Genghis Khan, despite his brutality, was an extremely effective leader. He was able to unify an entire group of people who were nomadic and who constantly fought among each other. He managed to do this and then take over almost all of Asia. A lot can be learned from him when it comes to being a leader. His greatest leadership qualities that are safe to emulate are how he unified his people under one common identity and how he moved commanding officers so that people would not become comfortable with each other.

Some would say that Genghis Khan was not an effective leader because he was unable to hold onto his empire for a significant period. Although he did not stay in power for very long he still managed to unify most of Asia and promote trade and the Silk Road. The Mongols set up trading cities which allowed for the spread of other cultures and goods all across Asia and even into Europe. The Mongols also provided amazing security for travelers and traders. Never had the Silk Road been so prosperous and safe.  

Xiongnu Empire was a nomadic territory that sat northwest of the Chinese empire. It was not an official country but rather tribes who were all nomadic and constantly fought among each other. Genghis Khan managed to take control and lead these groups by unifying all of them under one identity, Mongols. He managed to do this by mixing up the commanding officers from other tribes among each other. This meant that tribes now had ties and relations with other tribes. It also got tribes used to other tribes practices and unified them even more by a mutual understanding of each other. So now instead of tribes knowing only their own tribe they got used to working together and slowly their identity changed from individual tribes to Mongols. In The Secret History of the Mongols (Anonymous, c. 1240) we see that Mongols common identity and bond between each other was so strong that when “Three Merkits came and robbed [a Mongol man] of [his] wife and of [his] unborn son” another Mongol who “swore brotherhood” with this man’s father helped regain the man’s wife by providing “twenty thousand” men to attack the race who stole the man’s pregnant wife. This strong bond was all created by Genghis Kahn and his unification tactics. This tactic is good to emulate once we become officers in the fleet. People in the Navy come from all over the United States which makes working together difficult because we all have different views or beliefs on issues back home. As the officer we should be promoting the fact that we are all on the same team and we are all in the same fight. This will unify everybody and allow us to work together as a group instead of arguing among each other and not getting anything done.

Genghis Khan was an extremely effective leader who was able to unify and entire people under the one common identity of Mongols. As officers in the fleet we can copy his example and unify our teams under the identity of the United States Navy. This will allow us to work together better and will cause there to be fewer mistakes made because of it.

— Andrew Beck

Word Count: 549

The Mongols were an unmatched fighting force that spread very rapidly with an unprecedented amount of brutality. Most people cannot comprehend how a group of people would be able to come together over such a terrible idea such as the mass slaughtering of cities. One society, that is a lot closer in history to us then the Mongols, that matched the Mongols in speed and brutality is Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany used tactics such as concentration camps and Blitzkrieg in order to rapidly spread throughout most of Europe with extreme ease. These methods were unprecedented and brutal towards the people that the Nazi’s used them on.

            Some would say that the Mongol Empire was a much more extreme take over than Nazi Germany was. They would reference how the Mongols managed to capture the most land by almost any empire ever in the world second to only the British Empire in the nineteen twenties. Although this is true, the Germans still managed to capture all of Europe during what could arguably be a much harder time to do so with the technology at the time. Also the two countries were extremely similar in the amount of brutality that they showed towards people.

            The Mongols managed to remain feared by making people feel thing such as “For even the Antichrist will spare such as follow him, though he destroy those who oppose him; but these spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes.” (Ibn al-Athir, c. 1225) They were extremely violent and because of it they were able to take entire cities just by the mind games that they played. The Nazis also played mind games in order to help them conquer most of Europe. Hitler was an extremely motivational speaker and was able to rally a lot of people behind a common enemy, the Jews. Through making a common enemy Hitler was able to join groups who may not have had much in common before, but because of this new enemy, they could work together. As a result of the mind games that the Nazis played Concentration camps started to appear. These camps were extremely brutal towards the Jews and at the height of their power killed 15,000 people per day. “In fact, roughly 25 percent of all Holocaust victims were murdered from August to October 1942, which is quite likely the deadliest three months in Human history.” (Doyle Rice)

            Not only were the Nazis brutal like the Mongols, but they also employed quick attacking tactics against their enemies as well. The Nazis used an attack tactic called Blitzkrieg which means flash war in English. They would attack people by using a concentration of armored and motorized formations with close air support which would break through opponents by powerful attacks. Like the Mongols the Germans were successful in taking over land in large amounts.

            Although Nazi Germany was not as large as the Mongol Empire they were still able to match the Mongols speed and brutality within warfare. Through the tactics such as concentration camps and Blitzkrieg the Nazis were able to rapidly spread throughout most of Europe with extreme ease.

— Andrew Beck

Word Count: 529

Roman religions in today’s modern monotheistic scope are very strange and many people cannot comprehend why someone would believe such a thing. What people don’t consider is how romans may have viewed Christianity when it made its first appearance in Rome. With things such as the eating of Jesus’ “flesh” and the drinking of his “blood” it makes since that the romans would be a little skeptical about this new religion. The romans had every right to stamp Christianity as a bad religion but because of Christian missionaries Rome was able to become accustom to it being around. This same type of tension can be seen in today’s times as well between Christians and Hindus and Muslims.

            Some would say that romans did not have the right to judge Christianity like they did. All that the romans knew was that there was a new religion surfacing that followed someone who did crazy miracles. Jesus did things such as heal lepers, walk on water, calm seas, and he raised from the dead. These things are extremely strange especially for someone who would be considered mortal. It makes sense that romans would be suspicious about a person like that or people who follow him. Pliny said that “[he] have never participated in trials of Christians” before. This shows Rome’s total lack of experience with Christians or monotheistic religions. Pliny went on to interrogate the Christians to make them change their religion. The ones who wouldn’t he executed.  This new religion was difficult to understand and it scared those who had never experienced something like it. The only reason that Christianity was not abolished was because of missionaries that they sent out. Christian missionaries were able to go out and tell others what their religion was about and why it’s not a bad thing. This lead to people understanding more of what it meant to be a Cristian and why it was not a bad religion.

            The fear of what we don’t understand can be seen today just like in Rome. Christian believers do not understand religions such as Islam or Hinduism. Muslims do not practice their religion the same way that Christians do. They also have allot of stratification within their religion. There is a group within their religion called the Sunni who are commonly linked to terrorism. This scares people and they can’t understand why someone would follow such a religion just like the romans felt against Christianity. In the case of Hinduism, Christians don’t understand how Hindus can believe in the multitude of gods that they have with in their religion. This is the same problem that the romans had with believing in Christianity just flipped.

            Romans couldn’t understand other people’s religion just like Christians cannot understand current religions in the world. If it were not for missionaries within religions then no one would understand each other and we would be in a constant state of fear. Because of missionaries in Roman times Christianity was able to survive as a religion and later become the most important religion within Rome.

Andrew Beck

Word Count: 510

Americans and Athenians are very similar in that they derive their self-worth from being from their respective country. They take pride in being American or Athenian. The major difference between the two is America has an extremely diverse population that makes up the country whereas Athens does not. This is why the situation that America has with “Dreamers” is different from Athens problem with Metics and slaves. America is ok with letting foreigners into their country because most people are descendants from foreigners. What they don’t want is immigrants illegally coming in and skating the laws that they have in place for proper citizenship. Athens outright did not want Metics or slaves to be called Athenians or to be allowed in the assembly.       

            Some would say that the two countries are basically going through the same problem. They would say that just like Athens, America is struggling with a racist sentiment towards these immigrants coming into their country and want nothing to do with them. Although it is true in some cases, the majority of America only wishes that these immigrants would come into the United States legally.

America does not mind letting foreigners into their country. What makes them upset is when people come into their country undocumented and illegally. Parents smuggling their children into the country just so that they can gain citizenship is in a way cheating the system. “I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents,” Trump said in a written statement issued shortly after attorney general Jeff Sessions announced the policy. “But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.” (Siddiqui) This stance taken by president trump is a common opinion in America. We do not wish to punish those who are in this situation but in order to stay true to ourselves we have to enforce our laws.

Athens was not okay with letting Metics and Slaves into the Assembly or allowing them to vote. As Pericles put it in the Funeral Oration Athens was a city that was built on “customs that brought us to this point, the form of government and the way of life that have made our city great” (Thucydides 3.36). This includes keeping citizenship to those who have two Athenian Parents. The fact that they passed this law shows that Athens is very different from America. Athens tried to keep their democracy pure blooded as possible whereas America allows anyone to be an American. America is considered a land of opportunity for foreigners to take advantage of whereas Athens was reserved for their citizens. Athens didn’t want anything to do with Metics or slaves in their assembly despite the help that they showed Athens by fighting in the war alongside them.

America and Athens were going through very similar problems in that they were both trying to figure out how to deal with allowing citizenship to foreigners. The largest difference between the two attempts at making policy is that America wants people to benefit from their country and Athens wants to keep their country pure blooded Athenian. This difference is why making policy to address the issue in the two countries is so different.

Andrew Beck

Word Count: 544

The Athenian democracy was much different than American democracy. The difference is the form of government. America has a representative government whereas Athens was an attempt at a true democracy. The representative or American model of democracy is a better way to govern a large country such as Athens or America. The reason that America was able to produce a better democracy is because they were able to learn from the mistakes that the people of Athens made. The ideas of democracy during the respective times were very different and can be seen in sources coming from the makers of the democracy themselfs.

Some would say that Athens was more successful democracy because they allowed anyone who wanted to come and participate in assemblies to do so. Although they did this they also made it very difficult to go to sessions. The sessions were always held in the same place and a lot of times it was hard to take up to a week of travel to and from the assembly just to participate in one session. This meant that there were a whole groups of people who were never represented when large decisions that could affect them were made. This is why the representative form of government that America has is so much better. America was able to look at how Athens had failed and adjust their own government to not fail in the same way Athens did.

In Federalist paper 10 Madison define a pure democracy as “a society consisting of a small number of citizens who asimble and administer the government in person“ and a republic as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.“ this proposition of how to define the two governments would have a lasting influence in America. Madison also gave examples of when the certain forms of government should be employed. According to him “the two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elect by the rest; secondly, the greater the number of citizens, and the greater the sphere or country, over which the latter may be extended.“ Madison was saying that a pure democracy could only happen within a small community where everyone that is a part of the community can attend of the decision-making process. Where as a republic is needed when representing a large numbers of people, because not all people in that country may be able to attend. Although your specific opinion may not be explicitly stated by your representative at least you will always have your opinion in the decision making process unlike in Athens where you would have to be at every assembly to have your opinion voiced.

Because America adopted a representative form of government instead of a pure democracy they were able to better serve their country. This adaptation by America can be seen in early documents such as Federalist papers. If it were not for Athens, who tried a pure democracy, then America may never have had a chance to fix the system of democracy and make it better.

Andrew Beck

Word count: 522

A lot of fugitive are fleeing from Venezuela due to the economic collapse of their country. The majority of these immigrants blame Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, for the total collapse and desecration of their economy. Because of this, they are calling him a dictator and a tyrant. The use of the word tyrant has been modified ever since ancient times. In current times it is considered a close synonym to dictator. The situation in Venezuela further proves how people no longer use the same definition for the word tyrant.

Some would say that the word tyrant has not changed significantly from its original meaning. They would point out that, due to the fact that ancient tyrants tended to emulate all of the characteristics we see with current tyrants, the definition is essentially the same. Tyrant has become more of verb whereas it was more of a noun in the past. Tyrant also has a much higher negative connotation with it then it used to. We see this in the current situation in Venezuela.

            Venezuela is in a dire state, and its people believe that the one to blame is their current “tyrant” Maduro. Tom Phillips interviewed a fugitive camped in Mexico named Molina who said it best when he stated, “I think if Maduro goes, we’ll be back in Venezuela the next month. I’m 100% sure.” Venezuelans are extremely proud of their homelands. They love their country and its landscape and would love to go back to rebuild, but the current president is corrupt. They are unable to be safe and taken care because president Maduro cannot keep the country in check. Even the United States, a major world power, recognizes, or believes, Venezuelan opposition for Maduro as interim president. Gregg Re comments on how President Trump formally recognized Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. The US has also placed billions of dollars in new sanctions against disputed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the country’s state-owned oil monopoly PDVSA As of right now Venezuelans are protesting in places such as Mexico City and Hong Kong to gain respect and attention for their situation.

            Interestingly enough, based off of the definition of tyrant in the ancient world, Nicolas Maduro would not be considered a tyrant. Venezuela has been a federal presidential republic for about 45 years now. This shows that they do not follow a more hereditary system where the presidency, or monarchy, stays in the family. Because of this Maduro would not be considered a tyrant during ancient times, because he is not interrupting a family lineage of rulers. This shows that the word tyrant has been modified from the ancient definition of disrupting a family lineage of rulers to a more modern definition which would be similar to a dictator. Even if you look up the definition of tyrant in the modern dictionary it says that a tyrant is a cruel and oppressive ruler.

            As time passes definitions sometimes lose their original meanings and adopt a more stereotypical definition that fits who it applies to. This can be seen from the current modern use of the word tyrant which is used when describing situations such as the current dictatorship going on in Venezuela.

— Andrew Beck

Word count: 534