When looking at the successful civilizations of the ancient world, there is one thing that seems to be common amongst most of their armies, and that is the leader’s participation while fighting their wars. In general, the most successful armies were the ones that were led by someone that was willing to fight amongst his men. In the cases in which the leaders sat behind and let everyone else fight the wars for them, the men had little respect for their leaders and often grew to resent them.  The leaders that fought beside their men were always held in high regards and led people that were truly dedicated to the cause. The idea of fighting beside your men can be useful in my future life as an officer. In most cases it may not be as serious as being on the front lines, but in the less serious cases it is still important to help the people beneath you in order to gain their respect for the times it does get serious.

One leader that was respected by his men possibly more than any other is Leonidas of Sparta. Leonidas was a remarkable fighter amongst a civilization of some of the best fighters at the time. If his prowess as a great fighter did not earn the respect of his men, then the fact that he fought beside them in every war did. Herodotos claims in William McNeill’s book that when Demaratus was asked about the Spartans he said, “As for Spartan numbers, do not ask how many or few they are, hoping for them to surrender. For if a thousand of them should take the field, they will meet you in battle.” Leonidas was a leader that never missed a moment to fight beside his men and because of this, his men held him in the highest regards, and possibly respected him more than almost any leader in any civilization before him. It was because of this respect that his men were willing to fight with him against the much more massive army of the Persians. That is the kind of respect that makes the best armies so great.

During my time in the Navy, depending on how long I decide to stay in, I may not get the chance to see as much war as the leaders during the ancient times, but I can still practice the idea of working beside my men even when we are not at war. When a ship is in port, there is a lot of maintenance and laborious work that needs to be done to the ship to keep it looking pristine. Although it is important to continue to act like a leader, it will build the respect of my subordinates if I get out and help them with cleaning or whatever menial tasks they have been assigned. Of course, being in a leadership position, I would have to continue to conduct myself as an officer, which would mean that I could not help them with everything they do. Working beside the men beneath you is important to show them the work ethic you possess and to show them that you are there not only for yourself, but for them as well.

– Jonathan Gabriel

Word Count – 540

By Jonathan Gabriel

It is obvious that defending a city or a country from attacks is just, but is it just to continue a crusade after the successful defense of that city to conquer a city that those people believe to be theirs? In order to answer this question, it is important to turn to ethics and what makes a war just. St. Thomas Aquinas, a famous philosopher and catholic priest in the 1200s, claims that there are three things that make a war just; legitimate authority, just cause, and right intentions.

The first question is whether it was a legitimate authority calling for the first crusade.The first crusade was called by Pope Urban II, clearly an important person within society, but does his role as pope give him legitimate authority. Typically, it is not legitimate for a single person to declare war on another person. However, Pope Urban II sought the appropriate permission to go to war and got the permission from a legitimate authority. Thus, making his call to crusade legitimate.

The second and third aspects of a just are similar, and in this case can be combined into a single argument. If the cause is just and the intentions are in the right place, then it makes the call to war a just act. The call to crusade was initially just, because it was being done to aid others that were in trouble and restore that area to its former peace. After the defense of Constantinople however, the crusade continued to take the city of Jerusalem. The reason for the continuation of war was to take a city that the Christians believed was rightfully theirs. The cause was not just, and the intentions of the Christians was not in the right place. For a cause to be just it must be in order to protect people from a danger that is either coming or will most likely come. For the intentions to be just, the people going to war must be intending to find peace through war in some way. The Christians continued their war to take a city from the Muslims. There was no intent to find peace and there was no cause to protect their people. Therefore, the Christians had no right to continue the crusade to Jerusalem, and they were engaging in an unjust war.

The Christians believed that Jerusalem rightfully belonged to them because it was the birthplace of Jesus Christ, but the Jews and the Muslims also believed that the city belonged to them for other religious reasons. The fact of the matter is, it did not belong to any of them more than it belonged to the other. Religion does not play a factor in the right to a city or anything else. The Christians had no right to attempt to take the city, and also had no right to go war.

Word Count: 479

By: Jonathan Gabriel

Though there is not a lot of talk about tactics of war at the Naval Academy, we do get a lot of information about past wars and important battles in America’s history. Using these past battles, it is possible to understand the general thought process of our military, and how they make decisions about the wars that we are involved in. It is then possible to compare Sun Tzu’s Art of War to our own tactics. Comparing the basic ideas behind the two and which of the two tactics or more effective in certain situations.

The key ideas in Art of War revolve around preparation, and deception. Sun Tzu focuses on knowing who to fight, and how to deceive them into believe you are something you are not, such as strong or weak or far away or nearby when you are the opposite. He also focuses on knowing your own strengths and weaknesses as well as your enemy’s strengths and weaknesses and planning accordingly. Looking at the American military, particularly in the recent past, it is clear to see that we see ourselves as more powerful than almost anyone and like to make sure everyone knows that fact. When in war, we tend to focus only on our own strengths and simply over powering everyone that we are fighting.

Determining which strategy is better depends on a couple of factors, such as the intent of the country, the power of the country in question, and the goals of the country at war. Sun Tzu focuses on actual war and the thought process one should have when in that situation, but American is not currently looking for war, but is instead trying to stay away from war. In this case, it is smarter and more effective for us to portray our power across the world to deter others from attempting to attack us. The second factor is the actual strength of the country. For smaller, less powerful countries, it is more effective to seem powerful when they are weak to make it appear to the enemy as if they are in danger of being defeated. However, for a country like America, it is not necessary to seem weak when we are strong. Being a powerful country and looking powerful helps to deter the offensive attacks of others. Finally, the goals of the country at war play a small factor in determining the effectiveness of the two tactics. If the country is trying to win the war with the least amount of bloodshed and is not worried about the overall time of the war, using the ideas in Art of War will make that possible. However, if the goal of the country is to destroy the enemy in the least amount of time possible it is smarter to portray the strength of the military and attack head on, using the full force of the military to win every battle and eventually the war.

Word Count: 491

Most religions in the current world revolve around the idea that only one god exists, but it was the exact opposite in ancient Rome. If someone today would approach people with the idea of there being multiple gods who hold favor for certain people over others, most people would think that is completely absurd. However, in ancient Rome, that is exactly what they believed. The idea of there being only one god, who loved everyone the same and would give forgiveness to anyone who asked for it was simply unbelievable.
The easiest way to understand the skepticism and curiosity of the Romans towards
Christians is to look at how most people today would look at someone who believed the same things the Romans did. Today if a person would come out claiming that there are multiple gods that rule this world, and these gods had their favorite groups of people that they protected and helped them rise to success, the world would call them crazy. People today, that believe in a god, believe that there is only one god, and Christians believe that this god is all loving and all forgiving. The idea of multiple gods goes against everything that most people believe. The things that people believe about polytheism would be similar to what the Romans would have believed about monotheism.
Looking at the way people today would view someone with polytheistic views, it is easy
to see why the Romans would be so skeptical of Christians. Although it might be a little bit unrealistic to fear Christians, it is easy to understand why they would think that these people could cause a lot of harm to their way of life. A god that forgives and loves everyone is much more appealing than many gods that punish those who offend them and protect those who worship them. To the Romans, the idea of a religion that believes in a single god that created everything and still loves every person equally would be a major threat to their own religion. Because no one knows the exact truth and what religion is actually true, people tend to gravitate towards the most appealing one. Christianity, at this time, is much more appealing to people because it means that you do not have to be rich or powerful to go to heaven. The introduction of Christianity into Roman society could mean that many Romans would switch from their current beliefs to the beliefs of Christians, causing a lot of turmoil and debate within society, which generally leads to the fall of an empire.

Word Count = 430

It is clear that the representative and direct models of democracy both have their advantages as well as their disadvantages. The key to determining which model is better for a country is looking at the country using the system and how the two models could be used in the government. The three biggest factors when looking at how the two forms of democracy will affect the country is looking at how large the country is, the population, and what state the country is in.

The United States has been using the representative model of democracy, and has been using it successfully for many years. The U.S. is a very large country with a very large population, at least compared to Athens, and is one of the major world powers. Direct democracy would not be possible in America because of how large it is. No matter where events are held, anyone livening in the far corners of the country would almost never be able to attend, therefore leaving their voices unheard. With representative democracy however, it is possible to hear the voices of the general public from every state, including Alaska and Hawaii. Likewise, with such a large population, having a direct democracy would cause a large amount of chaos within government, because too many voices would be heard. Although not everyone’s voice is heard in a representative democracy, there is still a lot of different opinions heard from everyone that is involved. Finally, with the United States place as one of the world leaders, and our country being in a mostly stable state, it is not necessary to make major changes to the way things are being run. What is important, is taking care of the citizens, and ensuring their safety and well-being.

On the other hand, a direct democracy for Athens is the most reasonable choice. Athens, being a city state, is much smaller with a much smaller population. Having a direct democracy gives any citizen that wants to be heard, the chance to be heard. Although it is not possible to fit every citizen in the assemblies, it is possible to get a voice heard from every group of citizen.

It is more important to look at the country or city state rather than the model that is being used, in order to determine whether representative democracy or direct democracy is better.