Learning from the Past

Philip Dalke

Learning about the past has allowed me to better developed myself for future leadership in the fleet. I believe I will take the most lessons from learning about the leadership of Alexander the Great. Although historians have conflicting views on the leader, I believe he was very beneficial for his people and overall improved their lives. I believe the best aspects I can learn from him are his confidence in himself and his mixing of different cultures. Confidence is important for a leader but it can quickly turn to arrogance. I believe this may have been the case with Alexander the Great. I will not take arrogance into the future but I will try to emulate his confidence in himself. As King of Macedon he was always confident he would succeed. This helped him in battle, as he never lost. He always believed he was the best and this translated to success for himself. I would like to have this level of confidence in myself when I am leading people in the fleet. I believe it is important to be entirely confident in decisions, especially if it could potentially put someone’s life at risk. Alexander the Great was excellent at mixing and promoting many cultures. He was able to gain support from many different types of people because he allowed them to keep most of their traditions. He also let the former leaders, so long as they vowed to support him, keep command. This led to stability in the regions he conquered. In the Readings in Greek History, this type of leadership is described. It says, “Entering the city, he commanded the Babylonians to rebuild all the temples which Xerxes had destroyed, and especially that of Belus, whom the Babylonians venerate more than any other god…He also sent Mithrines, who had surrendered to him the citadel of Sardis, down into Armenia to be viceroy there.” This quote shows how Alexander lead the people he conquered. He was aware of the differences between cultures and used that to his advantage. His empire was able to grow as large as it did simply because he did not change much. I believe this style of leadership would be beneficial for myself in the future. In the military, I will be required to lead people from all different backgrounds. Like Alexander the Great, I will try to lead each person based on their own cultural beliefs. By being confident in myself and leading on an individual level, I hope to better lead as an officer in the future.

Word- 425

Medieval in the Modern World

Philip Dalke

In recent news, a Saudi Arabian journalist named Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in a horrific fashion inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The case gained worldwide coverage after the cover up by the Saudi Arabian government was exposed by Turkish authorities. Many journalists are sympathetic to Khashoggi and feel that the Saudi Arabians are not being truthful in their investigation. In an opinion article by The Guardian, the killing was described as a “medieval horror.” The full quote goes, “In the weeks since disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist, regime critic and Washington Post columnist, newspapers have been full of the medieval horror of his presumed killing.” The article goes on to explain the Mr. Khashoggi was dismembered while inside the consulate. The murder is barbaric and unwarranted. The Saudi government, or at least someone high up within the monarchy, ordered the killing on an innocent man. I believe the term “medieval” is appropriate in describing this killing.

When I think of the Middle Ages I associate it with the crusades and torturing. A quick Google search results in many torture devices from the Middle Ages, including Judas Cradle, the Iron Chair, The Rack, and rats. All are equally scary and each accomplished their goal of causing extreme pain to its victims. I believe that in the Middle Ages the practice of torturing criminals and enemies was more accepted. Torturing produced the results that the torturers wanted, a slow painful death to the victim. Public executions were common and people were entertained by them. Even the church was not exempt from torturing victims during the Middle Ages. Churches during the Middle Ages had the most power in society and commonly practiced torture on people. Torturing wasn’t really addressed until 1252 when Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull that limited the use of torture. The papal, Ad extirpanda, set limits to how people could torture their victims. It stated that torturing could not cause the loss of limbs, it could only be used once, and the evidence against the accused had to be certain. It did not outlaw torturing within the church, but rather made guidelines for its use.

I argue that Khashoggi’s death can be described medieval. Dismemberment has not been a common practice among civilized people since the Middle Ages. Torturing in general has become taboo in society and causes extreme reactions when it is discovered. Jamal Khashoggi’s murder is a sad example of how medieval practices are brought back to society today. As bad as it sounds,I think that if he were to have been killed with a gun his story would not have gained as much attention as it did.

Word- 446

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/23/the-guardian-view-on-the-death-of-a-critic-riyadh-must-pay-a-price

Mongols vs Vietnam

Philip Dalke

Ibn Al-Athir’s writings depict the horrors of the Mongol hordes. He writes from the perspective of the Muslims who were invaded during the Mongol conquests. Al-Athir describes the brutal killings of men, women, and even children. He makes a comparison of the Mongols to the Antichrist but says, “For even the Antichrist will spare such as follow him, though he destroy those who oppose him; but [the Mongols] spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes,” (Al-Athir 219-220). In this comparison Al-Athir is saying that the invaders are worse than the Antichrist, which is supposed to be the figure of pure evil. Later in the text Al-Athir describes all the territories that the Mongols conquered and noted the swiftness of their success. At the end of the text he tells the story of 17 prisoners that are under the command of one horsemen. One of the prisoners pledes to the others to overpower the man but they are afraid, even though they could easily do it. The Mongols struck such fear into their opposition that even with outstanding odds, some people refused to fight back.

This account of the Mongols invasion reminds me of stories from the Vietnam War, specifically the My Lai Massacre. The Massacre took place in a small village in Vietnam. U.S. soldiers entered the village and proceeded to kill and mutilate the occupants. The number of deaths range from 340-500. The soldiers rounded up and killed innocent civilians. Most claimed they were simply following orders but the killing only stopped when a helicopter crew flying by landed and became involved. This incident reminded me of the Mongol invasion simply because of the brutality of both events. Today, society generally recognizes that killing is a part of war but there are specific guidelines that both sides should follow. During the Mongols times there were not such rules. This resulted in the horrific acts. In both cases, soldiers were bloodthirsty and wanted to destroy every aspect of their enemy. The American soldiers and Mongol horsemen both took to killing all members of the opposition, not simply the warriors. Examining the My Lai Massacre from the perspective of a survivor would likely give you a similar view as Ibn Al-Athir. The members of the village would likely feel helpless against the strength of the US soldiers. They would develop a hatred of America and think of them as a foreign devil, similarly to how the Muslims viewed the Mongols.

Word- 419

Ancient Rome vs North Korea

Philip Dalke

“Ancient and Modern Regime Changes”

New leadership always results in changes to an organization. My classmates and I experienced this first-hand over Plebe summer when the first set detailers were relieved by second set. Although both sets were there to accomplish the same job, there were major differences between both. As the scale of a leadership position increases, so do the effects of a new leader being instituted. A new United States President being elected will cause far more changes than a new high school class president being elected. In dictatorial governments, the change in leadership cause even greater effects because of their complete power. The transition from Julius Caesar to Augustus and from Kim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un both faced struggles. These two successions shared similar aspects but also had quite different aspects.

Julius Caesar built an impressive empire. At his death, the empire stretched around the entire Mediterranean and into the former land of Persia. He rose to power after a Roman civil war and was declared the supreme ruler. After Caesar was betrayed and assassinated, a great hole was left in the Roman Empire. His adopted great nephew, Augustus, would step into the role. Augustus was very young when he took over for Caesar, and had very little experience. Julius Caesar took control due to his past history of command and his ability to shift control in his favor. Augustus did not yet have these skills nor the experience. He would have to learn to lead while he was in the position of ruler. He also faced struggles when he took control because Caesar portrayed himself as divine. Augustus would have to make his own personal image in order to maintain control of the empire and gain respect as a leader. Augustus was fortunate in the sense that the position he filled had been created only a short time before he took control. He was mostly free to take the empire in the direction he saw fit.

Kim Jong Un took control of North Korea after his father’s death in 2011. His father, Kim Jong Il, had had taken control from his father before him. The successive leadership of the Kim’s caused North Korea to be a weak and unpredictable country. The citizens were cut off from the world and the country relied on foreign aid in order to keep its people alive. Following Kim Jong Il’s death, Kim Jong Un faced similar struggles to Augustus. At the time, Un was relatively young, only in his late 20’s. He was also inexperienced like Augustus, especially in the military sense. Both Un and Augustus had no military training before taking control of the army of their respective countries. Additionally Kim Jong Un faced identity problems as many people expected him to act like his father and grandfather before him. Unlike Augustus though, Un had no Senate to provide him help with ruling the country. Kim had complete control and only relied on his advisers. This caused different struggles in his country. Kim took control in a more modern society. He cannot act freely outside his country, like Augustus did, because his external power is checked by the world superpowers. Augustus faced far less, organized opposition.

Present day nation states can learn many things from ancient leadership changes. It is important to have good advisers if a new leader wants to be successful. Augustus used Mark Antony for help during his early years which probably led to his success. It is also important for future leaders to learn from their predecessors. By learning how to lead their specific group from the previous leader, the transition will be more successful. The transition between two leaders will always cause changes but by learning from the past, the transition can be much smoother.

Words-628

Representative vs Direct Democracy

Philip Dalke

The United States was created on the idea of democracy and equal representation. The Founding Fathers used the basic democratic ideas from Ancient Athenians and adapted them to fit the needs of the new country. Although there are still problems with representative democracy, I believe it is the best form of democracy for the United States.

The concept of the representative democracy should be perfect. It allows for every citizen to get a say in their government while keeping the process moving quickly. It can be used at the municipal level all the way up to the national level, allowing for federalism to work. But, this form of government only works when the elected officials correctly represent their people. Throughout the history of the United States, representative democracy has failed to serve its purpose on many occasions. One example of this is seen with our Presidents. Since the founding of the country, five Presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. This goes against the fundamental theory of representative democracy. The representatives are supposed to vote based on their people, so the popular vote should match the election results, but instead the representatives follow a majority rules policy in many states. Now, I understand that members of the electoral college are not necessarily voted into place, but they still are serving the same government. Another example of where representative democracy has failed is with the domination of the two major parties in the present day. Citizens are forced to vote for people they do not completely agree with because the other candidates provides even less benefits. It is a lesser of two evils situation. When a third party member tries to run for office they rarely put up a fight. This causes a situation where many citizens’ beliefs are not represented. In 2017 a poll by Gallup found that 42% of voters identified as independents but only 2 out of the 535 members of congress were Independents. Again, this fails the basic concept of a representative democracy. I think there are many problems with our system but it is still vastly superior to a direct model of democracy.

A direct democracy in the United States is simply unpractical. There are over 330 million people in the United States. Every topic would have to be discussed by groups of people and then voting would take long amounts of time. It would also be next to impossible to propose laws. Direct democracy has no checks on itself. Presidents would be a popularity contest instead of an educated vote. The process of deciding things within the governmental system would take ages and would change frequently. Lastly, the public could simply not be trusted. People can be deceived and make rash decisions without thinking. This could potentially lead the United States into the ground.

Overall, I think the representative form of democracy has many flaws but it is still far superior to the direct form of democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress

https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification-independents-back-2017.aspx

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-lost-popular-vote-hillary-clinton-us-election-president-history-a7470116.html

‘300’Historical Accuracy

I chose to analyze the movie “300” in order to gain an understanding of the portrayal of Persians and Trojans (Greeks) from the Persian Wars period of history. The movie contains both accurate and inaccurate scenes, and although the creator adds extra detail to the story, it can still be a good way to examine history.

Some of the accurate scenes include the warrior culture of Sparta, the brotherhood between Spartan warriors, and the unbalanced number of soldiers during the Battle of Thermopylae. In the movie, King Leonidas’ son is shown at a young age practicing his fighting skills. Both Leonidas and his wife are supportive of their son training to be a warrior and take pride in the fact that the boy will one day be Spartan. Another accurate aspect of the movie is the brotherhood between Spartan warriors. The men are prepared to die for each other without hesitation. In a famous scene in the movie, King Leonidas tells Xerxes, the Persian king, that even he is prepared to die for his men. This is a testament to how strong the bonds are between him and his soldiers. The last accurate aspect I observed from the movie was the size of each force present. Although the exact numbers may not have been accurate, the fact that the small Spartan force faced extremely larger Persian army is true.

The movie was inaccurate in portraying the types of Persian troops, the scale of both sides, and the meeting between the two kings. In the movie Xerxes sends all types of troops at the Spartans but to no avail. He uses men, animals, and even strange monsters. This is where the movie gets into fantasy. In his camp Xerxes has a fat man creature that has two blades instead of arms. Although it is interesting to watch, it is highly unlikely to be real. Another inaccurate part of the movie is the scale of both forces. The movie says the Persians had over a million troops but that is most likely an exaggeration for increased drama. The last inaccuracy I noticed was the meeting of the two kings. I find it unlikely that they would have met on the battlefield to discuss terms of surrender personally. A messenger most likely would have been sent.

The movie creator probably added these different aspects to enhance the plot and add more action for the audience. By adding animals that are larger than normal and monsters to the Persian army, the creator drives the point that the Persians are the bad guys and the Spartans are the good side. The Spartans are openly human so the audience can relate to them, while the Persians wear masks or have unhuman features (extremely large size, blade hands…). The various troop types also pushes the underdog story further. Having troops from around the world shows that Persia has vastly more resources than the Spartans. The size of both forces and the dramatic meeting between Xerxes and Leonidas again pushes the narrative of an underdog story to create more suspense for the audience.

Personally, I think movies such as “300” are excellent ways to describe history. Although some parts are fantasized, the bulk of the movie is fairly accurate and brought the Battle of Thermopylae into the public’s eye. For examining history, I believe the movie is a good starting point for research and examination but should not be used alone for information.