. This divide puts the Republicans in the majority, but only by a narrow margin, making it difficult for both parties to achieve their goals.

            However, the similarities in Alexander the Great’s reign and President Trump’s presidency can inform us of possible outcomes to America’s current political situation. Ultimately, Alexander the Great’s violent tactics made him come out on top of every battle. He was unstoppable, killing (or, in the case of Darius, hunting down to kill) all of his enemies, facing continuous opposition and yet still managing to dominate at all times. Hopefully, because of the nature of American politics and our checks and balances systems, President Trump does not have the same type of unyielding power as Alexander did. However, the possibility exists merely by the nature of his rule.

–Katie Mackle

Word Count: 600

Sources:

The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates, classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html.

Editors, History.com. “Alexander the Great.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/alexander-the-great.

-Katie Mackle

The representative model of democracy is a more efficient way to govern than the direct model of democracy because it maximizes the amount of voices being heard. In a representative democracy, the people elect officials to represent them in political decisions. This system prevents what is popularly known as a “mob rule”. In “The Republic” by Aristotle, he discusses the Athenian democracy, saying, “the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction”(Aristotle VIII). Aristotle argues that democracy leads to tyranny, forming the foundation for the popular argument that too much representation ultimately leads to decreased representation. This argument has formed the foundation of what is now known as “tyranny of the majority”. A representative democracy decreases the chances of a tyranny of the majority developing; it decreases the chance that a policy will be implemented that acts only in the interest of one majority group and works against the minority. In a situation like this, the majority votes in favor of a policy that puts its own interests above the interests of the minority. The minority is, therefore, silenced, and its voice is not heard. In a representative democracy, however, different regions vote for one person that has their collective interests in mind. This representative then makes decisions based off of these interests, keeping the interests of the people they are representing in mind while also hearing the interests of other groups of people and voting in accordance of not only their interests but the interests of the country as a whole.

Along with mob rule comes this concept of emotions dictating the polls. Sometimes in politics it is easy to act in the heat of the moment. A representative democracy prevents this from occurring, because people can’t just vote on something in the spur of the moment, overwhelmed by their emotions at that given time. A representative maintains a consistency of emotions in decision-making.  

Additionally, a direct democracy causes too many people’s voices to be drowned out. Direct democracy definitely has its merits in smaller communities, where voices can be easily distinguished, like in a New England town hall. However, in a country with so much diversity because of its massive population, if there are too many voices at once, it would be impossible to hear everybody. In the end, either the majority will come out victorious, leaving the minority with no voice, or no decision is going to be made because there will be no consensus as a result of too many clashing voices. With a representative democracy, however, because there is one person representing a relatively (in comparison to the size of America) small area, the representative is able to get an accurate gauge of the various things that people in the area want and build their political motives based off of these things. These representatives can then come together and collaborate in a way that would be logistically impossible if everybody in the entire country were voicing their own individual opinions.

Some argue that a representative democracy can be easily corrupted by voting policies and political bribes, however these hesitations should not be the foundation of an argument against representative democracy. There are downsides to all forms of government. However, if you consider the birth of American democracy as coinciding with the ratification of the US Constitution (which, as the establishing foundation of the US government, I consider the birth of American democracy), American democracy has kept our nation alive and thriving longer than the Athenian democracy. American democracy is going on 231 successful years, whereas the Athenian democracy logged around 190 years of solid rule. Therefore, I believe American democracy to be more reliable.

-Katie Mackle

Word Count: 598

Sources:

Diotima. Accessed February 20, 2019. http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=all.

The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates. Accessed February 22, 2019. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html.

Maduro of Venezuela is one of today’s prime examples of a “tyrant”, however the term now holds a significantly different meaning than it did when the word first came into existence with the Ancient Greek ruler Peisisratos. The traits associated with the complex term “tyrant” have evolved over time, with its current connotations being more negative than they were when the first tyrant actually came to power. Today, people often associate the term “tyranny” with the likes of Nicolas Maduro, the dictator of Venezuela who is widely known for his political intolerance and aggressive leading tactics. An article published by The Guardian titled “’We want an end to tyranny’: Venezuelan diaspora calls for Maduro to go” depicts Maduro as the epitome as tyranny, associating words like “murderer”, “usurper”, “imposter”, and “oppression” with his tyrannical nature; one sign at a protest against Maduro highlighted in the article that best exemplifies this attitude is one that read, “Maduro. Murderer. Usurper. Free Venezuela!”(Phillips). This article, therefore, illustrates a tyrant as somebody who aggressively and cruelly takes control of a country, acting for his personal gain. Because Maduro is one of modern times’ most well-known tyrants, the term “tyrant” is popularly associated with these qualities, and has become a term that describes a strongly disliked, controlling, and aggressive leader.

However, the article’s definition of the term tyrant does not completely align with the definition of tyranny when the first tyrant came to power. In Ancient Greece, where the first tyrant Peisistratos came to power in 546 BC, a tyrant was merely an extra-constitutional ruler, somebody who came to power in a non-hereditary way. Stereotypes do exist based off of ancient tyrants, like gradual corruption, greed, and sexual deviancy, some of which do meet the criteria of a modern day tyrant. However, tyrants weren’t “bad” in the way that many people view them in modern day. In fact, Peisistratos epitomizes the opposite of what Maduro is as a leader. Although he did make violent attempts to come to power, his rule was generally good hearted and well-intended. His time of rule is known as the “Golden Age of Athens” because he promoted economic wellbeing and made several religious reforms, including bringing the shrine of Demeter at Eleusis under state controls, both of which promoted unity of the Athenian state. In contrast, Maduro’s policies ultimately brought the further collapse of the Venezuelan economy and divided the country. Additionally, he preserved the constitutional forms of government, whereas Maduro is widely known for limiting Venezuelan rights. Peisistratos was, therefore, a more positive leader who was widely supported, whereas Maduro is overall the opposite.

The article’s use of the term “tyrant” isn’t necessarily incorrect. It doesn’t completely align with the word’s original meaning, however the more negative terms that were associated with the word “tyrant” during the reign of Ancient Greece, like “greedy” and “corrupt”, do still apply today. There is, therefore, some overlap between the modern definition of a tyrant and the ancient definition of a tyrant. However, the term “tyrant” today is used in a more negative light than it was in ancient times, which the article demonstrates. Today, rarely is a tyrant described as having a positive influence on society, and, in this way, the article’s use of the term tyranny is incorrect. Overall, however, the modern use of the word “tyrant” isn’t completely different from its ancient use.

–Katie Mackle

Word count: 558

Phillips, Tom, and Joe Parkin Daniels. “’We Want an End to Tyranny’: Venezuelan Diaspora Calls for Maduro to Go.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 Jan. 2019, www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/we-want-an-end-to-tyranny-venezuelan-diaspora-call-for-maduro-to-go.

Starr, Chester G. “Peisistratus.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 16 Mar. 2018, www.britannica.com/biography/Peisistratus.