History in the Fleet

 

The Roman Empire was one of the most powerful empires in history. The Romans amassed a great amount of land and wealth thought the empires lifetime, and it all started from the Italian peninsula. The Romans would eventually grow to control the Mediterranean world of Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa. But why were the Romans so successful? The Roman’s success was mostly due to its military success on the battlefield. Roman tactics, training, and discipline gave their armies an advantage over its rivals. An officer in the fleet should look into the past and see what led to military failure and what led to success. By analyzing the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, it is clear to see the importance of always having a well-trained and well equipped military. A newly commissioned officer may not be able to equip the entirety of the military, but a low ranking officer can make it a point to have the most disciplined and well-trained unit. At its peak, the Roman Empire had a superb military, but as the need for a military dwindled due to less conflicts and less conquests, the military readiness of Rome dwindled too. The Romans became weak on the battlefield and so vandals were able to invade the vulnerable empire. “The vandals led a force of eighty thousand men from different Germanic tribes across the Mediterranean and laid siege to the Hippo. Augustine witnessed whole cities sacked.” As safe as it seems, an officer should always act as if it were war time. Helping to keep the military sharp and sturdy is something I can take away from analyzing the Roman Empire. Another key point from the Roman Empire is how its leadership was able to keep it together for so long. The Roman leadership was willing to adopt new structures. The willingness to adopt new structures resulted in a more flexible empire, a stronger empire. A stiff sword will break before a flexible sword. Being flexible about my ideas and culture will be useful for me as an officer. The military is filled with dynamic and intelligent individuals, as an officer I should be able to learn from these outstanding individuals. Being too stubborn to adopt new ideas will lead to a lack of growth in my knowledge and development as a leader overall. The Roman success and failures are a great model to learn from and are very applicable for a future military officer.

Michael Shubert 423

 

 

St. Augustine Denounces Paganism and Urges Romans to Enter The City of God

St. Augustine (413-426)

Was the First Crusade Justified?

The First Crusaders were not justified in their capture of Jerusalem after defending Constantinople. The rape and slaughter of anyone cannot be justified. The monstrosities that occurred during the crusades cannot be justified by any idea or belief. Christians believed that they had the right to take Jerusalem because they were chosen by God to protect Christians and spread Christianity. However, the Jews and Muslims of that time period believed the same thing in respect to their own religions. Everyone believed they had some divine right to a piece of land, however, if one of the religions had a divine right to the holy land then they’d be gifted the land without bloodshed. The First Crusaders were invaders seeking new fortune and power. The idea that the Crusades were more about wealth and power is supported by the fact that the individual armies did not form one uniformed army. A series of smaller, individual armies, attacking where the commander thought would be best sounds more like a mercenary conquest for wealth and fortune rather than an actual conquest to recapture the holy land. Mercenaries fight for wealth rather than to expand religious beliefs, which is similar to the Crusaders taking plunder from cities during the First Crusades. Had the Crusades really been to protect the Christian people and to defend the holy land then the Christian Franks and Byzantines would not have split against each other. However, history tells a different story in which the First Crusaders were eventually defeated because of internal conflicts. The common goals of a unified Christian army should not have failed because of internal tension, which means that the First Crusaders were not fighting for the same goals and most likely not to spread Christianity. Finally, there was a lot of rape and slaughter involved in the conquests by the rag tag Christian armies. Christians tried to take the holy land from savages who supposedly slaughtered and raped innocent Christians, but then Christian soldiers raped and slaughtered innocent people on their First Crusade. How can taking the holy land from “savages” be just if the people taking the holy land were just as “savage”? No one is justified during the Crusades, every side has some type of wronging’s that can be used against them. Neither side had a “claim” to the holy land. If every religion had its way then everyone would be happy. The First Crusaders could be found just because they were meant to protect Christians, but the just part is negligible when people are raped and slaughtered during the conquest. At Constantinople, the Crusaders were just in protecting their people, but the conquest that followed to Jerusalem was not just.

 

Michael Shubert 456

Michael Shubert

Star Wars in Antiquity

In Star Wars, specifically the later episodes, there is an empire that is trying to conquer the galaxy. The “Empire” from Star Wars has a similar structure and even takes similar actions as the Roman Empire. The Empire establishes a government funded military to conquer new planets. There is standard equipment and standards rules for every military personnel. Having standard equipment and expectations reinforces loyalty of each soldier to the generals of the Empire. The equipment also gives the Empire the advantage in its military campaigns against less powerful and developed militaries. A government funded military is also seen in the Roman Empire. The Roman military was more advanced in military technology and tactics due to the supporting government funds. Soldiers were also extremely loyal to their generals. Both empires sought to expand their borders and eventually spread themselves out too far. The Empire from Star Wars had border planets that were mostly filled with criminals and rebels, while the Romans had surrounding lands filled with “barbarians.” Whether it be Jabba the Hutt or a barbarian, both empires experienced trouble in managing the vast amount of land acquired through campaigning. Both empires sought to improve their abilities in managing the spread out empire. In Star Wars, the Empire creates outpost planets commanded by generals that are meant to patrol a certain sector of the galaxy, while the Romans split the empire into different sectors ruled by various leaders. Both empires suffer from a succession of leadership. In Star Wars, emperor Palpatine is killed and the empire experiences a power vacuum which is later filled by emperor Snoke. The Roman Empire also experiences power vacuums after certain emperor’s die. One such example is when Emperor Vespasian is succeeded by his son Titus, who only lives a couple months as emperor. The quick succession of emperors makes it hard for the Roman Empire to get a strong structure. Next, are there similarities between modern America and the Empire? Yes, there are similarities between modern day America and the Empire. Similarities include trade and a power presence throughout the known world. The U.S. relies on trade between nations to help grow its economy just as the Empire relies on trade between planets. The U.S. also makes it a key point to have a forward presence throughout the world. Being able to strike anywhere and respond quickly to threats anywhere gives the U.S. a major advantage in power projection. The same advantage is seen with the Empire. Rebels are always being intercepted and attacked by the Empire. In response, the Rebels are thought to be foolhardy to even think about taking on the Empire.

Michael Shubert 445

By Michael Shubert

Christianity Through the Lens of Polytheism

Before the 3rd c. CE, Romans held Christians in deep suspicion and considered their practices immoral and a threat to the stability of the empire. This is a valid fear since early Christians were commonly misunderstood due to their unique beliefs.

To begin, early Romans typically believed in many gods. The thought of only having one god was foreign and strange to most Romans. It’s hard to imagine Christians being persecuted in today’s society with it being well-known and practiced. It is also hard to imagine why Christians in the past would have been persecuted for the same reasons. But, early Christianity was a minority religion in Rome, where as today it is a well-known and widely practiced religion. One must also understand that it would be easy for Romans to criticize Christians in early Rome. Romans knowing little about Christianity, Christians having few numbers, and with texts that seem to mimic a cult, Romans could easily persecute Christians. For example, Christians believe in eating the skin of Jesus Christ and drinking his blood. To an outsider, eating someone’s skin and drinking their blood seems barbaric and uncivilized. Romans not knowing any better could have easily thought that Christians were blood thirsty cannibals. Even in today’s society, it’d be hard to imagine a sane person being okay with cannibalism. People also fear what they do not know. This can be seen in our society with the events that happened on 9/11. Many people began to fear Muslim people and their religion. There was a lot of blame put onto the Muslim faith itself rather than the extremist group that carried out the attack. The American society had to implement new teaching reforms in order to prevent the spread of extreme racism. An example of 9/11 in ancient Rome is the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. Although, the fire was not a terrorist attack and was not started by Christians, the easy scapegoat became the few Christians located in Rome. Christians were executed by the Roman Emperor Nero in order to cover up his own failings. The Romans were fearful of what the Christians brought upon them and were angry about the devastation caused by the fire. It was easy to fear and to blame an entire religion that was not widely practiced and misunderstood.

Overall, it is hard to see and understand the viewpoint of a persecutor. But, when looking at the Christian faith from the standpoint of Romans, it is understandable why Romans would fear Christianity. There are practices in every religion that seems strange to outsiders and with Christianity being somewhat new and misunderstood, Romans were right to be fearful of possible cannibals living next door to them. Although, not all Romans thought Christians were blood thirsty cannibals, it is not so hard to see that the new religion could have been a threat to the stability of the Roman Empire and the safety of its citizens.

498

https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/christians.html

Direct vs. Representative Model of Democracy

By Michael Shubert

The Representative model of democracy is the better way to govern. The direct model of democracy is too inefficient and the communication balance of protection vs. freedom is too hard to maintain. While, direct democracy fails to be decisive, Representative democracy tends to be more decisive. There will always be a lot of debate over topics and there will always be a long period of time before conclusions are made, but Representative democracy is the more efficient way of satisfying the needs of the public as a whole.

There are good and bad things about both models. Direct democracy allows every individual a voice in the government. Everyone having a voice is great for equal representation, but it is not efficient for governing. For example, the Athenians were conquered because of the poor management of their funds. The Athenian government started paying individuals money to attend public service events. People became more active in their government and the representation of all individuals increased. However, funds meant for the military were taken to fund the new expenses. The military began to dwindle and as a result the Athenians became a sitting duck for the Macedonians. With representative democracy, the people are represented by elected officials. The officials are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the welfare and ideals of the people. Having a smaller body as the representative force of the government means that processes such bills and laws can be more detail oriented, while not taking as long of a time. The more focus governing and faster processing is an advantage, but the people as a whole are not necessarily as powerful in a representative democracy as in a direct democracy. For example, Democrats in 1979 succeeded in their goal of legalizing abortion. Women, at the time, could not voice themselves in government, but their representatives fought for their rights.

Overall, the representative model of democracy is more practical than the direct model of democracy. Mob rule is too indecisive and ineffective at maintain a strong government. People tend to be more focus on the present rather than the future. With a direct democracy, the natural selfishness of people will lead to a government that tries to do too much at one time. With a representative democracy, the elected individuals who are meant to serve the people can be more focused on the future and more specific issues. The more practical model of democracy is the representative model, which is why representative democracy is better than direct democracy.

Sources

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/the-athenians-another-warning-from-history

Michael Shubert
Blog 1
In ancient history, tyranny was merely an authoritarian sovereignty. A tyrannous leader wasn’t necessarily bad. When observing tyranny in ancient Greece we saw a more negative connotation with philosophers such as Plato. The newly evolving connotation in ancient Greece shaped what we think of today when we hear tyranny. Our modern term for a tyranny is “a cruel and obsessive ruler”. In the U.S. our president has made some controversial moves and as a result, some have become upset and labeled President Donald Trump as a “tyrant”.
On March 23 of this year, an article on “Interesting Times” was titled “America Takes the Next Step Toward Tyranny.” In the article, author Andrew Sullivan compares the actions of our president to the model of a rising tyrant created by the ancient philosopher Plato. Sullivan analyzes actions of President Donald Trump, such as firing several members of his cabinet, and compares them to the model created by Plato. Sullivan makes the argument that President Donald Trump is slowly gaining power over the U.S. and is making moves to exert more dominance over the government. President Trump is labeled as rude and cold. The connotation created by Sullivan in the article is more closely related to the modern term of a tyrant. President Donald Trump secured his position of power from an election by the people and has been entrusted to both lead and serve the people. Additionally, although President Donald Trump can be an aggressive individual and at times cold hearted, his power is still checked by the legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Therefore, the connotation carried with the label of tyrant on Donald Trump cannot be the same connotation as a tyrant in ancient (pre-democratic) societies.
In conclusion, the use of “tyrant” in this article would not fit the ancient definition of a tyrant; therefore, the label of tyrant labeled on President Donald Trump must have the same connotation as the modern definition of a tyrant. The president, in the article, is labeled as rude, aggressive, and power hungry which are similar to the modern definition of tyrant, “a cruel and obsessive leader”. The context of a modern tyrant, as conveyed in this article, proves that the modern use of tyrant today would not fit into ancient society’s definition of a tyrant.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyrant
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/america-takes-the-next-step-toward-tyranny.html