In accordance with the teachings of Confucius, the successor of the emperor must be his first-born son. This aligns with multiple written Confucian beliefs that argue the importance of order and tradition in a stable empire. The Wan-li emperor brought instability and much discomfort throughout his empire with his refusal to designate his first-born son, Changluo, as his successor. Rather than appoint the son of his hated wife, he opted to eventually name Changxun, his third-born son of his favorite concubine instead. Many members of the Grand Secretariat supported the emperor’s decision, while others saw it as a violation of ancient tradition and Confucian teachings. Had the emperor gone through with his decision to appoint Changxun as his successor, it is likely that an unsettling distrust of the emperor’s authority would continue to spread, along with signs of instability throughout the empire.

In his teachings, Confucian dictates that “if your promises conform to what is right, you will be able to keep your word. If your manners conform to the ritual, you will be able to keep shame and disgrace at bay“ (Confucius 4). Those against emperor Wan-li’s refusal to appoint Changluo because of his dislike of his wife, Lady Wang, argued that the stability of the empire depends on the belief that sex and age both dictate certain privileges (Charles 6). In other words, “a man who respects his parents and his elders would hardly be inclined to defy his superiors. A man who is not inclined to defy his superiors will never foment a rebellion” (Confucius 3). Priority should be given to those who rank higher and are elders to the community. The first-born son of emperor Wan-li, according to Confucius, will obey his superiors as his younger brother, Changxun, should obey him as the next heir to the empire.

Those in support of emperor Wan-li’s decision argue that “he who by revising the old knows the new” and is thus “fit to be a teacher” (Confucius 6). The emperor should be able to decide who will be his own successor. After all, the “judgement of the emperor, virtuous father and mother of all under heaven, [can not] be readily called into question without destabilizing the entire political order” (Carnes 7). This argument puts all trust into the actions and decisions of the emperor alone, ignoring the guidance of ancient teachings and tradition. This belief disregards the traditions and ceremonies that the people of the empire have respected and practiced all their lives, and will eventually cause a rift in the empire. Selfish motives of the emperor in power, as described in Confucian teachings, will ultimately collapse the stability of the empire.

Word Count: 444

Carnes, Mark; Gardner, Daniel, Confucianism and the Succession Crisis of the Wanli Emperor. “Reacting to the Past” Series. Barnard.

Confucius, The Analects. Translated by Simon Leys; edited by Michael Nylan. Norton Critical Editions. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014.

By: Jonathan Gabriel

Though there is not a lot of talk about tactics of war at the Naval Academy, we do get a lot of information about past wars and important battles in America’s history. Using these past battles, it is possible to understand the general thought process of our military, and how they make decisions about the wars that we are involved in. It is then possible to compare Sun Tzu’s Art of War to our own tactics. Comparing the basic ideas behind the two and which of the two tactics or more effective in certain situations.

The key ideas in Art of War revolve around preparation, and deception. Sun Tzu focuses on knowing who to fight, and how to deceive them into believe you are something you are not, such as strong or weak or far away or nearby when you are the opposite. He also focuses on knowing your own strengths and weaknesses as well as your enemy’s strengths and weaknesses and planning accordingly. Looking at the American military, particularly in the recent past, it is clear to see that we see ourselves as more powerful than almost anyone and like to make sure everyone knows that fact. When in war, we tend to focus only on our own strengths and simply over powering everyone that we are fighting.

Determining which strategy is better depends on a couple of factors, such as the intent of the country, the power of the country in question, and the goals of the country at war. Sun Tzu focuses on actual war and the thought process one should have when in that situation, but American is not currently looking for war, but is instead trying to stay away from war. In this case, it is smarter and more effective for us to portray our power across the world to deter others from attempting to attack us. The second factor is the actual strength of the country. For smaller, less powerful countries, it is more effective to seem powerful when they are weak to make it appear to the enemy as if they are in danger of being defeated. However, for a country like America, it is not necessary to seem weak when we are strong. Being a powerful country and looking powerful helps to deter the offensive attacks of others. Finally, the goals of the country at war play a small factor in determining the effectiveness of the two tactics. If the country is trying to win the war with the least amount of bloodshed and is not worried about the overall time of the war, using the ideas in Art of War will make that possible. However, if the goal of the country is to destroy the enemy in the least amount of time possible it is smarter to portray the strength of the military and attack head on, using the full force of the military to win every battle and eventually the war.

Word Count: 491

The philosophy behind Sun Tzu Art of War is that a great leader can make the best out every situation if he or she knows himself or herself and the enemies. With good self-awareness, and some good intelligence about the enemy, a general can pick his battle: he will decide to fight if the enemy is weaker and he will evade if the enemy is stronger. If he decides to fight, he will know the areas where the enemy is weak and he will attack the enemy in these areas. A good general, according to Sun Tzu will hide his strengths and weaknesses to fool his enemies and catch them by surprise.

The Academy does a good job teaching us how to self-reflect to become aware of our strengths and weaknesses. In addition, we are aware of the importance of gathering the right amount of intelligence on the enemy. However, the academy, or the U.S. military in general, uses a different strategy than Sun Tzu: we prefer letting the enemy know how strong we are, as opposed to hiding our strengths. The deterrence tactic that the U.S. military uses consists of displaying our strengths so that the enemy will be afraid to attack us. When discussing current events at the Naval Academy, we talk about events like the 14 bombers who dropped live bombs near North Korea in order to make them fear us. Furthermore, looking at our history, we never backed down even when the enemy appeared to be stronger. During the battle of Iwo Jima, our troops were clearly outnumbered. The Japanese leader stated that a million men could not take this island in a hundred years.  Nevertheless, the Marines still fought with the little bit that they had and they made the best out of it.

I think our current military tactics are a lot better than the tactics proposed by Sun Tzu. While it is still important to know ourselves as well as the enemy, showing the enemy how strong we are deter many conflicts. Our deterrence technique is advantageous because no life is taken that way and less money is spent. In addition, our history shows the benefits of our tactics; we fought most battles where the enemy outnumbered us. Our perseverance and our desire to be free led us to victory throughout history. We won battles that we were never expected to win because the war veterans before us did not quit in the face of adversity. We owe it to them to take chances and stand up against any enemy. The right strategy is to use the tools we have and make the best out of it.

Reference :

Dimovski, Vlado, et al. “Sun Tzu’s “the Art of War” and Implications for Leadership: Theoretical Discussion.” Organizacija, vol. 45, no. 4, 2012, pp. 151-158.

444

According to Confucian tenets, Emperor Wan-Li should have appointed his first-born son and traditional successor Changluo as heir to the throne. The government operated on Confucius’s teachings, and “Social order and the stability of the empire depended on those hierarchical precepts” (6). Emperor Wan-Li would have contradicted the basis of his own rule and lost the respect of his people had he appointed Changxun as successor.

Many of the Grand Secretariats argued that it was solely the emperor’s opinion that was relevant to solving the succession controversy. He had the right to exercise imperial judgment; the Emperor was the Son of Heaven, and his title required everyone to obey him according to the Confucian principle of wu-lun, or hierarchical relationships. However, following this one virtue would violate all other axioms of Confucianism.

Expanding on wu-lun, passing over Changluo would violate the principles of the privilege of age and sex. Changluo is the proper, affirmed first-born son and inherently has the right to succession. Further, “obedience– to elders, to fathers, and to the emperor– is a cornerstone of Confucianism” (7). If Emperor Wan-Li wishes to practice his philosophy, he should not pick and choose which laws to obey according to his preference. He should respect the tradition, or Li, of handing down rule to the first-born son.

The Emperor would also be violating the concept of Dao if he were to appoint Changxun. The natural order of succession is for Changluo to become the next emperor. Despite this fact, the Emperor Wan-Li sought to oppose “the way” and stir up controversy by appointing the son of his favorite concubine. Supposedly, the emperor felt Changxun was more fit to rule and would be more benevolent to society, but there are several faults with this reasoning. The boys were younger than ten years old, and it is impossible to determine aptitude at such an early age. Moreover, “the emperor only  associated with three main groups of people: the Grand Secretariat, three thousand palace women who do chores and act as concubines, and thousands of eunuchs” (7). Therefore, due to limited contact and the isolation of the Forbidden City, the emperor was disconnected from society and unable to properly determine the problems (and possible solutions) of the Chinese.

Jen and ren were more tenets of Confucianism that should have guided the Emperor Wan-Li. Jen signifies virtue and goodness; on the contrary, it was neither virtuous nor good of Wan-Li to cheat on his wife. He further had the audacity to scorn his wife and their rightful child by attempting to appoint his bastard son to the throne. Confucius asserted that a bad leader led to bad government. The Emperor Wan-Li has selfish motives, and he corrupted the government, eventually causing the downfall of the Ming dynasty.

Word Count: 462

Source: Carnes and Gardner. “Confucianism and the Succession Crisis of the Wanli Emperor.” Barnard, Reacting to the Past.

The Roman Empire experiences many changes in power throughout its duration. Despite how long ago the Roman Empire existed, there are definite similarities in the way people’s desire for power can cause chaos and revolt within a nation-state. During the 3^rd Century Crisis, the Roman Empire nearly collapsed due to unrest caused by civil war, an economic downfall, and plaques. The Romans allowed the turmoil to occur in the empire because it failed to limit the power of individuals and the empire was too vast to be controlled by one central government. Similar events have occurred in modern western states around the world. One particular state that experienced a dramatic change in government was Argentina.

Argentina experienced a power vacuum in which several attempts to overthrow the government occurred. Due to the crumbling of the economy and the rising inflation, the country was dismayed by rebellion causing instability in the government. A military junta led by Jorge Videla successfully took the power of the government in 1976, and to keep power, began killing thousands of people who were opposed to their political agenda. Similar to the Roman Empire, Argentina’s economic state continued to worsen and led to more violence in the country. The country had turned from a democracy to an Authoritarian state. Although Argentina’s military coup lasted only seven years, the events that led to its control of the government is similar to the 3^rd Century Crisis.

The 3^rd Century Crisis differed from the Argentine Military Coup because the Romans had several strong military powers that were fighting for control of the empire. The Roman’s had a form of democracy that included a Senate but lacked the rule to limit military groups that were loyal to their respective generals. Argentina’s military coup was caused by political ideologies rather than just a desire for power.

By investigating the past, we can access the types of events that result in the power vacuum of a country. The Romans provide people with a template on how to prevent a future crisis. If countries today focus on building their economies, but avoiding an arms race and limiting the powers of the government and powerful individuals, events such as the 3^rd Century Crisis and the Military Coup in Argentina can be prevented or minimized. It is essential to look at history to avoid making the same mistakes people have continued to do for generations.

Word count: 400

Works Cited

Mark, Joshua J. “The Crisis of the Third Century.” Ancient History Encyclopedia, Ancient History Encyclopedia, 16 Oct. 2018.

“Argentina’s History and The Dirty War.” Madres De Plaza De Mayo, 18 Dec. 2012.

An inevitability has shadowed every civilization’s leader throughout history in a cycle that repeats itself in a pattern as true as the sun setting; eventually, there must be someone to take their power and carry on the leadership of a nation. Phillip II recognized this natural inevitability and groomed Alexander “the great” to step into the power role as King of Macedon. Alexander ignored this cycle preparation and when the regime change was initiated by his early death, the empire, spanning from Western Europe to eastern Asia, underwent a drastic regime change placated with uncertainty. Similarly, as every four years, a new President is sworn into office in the United States, the struggle of the transition of power plays out on a global stage just as the change after Alexander redefined the world they lived in.
When Alexander died an heir needed to be named by the Babylon council that could utilize Alexander’s legacy to lead effectively. Since there was no designated successor there was a degree of uncertainty about the future of the empire that was unprecedented in Macedon. Similarly, when a new regime takes over the Presidency, there exists a degree of uncertainty about the leader taking over from another political party as a result of the new policy vision. Power shifts in the Presidential respect are stark contrasts of each other typically, resulting in clashing in political philosophies with their new power. In ancient Macedon, the new ruler could shift slightly on policy issues from the predecessor, but a majority of their outlook was already shaped though by their appointer, resulting in a form of stability.
Even though the modern Presidency is determined by votes, the sitting President can sway voters to vote a certain way, promoting his/her legacy, just as Ancient Macedonians made sure an heir would continue their legacy. The difference lies in the fact that the power shift is determined by the voters in America rather than the committee to fill the open vacuum created by Alexander’s Death. The authority to lead granted by the people is in stark contrast to the political heir policy of ancient times. As modern nation-states undergo shifts in power, it is imperative that everyone understands that uncertainty from the lack of a clear plan to build on the previous ruler’s progress is harmful a nation. In order to maintain stability, current leaders should seek to find an heir that can continue to build on their work during their tenure. The President should understand that not having a successor elected that won’t build upon their work is detrimental to the smooth transition of power.

Most religions in the current world revolve around the idea that only one god exists, but it was the exact opposite in ancient Rome. If someone today would approach people with the idea of there being multiple gods who hold favor for certain people over others, most people would think that is completely absurd. However, in ancient Rome, that is exactly what they believed. The idea of there being only one god, who loved everyone the same and would give forgiveness to anyone who asked for it was simply unbelievable.
The easiest way to understand the skepticism and curiosity of the Romans towards
Christians is to look at how most people today would look at someone who believed the same things the Romans did. Today if a person would come out claiming that there are multiple gods that rule this world, and these gods had their favorite groups of people that they protected and helped them rise to success, the world would call them crazy. People today, that believe in a god, believe that there is only one god, and Christians believe that this god is all loving and all forgiving. The idea of multiple gods goes against everything that most people believe. The things that people believe about polytheism would be similar to what the Romans would have believed about monotheism.
Looking at the way people today would view someone with polytheistic views, it is easy
to see why the Romans would be so skeptical of Christians. Although it might be a little bit unrealistic to fear Christians, it is easy to understand why they would think that these people could cause a lot of harm to their way of life. A god that forgives and loves everyone is much more appealing than many gods that punish those who offend them and protect those who worship them. To the Romans, the idea of a religion that believes in a single god that created everything and still loves every person equally would be a major threat to their own religion. Because no one knows the exact truth and what religion is actually true, people tend to gravitate towards the most appealing one. Christianity, at this time, is much more appealing to people because it means that you do not have to be rich or powerful to go to heaven. The introduction of Christianity into Roman society could mean that many Romans would switch from their current beliefs to the beliefs of Christians, causing a lot of turmoil and debate within society, which generally leads to the fall of an empire.

Word Count = 430