The argument that the Romans were justified in their persecution of early Christians is put together well, but if further space had be available the additional information could have been added to secure and change the argument. The seemingly contrary effects of persecution and the spread of Christianity in Rome could have been used to add to the points already made.

The Romans claimed, in the context of their day, to be justified in attempting to hinder the rise of Christianity. This argument could have been supplemented to show the opposite results of persecution. Much of the New Testament is written by the Apostle Paul while he was actually in jail in Rome and much of it is written praising martyrs and giving encouragement in face of persecution. Verses from these texts would have made a quality primary source to add a new view to the argument.

In similar fashion persecution in a way did the opposite of hinder Christianity’s growth. The very symbol, the cross, which it is known for today is a symbol of Roman persecution. The Christian faith started via Jesus put to death by Rome and whose momentum was carried by his disciples whose stories virtually all ended in martyrdom. Christianity would advance despite persecution to a point at which Constantine even used the religion to help connect the vast empire.

The claim that Rome was justified could have used the results of the persecution to relate the significance of early Christian persecution into a larger historical context.

Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 251

The comparison between Kim Jong-Un and Alexander the Great is contextually very different, but there are very relevant connections that could have been developed more. The two main connections that were mentioned only briefly, was that both men were considered to be some form of a deity on Earth and both have used military technologies of their fathers to secure their rule.

The Kim dynasty is worshiped as part of the day to day life in North Korea. Chairman Kim is called the “Supreme Leader” and is taught to the North Korean children at a young age to be infallible. Alexander also said to be born by divine origin. That greatly secured his position with the Persians who he conquered. The widespread belief divinity belief within each of these leaders’ kingdoms is critical to understand how their people saw them.

The second point is that both of these leaders largely secured their young rule by  continuing upon weapons started by their fathers. Alexander’s use of a new full time army, armed with the cutting edge sarissa pike, gave Macedon a tremendous advantage on the battlefield. Kim Jong-Un has also largely stayed in power by advancing nuclear weapons program of his father.. The military foundations set forth by the previous rulers gave Kim and Alexander the tools needed to stay in power despite external threats.

The blog overall is has many legitimate comparisons that are used successfully to compare the Chairman Kim and Alexander the Great. The divine reputation and weapons are two ideas mentioned, that could be added to increase the depth of the blog.

Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 265

The United States does not possesses a culture that is meant to serve the military, but instead possesses a military meant to serve the culture like Athens. The ancient city state of Athens parallels the United States in this way and much more. The fate and flaws of the Athenian democracy serves as an example to learn from today. Naval Officers can learn from Athens the lessons about the importance of commitment to values and the necessity of military professionalism within the fleet.

            The event that eventual led to the decline of the Athens’s glory was its war Spartan in the Peloponnesian Wars, but before there was a war there was a vice. That vice being that Athens turned its back on its democratic principles. Athens claimed to be the examples for all Greeks, yet they actively subjugated their fellow Greeks in tyranny. Few things embrace these stark contradictions between Athenian idealism of Pericles’ Funeral Oration and reality than the Melian Dialogue. Athens attacked a neutral state with the justifications being, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (Thucydides). A people driven by selfish ambition can drive a democracy to abandon its most principle values for material gain. Military officers in the American republic can take this to remember the significance of their swearing an oath to the Constitution. The values of the country are embodied in the Constitution and it is critical to constantly stay on guard against vices that made Athens an empire.

            A military professional should not only maintain the internal strength to stay true, but always maintain the competency to fulfil their main duty of defending their country and values it represents. Athens was able with its allies to fight and defeat the Persian Empire securing their ability to have democracy and live accordingly. The Persians vastly outnumbered the Greeks by almost all mechanisms of making war, but luckily for the Greeks, “the strength of an Army lies in the strict discipline and undeviating obedience to its officers” (Thucydides). Athens teaches the importance of having an officer corps that inspires in their troops the kind of disciple and devotion to overcome odds against them. Thucydides exemplifies why it is so important to have these quality officers in his saying that every warrior must also be a scholar. He states about all warriors, “The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools” (Thucydides1.22). The United States like Greece fields a very competent and intelligent military force. The officers required to lead and inspire such a quality force as the one Thucydides describes and America emulates must be ever be working to make themselves worthy of their commission.

            Ancient Athens had its faults like any other country. The Unites States in its youth can still learn from Athens’s mistakes and its own to date. Military officers as they do now should not forget their promise to support and defend not a person, but ideals. The ideals found within the pages of the Constitution. Athens also exemplifies the justification for an officer corps that goes above and beyond the call of duty. When leading such quality citizen soldiers, whether that be in the form of a Greek hoplite or an American sailor, the officers should live in a state of continuous self-improvement if they are going to be able to lead their troops to victory.    

• Robert Hatfield
• Word Count: 579

            There are two empires that were driven by the wills of charismatic leaders whose acts defied the expectations of all around. The path of the Mongol Empire and the Empire of Alexander the Great were aligned in their creation, branched off in their existence, then their fates realigned in their fall.

            The rise of both the Mongols and Macedonians were sprung on by the actions of one man. Alexander the Great took Macedon to unite Greece and expand all the way to India while Genghis Khan united the Mongols to then expand all across Asia. These two empires both had a strong ruler who united a divisive homeland to then expand into foreign territory. They were both able to do that with the implementing of new military tactics and weapons. The Mongolians stormed the plains of Asia with unrivaled cavalry and horse mounted archers. The principle innovations of the Macedonians was the sarissae and lighter shields. This transformed the traditional Greek phalanx into a lighter harder hitting unit. The Mongols and Macedonians were able to lighten their war fighting capabilities while increasing their lethality on the battlefield. Despite their abilities on the battlefield to expand rapidly they ran their empires differently.

            The Mongolians and Macedonians were known for being tolerant of the customs of those they conquered. In carrying on the Mongol tradition of tolerance to religion Khubilai Khan even said, in regards to the gods of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths, “I do honor and reverence to all four (Marco Polo)”. Alexander the Great went as far as to adopt many Persian customs. He installed Proskynesis and even married a Persian women. The Persians in Plutarch’s word, “were heartened by the partnership that marriage represented” (Plutarch, Alexander 47. 8). Despite control and cultural toleration neither warrior culture liked the administration of empire. The principle difference between the two being the Mongols may not have been administrative specialist, but they would find who was and make them to it. Alexander was so focused on conquest that he did not replace the institutions and governments he destroyed very well. Mongolians were at least able to institute an environment for stability that lasted multiple generations of Khans. The Mongol Empire may have been able to last a little longer, but the in the end they would suffer the same fate of collapse that would befall the Macedonians after the loss of Alexander the Great.

            The vast empire of the Mongols and Macedonians would not stay united for long. Eventually due to succession crisis the empires would break up into smaller units ruled by the different factions pursuing power. The Empire of Alexander the Great was split between his generals, turning the once massive empire into smaller kingdoms known as the Diadochi. The Mongols followed a similar path and broke up into smaller kingdoms called Khanates.

            The Empires of Alexander the Great and the Mongols in context are vastly different but also resonate in structure of their story. The Mongols and Macedonians were internally united and then rapidly conquered vast territory. They were also, to different degrees of success, able to maintain stability through cultural toleration. In the end both empire would fall to the testament of time into smaller kingdoms.

• Robert Hatfield
• Word Count: 540

The best of stories are often seeded with a grain of truth. Nothing could be truer than the rise of the fictional Galactic Empire of the Star Wars universe. The Empire in Star Wars shares remarkable parallels on multiple fronts to the actual Roman Empire. These similarities and differences between these two empires are highlighted in what they were before empire, how they became an empire, and what they became after assuming the structure of an empire.

            The Roman and the Galactic Empires were republics before becoming empires. They both possessed a senate that functioned as the major decision making body for the country, but maintained the ability to appoint a leader in times of great challenge. The Romans a dictator, while the Galactic Republic had the ability appoint a Supreme Chancellor over the state (20th Century Fox). That power gave way to the fall of the republics and the rise of empires.       

In order for charismatic leaders to take over and create an empire they needed chaos. The Galactic Republic’s Supreme Chancellor Palpatine secretly orchestrated a civil war within the Republic (20th Century Fox). He caused the chaos then used it to consolidate the power of the state into an empire and his position as its emperor all in the name of stability and peace. He also possessed a military that was personally loyal to him in the form of a clone army. This rise of an empire, starting with the ambition of one man, is similar the actual rise of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar possessed, like Palpatine, an army that was loyal to him over their country. With this army Caesar waged a civil war to take power with the marching of his legion across the Rubicon to Rome. He then legitimized the power he took by claiming he was the only path  to restoration. The Roman orator Cicero stated on the matter about Caesar, “It is for you and you alone, Gaius Caesar, to reanimate all that you see lying shattered” (Cicero, Pro Marcello 23). He was speaking about Caesar picking up the shattered pieces of Rome that Caesar himself had shattered. Rome at the point of Caesar’s take over differs, but still parallels the Galactic Empire under Palpatine.

The major difference post take over in both countries was simply a matter of semantics. The Galactic Empire under then Emperor Palpatine was called an empire. After Julius Caesar took over as a dictator of the Roman Republic, despite being run like an empire. The creation of the Roman Empire in name did not come until later.

The rise of the Roman Empire was a drama that rivals, even today, some of the world’s most popular screen writers. The essences of these two stories are remarkably similar and can be seen through observation of the fall of their republics and the rise of their empires. It is of such power to this day that even an institution as diverse and creative as America’s modern Hollywood cannot help but draw similarities to it.

• Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 504

The points used to argue in favor of the American Republic form of democracy was well thought out. The main points being: tyranny by majority, minority representation, and longevity. There were a few points in regards to these arguments that could have been used to increase their effectiveness.

In the second body paragraph an image of the United States to the Athenian empire could have been useful addition to the argument direct democracy drowns out voices. The geographic and logistical limitations of direct democracy are massive. A large number of Americans do not vote on the one day a year they really need to, if they personally had to vote on every bill they would never be represented.

The last paragraph on longevity successfully made a powerful comparison to the age of the two countries in favor of a republic. The use of other republican democracies longevities could have been an interesting addition to the proof of concept outside of the United States. The decline of Athens is almost directly responsible to their direct democracy. The people wanted an easier life where they got paid to go to festivals. This may have been the will of the people, but it was not what the country needed to stay strong. That is why Athens became easy pickings to be conquered. The will of the majority is not allows put in perspective, and the time republican form of government gives people to really decide if they want something is a major advantage as well.

• Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 252

The overall message of this blog is accurate. When an absolute autocrat is in charge of a country they need a reliable heir to take over rule when they die. A few of the connections between Alexander the Great and Kim Jong-Un could have have been elaborated on for greater effect.

At the very start of this post is written, “to claim connection to divinity are all mortal”. The fact Alexander claimed to be a descendent of a god and the Kims are literally worshipped in North Korea is a major connection that could be been capitalized on. Alexander solidified power over his Persian territories with his divine status and the Kim dynasty in North Korea has different context, but in a similar way solidified power with the cult like devotion that is instilled in the North Korean people at a young age.

The other major difference to be made was the actual process by which these men took over and gained recognition from other nations. Alexander had to fight and secure Greece upon his father’s death. Kim Jong-Un did not have to fight to gain power. To gain recognition or attention Alexander conquered most of the known world. Kim has made lots of threats, but is the leader of a country that has not been in active war since the 1950s. In an essence Alexander’s power was established more through his own action while Kim’s power could be argued came more from the work of others.  

• Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 248

The story of the rise of Alexander the Great is literally the stuff of legend. He was a “divinely” conceived king who was able to achieve unbelievable feats of conquest and control over an incredibly diverse and large landscape. He was the reason Greece was for a time united with land as far as Afghanistan. Very few rulers can rival his rise to power, especially in the last century, but the fall of his empire parallels the fall of many contemporary nations that also lost their strong unifying leader. A prime example of a country that broke apart, like the possessions of Alexander, was the former Yugoslavia. From observations of the more recent and distant past a practical application of lessons learned could add to the longevity of a diverse state beyond one leader’s lifetime.

            When Alexander died he left a massive power vacuum and his empire split up into five different independent kingdoms. When Tito the ruler of Yugoslavia died, Yugoslavia also broke up into five smaller countries[1] The characteristics of the countries and the context in which they lived vary greatly, Alexanders Empire was a world power while Yugoslavia was a relatively small country matched between superpowers. Despite these differences the core similarities in their fall are still evident. These countries were very diverse and were held together by the strength and will of one leader. Tito united several completely different nations with a form of “Brotherhood and Unity” and at time authoritarianism[2]. Alexander held his empire together by assuming some Persian characteristics and force as well. There is a key lessons that must be learned from the death of Alexander and Tito.

            For a country to exist the people must have something to unite them. In the two cases presented the unifying factor was one leader. If a powerful leader maintains not only the charisma, but the tangible power to contradict forces that might compel different groups to separate they can hold a nation together. In order for this to last beyond one lifetime, with the same system of a king or dictator, there must be a clear and established line a succession to a leader who is equally charismatic and powerful as his or her predecessor. If a country is to stay united and not have a powerful government compelling unity there must be something else that unites the people whether that be a language or rule of law stronger than an individual leader the need is real and tangible.

            Looking at these two government collapses, nation-states today and observers of similar crisis have full right to be cautious. Holding any nation let alone an incredible diverse one together requires extensive work done before a unification crisis to keep a country from splitting, unless another absolute leader comes in to maintain order as soon as the previous one dies. Even that requires some thought ahead of time to accomplish without violence. For modern observes looking a similar unprepared nation-state they should be prepared for instability and even armed conflict to break out in the power vacuum as it did in the times of both Alexander and Tito’s death.

• Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 541

[1] State Department. “The Breakup of Yugoslavia, 1990–1992.” U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/breakup-yugoslavia. 58

---

[2] UNC.”Background: Tito’s Yugoslavia.” CES at UNC. https://europe.unc.edu/background-titos-yugoslavia/. le

---

            The ideas of how to govern have been pondered sense the creation of civilization and very deeply thought about during the relatively recent years of the Western “Enlightenment Period” which brought about the creation of the American states under the representative government for which they stand. It would be repugnant to assert representative over direct because of modern bias toward it. Direct democracy does have times when it is also effective, but from a perspective of viewing democracy as something that needs to represent populations both small and large, the representative system holds more utility than direct democracy as it is a scalable form of government. Modern representation is not shaming direct democracy, but simply a superior form of democracy for the objective reasons that it can function in populations of all sizes and adds layers of protection against the emotions of mob rule while maintaining its core function of expressing the will of the people.

            Direct democracy does work. This fact is evident by ancient Athens. It is also evident today in America on the local government level in town hall settings and larger scale referendums on single issues. The difference being that in Athenian direct democracy was the primary mechanism of government, while it is used mostly today to supplement a larger representative system. Direct Athenian democracy could not function for day to day operations of a large country like the United States or any other. It is not feasible for millions of people to go to the same place and debate and vote in person. That must be done by smaller groups to be effective. A representative democracy brings with it a scalable platform that can be used to represent large or small populations. It also allows for different populations to be united together, unlike the relatively homogeneous democracy of ancient Athens. In the Federalist Papers 62, written by James Madison states in regards to the American Senate that it is a, “compromise between pretensions of the large and the small states.”[1] Representation via the combination of both the American House of Representatives and Senate allows for a diverse populations of millions, over a continent size landmass, living within their own organized state governments to come together. This large scale democracy would be impossible if millions of citizens within an Athenian model of democracy tried to descend on one location to participate in government. Representative government can also be scaled down to work on the same smaller effective level as direct government today in the form of city councils and even school boards.

            Democracy without safeguards can become thousands of tyrants in an assembly, no better than one tyrant in castle. Direct democracy has no safeguard as even Athens could in Pericles’s words, “to speak plainly, is a tyranny”.[2] Athens became a tyrannical empire under direct democracy. The United States despite some past imperial tendencies is not a tyranny. The House still allows the mass will of the people to have a voice, while the Senate is a longer termed office that can act as a check on possible tyranny of the masses.

            American representative government is marked by its checks and balances. This checks and balances system acts as a safeguard of liberty and values not found within direct democracy. Athenian direct democracy also does not have the ability to scale up to levels needed to function in large complex nations, while the American representative system can. These two reasons of safeguards and scalability combined makes representation a better form of overall government.

• Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 537

---

[1] James Madison. “The Federalist #62”. Constitution Society: Everything Needed to Decide Constitutional Issues.

[2] Pericles, Thucydides 2.63