Lessons from the Mongols

Eric Wilson

I believe that knowledge and lessons can be learned from all of the civilizations we have covered this semester. Some of the biggest lessons, in my opinion, can be learned from the rise and fall of the Mongols. The Mongol Empire, specifically in the time period around the 1100s, rose to power and established themselves all across Asia. They covered a very large area that extended from the East China Sea to Eastern Europe. A large amount of their success was due to the leadership of Genghis Khan who rallied the nomadic tribes to work together and conquer many different regions.

The Empire relied heavily on the sole leadership of Khan and his successors. However, in a sense, the Empire put all of its eggs in one basket. The eventual fall of the Empire came after the death of Ogedei Khan, Genghis’ third son. The Empire was expanding west when their expedition was halted after the death of their leader. Based on what we learned in class and our discussions, it seems that the Mongols relied solely on the leadership from the Khan’s. There was no sort of disbursal of power to more than just the Khan leader. As a result, the Empire crumbled once its assigned leader passed away. Relating this to the Fleet today, we need to learn to delegate certain powers and responsibilities. If too many powers and responsibilities lie on one person, a team unit will not be able to operate without its leader present. As an officer we must learn to delegate responsibilities and knowledge to those within the group because if the officer is ever taken away from a situation, the unit needs to still be able to operate.

Additionally, the Mongols found much of their success through their strategy and tactics throughout their conquests. When conquering regions, the Mongols would slaughter their opposition by using superior military tactics. This slaughter of the opposition is noted in The Perfect History by Ibn al-Athir from 1225. Regarding the Mongol Empire, he states, “These Tartars… came from the East, and wrought deeds which horrify all who hear of them, and which thou shalt, please God, see set forth in full detail in their proper connection.” This fearful view of the Mongols stems from their ability to annihilate opponents. The technology and tactics utilized allowed them to succeed at a very high level. We can learn lessons from this by seeing the effects tactics and weaponry. In today’s military, we must remain superior in the areas of tactics and weaponry. While we shouldn’t necessarily carry the expansionist approach of the Mongols, we can still remain on top of these areas. If we do, we can experience success through the comfort of knowing we are safe and that we can respond to any threats in an effective manner.

Ultimately, the Mongols were a very successful empire that can teach us many lessons today. Their rise to power shows the effectiveness of tactics and strategy, while their defeat can show how delegation of power is necessary. By modernizing some of the successes of the Mongols and by correcting their faults, I believe we can take these lessons and apply them to be better naval officers today.

Word Count (excluding quotes): 502

Sources: The Perfect History by Ibn al-Athir (c. 1225)

Chr-islam?

Eric Wilson

Before this class, I was not aware of many of the similarities between Islam and Christianity. Other than both of them being monotheistic religions, I believed that their ideologies were inherently different. However, this is not the case.

One of the shocking similarities to me was the role Jesus Christ played in both religions. In Christianity, Jesus is seen as God himself. He came to Earth and died for human beings’ sins before ascending back to Heaven. In Islam, Jesus, also known as Isa, was a prophet of God. Rather than being God himself, Isa was sent by Allah, born of the Virgin Mary, but was not divine (Quran 5:17). The key difference is that he was not God himself. Before learning and researching about this, I didn’t think Jesus played a role in Islam’s foundation of faith at all.

Another similarity is the concept of the Holy Spirit. In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is “the third person of the Trinity and is truly divine.” The Holy Spirit plays a crucial part in how Christians view the concept of God and the divine. In Islam, the concept of the Holy Spirit is “identical with the Angel Gabriel, who appeared to the Prophet Mohammed [when] giving him the Quranic text.” I thought it was an interesting fact that Islam featured any type of idea of a “Holy Spirit.” While these concepts may not be identical, they carry similar parallels in how the foundations of each religion were started.

Islam and Christianity are also similar in the aspect of prayer and guidelines. In Christianity, specifically Catholicism, followers are taught that there are seven sacraments that are to be strived for. These sacraments are blessings from God administered through the church. It is a blessing to receive these sacraments and each Catholic should strive to receive them. In Islam, there are five important rituals as well, also known as the pillars of Islam. These include a profession of faith, prayer five times daily, alms giving, fasting, and a pilgrimage. I thought it was interesting that both of these religions contained a specific set of sacraments, or rituals, that are required of their followers.

I believe that these two religions are much more closely aligned than we are sometimes taught to believe, specifically in America. The foundations of both of these religions are closely aligned and even carry the same type of practices. As discussed in class, all religions can be portrayed as the “right” or “wrong” one by narrow-mindedly looking at specific parts of text within a religion’s Holy Scripture. In America, we generally think with a Christian mindset and many Americans carry the stereotype that Islam is inherently bad because if its scripture passages regarding extreme forms of jihad. What many don’t realize are some of the egregious verses in the Bible. One quote from St. Paul provides advice on whether women should be allowed to teach men in church: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:12). This is a perfect example of how either religion could be portrayed poorly in the eyes of the other. Rather, I like to look at the philosophies and views on humanity from both religions’ perspectives. I believe they both carry great lessons that could benefit all people and are a lot more similar than many may think.

Word Count: 567

Sources: http://christianityinview.com/xncomparison.html

Mongolian Conquest

The Mongolian Empire draws some very interesting parallels to the Empire from the Star Wars saga. In the Star Wars saga, the Empire is depicted as the catalyst for war and fear throughout the span of space. Their ultimate goal was control of the entire universe, taking out one planet at a time. Similarly, the Mongolian Empire was hungry for conquest as well. Strategically, both empires carried similarities as well. In the saga, Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader’s empire plans to control the universe by taking over planets one-by-one. Genghis Khan also carried this trait as well. As the Mongols pushed West, hoping to one day conquer Europe, they took over civilizations one at a time.

Using superior military tactics and complete slaughter of the opposition, the Mongols used their power to take what they wanted. They used tactics, like cavalry and catapults, to gain an advantage over their opposition. I think this is an interesting parallel to the Empire as well, as they also used military force and technology to gain an advantage. For example, the Empire, under direction of Palpatine, built a superior weapon known as the Death Star that could destroy entire planets. They used this to their advantage to begin the spread of their rule.

Another similarity between the two is a creation of an identity for the empires. In Star Wars, the Empire, and those aligned with its cause, become a community over the idea that they will one day rule the universe. This mutual identity bonds them and creates a sense of unity amongst those believing in one cause, even if they are from different planets entirely. Similarly, Genghis Khan helped form this sense of community in the Mongolian rule as well. Before the Mongols were unified, they were a nomad people consisting of many tribes that were not often associated with one another as a sole community. However, Khan gave them a sense of unity and a cause that the Mongols rallied around and began to work together.

One final similarity between the two is that the end of both empires can be traced back to a specific event. In Star Wars, the Empire is effectively defeated after Luke Skywalker and the Rebellion destroy the Death Star and stop their conquest across the galaxy. The Mongolians are dismantled at the Battle of Ayn Jalut, which pretty much put the nail in the coffin for the empire. Ogedei Khan had died on the conquest to Europe, which halted the advance, and the defeat at Ayn Jalut dismantled the empire completely years later.

Similarities can be found between the Empire and our own government today, as well. For example, our nation plays a role as the “global peacekeeper” to other nations. We enter into conflicts solely to attempt to keep peace and to also showcase our power. Similarly, this is what the Empire does as well. The Rebels resist the establishment of the Empire and fight for their freedoms and what they think is right. According to the Odyssey, the rebels can be compared to groups like ISIS today. They play this part because they are “fighting for what they deem a ‘just cause.’” However, both the United States and the Empire attempt to quiet these groups for their own causes. Additionally, the United States attempts to control the beliefs and actions of other nations, much like the Empire did. As the Empire destroys and conquers planet after planet in the Star Wars universe, Princess Leia says a memorable quote to Grand Moff Tarkin: “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” This is an interesting metaphor we can make for our current stance on being a global peacekeeper. I believe this is a debate worth having, whether the risks of being this dominant super power are worth all of the conflicts we find ourselves in.

Word Count: 648

Sources:

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the-empire-and-trump

The Fear of God

Before Third Century AD, the Romans viewed Christians as a mysterious and threatening group of people to their empire. As a Roman, polytheism was the held religious belief. Before the Edict of Milan, Romans were known to persecute Christians upon the discovery of their faith. According to Religion Facts, this is because “religion was first and foremost a social activity that promoted unity and loyalty to the state.” By accepting the polytheistic beliefs of Rome, a citizen could prove that they were fully devoted, in a sense, to the empire. This religious attitude was known as “piety.” It was a popular belief that if piety disappeared, the rest of Roman society would as well. While Romans were tolerant and accepting of many other religious beliefs, they were not tolerant of Christianity due to its teachings. Pliny, one of Rome’s governors, “called it ‘superstition taken to extravagant lengths.’” Due to the Roman government’s stance on Christianity, it was portrayed as a bad choice for society.

I believe that this is a rational fear for a Roman empire that was attempting to keep their society and culture together as one. While the fear may have not been rational, I do believe that it had a legitimate sense of fear and purpose behind it. The rationality of this fear may be put into question, but how the Romans portrayed Christianity affected how the people also viewed it. Unity seems to have been a large decision making factor for the Romans. It was their belief that if their people were united, they could not fall. Christianity did pose a threat to this style of thinking, as some of the more radicalized views of a “son of Christ” posed a threat to the Roman style of thinking. The pantheon of gods that was accepted by Rome did not align with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Rome had typically taken over lands and allowed their religious deities to exist, only adding them to the Roman pantheon and giving them new names. However, with Christianity, the teachings stated that there is only one true God and gives a specific list of rules (or commandments) that explain how a person should live their life. They also condemn the existence of other gods. If a person was not willing to identify with the teachings of Rome, specifically polytheism, then they should not exist within Rome. According to Pliny in a letter to Emperor Trajan, he speaks about ordering proclaimed Christians to death. When explaining why, he says, “For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished.” Through this quote, we can see how Rome not only viewed Christianity’s teachings as wrong, but also as ignorant and stubborn. This stubbornness can prohibit the empire of Rome from banding together because if Christianity gains popularity, the citizens of Rome will refuse to accept the teachings and philosophies accepted by the empire. The only way to prevent the spread of this stubbornness is by persecuting or executing the belief before it can spread.

Additionally, it had to be quite a shock to the vast majority of Rome when they acknowledge multiple higher beings but are suddenly hearing about one man who is claiming to be the son of God. Hearing such a statement would make more skeptics out of the Roman polytheistic beliefs, so this faith needed to be quieted as soon as possible. It is quite obvious that Romans believed everyone should be unified and Christianity only drove a deeper stake through the heart of the people. For these reasons, I believe that they had a legitimate reason to worry and be suspicious of Christianity and how it would affect their culture.

As an aside, this is an interesting parallel of a stereotype today. As stated in the prompt, today we tend to view Christianity as the default religion of the United States. Today, many terrorist organizations and cells align with the Islamic faith, thus creating a stereotype that terrorists are Muslim. This is an irrational fear and quite an uneducated assumption to make that all terrorists are followers of the Islamic faith, but it aligns closely with how the Romans viewed Christianity. This fear scares the people of the nation and how the government (or today, the media) portrays the designated religion will determine how the people react.

Words: 596

Sources:

http://www.religionfacts.com/persecution-early-church

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97

Superior Model of Democracy

Image result for representative democracy

I believe that the American model of democracy is significantly better than the Athenian model of democracy. In the ancient Aegean, Athenians were able to represent themselves at the assembly. While this sounds beneficial, it also comes with heavy cost. Only those who are able to make the trip to the assembly were able to be properly represented in the voting and representation process. Many poor and impoverished citizens who had the right to be at the assembly were simply not able to make it to the meetings, due to these conditions. With the American model, we elect officials who make those decisions for us.

As mentioned in the prompt, “sometimes elected representatives fail to carry out the policies favored by their constituents.” While this may be true, our model of democracy has accounted for this possibility. Because of this, our representatives do not serve life-long terms. They are up for re-election every few years, depending on the office that they hold. By using this method, we ensure the entire population is represented in some fashion, even if it not the direct way that it was conducted in Athens.

Admittedly, there are faults with the representative system that we hold. The largest flaw, in my opinion, is the practice of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering occurs when a party in power redraws district lines to favor their party in the upcoming elections. For these reasons, it is almost impossible to swing the seats of a state’s representatives in the House. This also does not ACCURATELY represent the constituents of a state. Some states, like Iowa, take the politics out of congressional district line markings. Every census, Iowa will hire three mapmakers to seal themselves off and draw uniformed districts based on population only. No parties, election results, or congressmen or congresswomen’s addresses are considered during these drawings. As a result, Iowa is accurately represented in the House, and I believe this is a practice that could improve our model.

I also want to propose a situation that supports the argument for the American model. We are currently in an armed conflict with Syria, as we provide humanitarian to their citizens while their government is oppressive. As a result, war is a constant possibility. If we followed an Athenian model of democracy, our government could actually send out a message saying, “Text this number by 10 p.m. to vote for war on Syria!” and this could be a legitimate way to make decisions. Each person would get their own part in the decision making process, but this is not applicable as the average person is not educated enough on the benefits and consequences of such a decision. Instead, our elected representatives are allowed to make these decisions, as we put our trust in them that they are educated and fair enough to do what is right. Ultimately, the applicability of the American model tilts the scale too much to ever consider the Athenian model.

Word Count: 492

Sources:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/12/08/iowa-redistricting-takes-partisanship-out-mapmaking/efehCnJvNtLMIAFSQ8gp7I/story.html

Syrian Tragedy

By: MIDN 3/C Eric Wilson, USN

In an article published in April by Fox News, in accordance with The Sun, Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his wife, Asma, are described as “tyrants.” Currently, the country of Syria is in the midst of national turmoil due to a civil war. The two sides of this war consist of the Syrian Arab Republic, led by al-Assad, and various rebel forces that oppose the government. Al-Assad has been constantly criticized over the course of this civil war, which has been underway since 2011, for his accused inhumane treatment of citizens. According to the article, al-Assad and his wife “own an opulent palace estimated to be worth $1 billion in Damascus – less than 10 miles from Eastern Ghouta.” While al-Assad resides in this mansion, he sends orders to mass-slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of the country he is supposed to be leading. Over 400,000 Syrians have been killed due to this conflict, according to CNN, and over 5.6 million have fled the country. Bashar al-Assad is the textbook-definition of a tyrant who is constantly seeking more power, while subjugating the citizens of “his” country.

In my opinion, the word “tyrant” is used in a very appropriate manner here. In fact, I would use a worse word, if possible, to describe al-Assad. His intentional acts to quiet the oppressed in his country turns the Syrian government, which was established as a republic, into a dictatorship. He carries the stereotypical traits of a tyrant, including corruption, greed, wealth, and a growing desire for more power. These are all modern stereotypes of tyrants that emerged post-democracy in the Aegean. However, I would argue that even al-Assad’s treatment of the nation would be despised in ancient Greece, as well, even before the rise of democracy. He utilizes the military to annihilate entire populations with acts of inhumanity, including chemical weapons. In modern society, chemical weapons are frowned upon in the realm of warfare, due to past crimes against humanity that have occurred. Utilizing these against your own country is an even greater disgrace. The only citizens of Syria who are not subject to al-Assad’s wrath in some way are those within his administration and his closest supporters and donors. This ensures that he stays in power, as any opposition to his reign is addressed, often with non-diplomatic action. Such crimes cannot be defended or explained. By committing these cruel, totalitarian acts, al-Assad is the epitome of the modern stereotypes of tyranny.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/13/syrian-dictator-assad-wife-living-life-luxury-while-county-in-tatters.html