The Mongols showed how brutal and cruel they could be while engaging in the largest land conquest the world has ever seen. They were known for their brutality as well as tolerance. This can relate to being a naval or Marine Corps officer because while brutality may not be the exact right word, stoicism and unwavering fighting spirit towards the enemy is essential in war. As officers, we will have to show our enlisted that same spirit and try to get them to adopt the same spirit. This will make whatever mission we embark on smoother and easier to complete. As for the tolerance aspect, showing tolerance and compassion for your enlisted will make them respect you even more. An officer could just complain and yell at their division because they technically have the legal power to, but their enlisted will have no respect for their leader, which will in turn cause them to not desire to follow the officer. This will slow down the whole dynamic of the mission and can potentially be dangerous.  

The Mongols had a very efficient hierarchy, which allowed them to conquer so much land in such a sort amount of time. This concept can be scaled down and applied to a ship, for example. If everyone understands where they belong and how they can be of as much help to the ship and mission as possible, the power of that whole ship will increase exponentially. Also as an officer, you must learn how to obey those above you, which is taught preemptively here at the Academy during plebe year. Not butting heads with your commanding officer and accepting his decision (even though you may not agree or understand the reasoning behind it) is a vital skill to bettering yourself. For example, during plebe year, plebes must square their corners. What benefit does this useless action have? There is none. The whole point of it is to make you obey something that you do not understand the reasoning behind or even flat out do not agree with.

The Mongolian Empire was the largest land empire in the history of the world and for good reason; they followed codes that made them fearless, intimidating, and brutal towards their enemies. This can be applied to war-fighting in any aspect, especially as an officer. The Mongolian hierarchy efficiently organized their warriors. In our military, we also require structure and order to maximize efficiency. Also, we must learn how to obey orders from superiors that we do not understand or agree with.

-Peter Lohrbach

Word Count: 421

The Mongol Empire was one of the fastest spreading empires in the history of the world. Like most of the other great empires of history, they relied on their warfighting ability and tenacity to expand and conquer. The Mongols also had brutal values and laws that had to be followed by citizens. Another empire that was similar to the Mongols is the Roman Empire. Founded in 752 BC, the Roman Empire at its height controlled North-western Europe to all of the Mediterranean as well as the Near East. They expanded by efficiently splitting up their forces and delegating authority to each province. This allowed the Romans to conquer countries swiftly.

The Mongols sent invasions all around them, much like the Romans and expanding very rapidly. The Mongols were known for having some of the terrifying conflicts in human history, confirmed by the short story Perfect History by Ibn al-Athir. He stated that they ripped unborn babies out of mother’s wombs, as well as brutally murdered anyone that stood in their path. Though the Romans weren’t feared for their cruelness exactly, they were feared for their ability to fight and defeat any adversary. Their tenacity was arguably only matched by the Mongols.

            Augustus Caesar, an emperor of Rome, set a goal to rule the world. This is what caused him to seek so much land and expand his empire so much. Caesar’s success only led to more morale within his forces, which led to even more expansion. The Mongols, led by Genghis Khan for a period of time, most likely felt the same way when they were able to overtake most of Asia and Europe. The Mongols conquered modern day Iraq, Iran, Causasus, as well as parts of Syria and Turkey. They are known as the largest land empire in history.

            Mongol emperor, Genghis Khan, did not hold back when it came to mercilessness and cruelty. There was an estimated 20 million to 40 million deaths while he conducted his conquests, and this factoid clearly showed he had no regard for human life whatsoever. This is perhaps what made him and his empire so intimidating to the rest of the world, allowing him to quickly take control of so much land.

            However, everything good always has to come to an end. Both the Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire fell apart because they got too large and became susceptible to smaller scale attacks and invasions that eventually caused their demise.

            The Mongol Empire as well as the Roman Empire were two of the fastest expanding empires in history. This caused sort of a snowball effect, letting them conquer more land and kill more people. Their tenacity and war fighting skills are what brought them success, and ultimately caused their downfall.

-Peter Lohrbach

Word Count: 459

Sources: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-mongol-empire/

https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Empire/

Master Sun Tzu’s Art of War really emphasizes the importance of deception and being smart while in battle. He also emphasizes being strong in all aspects. For example, feigning ability when you are able and when you are deploying troops, act like you are not. According to Sun Tzu, to lead your people well, you must have this mental ability and be able to see the big picture. You cannot get caught up in the little details of war, this will potentially cloud judgement and lead to defeat. This relates to midshipmen and the techniques used at the Naval Academy because all midshipmen are required to take a variety of classes, be athletes of some sort, as well as participate in a good amount military training. This combination of learning throughout our four years here at the Academy force us to adapt and become well-rounded individuals ready for the Fleet and ready to lead our people.

            For the academic part of our development, we are required to take classes in math, engineering, humanities, as well as military focused courses such as leadership and ethics. This ensures that we are able to think critically in the Fleet. It also ensures that every officer has a base foundation of math and technical skills.

            For the sports, intramurals/varsity sports as well as the PRT (physical readiness test), force midshipmen to work out and keep their body in good shape to be ready to commission. As for the military part of our development, midshipmen go to parades, formations, and mandatory events that sometimes eat up whole evenings. This is to teach time management and efficiency, which are both valuable skills to have as an officer.

            Sun Tzu states in Art of War that you should always “know the enemy, know yourself, and victory is never in doubt”. This relates to USNA because you must know yourself if you want to succeed here. You have to know your abilities and what your true motivation is to be able to grind it out every week. If you are able to commit your mind and know yourself as Sun Tzu says, victory (graduation) is virtually guaranteed. Sun Tzu also states “be ready for the unexpected”. This hold true at the academy as well because there are a lot of things thrown at you that could potentially put you in mental distraught and make you lose track of yourself. If you prepare yourself ahead of time and brace for things to go wrong and realize that it’s going to happen, the whole process becomes easier to handle and you will be back on your feet quicker.

            Sun Tzu’s Art of War and the philosophy embedded in it relates to the academy in many different ways, from being well-rounded in all aspects to knowing your own abilities as well as preparing for the worst. These values will prepare us to commission into the US Navy or Marine Corps as capable officers in the future if we hold true to them and learn from them.

-Peter Lohrbach

Word count: 505

The similarities between the Athenian laws on Metics and slaves becoming citizens and America’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (DACA) are overwhelmingly clear. In ancient Athens, Metics and slaves were originally not allowed to become citizens based solely off of their heritage. If they weren’t full-blooded Athenian, they were denied citizenship. No “half-bloods” allowed. Also, slaves were not able to be considered citizens because they were property to the Athenian people and lacked legal rights. Slaves were also unable to control the path of their life.  Although the laws of modern America are not as severe, they are still comparable. In America, you must be born on American soil or live in the country using a green card or VISA for 5 years to gain citizenship. In both cases, where you originate from is a key determining factor in whether you are granted citizenship or not.

One prime example of the unfairness of this rule in Athens was of Lysias. Even after all the good deeds and benefits he brought to Athens, he was still not granted a spot to vote in the assembly. His fate was ultimately determined by his heritage and where he came from, which he obviously could not control. In ancient Athens, if you weren’t a citizen, you couldn’t vote in assemblies or political matters. This was grossly unfair to the slaves and Metics, as they lived in Athens but couldn’t vote for matters that would affect them directly.

In modern America, the DACA is a step in the right direction to correct the unfair nature of immigration laws. Like Lysias, the children that were brought to America illegally and raised in America were put in this situation beyond their control. The logical train of thought would be to let the DACA protected children gain citizenship as long as they do not demonstrate traits that are detrimental to the country such as terrorism and crime. However, in my opinion, there should be a line. For example, if the child is directly related to a known terrorist or something of the sort, he may not be allowed into the country. Another alternative is to place them in a program that would assimilate them into American society smoothly.

Ancient Athens and modern America have many similarities concerning their immigration laws. The black and white citizenship policies in Athens restricted many types of people, including slaves and Metics. In America, if you weren’t born on American soil, you cannot become a citizen until 5 years of residency. Both of these policies are unfair in the sense that the person cannot control whether they become citizens or not. It is not a merit-based policy.

-Peter Lohrbach

Word Count- 446

Sources:

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Print/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH.html

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Print/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH.html

Peter Lohrbach

American representative democracy and Athenian democracy undoubtedly had their similarities. However, their differences are prominent. The main difference was how the voting worked. In ancient Athens, people physically came together at an assembly and each person’s vote counted towards the verdict. Regular citizens were invited to participate in these events. As shown in the Reacting to the Past exercise we did in class last week, there was an argument over whether to pay citizens to attend these assemblies. However, in America’s representative democracy system, citizens vote for someone to represent them in their rightful “assembly”, and those respective people then vote to make decisions on their behalf.

One advantage of the Athenian more “direct” model of democracy was that the result was truly what the majority of people taking part in the assembly wanted. This would seemingly be the better way to make decisions, but it was shown in ancient Athens that this method had some major pitfalls that caused a lot of problems for Athens. For example, they had to pay people to attend these assemblies, which used up a large amount of funding that could have been spent on other things like building new structures or renovating the existing ones. The money could have been used for much more productive and effective purposes. Another issue with this method of democracy is the personal motivations that people in the assembly could potentially have. In our RTTP, there were several people that had secret motives and goals which did not really benefit Athens at all. It was even stated that they didn’t care what happened to Athens, they just wanted their personal goal reached.

American representative democracy is beneficial to this country because the people elected usually dedicate their whole life to being a politician, which means they are very well trained in the matter and can invest a lot of time and money into their effort.

However, American representative democracy has its flaws too. For example, when the citizens vote for someone to represent them, they believe that that person will vote for what the citizens want. As shown by history, this doesn’t always happen and this causes outrage in the citizens that voted for this person in the first place. Like Athenian assembly, they may also defect from the policy or law that they were elected to vote for personal gain. This sort of political corruption is prominent in cases throughout American history. For example, in the case of Vice President Spiro Agnew, who took bribes from construction companies to push through a large project that needed presidential backing. He took almost $30,000 in cash to do this.

American representative democracy and Athenian democracy are definitely similar in some ways. However, it is clear that the representative American system works better logistically and represents the people of America more effectively.

Word Count: 473

Sources: Examples of political corruption

http://mentalfloss.com/article/20340/4-more-examples-american-political-corruption

The ancient, pre-democratic definition of tyranny states that a tyrant was a person that took the throne without inheriting it. It also described someone that took power using unjust or cruel methods. The second part of that definition is the one that better fits the modern day definition of tyrant.

An article I found regarding a “tyrant” is one of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. The article describes him and his wife, Rosario Murillo (coincidentally the vice-president) oppressing the Nicaraguan people to the point where they have started rebelling and have “turned their backs on him”. Basically, they have lost all trust in their government and leadership. Ortega sends his people to be tortured, accuses them of terrorism as well as espionage without basis or evidence, and accumulates wealth at the expense of his people. One quote that sums up the article says, “Ortega hasn’t been able to crush the rebellion and social unrest however hard he has tried. The times when his people lovingly referred to Ortega and his government as “the boys” are a distant memory now.” President Ortega even has armed groups to fight the rebellion that shoot at the head and chest to kill, instead of using high-pressure water hoses and rubber bullets like almost every other government in the world. It is stated that Ortega’s armed groups roam the streets, capturing protestors and murder them in public, with the intention of intimidating the population. Currently, there have been more than 350 protestors killed in the last 100 days of protests, but thousands more injured by these groups. Also, the fact that he made his wife vice-President is a big red flag. Showing favoritism as the President of a country is unfair.  The whole country of Nicaragua has been in disarray since Ortega has taken power.

Based off of this article, the word tyrant does not really fit into the ancient definition as he did not become President unjustly, he was elected into office. As the quote above states, the Nicaraguan people were actually fond of him at the start of his Presidency. He also was not in the bloodline to inherit the Presidency, but democracy doesn’t work like that anymore anyway. However, he does represent the modern day definition of a tyrant. He is cruel to his people and makes personal gains off of their suffering and hardship, without any regard for them.

— Peter Lohrbach

Word Count: 401