China Rising

Understanding the past is the key for responding to the future. Knowledge of history of significant civilizations is an invaluable resource in order to respond to modern-day issues in the military. Specifically, the rise of China in the 21^st century is a result of its desire to return to prosperity, and as future officers, we need to be able to understand its rich history and respond appropriately to any threats it poses.

For example, the Qin Dynasty in Ancient China effectively established itself as the first unified empire in Chinese history, and did so through aggressive military expansion and projection of power. Their extensive “public works projects to increase the economic productivity of the empire” was complemented by “military conquests…[especially] fortification of defensive walls [most notably] the 1,500-mile Great Wall of China.”[1] In addition, the Qin standardized as they centralized their empire to include currency, weights and measurements, the legal code, and most notably, written language. Despite all of these accomplishments, the Qin Dynasty only lasted from 221-206 BCE, when revolts of the peasantry coupled with succession issues toppled the seemingly stable empire. Following the impressive feats of the Qin were several other dynasties including, but not limited to, the Han, Tang, and Song. All of these dynasties experienced varying levels of power, but all ultimately failed to bring China to the forefront of global prominence.

In the modern era, China seeks to revise the status quo and solidify their position as a world superpower. Increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea along with numerous exploits of the cyber domain are several of the issues the United States Navy and the Department of Defense face concerning China. In order to combat these contentious actions by China, junior officers will need to possess knowledge of the why behind their missions and deployments in order motivate and encourage their enlisted sailors or Marines. By providing subordinates with a reason behind assigned duties and missions, morale will be higher as a result and the Navy at-large will ultimately function at a higher level of operational effectiveness.

In the same way, possession of knowledge about our adversaries’ history allows us to better prepare for what events may occur in the future. Understanding that China has been a country with varying amounts of power throughout its history is crucial for modern day warfighting. If we are to predict its future endeavors and potentially diffuse any further hostility, we must have a basic understanding of their culture, customs, and traditions established many centuries ago.

—Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 429

[1] Class Google Folder, Spodek Ch. 7, China: Fracture and Unification

The British and Mongolian Empires

When we think of the British, we often think of adjectives such as “proper” and “civilized”, but the British Empire was far from that. Despite being the root of much of modern civilization, including the United States, the British Empire founded itself on principles of oppression, racism, and cruelty, similar to those of the Mongolian Empire.

For example, the British Empire began with relatively innocent exploration and the desire to discover more of the world, but this soon led to domination over lands explored. Beginning with the Caribbean, the British established a plantation economy of sugar cane, which relied heavily on slaves from Africa, many of whom died simply from brutal conditions during transit.[1] Slave labor was quick to spread to the Americas, where they continued to experience abuse and inhumane treatment. Despite the outlaw of the slave trade in Britain in 1807, its horrendous effects are analogous to those of the Mongolian Empire and their senseless “slaying of women and men and children”[2]. Much like the Mongol treatment of the Chinese, Arabs, and Indians, the British employed a system of controlled aggression in which they supported those they conquered, with the caveat that they offer unconditional support to the crown.

Similarly, the British and Mongolian Empires spawned the two largest empires in history. Accomplishing such a feat is no easy task, and each was able to do so through sheer brutality and control over those they came across. An example of this in the British Empire was their assertion of power over the indigenous people of North America. Their treatment of Native Americans was similar to that of Africans in that they aimed “’to compel them to “drudgery, work, and slavery,’ so English colonists could live ‘like Soldiers upon the fruit of their labor.’”[3] These malignant practices are identical to the Mongol practices in China, “destroying them [villages] and slaying most their inhabitants, of whom none escaped save a small remnant.”[4] Despite existing several hundred years apart, the actions by each empire clearly demonstrate the foundation of violence used to establish power.

At a first glance, it may not seem like the British Empire is even remotely comparable to the Mongolian Empire, but they share many commonalities such as use of oppression and violence. In the modern era, we often completely neglect the wrongdoings of the British Empire, and think only of atrocities committed by regimes like Mongolian Empire and other authoritarian regimes. However, despite all effort to disregard wrongdoings of Western countries like Britain, we cannot not forget the negative impact it had on millions of people around the world.

— Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 456

[1] http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/colonial/indians/

[2] Class Google Folder, Frameworks Crisis of Mongol Age: 1200 to 1400

[3] http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/colonial/indians/

[4] Class Google Folder, Frameworks Crisis of Mongol Age: 1200 to 1400

Star Wars in Antiquity

The Empire in Star Wars shares numerous similarities with the Roman Empire, which dominated the known-world for centuries. Common features between both empires include their swift rise to power, rapid expansion of territory, followed by their crumbling defeats, which were largely due to rebellion and poor allocation of resources.

Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of the Roman Empire, gained power over Rome and its Republic in 27 BCE in the same way Emperor Palpatine monopolized the galactic senate following the collapse of the Republic. Following Augustus’s claim of the role of emperor, the pax Romana (Roman peace) period ensued. These years of relative “peace” during the pax Romana under Augustus directly mirrors the collapse of the Republic in Star Wars with Palpatine in control.[1] Following the period of peace, and utilization of its army and resources, the Roman Empire was able to conquer almost all of modern-day Europe, as well as regions in North Africa and Western Asia. However, Rome’s superiority mindset and vast overreach of their power contributed to their defeat by rebel groups in nearly all of its territories.[2] This goes hand-in-hand with the Empire in Star Wars and its lack of ability to keep track of every planet and its happenings (i.e. rise of Luke Skywalker). Ultimately, both Empires grossly overreached their power, which resulted in their collapse from isolated cases of rebellion.

Even though we may not think of the United States as an empire, a lot of its global influence reflects that of the Empire in Star Wars. Even though the United States’ influence is on a much smaller scale than the Empire, it controls much of the current global policy. At first glance, both superpowers may seem starkly different, but both the United States and the Empire are able to utilize the threat of force to enforce their power over nearly any territory.[3] For example, the United States has the most powerful military in human history, along with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, effectively rendering other nations subordinate in terms of retaliation. This is directly comparable to the might of the Imperial Army and the infamous Death Star that the Empire possesses due to the influence of fear they have on the rest of the galaxy.[4] Although the United States and the Empire share some militaristic qualities, there are very few traits that they have in common. This is largely because the Empire was based off of Nazi Germany prior to World War II, which starkly contrasts the underlying principles of freedom and democracy the United States strives for. Although the Empire and United States possess great amounts of power, they are incomparable when it comes to their organization and freedoms.

— Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 484

[1] Star Wars Episode III, 2003, Star Wars Episode IV, 1977

[2] Class Google Folder, Spodek Ch. 6, Rome and the Barbarians

[3] Constitutional Rights Foundation, America’s Foreign Policy, http://www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/foreign-policy.html

[4]Star Wars Episode IV, 1977

An Ancient Problem in a Modern World

Democracy has established itself around the world as the gold standard for governance. This is largely due to the success of Western democratic nations following World War II, and the prosperity that continues to accompany them today. The foundations of democracy in current countries is largely due to the Romans, specifically the principles of majority participation in politics. However, democracy is not perfect, and often takes many years to develop before growth is recognizable in a new regime. This has been the case in the Middle East since the United States increased its presence in the region in 2003 (specifically Iraq), with little progression in terms of concrete regimes establishing control.

Countries like Iraq have a rich history, and customs that date back to the dawn of humanity. This is important to understand, due to the reality that people are less susceptible to change after they immerse themselves in a culture and familiar environment.[1] The political instability in Iraq following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the United States and its allies effectively created a power vacuum in the country. This is comparable to the premature death of Alexander the Great, and his lack of a plan for a successor. Alexander’s early death contributed to “the [lack of] opportunity to implement whatever plans for the organization of his empire.” [2] The result of the absence of a clear successor for his empire saw stark divisions of territory by Alexander’s generals, along with armed conflicts between them.

The lack of a clear leader of a state is a recipe for conflict. In the same way as Alexander’s empire, Iraq, following the death of Saddam Hussein, fell victim to terrorist groups and civil war. Iraq remained somewhat stable with U.S. presence until 2011, however after the U.S. removed itself, the state fell into turmoil. Even under the governance of a Republic with a parliament, prime minister, and president, Iraq has fallen victim to ISIL along with ongoing insurgencies. These extremist groups have been the root of ongoing battles with the state, and in turn, the cause of instability. This constant instability without defined leadership is preventing the democratic regime from establishing legitimacy.

Unfortunately, the phrase “history repeats itself” holds true when comparing issues like regime changes. Although some countries have successfully implemented systems in which peaceful turnover of power is possible, many young countries still struggle to gain a foothold on this principle. Man’s lust for power when comparing regime changes such as those of Alexander the Great in the ancient world and the Iraqi government in the modern world, illustrates how some things fail to change. Without understanding the failures of regime change in the past, we will never be able to implement systems in which leaders maintain control of their territory while simultaneously being supported by their people.

-Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 471

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-struggle-for-middle-east-democracy/

[2] Class Folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1n2a9ZyZq8GaiNVbC1g__UtRftr15wf4g

Is Voting Really A Right?

As much as most Americans want to deny it, the history of the United States was seldom democratic at all. Even though the current system closely resembles the Roman Republican system of government, the first few centuries of existence for the United States hardly represented a majority of the population. In the same way as Athens in the fifth century, the United States restricted voting to white males for nearly a century and women for another fifty years after that.

Until very recently, the United States electorate was very similar to the Athenian system. In ancient Athens, only free males with citizenship could vote[1], much like the initial voting rights granted in the U.S. Constitution. Although the United States’ political system has evolved dramatically over the past four centuries, it is important to realize the roots of the system were inherently unequal and served to represent the few, rather than the many. In the same way, the restriction of voting rights to male citizens in Athens restricted political positions to this population of people, effectively establishing an oligarchy containing all of the power.

Some of the founding principles of the United States, as found in the Declaration of Independence, are that “all Men are created equal…[and] governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[2] However, no matter how hard we try to believe that, this was simply not true in the U.S. with the electorate and politicians until very recently. Much like the Athenian system, white, landowning males were the predominant force within government and the political system in the United States. That remained the case in the United States until 1870 when the Fifteenth Amendment of the constitution granted voting rights to African-American men.[3] Similarly, the right to vote for women deferred even further until 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.[4] Based off the 242 year history of the United States and the reality that women have not even been able to vote for one hundred of those years exposes the historic inequality of the system.

There is no denying the deep-rooted similarities between the United States and Ancient Athens concerning voting rights and representation in government. At the core, the systems are inherently identical, and severely restricted those who could actually participate in these so-called free systems of government. Thankfully, the United States was able to mend the shortcomings of the Athenian system, and currently offers no restrictions in voting practices. However, without Athens, it is unclear whether the practices of voting and representative politics in the U.S. would even exist.

-Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 454

[1] Aristotle. Athenian Constitution, Section 2, Part 42

[2] Declaration of Independence, 1776

[3] United States Constitution, Amendment 15, 1870

[4] United States Constitution, Amendment 19, 1920

Tyranny Ancient and Modern

Along with the rest of history, the definition of tyranny has changed over the course of time. In modern context, the word tyrant is commonly associated with people who have committed atrocious acts against their people such as the dictator of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. However, the ancient definition of a tyrant was significantly different, and quite often tyrants were widely accepted as rulers by their people; they could be oppressive, but were simply people who rose to power in a specific polis.

The modern use of tyrant is often overused as well as misused, as evident in Adam Cathcart’s article for CNN, Kim Jong Un is a Tyrant. Talk of Peace in Korea Doesn’t Change That. Cathcart does not hesitate to mention the “grain shortages, heavily watched citizens, and twenty-thousand defectors in Seoul” to make his case of the supposed tyrannical role Jong Un plays in North Korea. Without further investigation, Kim Jong Un fits perfectly into the role of a modern tyrant, but he is far from the original meaning of the term.

As previously mentioned, a tyrant in ancient Greece was someone who simply had control over a particular polis, and there was hardly any negative connotation that accompanied the term. For example, the Athenian tyrant, Pisistratus, a well-respected Greek military commander, came to power in Athens on his own accord. However, during his rule he “did not interfere with the existing structure of offices or change the laws; he administered the state constitutionally and organized the state’s affairs properly and well.” In the era prior to the rise of democracy, a ruler like Pisistratus was just about as good as it could get when power was in the hands of a single man, and hardly aligns with whom we view as tyrants today.

The modern context of the term tyrant began to form after the rise of democracy and complete control by one person became undesirable. The term tyrant in a modern context can describe an unruly dictator, which took its roots from the Greeks and their long line of unpopular rulers. When we think of Kim Jong Un, tyrant seems like a perfect term to describe him, however in ancient Greece, this would hardly have been the case. A more fitting term is dictator, which is applicable in both modern times as well as ancient times, even though in a modern context the two terms seem interchangeable. Without a doubt, the definition of tyrant has changed over time; however, it is important to understand the original meaning for a better understanding of its use today.

– Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 429

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/opinions/korea-summit-adam-cathcart-opinion-intl/index.html
Herodotus on Athenian Tyrants, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1W4vnT3f3C3F7gw7tLfK0q10KXFs97Ekz