Order in the Ancient World and the Leadership Lesson

The most important lesson from Western Pre-modern History is the need for order and structure to lead successfully. The effect of poor central leadership can be seen in many ancient cultures. One example of an ancient culture that ultimately saw its downfall due to a lack of order was the Western Roman Empire. The Western Roman Empire was stable under rulers like Justinian that were strong autonomous rulers. Justinian strengths stemmed from his book Corpus Iruis Civilis, which codified his laws and providing citizens with a book filed with summaries of legal principles and writings from Roman legal authorities. After Justinian, the Western Roman Empire began to fragment. The fragmentation led to the rise of warlords and the rule by private armies. Once the warlords became the central figure of power, the idea of state rule was decentralized, and ultimately the Western Roman Empire collapsed.

A successful example of leading with order was the Han Chinese military domination. The Han Chineses relied on an idea called Shi. Shi is the military principle associated with strategy in Han Chinese culture. The concept of Shi is seen in Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu states, “The Shi of one skilled at setting people to battle is like rolling round rocks from a mountain a thousand ren high.” The quote means that when a military unit is commanded with order, it is very easy to defeat and enemy and conquer large masses of land. Order therefore is a central idea in military success.

The lessons learned from ancient history are still valuable today in America’s military. As a future naval officer, midshipmen are tasked with developing an authentic leadership style that will successfully enable sailors or Marines to carry out the mission. Part of this authentic leadership is taking control of the actions of one’s division in the case of Navy or Platoon for Marines. Some keys to successfully control the actions is use of senior enlisted, like the chiefs in the Navy, to support one’s leadership, but not rely on senior enlisted for control of the enlisted. An officer can strategically use senior enlisted to carry out the majority day-to-day operations, but it is also important that officers maintain a relationship with the enlisted. When an officer shows their face around the enlisted and interacts enough with the enlisted so the enlisted know the officer cares, a deep relationship is formed. This relationship allows for the order to be established in a command, and an officer can become an autonomous ruler, even though the officer relies on senior enlisted to carry out daily tasks.

Mark Rogerson 408

The Mongols Compared to Indian Removal

The Mongol Empire at its height stretched from Eastern Europe all the way to China’s coast on the Sea of Japan. Starting under Genghis Khan in 1206, the Mongolian Empire began its rapid expansion. At the Empire’s peak, the Empire was one of the largest in history. Even more impressive, the Mongols were able to achieve one of the largest empires in history in less than 100 years. The Mongols were able to achieve such an expansive empire in a short period for two key reasons: swift conquering and brutality. The Mongols would speed of attack was a defining characteristic of the Empire. The Mongols would “[remain] only for so long as their march required”, showing the speed of the campaigning Mongols. The Mongols were also known for their brutality when conquering. When attacking a village or city, the Mongols would “[destroy] them to the full.” The Mongolian destruction entailed plundering the village of any valuable items and killing all residents or the village. The swift speed of the Mongols and destruction of entire villages led to the empire’s success and fear throughout Europe and Asia.

Similar to the Mongols in speed and effectiveness, the American Government’s removal of Native Americans displays similar traits to the Mongols’ conquest of Asia and Europe. America tried to claim Native American land since the time when America was only a British Colony. Often, the disputes and seizing of land by America was only minor and unorganized. The dynamic changed in the early 19^th century when President Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal act. Much like the Mongols’ conquest of Asia and Europe, the American Government’s removal of the Native Americans was swift and effective. Under Jackson’s Indian Removal act, the majority of Native Americans were relocated from their native lands in the eastern United States to the Indian Reservation lands in modern day Oklahoma in 15 years. Another similarity to the Mongols was the use of brutality in the relocation of the American Indians. While the American Government did not slaughter entire Indian tribes like the Mongols, the forced removal did use the United States Army as a threatening force, and many Native American died during the journey from the eastern United States to the Indian Reservation lands. Although the American Government did not intend to use brutality to remove the Native Americans from the eastern United States, ultimately the use of brutality allowed for the rapid expansion of Americans into new lands.

The Mongols and United States shared a few key similarities in their rapid conquest of land. Both used speed and brutality in order to strike fear into their enemies and quickly claim land. Overall, the comparison of American and the Mongols shows the Machiavelli principle of the ends justify the means. Although both showed a lack of regard towards human decency, ultimately the territorial expansion was still successful, leading to a successful campaign.

Mark Rogerson

475

Sun Tzu at the USNA

The overarching theme of Sun Tzu’s Art of War is the use of deception in order to defeat stronger armies and conquer the enemy. Sun Tzu emphasizes when planning for battle a commander must master opportunity. There are many little things a leader must consider in order to deceive the enemy such as should appear far when near and avoid a strong enemy. Ultimately, the culmination of the little elements of battle prepares an army to “attack when [the enemy] is unprepared” and to “appear where you are unexpected” (Sun Tzu, 1).

Sun Tzu’s ideology on how to conduct war is seen in two ways at the Naval Academy. The first and more direct way the idea of deception Sun Tzu emphasizes so much is seen is in academics. In multiple classes, the battle of Midway is a common example of how the power intelligence in planning can provide in deception on the battlefield, ultimately allowing the less superior America Navy to defeat the Japanese fleet. At the battle of Midway, American intelligence personnel were able to discover the position of the Japanese fleet before the battle. Using the advantage of intelligence the Americans gained, the American admirals were able to lead the Japanese to believe the American fleet would be away from Midway when the Japanese planned to attack. Therefore, when the Japanese tried to take Midway, the American fleet was waiting and as a result destroyed three aircraft carriers. The lost of three carriers drew a huge tactical defeat to the Japanese.

The second example of Sun Tzu’s ideology is the dynamic of being a midshipman. A common saying at the Naval Academy is in order to do the big things right, one first has to learn how to do the little things right. As a midshipman, there are often many little tasks one is responsible for at any given time. In order to correctly execute each task, attention to detail for the little things is required. By being exposed to an environment where attention to detail is necessary, when one commissions, they will be able to identify subtle pieces of information that could shift the winner of a battle.

Ultimately, the best strategy in war is deception. Deception allows for the most effective use of a limited number of resources. The best example of limited resources still being useful is the battle of Midway. Deception also requires extensive centralized planning. The centralized planning is based on attention to little details and demands a professional commander. Deception gives one the advantage based on prior preparations.

Mark Rogerson 411

Augustus and Hitler, more alike than different

When comparing the rise of Roman emperor Augustus to modern history, Hitler’s rise in Nazi Germany draws many parallels. In Rome, Augustus’s reign saw many changes to the political landscape of Rome. The Roman Republic was already starting to fail, beginning with the dictatorship of Julius Caesar. After Caesar’s assassination, August was the heir. In order to ease the chaotic socio-political climate of Rome, Augustus established the Roman Empire, which dramatically shifted power from the senate to the emperor. Similarly, in Nazi Germany, Hitler began his rise to power after Germany’s defeat in World War I. The Nazi party rose out of the economic chaos created by the peace treaty of WWI. Thought the Nazi party, Hitler gained enough support to become chancellor of Germany and upon gaining this title, Hitler turned his rule into a dictatorship. By looking at the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany, similarities can be drawn to Ancient Rome’s transition into an Empire. This is important because the similarities of how the two dictators came to power point to the effect social-political chaos can have on a nation’s government structure.

Augustus’s rise to power is seen in The Deeds of the Divine Augustus. Augustus started his rise to dictator when “[Augustus] raised an army with which [he] set free the state, which was oppressed by the domination of a faction” (Lewis and Reinhold, I:561–72). Then, Augustus “drove the men who slaughtered my father into exile with a legal order” (Lewis and Reinhold, I:561–72). After effectively taking complete control of the Roman government, Augustus began his dictatorial rule. Upon becoming dictator of Rome, Augustus began to pack the Senate with his supporters. The reforms of Augustus shifted the Roman Republic to an emperor-controlled state.

Similar to the rise of Augustus, Hitler followed a similar agenda. The first major similarity was Hitler used the chaotic socio-political environment of post-World War I Germany to seize control, much like Augustus used the chaotic environment of Rome after Cesare’s assassination. Another similarity between Hitler and Augustus was once Hitler became chancellor of Germany, he began to eliminate his political enemies, similar to how Augustus exiled those who conspired in the assassination of Caesar.

The similarities between Augustus and Hitler demonstrate history does repeat itself. Under similar circumstances, similar outcomes happened. Both dictators were able to come to power because of a chaotic socio-economic environment. Under the chaotic environment, society looked for one person to have absolute power in order to pull society back to order. This desire for a hero to emerge and guide the country back to glory leads to dictatorial rule. Then, once a dictator has taken power, the dictator uses his power in order to eliminate possible political opponents. Ultimately, the dictator’s rule shifts the political system of a country, often from one where power is in the people, to one where only one controls all.

Mark Rogerson 441

Gridlock, from Athens to America

When comparing Athenian Democracy with the current American model of Democracy, one major similarity is the gridlock that prevented citizens from proposing legislation. In ancient Athens, the assembly was often overburdened, and delayed by festivals to the point it could take years for certain policies to be debated in the Assembly. Similarly, in modern day American Democracy, gridlock happens for different reasons. Often, the gridlock is a result of different parties controlling the Senate and the House, or when Congress and the presidency controlled by different parties. By looking at the American model of Democracy and its battle with gridlock, the founding fathers use of Athenian democracy as a framework is seen. This is important because the both Athens and the founding fathers used gridlock in order to force compromise.

The reasons for gridlock in ancient Athens are outlined in The Old Oligarch. The overarching theme of why the assembly can become gridlock is “the quantity of business [the assembly is] not able to deal with all persons” (Xenophon 3.1). The quantity comes from the many dealings of the assembly. The assembly oversaw trials, had more immediate issues such as preparing for and monitoring current wars and ensuring revenue is collected and allocated. In addition to the many issues Athens dealt with on a regular basis, the assembly could not meet when Athens was holding a festival. These many delays led to individual citizens feeling dismissed by the assembly; however, if a group of citizens brought up an issue to the assembly, they were more likely to be heard. In order to make a group, citizens must reach a compromise on what the most important parts of their issues are. While this could lead to a rule of the majority, in practice, the compromises led to a more moderate solution to Athens’s issues.

Similar to the gridlock experienced in ancient Athens, American Democracy is often unable to address important issues due to gridlock quickly. The 1992 Congress experienced intense gridlock. Legislation proposed to reform lobbying and to reform voter registration laws were both unable to pass Congress due to gridlock (Binder, 2000). While the gridlock seen in the 1992 Congress prevented important laws from being passed, gridlock prevents political parties from becoming too polarized. The American system is designed so that policies too far to one side do not pass. Gridlock forces political parties to reach compromise, and often the resulting compromise makes the bill more moderate.

Gridlock ultimately forces compromise among groups. The concept of gridlock leading to policy that is more moderate is seen in both Athenian politics and modern day American policies. In both legislatures, often to reach a majority vote, compromises must be made in order to gain enough supporters. In American politics, gridlock has forced compromise on bills, while in ancient Greece, gridlock forced groups to compromise in order to work together.

Sarah A. Binder (2000). Going Nowhere: A Gridlocked Congress. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/going-nowhere-a-gridlocked-congress/

Mark Rogerson 479

Is Trump a Tyrant?

The meaning of tyranny in the modern world has shifted from the original ancient Greek roots. Tyrants today are associated with cruel and totalitarian rulers that aim to destroy democracy. In contrast, the ancient Greeks’ definition of a tyrant was a ruler who gained power through non-hereditary means and held absolute power within a state. By comparing the primary source Herodotus on Athenian Tyrants to a CNN article titled Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny, the divergence in meaning between the ancient definition of tyrant and the new post-democracy denotation of tyrant is demonstrated. This is important because the different use of the word tyranny shows how democracy has changed society’s view of absolute rulers.

One story from Herodotus on Athenian Tyrants that illustrates the ancient Greek definition of Tyrant best is the story of Pisistratus. Pisistratus took control of Athens by force, by organizing an uprising based on his military respect from the campaign against Megara, where he led the Athenian army to victory. Pisistratus was given personal guards to protect him in the hill country, and he used these guards to seize the Athenian government. Once in power, “Pisistratus rule[d] Athens, but he did not interfere with the existing structure of officers of changing the law; he administer[ed] the state constitutionally” (Herodotus, 59).

In an article titled Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny by CNN published in July of 2018, CNN says President Trump is turning the United States into a tyranny. CNN focuses on his actions after elections to call him a tyrant. CNN draws attention to President Trump’s authoritarian actions. One authoritarian action was “Trump used executive authority without Congressional mandate to impose a travel ban on several Muslim-majority states” (Sachs, 2018). Another example was “Trump single-handedly impos[ed] hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs — that is, taxes — on imported goods from key US allies and China, without any explicit or implicit Congressional backing” (Sachs, 2018). Both of these actions paint President Trump out to be a tyrant, as he rules the United States alone and unchecked, even though he could still be checked by Congress.

Based on the definition of tyrant, in the CNN article, tyrant is used incorrectly. While the United States election system creates a new non-hereditary ruler every four years, CNN’s definition focuses on Trump’s presidential actions. Tyrants are not defined by their actions, but rather need to meet two requirements: non-hereditary and having absolute power. In the United States, the other branches of government check the President in order to prevent a tyrant from ruling. CNN’s use of tyrant is a display of how democracy has shifted the definition of tyrant. Before Greece’s democratic experiment, tyrants were viewed positively. After democracy took over Greece, tyrants were viewed poorly because they opposed democracy. The use of tyrant in the CNN article shows how the word has shifted from meaning a non-hereditary ruler with absolute power to a more authoritarian meaning.

Mark Rogerson 428

Sachs, Jeffrey “Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny,” CNN July 24, 2018, accessed January 27, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html.