The American military draws from the principles of numerous ancient civilization, perhaps the most prominent being Ancient Sparta. Their civilization was the pinnacle of a warrior society with the central focus being making fighters and winning wars. By taking a closer look at the Spartans, it becomes apparent that their military success was dependent on a strict ethical code, crucial training and development, and effective tactics and strategies. If we emulate certain aspects of their warrior-based culture, our military could benefit, especially at an individual level.

The concept of the warrior is most relevant for modern military forces in special warfare and infantry. However, this is not to say that there is nothing to be learned from the Spartans if one does not belong to one of these two areas. Every individual in the military has sworn themselves to a higher cause and will likely face the possibility of death in their respective service. With this knowledge, it may be helpful to keep in mind the practices and teachings of the Spartan military, as their soldiers epitomized honor, courage and commitment. Similarly, members of the Navy are expected to uphold these virtues, as they are the Navy’s core values. By studying how Sparta was able to employ such a disciplined military, we can be better equipped to instill similar virtues in our subordinates.

From a young age, Spartan men were raised in a demanding military environment where personal honor was strongly emphasized. They were taught loyalty, honesty, courage, and other attributes of admirable officers. One notable quote from Spartan society was “Come back with your shield – or on it.” This was typically a war cry of soldiers’ mothers who wished for their sons to die valiantly in battle rather than return home. The quote exemplifies the dedication, resiliency, and selflessness Spartan soldiers were expected to uphold in combat. They embraced the reality that they were only small instruments who collectively were able to achieve the worthwhile goals of the state through teamwork and sacrifice.

Although it is not possible nor entirely moral to replicate Spartan society, there is much to be learned from the way they trained their military. One main lesson aforementioned is the importance of a strong moral foundation. Another that can be drawn is the selection of their warriors. Instead of expanding their forces by allowing the entirety of the Spartan population into the army, they only chose the finest fighters to form the ranks of the Spartan military. This process was extended over a period of several years of training and was extremely selective. The Spartans were known for fighting with numbers far inferior to their enemies and still remaining victorious.

The real benefits of studying Ancient Sparta occur at an individual level, where one can begin to learn the characteristics of a warrior and emulate those traits and virtues. The concept of the warrior applies to every member of the military and the Spartan soldier is one of the best models from ancient times. By upholding consistent moral values and actively demonstrating loyalty to country, making use of one’s knowledge of Ancient Spartan military can be useful in the fleet.

Cameron Douglas

525 Words

Prompt #1

The Mongol Empire was one of the most expansive and dangerous empires of all time — yet they did not start this way. Their regime came to control most of Asia and Eastern Europe through the influence of Genghis Khan and his descendants. Their rule was one of brutality and relentless conquest which left a great number of civilizations in utter ruin. The great territorial gain and lust for land and dominance can be compared to many other civilizations in history, yet one nation mirrors their conquest well. The British Empire at its height in the early 1900’s had swayed millions of people to conform to its rule and had territories covering nearly every continent. The Mongol Empire can be compared to the British Empire in its rapid spread, new and effective regime, and its dominance in the world scene.

During its conquest across central Asia, The Mongols used a variety of tactics and special strategies in order to gain victory over their enemies. They came from mountainous areas between China and Siberia, mainly inhabiting the plateau region of central Asia. Because their land was so harsh and poor for food and settlements, they were a nomadic people. Their main source of sustenance was livestock, goats, and other animals due to the lack of poor farming conditions. Warfare was an integral part of their society. They also raised horses and utilized them in their military conquests. Doctors were present in Mongol society and various medicines and medical treatments were practiced, primarily in response to battle wounds. The culture centered around warriors and fighting was the most esteemed art. Everyone in the civilization was either a warrior or directly supportive of one. At the height of the Mongol Empire, they controlled nearly all of Asia and a large portion of Europe, with next to no hostages or slaves. They rarely subjugated populations — they typically interbred with them or eliminated them. This is one of the major differences they have with the British.

The British Empire began humbly, as the Mongols did, on an island in Western Europe. Over a long period of expansion and colonialism, they were able to acquire territories in North America, South America, Asia, Africa, and Australia. In the process of doing so, they completely wiped out a great number of populations and innocent civilians, as the Mongols did. They also employed tactics which were advanced compared to those of their enemies, also similar to the Mongols. They were easily the most influential world power during the time when their empire spanned the entire globe. They had little rivals and were defeated by unexpected enemies with forces greater than anticipated.

The Mongol Empire carries similarities to various successful empires in world history, namely the British Empire due to its expansive reach, its tactics in conquest, and its treatment of conquered peoples.

Cameron Douglas

Word count: 472

Cameron Douglas

The Naval Academy Compared to Sun Tzu

The Naval Academy teaches its students a variety of tools and tactics when it comes to engaging in military conflicts and pursuing military excellence. Upon entrance to USNA, students are taught the foremost qualities of any military officer: honor, courage, and commitment. While these do not perfectly align with the doctrine of Sun Tzu as outlined in his Art of War, there are a few outstanding principles which find themselves both in Naval Academy curriculum and Sun Tzu’s favored traits. However, after looking at both, it becomes easily to make the conclusion that military training and officer code has certainly progressed since Ancient China. The process the Naval Academy uses to indoctrinate and train its officers is much more effective than the Art of War.

In Sun Tzu’s, “The Art of War,” a few key attributes of warriors are emphasized. He makes a great effort to speak of discipline, command, compassion, courage, integrity, and wisdom. These are all great qualities of an officer, yet the distinctions become clear farther along in the text. He goes on to talk about the strategy of combat and the effectiveness of deception in battles. He additionally goes into great detail about the different techniques and attitudes a general should have in battle. It discusses the importance of having extremely competent generals who know how to operate with both small forces and large forces, at night and at day, and with certain goals in mind. Tzu certainly appreciates a diverse leader. He commends warriors who display great strength and fortitude and those who are willing to make sacrifice. It is very focused on the team effort, rather than being individualistic.

The Naval Academy does not assert principles much different than these. During the indoctrination phase called “Plebe Summer,” midshipman are constantly reminded that their own individual desires and needs do not matter when compared with the needs of the entire team. They are no longer their own individual; they are a member of something much greater. They are only pieces in a much larger strategy. Obviously, admirable traits are taught such as honor, integrity, courage, and selflessness. Sun Tzu would perhaps not be impressed with the quality of discipline present at USNA, but otherwise, I believe he would appreciate such an institution.

Although the differences between Sun Tzu and USNA are minimal, they are enough to show a slight distinction which has occured over time.

Words 409

Cameron Douglas

Blog #3 – Parallels in Regime Changes Across History

Regime changes in the ancient world were , yet hold key similarities to those that have taken place in the modern world. The assassination of Julius Caesar usurped the head of state and threw the nation into civil war. Similarly, the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, the president of South Vietnam, led to national turmoil and a major US conflict. Both events were conducted by members of the rulers’ own government with different views, and both resulted in political unrest and military conflict. Through the study of these changes in regime, one can better predict the outcomes of nation-states facing similar crises today.

Julius Caesar was perhaps the most prominent Roman Emperor and was responsible for a large portion of Rome’s successful conquests throughout Europe, mainly Gaul in modern day France. He was assassinated by members of his own government days prior to another major military engagement. The deed was done to put an end to his long and domineering reign. Caesar was killed by senators who had been conspiring his assassination and subsequent overthrow of his government for quite some time. This marked the end of his dictator-like rule of the Roman Republic. Although his murderers, who numbered over sixty, were visibly guilty, they were acquitted of their crimes under the condition that all of Caesar’s decrees would remain valid. This led to civil unrest among the population of Rome, eventually generating enough conflict to become a large-scale civil war.

The assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem occurred under similar circumstances. There was heavy political pressure surrounding Diem, the acting South Vietnamese President, at this time in the 1960’s. He was overpowered by South Vietnamese military forces the day prior to his assassination, which dramatically increased instability in the South Vietnamese government and populace. Following this event, the US became much more involved in the region and its complex political relations.

With both of these events in hindsight, one can use knowledge of these events and apply it to current situations in order to better understand them. As is evident, there is much to be gained from having studied the assassinations of both Caesar and Diem. The first major observation that could be drawn from these events would be the obvious correlation between political conflict within a government or country and the likelihood of the assassination of the head of state. Both of the instances aforementioned occurred when the leader blatantly opposed the views of other members of the government. Among other contributing factors to the assassinations would be imminent war or military conquest. When the similarities and differences between these changes of regime are analyzed, it is much easier to apply the common traits to modern day situations in an insightful and impactful way.

Word Count: 454

Cameron Douglas

Blog #2 – Prompt #2

Since the birth of democracy in Ancient Greece, governments have sought to execute the will of the people in the most efficient way possible. The ideal of democracy has progressed to its modern form of elected representation which is now prevalent across the world. However, some still assert that democracy in its truest form directly connects the people to legislation, as it was in Ancient Athens. This form of direct democracy is near impossible to attain and it does not always promote the best interest of the people.

The American model of Representative Democracy has been surprisingly successful in that it has allowed the form of government to experience a longevity unheard of in other parts of the world. Although it has gone through civil wars and foreign conflicts, our government has made it through the past two and a half centuries with little to no reforms. However, people tend to hold negative beliefs toward Congress and our system of democratic representation. American citizens elect individuals to secure their interests in the legislature, without having any direct say in laws themselves. If our system of representation was accurate and delegates promoted their constituents’ interests, this would not be a problem. The issue comes when representatives do not vote how their constituents would. This is uncommon because they would want to be re-elected.

The Athenian model for democracy is democracy in its purest form. It is effective in theory, yet near impossible to perfectly attain. The idea of a direct democracy existing in a country like the US in modern times would be utterly absurd. There is no way to efficiently gather the opinions and political views of every individual in the country on each specific issue. The total political participation, although optimal and desired, would be hard to enforce and extremely difficult to maintain. Simply gathering every individual to a public assembly area in order to discuss and vote on issues was a struggle in ancient times. Shortly following the Peloponnesian wars, Athens was experiencing a phase of rebuilding and restoration. During this time, assembly meetings were held to discuss topics at hand, such as the reconciliation of supporters of the Thirty Tyrants and the militarization of Athens. Conscientious Athenians would walk great distances just to have a voice in this direct democracy.

Although a direct democracy is near impossible to enforce and can be more drastic than other forms of government, it is the inspiration for the form of representative democracy that we know today in modern American society.

420 Words

Ortega’s Tyranny

Daniel Ortega, the President of Nicaragua, has found himself in the news not nearly as much as he should, given his recent history and his rise to power. The nearly four decades of his rule have been marked with numerous instances of corruption and heinous crimes. James Dyde, in his article titled “Daniel Ortega: Inside the Mind Of a Dictator,” discusses Nicaragua’s oppression under his rule. Dyde even went as far as to call him a “tyrant.” While this description is is fitting given his record, our modern definition of the word differs from its original meaning.

The term originated in Ancient Greece to describe rulers with a certain way of coming to power and a method of ruling. They were classified as illegitimate rulers who stole power from the aristocracy or inherited it unconstitutionally. Some had relations to monarchy while others were foreign nominees. They often aided in transitioning the government from an aristocracy to a democracy. They typically lacked the modern reputation of being cruel and oppressive rulers, as they were commonly preferred over the alternative government.

Surprisingly, Ortega’s rise to president of Nicaragua bears some difference to the typical tyrant of Ancient Greece. He was born in a rural town in Nicaragua during the rule of a harsh dictator. In his teens, he joined a political movement against his reign and was imprisoned for his aggressive . When he was released and his movement succeeded, Ortega became their nominee for President. He took control in 1984 with support from the people and has managed to stay in power close to 40 years later. He is known as a heinous and repressive dictator who is responsible for 400 deaths in just 3 months of 2018 alone. “The only people who still support Daniel Ortega are his “sapos” – the word used to characterize his band of fanatics inside Nicaragua.”  While his support is dwindling, he seeks out and destroys his opposition, leaving no enemies to threaten him. His rule is comparable to most central American dictators and garners him reputation as a feared and unjust ruler.

According to modern interpretation of the word, Dyde correctly attributes “tyrant” to Ortega. His climb to power against a previous ruler, along with his cruelty, oppression, and marginalized support classify him as a tyrant. However, Ortega’s malice towards his people and his small band of advocates differentiate him from the tyrants of Ancient Greece. The evolution of the word that has occurred during the past century can be accredited to the numerous dictators, monarchs, and emperors who have tarnished the word’s original meaning. Ortega resembles a tyrant in a modern context but falls short of meeting the Ancient Greek’s.

Cameron Douglas

Word count: 450