Commanding Respect

History teaches valuable lessons to anyone, but to those in the unpredictable military environment, it is especially important to be aware of mistakes made by leaders of the past. It is difficult to predict when and how challenges will arise in the military. Thus, it is important for officers to learn from history, adding to their existing experience the knowledge of those who have already lived through some of those challenges. The experiences of Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire are especially useful for officers in the fleet, highlighting the importance of being a positive role model and respecting subordinates.

One of the most applicable lessons for an officer from the era of Macedonian expansion is the importance of setting a proper example for subordinates. In Babylon, Alexander wanted his men to have a break, so he turned them loose in the city. Roman historian Curtius Rufus records, “Alexander’s stop in Babylon was longer than anywhere else, and here he undermined military discipline more than in any other place. The moral corruption there is unparalleled; its ability to stimulate and arouse unbridled passions is incomparable,” (5.136). When Alexander allowed himself and his men to “relax” in Babylon, he let the standards of military discipline and morality slip, permitting his men to run rampant, raping and pillaging throughout Babylon.

Witnessing Alexander’s immoral lifestyle outside the military, Alexander’s men lost all sense of self-control. This is a valuable lesson for future officers in the fleet. Once an officer steps into his role, he becomes a symbol of what is right and wrong, what the standard is going to be. If the officer cannot uphold that standard, he cannot expect his subordinates to either, resulting in terrible consequences.

Another valuable lesson gleaned from Alexander is respect for subordinates. Alexander repeatedly put his own goals and ambitions before the well-being of his men. It was his desire to develop a popular image with the nations he conquered, appealing to their traditions rather than to his own men, that caused his troops to refuse to follow him into battle. Even after this fact, however, Alexander continued to mistreat them. On his return march to Macedonia, Alexander marched his men through the Godrosian Desert, a deadly and hostile route that resulted in the death of many of his men. The Greek historian Arrian writes, “Alexander did not choose that route because he was unaware of the difficulties it would involve (Nearchus is our one authority for this); he chose it because, apart from [the legendary queen] Semiramis on her retreat from India, no man, to his knowledge, had ever before succeeded in bringing an army safely through… Alexander heard these old stories; they inspired him to go one better than Cyrus and Semiramis,” (6.24). Alexander was so caught up in his own legacy, he completely disregarded the safety of his men, and the march was so costly it came to be known as a death march.

Alexander’s mistake was his valuing of his own personal agenda over that of his men, who had been campaigning on his behalf without rest for years. If a follower does not feel that his leader respects or cares for him, he has no reason to respect or care for his leader. The leader’s personal desires cannot come before the needs of his men, or else the mutual respect that makes up the relationship of command falls apart.

Alexander may have been a military genius, but his mistakes are glaring reminders for the modern military of what it means to be an officer. An officer is primarily an example to his subordinates. Alexander was not a good example to his men, lacking the moral courage to be the representation of how a soldier should act, as well as lacking respect for the desires and needs of his troops. Alexander put himself and his legacy above his men and expected them to follow him anyway. Ultimately, it brought about the end of his campaign of expansion, as his men lost respect for him and the will to follow him. Alexander’s history is a reminder to the modern officer to serve others, not to expect service, in order to develop a successful command built on mutual respect.

-Nate Forrest

Words: 598

Arrian 6.24

Rufus 5.136

“Thinking Done by Cowards, Fighting by Fools”

Most consider meritocracy the standard for any institution. In fact, most modern college applications are arguably “meritocracies,” seeking the best and most adequate to shape the future of society. As seen in many ancient Chinese dynasties, however, the system is not perfect. When scholars manage a system designed to reward scholars, as in ancient China, the system works well when it needs scholars, but when the government is required to use force, there is no manner of changing the leadership to adapt.

Mencius, a Confucian scholar, once said to King Hui of Liang, “Only the true scholar is capable of maintaining, without certain means of livelihood, a steadfast heart… when an intelligent ruler regulates the livelihood of the people, he makes sure that they will have enough,” (Pomeranz et al. 102). This was the common view of the Confucian system of merit-based bureaucracy. The scholars, as the most intelligent and selfless group, would be the ones with the knowledge, understanding, and compassion to take care of the people without becoming too powerful themselves, and to a degree this was true. The Confucian bureaucracy placed many in positions of power who used their knowledge and education to the benefit of the people, but this was not a permanent trait of the system.

In the Book of Lord Shang, Shang Yang criticized the Confucian system for being the starting point for the weakness of the law and the dynasty as a whole. As Mencius wrote, the Confucian view of the law was that it should center on caring for the people through virtue, saying, “When men are won by virtue, then their hearts are gladdened and their submission is sincere… if you mete out punishment, it is like placing traps for the people. If a humane ruler is on the throne, how can he permit such a thing as placing traps for the people,” (102). This was the view of the Confucian scholars, and so it was the manner in which the government operated. Since the scholars remained in power through the meritocracy-based bureaucracy, it was extremely difficult to change this system. Shang Yang saw this system as flawed and too weak to handle governance adequately. He states in his book, “sophistry and cleverness are an aid to lawlessness… kindness and humaneness are the mother of transgressions… If the virtuous are placed in prominent positions, transgressions will remain hidden,” (de Bary 110). This was a major flaw in the Confucian bureaucracy. It was run by those who were kind hearted and focused solely on the development of virtue and knowledge in the government. As a result, the system became very weak on crime and lawlessness, especially in the eyes of the more militaristic members of society such as Shang Yang. By focusing solely on a caring and virtuous government, “lawlessness” was left unchecked. Furthermore, since the scholars believed this was the best way to govern, it continued to operate in that manner for generations, allowing the growth and spread of unpunished crime.

Shang Yang continues criticizing the weak, comfort and virtue minded scholars, saying, “If the people see both the comfort and the advantage of these… walks of life, then they will indubitably shun agriculture; shunning agriculture, they will care little for their homes; caring little for their homes, they will certainly not fight and defend them,” (110). This was another major flaw of the Confucian bureaucracy. While the system of virtue, kindness, and caring put forward by the Confucian scholars may have been effective in times of peace, it was less than effective in handling matters of force. Punishments for lawlessness were but one example. As a result of the groups the Confucians promoted as beneficial (merchants, artisans, scholars), the people lost interest in ways of life like agriculture. As the agricultural sector suffered, the nation as a whole suffered, especially the military, which relied on agricultural products to maintain the army to defend the country. Furthermore, Shang Yang argues that the Confucian policies undermined the people’s willingness to fight in defense of China, promoting a “soft” society.

While the Confucian bureaucracy may have had many advantages, promoting the virtuous and caring side of the government in an aim to take care of its people and promote the respectful culture of the 5 relationships, it posed a serious threat to the dynasty’s well-being. As pointed out by Shang Yang, when men of peace and virtue govern indefinitely, deterring crime and defending the nation become difficult. Men who might merit running the country in peace, do not necessarily merit handling it in war.

-Nate Forrest

Words: 597

De Bary, Theodore. Premodern Asia. Columbia University Press, 2008.

Pomeranz, Kenneth L., et al. Worlds Together, Worlds Apart: A Companion Reader. Vol. 1, Norton, 2011. ffffff

The Galactic Empire: A Reflection of Augustus’ Rome

Great empires have risen and fallen throughout history, but in the modern age of fiction and fantasy, the term “Empire” often elicits an entirely different image: the Galactic Empire from George Lucas’ Star Wars. However, the Empire of a long time ago in a galaxy far far away is not so different from the more recent Roman Empire. After analysis of the rise and development of the Roman Empire under Augustus, it is clear many of the Empire’s elements in Star Wars derive from the history of Rome.

For example, many of the elements of the Empire’s rise to power come from the history of Augustus’ rise to power. In his Res Gestae, Augustus writes, “I raised an army with which I liberated the state, which had been oppressed by a tyrannical faction,” (1.1). Similarly, Palpatine overthrew the existing government of the Galactic Republic, which he perceived as dominated by the tyrannical faction of the Jedi Order, using his clone army procured through the Senate. The major difference here is that Palpatine was already a member of the Senate in the Republic before overthrowing the government, while Augustus was appointed a consul in the Roman Senate only after overthrowing the previous administration.

However, while slightly out of order, aspects of how Augustus went from the Senate to the new Emperor of Rome bear close similarities to the manner in which Palpatine rose from Senator to Emperor. Augustus states, “the senate passed honorific degrees admitting me to its order… as well as granting me the right to state my opinion as a consular, and granted me imperium,” (1.2). He later says he earned other positions of power, saying, “I was a member of the triumvirate… I have been princeps senatus… I have been pontifex maximus, augur… consul for the fifth time…” (7.1-7.3). Just as Augustus was granted roles of power and influence, Palpatine, too, was elected to a prestigious position of power as Chancellor of the Senate. Augustus goes on to write, “[The Senate] ordered me as propraetor to take measures… to ensure that the state come to no harm,” (1.3). In the same manner, Palpatine was voted emergency powers as the Chancellor, which allowed him to bypass the senate and do what he deemed necessary to win the galactic civil war. While these events were slightly out of order in the Star Wars universe, the events that gave Palpatine the opportunity to seize power clearly derive from those that set Augustus on the path to Emperor.

Both Emperors also carried out the expansion of their empires in similar manners. Augustus left many regional rulers in power, delegating responsibility for governing to local rulers and controlling puppet governments in various conquered regions (27.2). Palpatine, too, left his Moffs (governors) in charge of conquered regions, dividing rule amongst puppet governments all serving one Empire. Additionally, some regions were willingly submitted to the rule of both empires out of fear alone. Augustus states, “the whole of Italy of its own accord took an oath of allegiance to me,” (25.2). In cases such as this, regions were so terrified of Roman power that they joined Augustus’ Empire willingly, out of fear of being overrun by his forces. Likewise, many systems willingly accepted Palpatine’s rule when faced with the threat of the Death Star. Both empires used these tools of fear and the strength of their military and navy to expand, conquering and absorbing new territories to heighten their power. Augustus describes such expansion, saying, “I extended the frontiers… pacified the Gallic and Spanish provinces… brought peace to the Alps… I added Egypt to the empire…” (26.1-27.1). Palpatine likewise pushed the frontiers of his Empire into the outer rim, like the planet Tatooine, eventually reaching the border of known space and the “Unknown Regions.” Both emperors pushed their influence to the edges of the known, Rome reaching as far as Spain and Egypt and the Empire to the Unknown Regions.

Clearly, many of the aspects of Roman history were adapted to the fictional story of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars, from the rise of the new Empire to the methods through which its emperor governed and expanded his influence. While Star Wars may be a work of fiction, the methodology and strategy behind the Empire is actually quite similar to historical facts from the Ancient Roman Empire under Augustus.

-Nate Forrest

Words: 599

THE RES GESTAE DIVI AUGUSTI, Age of Augustus RG excerpts (687-703)

Inheriting Vision

The development of empires is not an overnight occurrence. It takes the dedication and passion of strong leaders. When leadership changes, it falls upon the successor to carry on the legacy of the predecessor, develop the empire independent of past influences. In the case of the Ancient Macedonians and the current regime in North Korea, the successor’s decision to maintain the leadership practices of their predecessor permitted the growth of a pre-established regime.

When Alexander the Great took over as the ruler of Macedonia, his leadership led to the expansion of the empire to a size of which his father and predecessor, Philip II, could only dream. Even under Alexander, however, Philip’s tactics were what permitted the growth of such a powerful kingdom. The implementation of the hetairoi, Philip’s “companions” and elite Macedonian cavalry gave their men a lethal speed and mobility in battle. According to the historian Diodorous, Philip also “reorganized the military formations and equipped them suitably with weapons, and held continuous military reviews and competitive exercises. He devised also the close order of the… Macedonian Phalanx,” (Diodorous 16.3.1-3). Philip also lightened the load of individual soldiers by equipping them with lighter armor, longer weapons, and implemented state pay for the army. It was with these reforms that Philip was able to spread his empire throughout Greece. After he died, Alexander perpetuated the military reforms that made Philip so successful. While Alexander may have been the general in charge, Philip’s strategy enabled Alexander’s conquests.

Alexander himself would even credit his father with responsibility for the successes of the Macedonians. In his speech to his troops in Opis, he reminded his men, “[Philip] found you vagabonds and destitute… from the mountains he led you into the plains, and made you capable of fighting the neighboring barbarians… he made you rulers… he rendered the avenue into Greece broad and easy for you,” (Arrian, Anabasis 8.9). While Alexander may have been proud of his own accomplishments, he was successful as a general long before he inherited the kingdom, defeating many of his opponents while still a general under Philip. Alexander was successful both before and after the death of his father, because his leadership techniques did not change. In fact, the expansion of the empire eventually halted under Alexander because of strategies HE implemented. His adoption of the Persian proskynesis and his marrying of an Indian princess were what drove Alexander’s proud Macedonian soldiers to revolt. While Alexander maintained his father’s leadership practices, Macedonia prospered, but the adoption of his own practices was what halted its growth and led to its division.

A similar situation exists in the current regime in North Korea. Kim Jong Il, the previous dictator of North Korea, was wildly popular with his citizens. His policies were harsh and cruel. The vast majority of the country is impoverished, starving, and without basic human rights as a result, yet the people loved him. In fact, after the dictator died, thousands of North Korean citizens flooded the streets to mourn the passing of the “Dear Leader,” and a national holiday was established to commemorate his birthday as “the Day of the Shining Star,” (CNN Library). When his son, Kim Jong Un, took over, he maintained his father’s cruel and harsh policies, making few changes. He maintains a cruel and inhumane national policy that keeps his people impoverished and without rights without any resistance from the nation’s citizens. Just as Alexander inherited his rule of Macedon and used his father’s techniques to maintain and expand it, Kim Jong Un has maintained his father’s domestic policy to convince an impoverished nation he is doing what is in its best interest.

In any successful group, it is difficult to determine whom to credit: the leaders, or the followers. While the followers may excel at execution, the leader is the driving force who develops the group, motivates and holds it accountable. In a similar manner, Alexander was a follower. He executed Philip’s vision, but it was still Philip’s vision, executed in the way Philip desired. Alexander’s success was Macedonia’s success, and Macedonia’s was Philip’s success.

-Nate Forrest

Word Count: 600

Arrian, Anabasis 8.9, trans. Edward J. Chinnock (New York, 1983).

Diodorous 16.3.1-3

CNN Library. “Kim Jong Il Fast Facts.” CNN, Cable News Network, 14 May 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/world/asia/kim-jong-il-fast-facts/index.html. Accessed 2 Mar. 2019.

Balancing Functionality and Participation in Government

Democracy is, by nature, inefficient and flawed because not everyone is going to agree completely on everything. Too many unique experiences create too many conflicting viewpoints. Decision-making is messy, but that is the sacrifice society makes for participation in government. Representative democracy is more of a balance. Much like society sacrifices efficiency to have its voice heard, representation sacrifices participation for a level of efficiency. Representative democracy is the better form of governing because it provides a functioning government that still represents factions’ situations and experiences.

For example, this year the United States experienced “the longest ever shutdown of the U.S. government,” because Congress and the President could not agree on the government budget (Wagner et al.). While representative democracy may not allow everyone to vote directly on major issues like the government budget, it sacrifices that participation for a level of efficiency. If 536 people shut the government down for a month over one issue, it would be inoperable if 325 million people had to agree on every decision the government makes. According to CNN, “air traffic delays at airports… played an important role in President Trump’s decision to back down — at least temporarily — on his insistence of wall funding to reopen the government,” (Wagner et al.). A single disagreement caused problems across the US in government facilities like airports. Direct democracy would result in large-scale disputes such as these daily; it could cripple US infrastructure. While it is not completely efficient, representative democracy represents many different factions while still maintaining some level of functionality.

Not all 325 million people would be participating in a direct democracy either, of course, as voter participation is low even with a representative democracy. The Pew Research Center stated, “137.5 million Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election… Overall voter turnout – defined as the share of adult U.S. citizens who cast ballots – was 61.4% in 2016,” (Krogstad and Lopez). In representative democracy, the public votes on fewer issues than the government handles, yet not all those who can participate vote on even this smaller number of the most important issues. This is the advantage of a representative democracy. Even when a large portion of the public is not involved, there is still someone representing them involved full-time. For direct democracy to represent everyone, everyone must participate all the time. With a representative democracy, only the majority of people must participate some of the time, but they receive representation all of the time. It is possible, however, for representatives to change their minds on issues, misrepresenting constituents. This is why participation in what voters directly decide is crucial. They decide whom they trust to make decisions with which they will agree.

This decision is the most valuable and important of political decisions Americans make: who will represent them? The average American is probably not qualified to write out a budget for the entire US bureaucracy, something they would have to understand in direct democracy where they would vote on the subject personally. With representative democracy, however, Americans possess a choice of whom they believe is qualified to make these decisions, and will do so in a manner with which they would agree. In this manner, representative democracy selects those whom Americans want to make their decisions, allowing those who are qualified to make those complex decisions in a manner with which their constituents would agree.

Democracy is imperfect. Not everyone can participate all of the time, so the theory that democracy represents everyone is false. It does not represent everyone. It represents those who actively participate. Thus, representative democracy is a better method of governing than direct democracy. Direct democracy allows too many conflicting views to prohibit progress, and only those who are able to participate full time are able to influence the most important decisions, decisions they may not even be qualified to make. Representative democracy sacrifices a little bit of that opportunity for everyone to participate to resolve these issues, and create a government that balances functionality and efficiency with representation.

-Nathan Forrest

Words: 597

Krogstad, Jens Manuel, and Mark Hugo Lopez. “Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots.” Pew Research Center, 12 May 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

Wagner, Meg, et al. “The Government Shutdown Is Over.” CNN Politics, Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2019, http://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/government-shutdown-month-2019/index.html. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

Glittering Tyranny

In a recent article in the Washington Post, columnist David Von Drehle argued that the tourist’s view of China may seem exotic, intriguing, and exciting, but behind all that modern flash, “the ruling Communist Party remains as brutal and totalitarian as ever,” (Von Drehle 1). Von Drehle’s argument centered on the current political and economic tensions in the province of Xinjiang, where approximately one million people are currently being held in concentration camps, with more camps currently undergoing construction (1). This abusive use of power by the Chinese communist party to oppress these minorities is a clear example of modern tyranny.

The mass incarceration was carried out by party secretary Chen Quanguo and sparked the rapid expansion of these camps. With Chen in power, actions typically associated with the Islamic religion became detainable offenses in Xinjiang, whether it be buying a tent or choosing not to smoke cigarettes (1). Using satellite imagery, the BBC actually gauged the growth of one camp, as it nearly “quadrupled in size between April and October,” (1). Government officials defended such sites via a “state-approved social media,” through which they described the camps as “hospitals” or “schools” for those inflicted with the illness of “religious extremism and violent terrorist ideology,” (1). Von Drehle also wrote that the prisoners’ daily activities are restricted to “learning Mandarin, absorbing propaganda, and renouncing the faith of their forebears,” (1). Some prisoners may be released in due time should they convince their captors they have properly converted to the communist party, while others will remain incarcerated as hostages or lures to their families in other parts of the country (1). Actions such as these are clear violations of human rights by a government abusing its power to oppress and strip the rights from a small minority.

Besides just wishing to invoke communist party sympathies in these individuals, Beijing recently announced that it will be unveiling a new transportation program consisting of connected ports and roads known as the Belt and Road Initiaive, a new “modern silk road” that will cut through the very heart of the territory from which Chen has been taking prisoners (2). It seems the land occupied by the Muslim groups was needed for Beijing’s new project, and the communist party was all too eager to remove the obstacle.

The tyranny Von Drehle describes in modern China differs from that of the Ancient Greeks, but it is tyranny nonetheless. The Greeks described tyranny as the rule of a single figure, oftentimes one selected to solve a specific problem. The modern Chinese government may not fit this definition exactly, as the entirety of the communist party is responsible for the nation’s oppressive conditions, but it is tyranny all the same. The modern definition of tyranny has changed from that of the Greeks, as tyrants have, in more recent history, been defined as such by “resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power,” (Merriam-Webster). Hitler did this in Germany, Franco did it in Spain, and Castro did it in Cuba. Each of these men is considered a tyrant by modern standards. The fact that a ruling party in China has abused its power to strip away the rights of so many and lock them in concentration camps to be indoctrinated with the beliefs of the party, simply because they were in the way of a progressive new project or held a certain religious belief is most certainly a modern example of tyranny. Von Drehle states that while China may not appear tyrannical at first glance, upon closer inspection, “even the most expensive wristwatch, the most glittering of bracelets and rings, cannot disguise the fist of tyranny,” (2).

-Nathan Forrest

Word count: 523

“China’s Glittering Glamour Disguises a Fist of Tyranny: Talk of a ‘Vocational Education and Training Program’ in Chinese Camps Echoes Language Used to Defend the Reservations and ‘Indian Schools’ for Native Americans.” Washington Post (online) [Washington D.C.], 26 Oct. 2018. The Washington Post, http://search.proquest.com/docview/2125564799/citation/331A26685E9C4C0EPQ/1?accountid=14748. Accessed 28 Jan. 2019.

“Tyrant.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster’s Student Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant. Accessed 28 Jan. 2019.