History in the Fleet

Ever since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, America has constantly been involved in counter terrorism operations in the Middle east. The terrorism that we face is driven by radical Muslim religious groups, claiming all their actions are justified in the name of Jihad, or the struggle. The Middle East is no stranger to war– people have been fighting in the name of Jihad since the creation of Islam, and for the holy land even before that. There are many obvious differences between the goals of the Crusades and the goals of modern american anti terrorism operations, but at a fundamental level they are very similar.

The First and Second Crusades were launched as a result of a cry of help from a captured city. First it was Constantinople, then it was Edessa. In modern day, the U.S. involvement in Syria can be partially credited to the need for help from the people in the occupied lands. Radical Muslims under the names of different terrorist organizations capture cities and towns, using their resources and often mistreating those who live there. This fact is supported by the extremely high numbers of refugees leaving Syria in the past few years. This is much like in the Crusades, when the Catholic cities of Constantinople and Edessa were captured and occupied. In order to help describe the capture of Edessa, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea BOOK XVI refers to a passage from the Psalms: “They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.” (Psalms 94:6) The people of Edessa were mistreated, killed and their rights taken away. In both Crusades, the goal was to liberate Christian lands and the Christians living on them. In modern day, America is involved in the middle east to promote democracy and freedom from radical terrorist groups. Crusades and Anti Terrorism both have the end goal of liberating a people while promoting a belief of the liberating force. In the Crusades it was Christianity, in modern day it is democracy.

Another key similarity, is that both are highlighted by a religious difference. Christendom vs. Jihad, and Freedom of Religion vs. Radical interpretations of Islam and Jihad. It is true that the Crusades were more religiously based compared to anti terrorism, but nevertheless the religious difference is present in both conflicts, and is at least somewhat responsible for the fighting.

Both conflicts also had secondary goals relating to wealth and money. The Crusades were a great opportunity for European states to expand trade, capture new cities and make more money in general, despite the intentions of the Church. Likewise, the Middle East is the leading exporter of oil, and the U.S. wants to make sure that the Middle East remains stable so that the oil market isn’t greatly affected and oil wealth does not fall into the wrong hands.

It is clear that the Crusades and American anti terrorism are not the same, as almost nothing is from two time periods so far apart. However, the parallels between the two are evident, as both are a fight for liberation, both have religious motivation, and both have monetary goals.

525 Words

Islam and Christianity

Christianity and Islam have many apparent and well-known similarities. Both are “Religions of the book”, both are a form of monotheism, and both regard Jerusalem as the holy land. However, these are also things reflected in Judaism—the third of the three prominent monotheistic religions in the world. Having recently learned more about both Christianity and Islam, there are many other details that show how similar they really are, and highlight ways in which Christianity and Islam contrast with Judaism.

The Caliphate represents the community of Islamic people, and is headed by the Caliph. The Caliph is someone that the Islamic people look up to as an example, as someone pure, someone to get advice from and to seek guidance from. If you are a Christian, you are a follower and member of the church. The Pope is in charge of the church, and supposed to be an example for the community of someone pure and free of sin—someone completely invested and dedicated to God and teaching the ways of a good Christian. In this way, Christianity and Islam are very similar.

Jesus Christ is seen in both Islam and Christianity as an important figure. Christianity views Jesus as both divine and human, the son of God and the Messiah. Islam sees Jesus as a prophet of God. Each religion’s belief doesn’t quite line up. However, when compared to that of Judaism, they are more similar than it originally appears. In Judaism, Jesus was not an important religious figure. In fact, the Jewish people regard Jesus Christ as a false prophet. The fact that Islam and Christianity both believe in Jesus as an important religious figure sets them apart from Judaism, and closer to each other.

Both Christianity and Islam have had to fight many battles in order to keep their religion and expand its influence. For Christianity, these battles were the Crusades. The First Crusade came about when the Christian city of Constantinople became overrun. Pope Urban II then called for the Christian men of Europe to assemble and reclaim the city and protect their religion. Fighting in the Crusades was the will of God, and those who died in conflict earned a spot in heaven. In Islam, the term “Jihad” translates to “the struggle”. Jihad is the struggle to protect Islam and spread its influence. Dying while participating in Jihad is seen as Holy. The likenesses of Jihad and the Crusades highlight the similarity between Islam and Christianity.

While all these things compare Islam and Christianity, many parts of the two ideologies remain mutually exclusive. For example, while the Crusades have happened in the past and do not represent a constant push of Christianity, Jihad is seen as more of a concrete part of Islam.

Both ideologies structures and many of their beliefs line up. However, there also remain parts that are mutually exclusive of each other. My recently gained knowledge of both Islam and Christianity have made it clear that these two ideologies are a lot more alike than your average Joe might think.

508 Words

Sun Tzu vs. USNA

When analyzing Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”, a logical place to start is the name itself. Referring to war as an art shows a lot about what Tzu thinks about war. Something that can be studied, something that can be improved upon and something that requires creativity and an open mind. Considering the more popular schools of thought around the time of Sun Tzu, his philosophy behind war was very different. In Europe, war had always been about the glory, never showing fear and crushing your opponent as much as possible. Sun Tzu’s Art of War takes a step back, and offers a much more logical approach to war. Weighing cost vs. benefit, taking into account probability of victory and finding ways to maximize the success of a military. Overall, The Art of War can be summed up as: Think before you act, be creative, take advantage of your strengths, and have patience.

At the Naval Academy, we take core classes every year such as leadership and ethics in order to develop our decision making skills for our future careers. Leadership focuses on reflection, leadership styles, and moral development while in ethics we study philosophy and attempt to answer morally challenging questions.

The common ground between Sun Tzu and what is taught to midshipman is the necessity of thought before action. The old-fashioned belief in facing the enemy head on, no matter what, and using brute force to overpower them has long been replaced by modern military tactics, and that transition started with Sun Tzu. Something that we are taught at the Academy which is also highlighted in the Art of War is Morality. Morality is one of the most essential parts to our jobs, and Sun Tzu mentions it as one of five constant factors for his approach to war.

Sun Tzu’s focus on creative thinking is evident. The Art of War constantly refers to deceiving the enemy, thinking from their point of view, and using the element of surprise. Although we aren’t necessarily taught these things at the academy, many great military successes can be credited to a creative, unorthodox plan.

Many American military disasters, such as the Chosin Reservoir, happened because of a failure to study the terrain and a decision to push forward when it wasn’t wise to do so. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu says “We are not fit to lead an army on the march unless we are familiar with the face of the country–its mountains and forests, its pitfalls and precipices, its marshes and swamps” (Art of War, VII-13). We are taught about conflicts such as Chosin so that we will learn from those mistakes, and avoid making them. Teaching us about military failures at the Academy can teach us the same lessons as the Art of War can.

The Art of War provides a very simplified set of guidelines in order to teach how to be a successful military strategist, during conflict. Conversely, the Naval Academy teaches us in a much less simplified manner by using historical examples and classes that examine leadership to develop our competency as officers. While the Art of War focuses on success during conflict, the Naval Academy attempts to prepare us for any situation, not just an armed conflict.

545 Words

Art of War

Christianity and Rome

Before the third century CE, Rome was one of the largest and most complex societies to date. As the majority of societies before them, Rome’s population believed in polytheism. Polytheism calls for worship of a pantheon of gods rather than only one. Each god in the pantheon had its own specialty. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was the god of the sky and thunder, while Neptune was the god of the seas and rivers. The pantheon of gods was a way to explain and understand the happenings of the earth, such as storms and floods. Everything from a good harvest to safe travel across the seas was credited to the Gods. In the absence of modern science, it makes a lot of sense and provided a stable belief system that allowed the society to run smoothly. The citizens feared the gods, and prayed to them in times of both hardship and good fortune.

Conversely, Christianity suggests the belief of only one God. To someone who has been praying to the same gods their whole life, Christianity could easily be seen as dangerous or senseless. To a Roman, Christianity could seem dangerous because it could upset the pantheon of gods, and bring their wrath upon their village, town or city. It could seem senseless because one god controlling everything might be less believable than having many gods that each have their own specialty. Parts of Roman culture were based around its religion. Christianity challenges that culture, and therefore would affect the stability of the Roman society.

The Romans being introduced to Christianity is an example of a clash of religions. For comparison, when Atheism was introduced to Christianity, it was not received so well. Just as the Monotheistic Romans feared Christianity, Christian societies have historically feared atheism. The inquisition and the holocaust are also examples of religious beliefs affecting the stability of a society and causing fear. Long story short, history shows a trend of new or differing religious beliefs not being accepted well, and sometimes blamed for the problems of the society. For this reason, Rome fearing Christianity was completely valid because it is human nature to do so.

Christianity making its way into the Roman Empire is at its most basic level a change of sorts. Any change that effects something such as the government or the religious beliefs of a society on a large scale will be feared as a threat and immoral. History has proven that this fear is human nature, and therefore it is justified.

420 Words

Blog Post #2 – Representative vs Direct Democracy

Both the United States of America and Ancient Athens represent nations with democracies. The American representative model is a much better and safer way to govern. The Athenians had a very direct model—assembly-goers would directly vote on topics and that is how judgement would be passed. This is a very raw and literal form of democracy which truly embodies the idea of “power to the people.” Any citizen, no matter how educated they might be, would be voting on the most important of issues directly. That might sound a bit sketchy, and that is because it was. Many historical records recall moments when the Athenian democracy passed judgement that was questionable and quite harmful to their nation. In Hellenica book one chapters six and seven, Xenophon recorded a great example of poor judgement, the trial of the Athenian Generals following the naval battle of Arginusae. When they retreated in bad weather, the Generals decided not to save the crews of the ships that had been sunken. The mob that was the Athenian Assembly labeled them as cowards and blamed them for the deaths of those soldiers, sentencing eight experienced generals to death. In the middle of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenian Assembly discarded the majority of its generals, the leaders of its military. This is a great example as to why the Athenian direct model of democracy can prove to be dangerous and unstable. If educated political professionals were put in charge of the issue, they would have been more rational, due to the obvious consequences that follow executing all of your Military leaders. When the people are directly involved in voting on important decisions, the power of the mob can take over too easily.

The instability of the Athenian democracy led to development of the representative model. Naturally, the representative model comes with its own issues. Once an official is elected, they are free to vote how they wish, despite the ideology they might have campaigned. However when comparing the direct and representative models of democracy, it is clear that despite its problems, representative democracy is a much more sensible and effective form of government. The people are able to vote on who will represent them and make their decisions, and at the same time it ensures that educated political professionals are making the decisions. The American model does not end in such radical and unpredictable judgments as the Athenian model did. The representative form of democracy employed by the United States is a much better way to govern.

Wikisource contributors, “Hellenica (Xenophon)/Book 1/Chapter 6,” Wikisource, https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.phptitle=Hellenica_(Xenophon)/Book_1/Chapter_6&oldid=3769175 (accessed September 30, 2018).

421 Words

Blog Post #1 on Tyranny

Tyrant was originally used in ancient Greece to describe a ruler who gained his power through unconventional methods. As we discussed in class, this didn’t begin with a negative connotation, but it has grown to be connected to greed and violence. In a modern setting, tyrants often fit both definitions, new and old. In his article for the New York Post titled “The World is Descending into Tyranny,” Ralph Peters makes an argument stating that leaders such as Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan show how the world is trending towards “tyranny.” There is evidence that these leaders have used their power in order to influence and or rig elections so they may remain in power. This closely relates to the original Greek definition. However, since the original word was born before the democracy, it couldn’t be compared to democracy. Now it can, and the contrast between the two can lead to a different interpretation of the word. With democracy as an example, tyranny can appear oppressive and radical.

Putin, Jinping and Erdogan are all examples of enemies of democracy, and by modern definition tyrants. Peters also mentions the leaders of Egypt, Iran, Syria and North Korea. All these countries have something in common—their leaders are staying in power not by the even-handed votes of the people, but by using their high rank and privilege. Peters is claiming these men are tyrants because they either commit genocide, starve their citizens, or just because their leadership is oppressive or radical. Still, these dictators fit the mold of that original Greek definition. It is unclear if Ralph Peters’ definition of tyranny lines up with that of the Ancient Greeks, he doesn’t state his interpretation of the word. Nevertheless, the leaders that he labels as tyrants do fit the Greek definition.

Article discussed