It is a common lesson that repeating history’s mistakes will lead to the same outcome. It is crucially important to take lessons learned from both Athenian democracy, and also various pieces of literature such as The Art of War and to apply them in a career as a leader. Looking at the model of Athenian democracy, I believe that making sure every sailor has a voice that will be heard is very important to foster an effective command climate. One of the most common things I heard over my 4/C cruise was that officers seemed to be relatively disconnected from the daily lives of sailors, and what they have to say. I believe that holding something similar to an assembly would be extremely beneficial as it would allow for voices to be heard, and to give those who are afraid to speak up the chance to voice their concerns. A strong team is developed when people believe they are important to their cause. Allowing everyone to speak, while not everyone could be satisfied, would create a climate in which they know that their voices have at least been heard. The Athenians created a model in which mostly everyone had a say in their decisions, and I believe that hearing what others have to say is important as an officer.

The Art of War also serves as an insightful and impactful piece of literature. Sun Tzu states, “The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness”. I believe that this is a perfect summation of what the military strives to achieve in their officers. We are taught to uphold each of these characteristics, and that they will lead to success. I believe that these pillars of character are extremely important as they are synonymous with the characteristics that are taught to us over our entire time at the Academy. The Art of War not only talks about what an officer should be like, but also general statements on how to conduct warfare. It is important to learn from these and apply them, in order to stop yourself from making hasty or naïve decisions in the heat of the moment. Although it is important to keep strategy in mind, the most important from Sun Tzu, is that a commander should be a person who is for their enlisted, and do everything in their power in order to guarantee their happiness and success.

 

WC:404

The word “crusade” much like the word “tyrant” has come around in the modern age to mean something different than what it did in history. Many writers and journalists compare anti-Trump movements and wars on terrorism to crusades. I believe that this use of the word is unfair. The word’s initial meaning was nothing more than a name for the expeditions made by Europeans in order to reclaim the Holy Lands from the Muslims. Now, when we hear the word crusade, we think of it as a strong movement to change something or to fight a certain oppression that people are experiencing. Although the Europeans did feel extremely strong in their values to reclaim the Holy Lands, the use of the word in a modern context takes away from the true meaning. The crusades were a series of very intense battles, with loads of gore and violence. Using the word to describe things such as political movements seems relatively extreme.

In an article written by Selwyn Duke in The New American, the soldiers fighting ISIS are compared to the crusaders. I believe that this is an inaccurate comparison. The reason for fighting ISIS has nothing to do with religious beliefs or values. Also, the goal of the United States military is not to reclaim any land. It is a fight to squander the values that are associated with terrorism. Although some people believe the ongoing fight between various militaries around the world and ISIS is a religious expedition, the main reason for the fighting is to stop terrorism, and does not have anything to do with a religious grudge, essentially. This is quite different from the actual crusaders, as their goal was to reclaim the land from Muslims. Although there are parallels in the actual fighting, the reasons do not justify the battle against ISIS as being a crusade.  I believe that a more fitting word to describe the battle against ISIS would be something like “the just war”.

Disregarding the article by Duke, I believe that straying away from using crusade to describe peaceful movements would be beneficial in providing a more accurate meaning to the word and not taking away from the meaning. Just like the word tyrant, crusade has come to mean something different. Both of these words should be used conservatively by modern media in order to not take away from the meaning that is actually intended.

 

WC: 403

 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/20163-modern-crusaders-fighting-isis

 

Sun Tzu’s Art of War is a philosophical document that explains the terms of a War and what is needed to find success in War. The document seems familiar to me, as many of the things that Sun Tzu says, can parallel to different things that I have learned during my time at the Academy.

Early in to the list, Sun Tzu says that people must be in complete accord with their ruler, so that the rulers will be followed regardless of danger or chance of death. At the Academy, you can receive a major conduct offense for actions that do not align with following your “rulers” orders to a T. This is an example of how we are taught to follow orders exactly. Not only can you receive an offense, but plebe summer consists of 7 weeks of doing exactly that. This engrains a thought process into the students here that all orders must be followed, no matter your opinions on them. Another parallel between what we learn here and the Art of War is the philosophy that War is heavily based on deception and planning. We take several classes here, and will continue to study tactics for the rest of our military career. We learn that it is never smart to challenge others head on, or exhaust all resources for little gain.  This is revolutionary as prior to Sun Tzu, many wars consisted of two nations battling large battles in brute force attacks.  Also, Sun Tzu makes it clear that every battle does not have to be fought. It is acceptable to flee from battles where it is clear you are outmatched. Generally, Sun Tzu is saying that War is an art, and that letting your pride or anger get in the way will cause disaster. Not preparing for battle, or picking fights you cannot win due to pride will result in a defeat.

Sun Tzu’s philosophy on war is impressive, and completely changed the way wars have been battled. The philosophy is way ahead of its time, and many of the fundamental things Sun Tzu mentions are taught to military leaders up to this day. Sun Tzu’s philosophy is an effective plan to win wars, and to outsmart your enemies through careful planning and artistic strategizing. All in all, the Art of War is an impressive piece of work that still shows its fundamental teachings today in our nation’s military.

WC: 404

 

 

The Romans were a polytheistic nation, and believed that there were many Gods that had to be satisfied and appealed to in order to ensure a good life. With the rise of Christianity, there was a drastic shift in believing in many Gods, to believing in one single God. Roman religion consisted of Gods pulled from Greek religion, and also believed that “spirits inhabited everything” (Wasson 3). Due to the fact that Christianity is the polar opposite of polytheism, the Romans early resentment towards Christianity is definitely justified. When dealing with something as important as religion, there are many different viewpoints and strong opinions on what is considered right and what is considered wrong. On top of this, human nature leans towards accepting things that have been put down in the past. It can be seen easily how the Romans would have felt towards a new religion appearing that only believed in a single God. Not only did the Romans feel threatened by this new religion, but they also felt that those worshipping this new God would anger the Gods that they had been working so hard to gain favor from. I believe that the Romans did have the right to stamp out Christianity, as they believed it was an imminent threat to their wellbeing, and that the Christians would result in a direct destruction of their way of life. The fear was very valid, as they had no idea what the possible implications could be. Those who believed heavily in Polytheism most likely feared that the rise of Christianity would be the downfall of Rome, due to angry Gods. Another reason for the validity of their fear stems from the fact that Polytheism had been around for ages and ages, while Christianity was a new religion that had just started to appear. It is human nature to stick to things that your parents taught you, and to also stick to things that you had seen growing up. All of these things were threatened by Christianity. It can be seen from history in the United States that change is never welcomed readily by the majority. It took many years for small changes to occur in the United States, such as changing the legal voting age. These things would be considered very trivial in comparison to religion in Rome, and to bring a change in so drastic would definitely receive a large amount of resentment.

-Ben Everett

https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Religion/

WC: 404

It is quite obvious that the perception of a democracy has changed significantly since the Athenian model. Although there was plenty of representation in the Athenian model of a democracy, if it were to be implemented today, there would be many obvious and stark contrasts that would keep it from working effectively. In Athenian democracy, not all groups of people were recognized. Many people were denied the right to have a say in any kind of change or the implementation of laws.

In our RTTP exercise, there were people that were not allowed to speak during assembly because they were not citizens, or they were Metics. Not only this, but women were unfairly kept from having a say, along with slaves and other minority groups of people. This is one major difference between the Athenian system and our system today. People are able to speak regardless of their gender, and can also earn citizenship. Our government system has improved in this aspect, as it allows for everyone to have a say, and also allows for new opinions and also grievances that the Athenians were not hearing from the minority groups that they excluded.

Excluding minority groups from having a say in politics is about as undemocratic as possible.  A successful democracy is formed through allowing everyone to participate in politics, and hearing every possible viewpoint and concern before passing things in to legislation. The Athenians were relying on wealthy citizens or citizens with lots of people power to make decisions through a flawed democracy. The way to improve on this aspect is to allow everyone to speak, in order to ensure that everyone is somewhat content with the outcome of the legislation that is being passed.  Although the United States has learned this, it took time to realize that in order for a democracy to be true to itself, it must recognize all groups of people and attempt to hear their opinions in order to find success and a prosperous society. Overall, it is evident that a democracy must contain several things in order to be successful. It must be an all-encompassing government where all opinions are heard, and must also gain its power and success from the fact that it listens to all minorities and groups of people.

The definition of tyranny has changed with time, and the ancient definition has lost its meaning. Tyrants in modern language have always been associated with terrible people such as Joseph Stalin or Caligula, while in ancient Greece, the meaning of a tyrant was different. These Greeks were not always bad, and they did not always do things that lead to badly functioning societies. In an article from CNN, the writer Adam Cathcart compares Kim Jong Un to a tyrant.  In ancient Greece the term tyrant was used to refer to anyone, good or bad, as someone who gained power in a polis. In my opinion, the word tyrant is used incorrectly in this article as it is exclusively used to describe someone who is a bad leader, or someone who doesn’t care for their subjects. Although the word tyrant doesn’t carry a positive or negative connotation with it in ancient Greece, it is true that the only meaning for it in the modern world is someone who is leading their country in a way that does not listen to their people in any way or has any policies to help their people. When we think of Kim Jung Un, we do not have any feelings of envy or admiration for his leadership style, while in ancient Greece, the word tyrant may be used for a leader that people expect to bring prosperity and happiness to their polis. The article focuses on how Kim Jung Un uses his power oppressively and wrong, while in ancient Greece it initially never carried any of these definitions. The way this article uses the definition of tyranny would not fit with the ancient definition, as it describes Kim as more of a dictator than a tyrant. Also, tyrant was used as a respectable title, while the modern meaning for tyrant has transformed into being exclusively used for a negative meaning. No leaders in the modern world would take kindly to being referred to as a tyrant, or approve of its use in their campaign. In ancient Greece, it was simply a word for an up and coming leader or someone who is already leading a polis. After looking at the article, it is clear that in modern English the words tyrant and dictator have switched roles. In ancient Greece, a more proper word to describe a leader such as Kim Jung Un would be dictator.