Galactic Empire == Mongols???

     Empires and powerful rulers are everywhere from ancient history, to our favorite novels and movies, to even recent history. The Mongols, the nomadic people from the eastern steeps, build the largest empire that the world has seen. Encompassing lands from the Pacific Ocean in the east to the Caspian Sea in the west, and they even made a journey as far east as Poland once. In the Star Wars series, the Galactic Empire rules over the galaxy for numerous years with Palpatine as supreme ruler. There are several similarities between these empires dispute their surface differences.

     The Mongol Empire was under the control of one man, similar to the Galactic Empire, Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan and Palpatine have a very similar personality, they were both very charismatic and powerful speakers. Palpatine was able to convince the Senate, the democratic Republic, to grant him emergency powers in Episode I: The Phantom Menace, allowing him to become an autocratic leader with many supporters. Genghis Khan, on the other hand, inspired people to join him because he was able to unite the small warring tribes which spread peace throughout his lands. Another way that these two empires are similar is through its superior military technology and tactics. The Mongols were master horsemen and archers, this allowed them to be both faster and more mobile then enemies. The Galactic Empire has a massive clone army, which performed well in company sized groups, and its star destroyer fleet which provided attack and defense in space. Both empires ruled out of terror as well but could be benevolent rulers also. Many people in both worlds fear invasion or interaction with any members of the empires; this fear tactic allowed the power of each respective empire to spread. But as seen in the original trilogy of Star Wars, the Galactic Empire leaves citizens, such as Lando Calrissian and Boba Fett, alone as long as they don’t bother the Empire. The Mongols has a similar policy where if the conquered land submitted to Khan’s rule they would be allowed to keep their religion, traditions, and homelands. Similarly, if you opposed either empire they would come after you and your supporters to squash your rebellion.

     While the rule of both the Galactic Empire and the Mongols was similar, so was their defeat. After Ghengis Khan died the Mongol Empire was split into four parts, one for each of his sons, but none was ever able to achieve the total rule and prosperity that Ghengis Khan had. After Luke defeats Palpatine and Darth Vader in Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi, there is no ruler strong enough to step up to rule the Galactic Empire. Both of these empires had their strengths and weakness, but their main legacy was providing peace, security, economic growth, and prosperity across many lands.

468

The Missing Ingredient in Sun Tzu’s Art of War: Leadership

Anthony Calvelli

There are some similarities between the tactics Sun Tzu writes about in Art of War and what we learn here at the Naval Academy. However, it is what we learn in addition to tactics that differentiates our military training methods from those of Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu’s over-arching philosophy is to use strategy to outsmart the enemy. Sun Tzu summarizes this best when he says, “the way of war is a way of deception.” He also emphasizes that the most preferable option is to win without having to fight.

One similarity between what we learn at USNA and Sun Tzu’s Art of War is the importance of being operationally unpredictable. Sun Tzu writes, “when able, feign inability; when deploying troops, appear not to be.” We learn this at USNA, but it does not apply in all cases. For example, it is essential that the enemy not know the capabilities and location of our submarines. The high level of secrecy we maintain with our submarine program deters enemies from using nuclear weapons because they know we might have a ballistic missile submarine in the area, even if we really don’t. On the other hand, sometimes we want everyone to know about our capabilities. The most notable example of this is our use of the carrier strike group for power projection. When we move an aircraft carrier to a region, we generally want people to know that we have an aircraft carrier sitting in the area ready to strike at a moment’s notice.

Another similarity between Sun Tzu’s doctrine and what we learn is the importance of having extensive knowledge of the environment in which you will be operating. This includes knowing the culture of the people, tribal disputes, geography, etc. Sun Tzu writes, “without knowing the plans of the feudal lords, you cannot form alliances. Without knowing the lie of hills and woods of cliffs and crags of marshes and fens, you cannot march.” We learn here about counterinsurgency strategy. In short, this can be thought of as “winning hearts and minds.” One of the key aspects of counterinsurgency is gaining the trust of local leaders and allying with them. This often means using the minimum force necessary, as being too aggressive can cause the local population to lose faith and turn against you. The counterinsurgency strategy we learn about is similar to Sun Tzu’s philosophy because he says that it is often “better take a state intact than destroy it.”

The key difference between what we are taught at USNA and Sun Tzu’s Art of War is that USNA puts a greater emphasis on teaching us leadership than strategy. Sun Tzu says that it is important to have a capable general who “causes men to be of one mind with [him].” However, that is essentially the extent of his thoughts on leadership. At USNA, we learn about reflective action, bias, moral courage, goal-setting, etc. Sun Tzu does not put the same amount of thought into what makes a good leader as we do at the Naval Academy. I believe our method is more effective than Sun Tzu’s because it strikes a good balance between strategy and leadership. Without learning about leadership, strategy is useless because you will not have committed followers who will give their best effort in executing that strategy.

Works Cited

Sun-tzu. The Art of War. Penguin, 2009.

Word Count: 551

Sun Tzu vs. USNA

           The Art of War written by Sun Tzu is one of the most famous military strategy pieces of all time. However, its lessons not only transfer to combat, but they can be used to learn more about leadership, business, sports, and much more. After reading some of The Art of War, I believe one major over-arching philosophy Sun Tzu gets across is preparation. Preparation is defined as making a plan for what you want to accomplish. However, it also is understanding what you are getting into, what your strengths and weaknesses are, how to exploit them, and knowing when to surrender. Sun Tzu’s main idea is picking only the “battles” you know you will win. Tzu articulates: “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” (Tzu).

Preparation is a huge part of being a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy. Being prepared for events at the Naval Academy is preached to midshipmen right when they first arrive during plebe summer. An early example of this would be when plebes are learning about what it takes to be a midshipman, they are taught that they must be at least five minutes early to everything they have to do. This teaches mids that they have to be prepared for their event by planning ahead their schedule to make sure they arrive at least five minutes early to ensure they are never late to anything. Another example of Sun Tzu’s lessons being relatable to midshipmen is like a military leader studies their battle formations and how to attack an enemy, midshipmen must study their notes and material often in order to succeed in the classroom and pass all their exams. A very important tactic taught by Sun Tzu was being able to pick your battles to ensure victory, and knowing which battles to avoid. This is another lesson that can be related to midshipmen. For example, choosing your major at the academy is a big decision because if you choose something you cannot handle, you are in for a very tough time. This is where knowing your strengths and weaknesses come into play, and knowing which “battle” (or major) you know you can win. For example, I am average at math and science related classes and I enjoy them so I went with an engineering major. However, I am not the best writer, so if I chose to be an English major that would probably be a “battle” I would lose.

Tzu adds, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” (Tzu) Again Sun Tzu explains that knowing your strengths and weaknesses and preparing for whatever your enemy is, you will never have to worry about the result of a battle. Being prepared for whatever you take on at the academy can be easily related back to Sun Tzu’s teachings. If a mid prepares for a test like Sun Tzu prepares for war, they will both be successful.

(472 words without quotes)

Works Cited

Clear, James. “Book Summary: The Art of War by Sun Tzu.” James Clear, 15 June 2017, jamesclear.com/book-summaries/the-art-of-war.

Niklasgoeke. “The Art Of War Summary + PDF.” Four Minute Books, 1 June 2018, fourminutebooks.com/the-art-of-war-summary/.

“Sun Tzu Quotes (Author of The Art of War).” Goodreads, Goodreads, http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1771.Sun_Tzu.

Wikipedia. “Sun Tzu.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Oct. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu.

The Confucian Controversy

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.

Ancient Rome vs Argentina (1976-1983) by Carlos Gallardo

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 3rd 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 3rd Century Crisis.

The 3rd 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 3rd 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.

Christianity as a Threat to Rome

Maxwell Shuman

In today’s society the idea of polytheism seems odd and altogether childish; however, in the time of Ancient Rome polytheism was the custom.  Whether or not citizens of the ancient empire worshiped all of the roman pantheon, they at the very least acknowledged the existence and power of the other deities.  Worship and listening to the omens of the gods is at the center of politics, war strategy and many other major aspects of roman life.  For many Romans the idea of Christians within their empire worshiping only one God went against nearly everything which their empire is built upon.  With this in mind, I think that the fear which many Romans have towards this unknown religion is valid as it could pose major implications of the future of the structure of the empire.  I do not think, however, that the Romans have a right to stamp the religion out.

In the minds of the Romans, Christians posed a threat to undermine the structure of everything Rome is built on.  Christianity poses a threat to the roman way of life as it takes away the godly aspects of daily life such as demigod kings, oracle prophesies, and many other basic tenets of the ancient way of life.  By taking away such entities in roman daily life would only turn Rome against itself.  An everyday example of this is the many coin which held the faces of gods and eventually those of emperors in power.  This is only allowed as the roman pantheon is so large that emperors, who are rumored to have the favor of the gods themselves, are seen as deities in their own right.  With a monotheistic religion such as Christianity, a human in power could never be elevated to such a height as God.   This would in turn take away power from the emperor and decrease his right to rule over an empire the size of Rome.

I do not believe that the Romans have a right to “stamp out” any religion as it is not a proper solution for ruling an empire to just get rid of people based on their beliefs.  In his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny seems to be of the mind that Christians can be shifted in their beliefs saying: “I think that it is still possible for it to be checked and directed to better ends,” as well as, “it is easy to infer from this that a great many people could be reformed if they were given an opportunity to repent.”  With this in mind, it is evident that there is another way than to simply stamp out other religions.

I believe that the Romans have a validity in their fear of what Christianity has the potential to do to their empire; however, I do not believe that they have a right to stamp the religion out as a whole.

Word Count: 480 (440 without quotes)

The Empire’s Way to Strike Back

Blake Bizousky

The “fear” of Christians during the Roman Empire was a ploy by the Empire to maintain its total control of the people. The Roman fear of Christians during the time of the Roman Empire was more so just the exaggeration of disdain for people who were different. The only true fear that would have been relevant would be that the potential overthrow of the Empire by Christian faith. In the shoes or sandals of a Roman during 200 CE it was a large part of the culture to perform sacrifices to their many gods. As polytheists, the Romans had a god for every occasion war, the ocean, storms, love, etc and with these gods came sacrifices to honor their purposes. The Christians were against sacrificing people to the gods. Of course, if it is the rule of the Roman Empire to part take in sacrifices, Christians would quickly become the outlier from the majority by force. In any society, it is natural for one to outcast another who is different from themselves.

To make the Christians seem like the true outcasts the Romans made them seem like the villain. In support of religious bias and the Empire, Christian beliefs were made to seem taboo. Christians share the body and blood of Jesus Christ to cleanse them of their sins, imagine trying to explain this idea to one who already dislikes the idea of the religion. By passing this information simply through word of mouth the act of communion could easily be misconstrued as literally killing someone to eat their raw flesh. Of course, it does not help the Christians cause that their leader died for them to live an eternal life. The Christians almost write the anti-Christian propaganda themselves.

The persistence of devoted Christian followers was unusual to anything Rome had ever seen. As Pliny spoke to Emperor Trajan, he described persecuting Christians asking them multiple times of their religion. Even under torture, most Christians would not refute their beliefs. The Roman Empire wanted to have total control over the religions practiced in their empire. However, there was only so much they could do when Pliny claims a majority of villages were Christians. The Romans denied Christians their religious freedom because of fear of an uprising. This new and unknown religion was expanding through an empire that it disagreed with. It was only right for the Romans to see the Christians as a threat to their overall rule.

408

Christianity through the lens of Polytheism

Alex Hartnett

Change is hard for everyone, we constantly resist new ideas and new practices. We like change even less when it has to deal with our religious beliefs. Change and differences in small increments are easier to adapt to rather than drastic differences. Now, think about how the Romans felt when they learned about this new religion, Christianity. Everything about Christianity was different from what the believed in and what they understood about faith and gods. The Romans were polytheistic and had been for centuries. The gods the Romans believed in originally came from Greece, so this belief they had came from a long history. Christianity, on the other hand, grew out of a small group of Jews from Judaea who followed the preacher Jesus, who Christians believed to be the one and only Messiah. The culture of Romans revolved around their belief in the gods, there was a good in charge of every aspect of life, from Mars, god of war, to Bacchus, god of wine, The Romans worshiped and attempted to please the gods so that they would bring good favor to them. Again, Christianity is the exact opposite, Christians believed in one god, who didn’t want sacrifices but rather works done in his name.

Today we view Christianity as the default religion and think that it was inevitable that Christianity would become one of the most popular religions in the worlds. But to the Romans, Christianity was everything but that. It threatened everything they knew and believed in. And for that reason, I believe that was okay that the Romans viewed the Christian as invading cult. Worshiping one god and eating his body and blood was inconceivable to the Romans, they did not understand this new faith. Word of mouth was the main way that information was passed back in ancient times, and this did not help the problems between the Romans and the Christians. Romans slowly began to hear about this new religion that was moving its way through the villages and rural countryside. But they did not understand it and feared that it to the point of persecuting anyone, man, women, slave or ranking official, who even dared to claim Christianity as their faith even once. Pliny the Younger describes in his letter to Emperor Trajan about the persecution of Christians. He calls Christians stubborn and unshakeable and fanatical, and then he adds the names to a list of those who would be tried and punished. Do I agree with the Romans in their methods for trying to abolish Christianity absolutely not, but I can understand their fear of losing their lifestyle and religion.

438

Fear of Christianity? Understandable.

Before the 3rd century CE, the Romans targeted those who practiced Christianity because they believed their religious beliefs and practices held a threat to the growing empire.  The monotheism was certainly a culture shock because at the time, polytheism was the only known form of religion. Romans were accustomed to worship and praise many powerful gods to look upon the empire. Different prayers were sent to different gods- beauty, wisdom, war, childbirth, the sky, the sea, the arts… you name it. The Christian religion not only undermined the polytheistic beliefs, but brought upon many social changes. The Romans had a valid reason to reject Christianity because the Christians did not share the same pride and love of powers, which triggered a suspicion for a mass cult that had to be persecuted.

The Romans feared that Christianity would be the downfall of the great empire because the newly practiced beliefs would upset their gods. If you were to look at Christianity from an outsider’s standpoint, it is pretty easy to understand why this religion instilled such fear in the Romans. A lack of understanding for the religion can make one question religious practices and beliefs. For starters, the Passover service can be viewed as being cannibalistic as Christians eat the body (bread) and drink the blood (wine) of Jesus Christ. Although Romans partook in many sacrifices for their gods, it was unheard of to eat human flesh to commemorate their gods. Additionally, Christians refused to sacrifice to and pray to a divine monarch because of the belief of only one God: “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.” The Romans were so used to believing that power was divided between their gods and their monarchs, it is reasonable why the thought of the Christian’s Lord having ALL the power terrified them. Isaiah 8:11-13 quotes “ The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.”

Being Christian was considered a crime, they were often persecuted to get rid of the religion. Pain, even death, was forced upon the Christians when they would refuse “to swear by the emperor and offer incense to his images, or to sacrifice to the gods.” (Lunn-Rockliffe) This test of Christian faith brought suspicion to the Romans since they would refuse to practice beliefs that were brought down by generations. Many died painful deaths, but the Christians were persistent. Christianity soon grew in numbers under the rule of Constantinople. It was not until 360 AD when it was reestablished as the dominant religion in the empire under Emperor Julian.

Word Count: 448

Work Cited

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml

https://nwspiritism.com/spiritist-knowledge/why-did-the-romans-hate-the-christians/

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