Pride before the fall

There is no question that Alexander the Great earned his name. As a teenager , Alexander led the Roman Empire to victory in combat and politics, earning the love of his people. Upon the death of Phillip the II, Alexander needed to cement his role as the official leader of the prospering nation. At the beginning of Alexanders rise to power and before his conquest east towards china, he characterized himself as a leader of the people. In Macedon, kings were expected to lead through example and be on the battle field fighting alongside their men. Fighting on the front line showed everyone that Alexander was equal in battle, dedicated to the success of his empire. Alexander’s bravery and devotion to battle made his men want to fight for him. Alexander understood why his men followed him, he proved his dedication through his scars. In a speech to his men, Alexander said “”Come now – if you are wounded, strip and show your wounds, and I will show mine. There is no part of my body but my back which has not a scar; not a weapon a man may grasp or fling the mark of which I do not carry upon me” (Arrian, 7.10). This speech was, unfortunately, a last ditch effort to rally the support of his troops at the peak of Alexanders departure from reality, wrapped up in hubris, and his new life as a “demigod king”.

As Alexander amassed more power and created a larger empire, he fell out of touch with the values that made him so great in the first place. Alexander was influenced by the Persian idea of the God king as a ruler, and began to change. Practices such as proskynesis and extremely limited access to Alexander began the discord between the leadership and troops. This continued until the army reached India and Alexander wanted to continue to the sea because he felt it was his birth right as a son of Zeus. Eventually there was a mutiny and the army had to begin the trek home, an action that lead to the unremarkable death of Alexander the Great, the division of the once great empire.

As military leaders we need to be constantly humbled to stay effective. Alexander the Great serves as a cautionary tale for leaders who become more focused on their image and lose sight of the people they are charged to lead. It is vital to effective leadership to create an environment where everyone feels equal and not subject to the superficial desires of the leaders. As we move up through the ranks and obtain more power and responsibilities we cannot have a departure from the understanding of those who are at the very lowest of the chain of command. Too often we have old and out of touch leaders who believe they are doing what is right, when they are actually doing what is right for them. We should be judged in our leadership by how we treat those who are below us and how effectively we relate to them.

Ryan Franco, WC-Quote:478

Who came first

The First Crusade began with the rallying of the European Christians following the council of Clermont. The council rallied the Europeans around the need to defend Constantinople and the atrocities committed against the Christians in the east. The council ended with the cries of Deus vult, or God will it, but there was no mention of Jerusalem or a further conquest of the holy land. The first crusade was unprepared and only successful because of sheer numbers. The continuation to Jerusalem seems to be a decision of convent circumstance based on the fact that a European army was already mobilized in the region. The Turks fighting against the Christians encroaching toward Jerusalem provided the first major resistance to the incoming crusaders, but also confirmed the idea that Jerusalem was something that needed to be taken back. The Turks who were fighting acted in defense of their homeland but he Christians took their fighting as assurance that the holy city was a sacred place that needed to be protected. This thought is based on the basic and simple human desire to realize a person wants something more because everyone else also wants it.

The church in Rome believed that they had the rights to Jerusalem because they once ruled over it and the spread of Islam must be stopped. This idea of containment quickly spread to the Jewish faith and led to the killings of Jews across the region. The church declared this killing an attempt to convert the “ungodly heathens” who were occupying the Christian holy city. The Pope conveniently forgot that the Jews were ruling over Jerusalem since the time of King David and before their religion had begun. By their logic the Jews should be the rightful owners of the holy city. The Jews were the ones who ruled over Jerusalem when it was declared it a holy city. Without the Jews the Muslims would have no city to attempt to claim and the Christians would have no religion at all. In the Jewish faith Jerusalem is the foundation of their people, it is the place where Abraham, the head of Judaism, nearly sacrificed his son Isaac to God thousands of years before Muhammad or Jesus was born. In the Book of Deuteronomy, a text spoken from God to Moses, it is written that Abraham’s grandson Israel learned that Jerusalem is “the site that the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes, as a place established in His name”. These fundamental pieces of the Jewish faith give the Jews the most right over Jerusalem.

WC:424

Ryan Franco

The Tragedy of the Death Star

The death star is one of the most iconic weapons in film history. In Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, the destruction of the death star is the epic conclusion to the opening film of the series. The destruction of the Death star was celebrated in theaters all around the world when the movie opened in May of 1977 and is seen as a triumphant victors by the “good guys”. Audiences assume that the rebels are the good guys due to the way the film was written and directed. It would have been just at easy to make the Jedi a bitter group of fanatics full of people dedicated to an antiquated religion; but the empire is the antagonist. Looking at the death star attack from the point of view of the empire is an extremely different type of attack. From the aspect of a storm trooper it seems like a small group of disgruntled rebels attacked a major base and killed hundreds of thousands of men. However this attack to the rebels, was a great success that cut deep into the heart of the oppressive empire. This example shows that the morally sound thing to do depends on the side one chooses to be on. This idea is very similar to how Americans look at the things that our country has done in the name of liberty and victory.

Modern America has chosen to justify many of the actions that our founding fathers and military leaders has done in the name of our freedom. Washington attacking the British on Christmas day was something that if looked at from an unbiased point of view, could seem morally reprehensible. The bombing of Japan to end World War II was a good idea for America but was a devastating attack similar to the destruction of Alderaan. The pattern of similarities continues to this day. After the attack on the world trade centers in 2001 the United States began its war on terror. A byproduct of this war is the use of the Muslim scapegoat to blame for many of the problems that are occurring throughout the world. This is the same thing that was done in Episode III, when the Jedi were blamed for the collapse of the old empire. The Jedi were not to blame, but to many in the public, this was a logical thought that led to the rise of the galactic empire. Our modern government is not evil or led by a madman who shoots lightning out of his hands but there are some similarities. These similarities occur in government around the world and throughout time because of the harsh truth that the morally just actions are decided by the victors.

WC:454

Ryan Franco

Imaginary Insidious Invaders

Ryan Franco

A firm believer of any religion will believe that anything contrary to their own belief system is wrong. The moral guidelines of every major religion are very similar, but the differences are enough to make people hate each other. The Roman disdain of the rise of Christianity was based off the disagreements is religion along with the fear of revolt. The Roman people and armies, had to deal with uprisings throughout the empire since its foundation. These insurrections were usually well defined, it was different groups and tribes of people who lived along the outskirts of the empire, a formal army led by a new general, or even the peasants revolting in a small area, but in all these examples, they could easily tell who they were fighting. The Christian problem was much different from all previous foreign invasions. This uprising came from hidden inside the people of the empire. Rome had become a xenophobic nation state and the fear they felt towards this new group of invaders is very understandable.

The area north of the Mediterranean was controlled by polytheistic religions hundreds of years before the Romans ruled the lands. First the Greeks, then the Romans ruled with their large pantheon of gods and goddesses who controlled every aspect of their life, small and large. The Christians believed in the superiority of one God, an idea, even by itself, seemed like blasphemy. It was easy for the Roman government to villainize the Christian, they were a new and radical belief system that had a good reason to hate the Romans. The Romans killed Jesus and it didn’t matter if the Christians were actually vengeful about the action. The only thing that mattered was the idea that some of the Christian might be mad enough about it to form up, however these fears were largely unfounded. There was no major movement by the Christians to overthrow the Roman emperor or the empire, because of this inaction, the Romans had no right to attempt to stamp out the rise of Christianity. A preemptive strike on a group of mostly peaceful people would have never been justifiable. The justification to wipe out a complete group of people usually arises from retaliation for a larger action. I believe the Romans had a right and the reason to fear Christianity. The possibilities of an organized and unified group of people with different ideals that the established government could very well have been insidious. Luckily for the Romans their fear was mostly the fear of change and the unknown.

WC:424

Who can lead?

The Athenian democracy, created by Pericles during his time as leader of Athens, was based on the idea that it is the job of the government to carry out the will of the people. The American government was founded in a similar manner, to be “by the People, for the people”. Both of these governments were created to represent the citizens; but the Americans decided the mob, for many reasons, could not be trusted to make informed decisions. The Americans realized direct democracy was messy, ill-informed, and fickle. Representative democracy, while it has its faults, is the more critical and adept form of government.

The power in a direct democracy lies in the idea that if more people contribute to a system the stronger it will become. Everyone weighs in on every issue, and everyone has a say in everything. This collaboration works if everyone knows exactly what they are talking about. A group of farmers could make a great process for plowing a field, and a group of builders could make a house in great time. But if you took these two groups of people and tell them to input ideas for war plans, one would have a terrible army run by incompetent people. Say we do have a veteran who has fought his whole life, he is only 1 person, so his 1 vote is lost among the sea of farmers and builders. The problem with the direct democracy is that those who are ill-informed are given the same rights as those who know what is best. An example of the ignorance shown in direct democracy is the aftermath of the Battle of Arginusae, in which 6 generals were killed because of their inability to rescue survivors from the battle. The emotional response from an assembly that did not understand the gravity of their situation led to a shortage of leadership in the Athenian Navy.

Leadership in government should be for those who have the knowledge and understanding to make the difficult and usually the unpopular choice. Throughout the country almost everyone is against new taxes, but taxes are a necessary part of the government even though they are wildly unpopular. Taxes do the things for the country that need to be done, things such as roads, schools, and hospitals. Taxes provide for things that everyone needs but seem too short sighted to want to pay for themselves. It takes our elected leaders to realize that important things need more funding and therefore must increase taxes. The people who lead a government should not have other commitments and jobs. The most effective government is one where it is the job of elected leaders to learn about the laws that affect their constituents, to make the informed decisions.

Hercules, The Man From Myth

Interpretations of Ancient Greece has fascinated society for hundreds of years. The Greeks seemed larger than life with all of their epic stories. This has led to a majority of the literature and films about the era to discuss the great heroes and gods. These films are not expected to be extremely historically accurate due to the fictional nature of the original story. When I looked at the 2014 film depiction of Hercules I did not find much of it to but be proven by facts, but much of it was very plausible. The first aspect that I enjoyed was the idea that all the mythological aspects of the culture were explainable. The movie went through and debunked many of the common myths such as, Hercules was not the son of Zeus, hydras were warriors in lizard masks, centaurs were horseback archers that only attacked at night, and many others. The movie explains how when stories are retold many times, they begin to twist and shape until everyone believes the most dramatic aspect of them.

The tactics and techniques of the army of heroes was also one of the more accurate parts of the movie. The soldiers were heavily reliant on their shields and spears creating a focus toward the shield line. The “good guy” style of warfare was consistent with the historical proof, but the armies of the villains were almost completely wrong. These other armies came with a larger force from an established city but used no armor or shields, and stuck to no formation of battle that would have been typical at the time. The reason the heroes were fighting the enemy was also inaccurate. In the film Hercules was fighting against the ruler of the land who was a “tyrant” and took power away from the people. I believe that all of these events, consistent with history or not, were done to create an easily ingested and convenient version of history. The intentional disregard for historical accuracy, like the enemy army, was done so it would be very clear who the bad guy was. If people saw Greeks fighting Greeks the image would have not been as polarizing as the action of Greeks fighting barbarian warriors. Similarly it is easy for an audience, especially one from America, to believe that Hercules was fighting for democracy when having a tyrant was actually typical for the time. Audiences do not want historically accurate movies, they want convenient stories that fit with what they believe.