Kim and Alexander

Kim Jun Yun and Alexander the Great

Alexander relied on things other than solely military technique and strategy in his quest to be King. Alexander used people’s belief in the Oracle at Siwah in order gain credibility and trust among the public. This allowed him to rule without imposition. Through his conquests, he entrusted individuals of that region to develop and maintain the empire in his absence—these individuals shared his vision. Fundamentally, his drive and tenacity prevailed and made him a powerful leader. Despite all of his success, King Philip II was essential to the growth and development of the Kingdom of Macedonia.

King Philip II set the framework for Macedonia before Alexander came into power. He defeated the Athenians and Thebans—two primary and dominant Greek powers of the time. Also, he innovated and revolutionized the way that war was fought. For example, he transitioned from the hoplite phalanx to the Macedonian Phalanx with sarissae. This innovation gave Macedonian soldiers both an offensive and defensive advantage. The long spears, as well as the unique formation, allowed them to fight the enemy without direct contact. He also introduced lighter shields and less body army so that his soldiers were more mobile. He also developed numerous technological advances such as the torsion. Xenophon Anabasis states, “He gave the Macedonians cloaks to wear instead of sheepskins, brought them down from the mountains to the plains, and made them a match in war for the neighboring barbarians.” Philip transformed Macedonia to a competitive power—able to challenge and face primary powers at the time. With King Philip II’s innovation, he set the foundation for the Macedonian kingdom which ultimately set the stage for Alexander’s success.

Kim Jun Yun, like Alexander, pioneered many technological and strategic advancements that have helped North Korea rise as a modern power. He has developed the country’s economy and nuclear technologies to the point that it is now recognized as a potential competitor. Choi Jun Kun, a political science professor at Yonsei University in South Korea, asserts “He’s trying a lot of things at the same time. He has reformed the economy far greater than his father, and hugely advanced the country’s nuclear and missile capabilities.” Thus, for North Korea to be taken seriously on global stage, they have to develop their nuclear program. This relates to Alexander’s quest to domination in that he too built off what his father created.

-Denzel J. Polk

Word Count: 409

Struggles of Citizenship

The citizenship law of 451, harmed foreign-born medics and slaves chances of equal representation within Athens, as it prevented anyone who did not have two Athenian born parents to be recognized as an Athenian citizen. However, in the wake of the devastation brought by the thirty tyrants, the issue of the legality of medics and slaves festered as the new democracy was rebuilding. Throughout the process of creating a new democracy, many moderate-democrats in favor of bringing back Pericles’ Citizenship Law, believed that chaos and instability within the democracy were as a result of foreign-borns who interpreted the loyalty of true Athenians. Democracy they thought was built on the foundation of trust. Citizens of Athens are granted rights to participate within the assembly and therefore are in charge of the critical decisions that determine the fate of Athens. To bring back a peaceful, united, and prosperous, medics and slaves must be excluded, so that the former Athens pre-Peloponnesian war could return. Proponents against the Citizenship Law of 451, can say that Pericles is hypocritical by excluding people when he himself wrote in the Funeral of Oration when the democracy in Athens was a model that, “We are more an example to others…it is called a democracy, because it is managed not for a few people, but for the majority” (Thucydides 37). This proves that it does not matter the makeup of the person, but make up of the country itself which is why medics and slaves should be included.

Like the medic’s and slaves, today the “dreamers” make up a major portion of our population but fail to be recognized as part of the country. Day in and day out they participate in the same everyday activities as legal citizens do, wanting to contribute to society. The “dreamers” came to America to escape political, economic, and or religious strive. They are in search of a better lifestyle promoted by American values and democracy just as the medics and slaves in ancient Greece. Athens, the birthplace of democracy, proclaimed “eleuthia,” or liberty for its citizens. Slaves and metics believed that living in the same country as Athens citizens, that eleuthia should not be reserved for the Athenian born people only. The slaves and medics who had lived there all there life, through the strives, starvation, and war, wanted to continue to live and enjoy the liberties Athens had to offer has a prosperous democracy. It is similar to today’s situation in which the dreamers come to America to be protected by American ideals of freedom and democracy. They live here with a purpose. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were created so that those liberties and values would be protected. Dreamers argue that they should be protected and able to enjoy the same liberties, without fear of deportation from their home. Similar to Ancient Greece, how medics and slaves were blamed for the weakness of the democracy and the thirty tyrants actions, today the illegal immigrants living within the country are heavily targeted for the problems within the country itself. Both groups, medics, and slaves in Athens and undocumented immigrants in America today, are similar in the fact that reality is masked. Their homes in the community make life seem normal as anyone else, however, despite contributing to society, they are very excluded. The law works with “700,000 Dreamers in a state of uncertainty about futures and possibly deportation” in order to promote opportunities for those illegal immigrants in the country to be qualified for a work permit and make a living. Despite, given some hope for equal opportunities, this law does not give the “dreamers” full access to democracy. The immigrants despite living in America, just like the medics and slaves in Athens, are deprived of ever gaining citizenship and therefore are excluded from enjoying certain rights.

http://fortune.com/2018/01/25/trump-daca-citizenship/

Caroline Foley

Word Count:600

So Metics/Slaves and Dreamers are Similar?

Considering metics were classified as immigrants and freed slaves, there are clear similarities between the debate of granting metics and/or slaves citizenship and providing legal protection for children brought into the United States illegally by their parents.

Especially under the rule of Pericles, Athenians took pride in their culture as the state rose up and became the example to all Greeks that Pericles envisioned it to be. Athenian democracy was limited by the fact that metics and slaves were not given citizenship. As a result of this, social strains were increased within society. Much in the same way, a major social divide is created every time President Trump speaks on the issue of DACA and how awful immigrants are despite Dreamers in particular, being brought into this country without making the decision on their own. In April 2018, President Trump tweeted that, “Democrats want no borders, hence drugs and crime!”, insinuating that all of the people who illegally cross the border are bringing crime and drugs into the United States. This creates an ‘us v them’ mentality as well as a social barrier between American citizens and the children whose lives were complicated from an early age.

Pericles Funeral Oration states, “No one is held back by poverty or because his reputation is not well-known, as long as he can do good service to the city. We are free and generous not only in our public activities as citizens, but also in our daily lives” (Thucydides 3.40-41) Still, Athenian slaves and metics who helped overthrow the Thirty Tyrants and continuously provided many services to the Athenians state (services which were often performed by citizens as well) could not attend Assembly meetings or vote. Similarly, the children who DACA is protecting are those that are actively trying to pursue their education or were honorably discharged from the military. President Trump claims that these illegal immigrants are hurting American citizens by taking their jobs and is concerned for the “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” The reality is, however, that many Dreams are contributing to the American economy and at their respective universities. For as long as he has held office, President Trump uses specific rhetoric to insist that illegal immigrants are inferior. Again, in the same way, many Athenians felt so much pride in their nationality that they did not want anyone (metics or slaves) be able to claim Athenian citizenship.

Our discussion about metic and/or slave citizenship only made my view of DACA and the Dreamers more clear. They deserved citizenship in Athens then and Dreamers deserve legal protection now. Both contribute(d) to their country and had no say in their social standing, yet their impact is felt (arguably metics helped more than Dreamers, but still.) No one will stand up and fight for illegal immigration but DACA protects individuals who did not make the choice to come to the U.S., making them an easy target who must be protected so that their whole way of life is not simply uprooted. The discussion did make me consider that slaves may not have been granted citizenship as easily simply because society was so dependent on their labor. Also, it made sense that some groups wanted metics to be educated before being allowed Athenian citizenship. This makes a lot of sense because they wanted an educated electorate, but even in the case of the Dreamers, many of them have grown up in the U.S. and pursue higher education.

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 532

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/02/politics/daca-explained/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-daca-and-what-does-the-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it

(Thucydides 3.40-41)

Dreamers: The Metics of America

Immigration is one of the hot topics in American politics right now, especially since the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (DACA) is one of the issues that is included in these immigration debates. DACA allows illegal immigrants who came to the US as children to receive a renewable two-year work permit. This policy has helped many children today, who have come from nothing, giving them a chance to pursue the ideals of the American Dream, which encompasses civil rights, equality, and opportunity. In ancient Athens, the similar issue of citizenship for metics was a polarizing issue for many Athenian residents, as people who had been living in Athens their whole lives were not considered citizens. History repeats itself, and it is easy to see that metics and people who are protected under DACA (aka “Dreamers”) suffer under similar circumstances that pose a tough moral dilemma for our electorate.

The issues that people have/had against Dreamers and metics are similar. Many Athenians thought in a bigoted way that metics wouldn’t be loyal to Athens and they wouldn’t be fully committed to the success of our country. Similarly, today there are many people that are against Dreamers because of xenophobia. America has always had a problem with discrimination against foreigners, and it’s no different with Latin Americans; many people know about “Jim Crow” laws, but the less known “Juan Crow” laws posed many of the same discriminatory issues against Latinos, such as segregation in schools (Mendez v. Westminster deemed this unconstitutional in 1947). Given the US’s history of discrimination, it’s not a stretch to think that prejudice fuels some people’s opposition to Dreamers. However, many of these Dreamers have only ever known the US as home, these Dreamers are, as former President Obama described in his statement regarding DACA, “young people who grew up in America — kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants.” Similarly, metics were Athenian in every sense of the word until Pericles declared that only people with two Athenian-born parents were Athenian citizens. Just like these Dreamers, many metics were just as committed to Athens as any Athenian, but a law was the only thing standing between them and citizenship.

In one of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign rallies, he famously stated of illegal immigrants that, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” This is a statement that many people agree with, but I believe that there is more than just “some” good people, especially when we are talking about the Dreamers. How much of a difference does it make if someone was born on this country or came here as a toddler, knowing nothing of their birth country? These people just want to seek the same opportunities that people have in the US, what is so bad about that? Lysias, over two-thousand years ago told his immigration story: “My father Cephalus was induced by Pericles to come to this country, and dwelt in it for thirty years: never did he, any more than we, appear as either prosecutor or defendant in any case whatever, but our life under the democracy was such as to avoid any offence against our fellows and any wrong at their hands.” (Lysias, 12) This story shows how just like the metics, the overwhelming majority of Dreamers just want to play their part as American citizens, and peacefully enjoy the same freedoms that American citizens have.

The question of the legality of Dreamers is a moral question. When we’re making decisions about these people’s legal status, it’s important to consider the effects this has on their lives, their families’ lives, and friend’s lives. When we kick these people out who are American in every sense, other than the required documents, we’re ruining lives. Like Obama said in his DACA statement, “They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.”

-Kevin Smith

Word Count: 573

From Philip II to Robespierre: No Leader Is Great On Their Own

It is one thing to have your name remembered in history, but a whole other thing for “Great” to be part of that name. Alexander the Great was a truly remarkable leader by the success of his military and political campaigns to dominate one of the world’s largest and richest regions. These military campaigns, however, were made possible only because extremely high level of training and tactical expertise of the Macedonian Army. Alexander’s father, Philip II instituted key changes to mold Macedonia to the position which led Alexander to his success. Although Alexander was by many means “Great,” he couldn’t have done so without his father.

Before Philip II, the Macedonian political landscape consisted of a mess of warring aristocratic clans. When Philip gained power, that all changed. Not only was everyone unified, but the culture around the military changed. Traditionally, the method of fighting was through the use of a Hoplite Phalanx. Hoplite armour, however, was extremely expensive, so it essentially restricted warfighting to wealthy landowners. Phillip reformed the military to fight with light, cheap armour, and sarissae (long spears) in order to allow a much greater number of people to serve and fight. Philip’s leadership transformed the Macedonian people from “helpless vagabonds … clothed in skins” to wearing cloaks and “a match in battle for the barbarians on [their] borders”(Arrian, Anabasis 7.9.2-4). Philip was seen as this great unifier who was revered by his troops. He used this power to train his troops to fight extremely efficiently and be among the best armies in the world. Alexander the Great won several battles in which his forces were greatly outnumbered, but the superior tactics and training of his troops were the only thing preventing defeat. Without Philip’s military reforms, Darius would have likely defeated Alexander making him not so great after all.

Napoleon led very successful campaigns to take control of almost all of Europe in the early 19th Century. Napoleon’s rise to power, however, would not at all have been possible without the radical actions of Maximilien Robespierre a decade earlier. Robespierre led the Reign of Terror which began with the execution of the monarch King Louis XVI. The absolute chaos which ensued, ending with Robespierre’s death, caused a massive power vacuum. This enabled Napoleon to step in and be so influential. The radical ideology propagated by Robespierre was instrumental in setting the French up to engaging in a campaign as ambitious as Bonaparte’s. Despite his excellent skill as a general and leadership charisma, Napoleon would not have been able to do what he did, or at least not have the same success, if it were not for Robespierre’s leading of the Reign of Terror.

Nobody can ever do something truly great on their own, including the most legendary historical characters. Alexander and Napoleon alike could have not earned their empires and historical reputations without having their paths paved by Philip II and Robespierre, respectively.

-Ben Stanish

475 Words

Kim Jong-Un and Alexander the Great

While many leaders, both modern and ancient, like to claim some connection to divinity are all mortal. Therefore, this brings forth the need for hereditary leaders to find an heir to succeed them. This is a problem for powerful kings and dictators, as sometimes they die without leaving an heir, or if they do leave an heir, that heir may be weak and be challenged. In this, the succession crises following the deaths of Philip II and Kim Jong-Il are alike in that they were both powerful, established leaders whose sons had to establish that they were strong enough to take control upon their fathers’ deaths.

Alexander the Great was the first-born son of Philip II of Macedon. Philip was “excessively fond” of Alexander and gave him power starting at a young age, including leaving him as “regent in Macedonia and keeper of the royal seal” at sixteen years old when he went on an expedition to Byzantium (Plutarch 9). As he grew older, Alexander established himself as one of Philip’s generals, participating on campaigns and commanding men in battle, including commanding the other half of Philip’s Macedonian forces at the important Battle of Chaeronea. Yet, when Philip married Cleopatra, Alexander’s right to succeed Philip was challenged when Attalus implied that the marriage would lead to the birth of a “legitimate successor to the kingdom” (Plutarch 9). Alexander quickly addressed this, challenging Philip and humiliating him by demonstrating how drunk he was. When Philip was murdered and Alexander took control of the Macedonian kingdom at twenty year old, it was “exposed to great jealousies, dire hatreds, and dangers on every hand” (Plutarch 11). Alexander handled this through continuing to establish military dominance and strength of will by refusing to “abate his dignity even a little” by giving up control of the Greek states like his advisors recommended (Plutarch 11). In this, Alexander handled the succession crisis by using his already established military reputation to demonstrate his strength.

On the other hand, Kim Jong-Un did not have an established military reputation to rely on when his father, Kum Jong-Il died. While Kim Jong-Un was established as the Chairman of the Worker’s Party of Korea (WPK) in 2011—the political party of the dictatorship—his ability to rule and the stability of his regime was called into question when he was appointed as the Great Successor and Marshall upon Kim Jong-Il’s death. American political analysts questioned whether the “process can hold in the absence of Kim Jong-Il, because he has really been the glue that has held the system together” (Gershwin and Snyder). They also pointed out that Kim Jong-Un had not established himself on the international stage before his father’s death, saying that “he was being groomed for leadership, but this is still in the early stages” (Gershwin and Snyder). As well, he was only twenty-eight when he took control, which automatically put him a disadvantage, as the North Koreans value age and experience. Yet, through support of the WPK and through development of North Korea’s nuclear program, Kim Jong-Un has internationally established his regime.

In this, both Alexander the Great and Kim Jong-Un used military prowess to address instability and doubts about their ability to succeed their fathers. Therefore, the need for heirs to demonstrate strength during a succession crisis in a common thread between the ancient and modern world.

-Hanna Prince

Word count: 491

Plutarch. Parallel Lives: The Life of Alexander.

Gershwin, Bernard, Snyder, Scott A. “North Korea’s Uncertain Succession.” Council on Foreign Relations. 12/19/2011. Accessed 03/02/2019. https://www.cfr.org/interview/north-koreas-uncertain-succession.

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

Dreamers, Metics, Slaves and Arbitrary Power

The legality of the citizenship of Dreamers protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA, draws similar parallels to the argument over the citizenship of the metics and slaves of ancient Athens, due to the constraints placed on these individuals as a result of the arbitrary characteristics they possess.

Metics and slaves in ancient Athens were not granted citizenship due to their lineage. An Athenian citizen was declared as such due to being born an offspring of a mother and father who were both Athenian citizens. This measure was arbitrary in nature for it relied on predetermined qualities and characteristics about the individual that were beyond the individual’s control. Thus, any merit achieved by the individual for the greater good of Athens had no reflection upon their ability to gain status and prestige via Athenian citizenship. Lysius remarked how “this was not the treatment that we deserved at the city’s hands, when we had produced all of ur dramas for the festivals and contributed to many special levies” (Lysius, 12.20). Despite the good works and charity performed by Lysias, he was not given a vote in the assembly. The injustices of his situation is derived from a lack of recognition for the works that he was in control of. Instead, he was defined by a predetermined trait given to him by nature and subsequently was deemed unfit to vote.

Similarly, Americans assign citizenship based on the arbitrary circumstance of being born within the geographical boundaries of of the United States, however they strip citizenship from those who are in a similar bain. The children who are brought to the United States illegally by their parents are not cognizant of the illegal nature of their doings or at a minimum to immature to fully understand the severity of their actions, for the median age of these children is six years old and the average is three years old (Parlapiano). As such, the Dreamers are subjected to illegal activities by the whims of their parents. Thus their parents act as an arbitrary force governing their geographic location. Therefore, the plight of the Dreamer and that of the natural born citizen are congruent with one another for they are subjected to an arbitrary force, whether it be nature or man, to decide the region and nation-state boundary in which they live and are raised.

Both the metics and slaves of ancient Athens and the Dreamers of modern time are defined by the opposition to granting citizenship as unworthy due to characteristics beyond their control. Ironically, government systems such as the direct democracy of the Athenians and the representative democracy of the United States were designed to limit the influence of arbitrary power upon the individual. Direct democracy attempted this via their willingness to give citizens equal portions of the vote, and representative democracy attempted this via the check against the arbitrary power of the majority in the form of representatives. However, stripping citizenship from the Dreamers, metics, and slaves is antithetical to the mission of diminishing arbitrary power in government. It’s hypocritical nature subsequently legitimizes the stated purpose of the two societies government systems. So it brings about the question: are we really dedicated to ridding government of arbitrary power, or is it a facade to justify the rule of those in power?

-Jackson Garber

Words: 554

Alicia Parlapiano and Karen Yourish, “A Typical ‘Dreamer’ Lives in Los Angeles, Is from Mexico and Came to the U.S. at 6 Years Old,” nytimes.com, Jan. 23, 2018

from Lysias with an English translation by W.R.M. Lamb, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1930.

America and Athens- One in the Same

America and Athens- One in the Same

Albeit taking place in late 400 BCE, the overthrowing of the thirty tyrants and establishing the Athenian democracy can parallel the American regime of democracy. Despite acting in a certain manner, they are not one in the same, but follow similar patterns with certain differences.

The overthrowing of the authoritarian regime of the thirty tyrants and replacing it with a democratic Athens called for a major regime change. With the citizens of Athens divided in wanting a form of democracy in which every vote mattered or having an electorate system of democracy, conflicts arose. People who supported the true democracy constantly clashed with those supporting the electorate system and a long standing debate arose to see which government would be implemented in their society. Although the American regime of democracy does not have these two different democracies, the American regime has two political parties which face this struggle. Just like the Athenian society, the Republicans and Democrats have different views on nearly every aspect of society, with few beliefs aligning. As a result, the American regime has experienced severe feuds between the two political parties since the beginning of the regime with the Republicans and Federalists.

Furthermore, in the modern day American government, the arguments between the two parties has led to government shutdowns and major movements in society to try and sway the parties. For example, in light of recent immigration struggles, Senator Lindsey Graham has said “We’re not going to put any offers on the table as long as people in charge of these negotiations accuse all of us who want a wall of being a racist”. By saying this, Graham embodies the fundamental similarities and differences between the two parties. Each party is too stubborn to cooperate with one another, thus resulting in a government shutdown because no party is willing to budge. In this manner of debate, the two regimes hold constant this similarity. Unfortunately, this similarity will likely hold true until the end of the American regime. Despite being similar in this manner, there is a major difference between the Athenian regime and the American regime. In the Athenian regime, the two sides with opposing views were able to come together and cooperate. They eventually were able to come to an agreement and structure their democracy. On the contrary, the modern day American government faces many struggles in this aspect. It is very rare for the two political parties to come together and agree on certain topics, such as education and abortion rights. Instead, the two political parties find ways to push their agendas back, resulting in a never ending debate amongst these issues. This push back is negative as it does not establish certain policies, which is something the Athenian regime was able to do.

Although the American government is not overthrowing an authoritarian regime like the Athenians were, the American government can learn a lot from the way the Athenians handled their crisis. In a perfect world, the American government would come together, like the Athenians did, and resolve many long standing conflicts that have plagued the country for decades. The American government should do as the Athenians did and cooperate to get things done. This could potentially save the American government from any future endeavors, as it did with the Athenian regime.

– Pablo Loza

Word Count: 524

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/06/lindsey-graham-shutdown-goal/2495719002/

Alex and Kim Take Charge!

Alexander the Great of Macedonia and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea share similarities in the attested legitimacy of their rule. Alexander the Great faced push back from his people while Kim Jong Un faced push back from the democratic nations across the world. Despite the issues with their regimes, both share the major attribute of inheriting a large military with ambitious plans to use them. Alexander was incredibly successful while Kim Jong Un has not been successful with his ambition to unify Korea through force, but has succeeded in remaining in power of his impoverish nation using of the threat of his nuclear weapons against his enemies.

Alexander the Great was chosen by his father King Philip II of Macedonia and Olympias to be his successor. King Philip had many wives and children but favored Alexander. However, powerful Macedonians did not believe he had a right to the throne as he was only was only half-Macedonian because his mother was a Greek. An example of the resistance Alexander was up against is recounted by Plutarch and took place at Philip II’s wedding to Cleopatra where Attalus called for a real heir to be made. Plutarch wrote, “At this Alexander was exasperated, and with the words, “But what of me, base wretch? Dost thou take me for a bastard?” threw a cup at him. (Plutarch 9.1)” It is evident that from the beginning of his rule, that there were factions of Macedonians that questioned his legitimacy to be the king. Yet he triumphed by eliminating his enemies and expanding his empire through his extraordinary military leadership.

Kim Jong Un had similar path to power. He was the legitimate son of Kim Jong Il, but Kim Jong Il like King Philip also had other children, but he favored Kim Jong Un. Given the highly secretive nature of North Korea it is hard to know what challenges to his leadership Kim Jong Un faced upon assuming control of North Korea. However, based on news reports that Kim Jong Un like Alexander eliminates people who threaten his power. Two examples are the murder of his half-brother in Malaysia¹ and execution of an uncle². In another parallel, Kim Jong Un like Alexander inherited a large army. With this army he intimidates his neighbor South Korea with a constant threat of invasion. His ambitions of unified Korea under his rule are held in check by the international community and large US military presence on the peninsula. However, Kim Jong Un real power comes from North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and its ballistic missile capability. Unlike Alexander who used his army to project his power, Kim Jong Un projects his power through threat of using his nuclear weapons against countries who threaten his power. Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ballistic missile capability has given him the ability to project power in Asia and across the Pacific. It is startling how he is able to manipulate the world powers to not only acknowledge his power but treat him as a world leader.

Alexander the Great’s military success brought him much acclaim, however, he failed to name a successor and after his death his empire fell apart. It is unclear whether Kim Jong Un has succession plan. His main focus seems to be his own survival which tied to having nuclear weapons capabilities. I think lesson to be learned is that in order for succession plan to work it comes down to having the consent of the people that are to be governed.

-Danny Vela

Word count (590)

1 CNN, “Kim Jong Un ‘ordered’ half brother’s killing, South Korean intelligence says”, Feb 28, 2017

2 Washington Post, “Kim Jong Un just had his own uncle killed. Why?” December 12, 2013