It is no secret that America has recently been experiencing some societal conflicts.  Startling enough, some of these aspects in society can be paralleled to Ancient Rome and the eventual downfall of their empire.  There are the obvious similarities between Ancient Rome and the United States such as them both being prosperous and strong military powers, but they also shared some societal similarities.  One contribution to the eventual fall of Rome came from the decrease in importance on family life and morals.  This first started in Rome with men participating in less and less religious worship in their homes.  This same decrease is happening in the United States as according to the Pew Research Center, the percent of adults that are religiously affiliated had dropped 6% in the years 2007-2014.  Often times, regardless of the specific religion, religious affiliation teaches values such as ethics and dedication.  According to Forbes Magazine, studies have shown that the even the non-spiritual benefits of religion are related to religious attendance.  “Religious participation by kids has been shown to result in less juvenile delinquency, less drug use including less smoking, better school attendance, and a higher probability of graduating from high school” (Forbes).  Having a strong religious affiliation is a characteristic that a family can share and bond over.  With a lack of this shared practice, it is easier for the unity of the family to lose its strong ties.

The next step in the downfall of the family was men spending less time with their families and more time concerned about material things and wealth.  From the book Conspiracy of Catiline, a Roman politician stated that “Some set their hearts on houses, some on lands…The whole period was one of debauched tastes and lawlessness. When wealth was once counted an honor, and glory, authority, and power attended it, virtue lost her influence, poverty was thought a disgrace, and a life of innocence was regarded as a life of mere ill nature”.  According to the Journal of the American Medical Association study, parents of both sexes are spending an average of ten or twelve hours less per week with their children than when they did in 1960.  As men in Rome spent more time worrying about trying to gain wealth in Rome, they began to neglect their wives and family.  This led to them cheating on their wives and becoming more sexual active with women of the lower class.  Consequently, this also led to a higher divorce rate and bad relationships with their children.  The United States ranks as the third highest country for divorce rate with around 40% marriages ending in divorce.  It is no secret that divorce can significantly affect children in a negative way.  Observing the ending of love between parents can be very hard for children of all ages.  Having two parents present to teach and mentor a child on the right way to live as they grow up is of grave importance to the future of a society.

Although some of these ideas may be dramatic, it is interesting to see a similar trend within the two great nations.  It is not just these two societal conflicts but politics as well that have shown parallels.  It may not be time to panic yet…but the U.S. should be weary as history tends to repeat itself.

Word Count: 554

https://probe.org/rome-and-america/

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/

https://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workingfamily/familytrends.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/12/22/religion-is-good-for-all-of-us-even-those-who-dont-follow-one/#61aa4d5164d7

---

Both Christianity and Islam begin with having similar roots and history.  They are both monotheistic religions that are guided by a book.  These are the Bible for Christianity and the Quran for Islam. They share similar quotes.  In our class, when we looked at quotes from the Quran and from the Bible, it was sometimes difficult to even tell which book it was from.  The religions believe in the same prophets up until Jesus, whom they believe was a prophet but not the son of God like Christians believe.  Although they do not believe he was divine, it is interesting to learn that they still believe he was born of the Virgin Mary.  After all, a virgin birth is something that is not all that common…  However they also both still believe that Jesus was an important prophet who performed many miracles.  I did not realize until now that Jesus, although not considered the son of God, was still such an important person in the Islamic religion.

Both Islam and Christianity use the same justification for their fighting in the crusades.  They both believed that it was the will of their god to fight and interpreted this from passages in each of their religious books.  Dying in battle in the name of their god was considered a great act and worthy of eternal life.  This is made clear in Pope Urban the II’s speech for persuading people to join the crusade when he says, “Everyone that hath forsaken houses…shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life”.  The Quran also makes it very clear in Sura 9:39 that Muslims believed in fighting against the Christians when it states “If you do not go to war (Jihad), He will punish you severely and replace you with other men.  You can in no way harm him: For Allah has power over all things”.  In the end, both sides thought that they were right and were just fighting for what they believed in.

Although Christianity and Islam have many similarities, they are mutually exclusive because of their fundamental beliefs about Jesus Christ.  Christians believe that Jesus Christ is indeed God and the savior, and Muslim people believe that Jesus was only a prophet.  The basis of Christianity is this belief in Jesus.  Therefore, this one principle alone means that no person can be both Islamic and Christian.  However, they can still believe in many of the same other things because of the many similarities between the two religions.  Whether someone is Muslim or Christian, they will still practice the golden rule of loving thy neighbor as thyself and working in this life on achieving eternal life in heaven with God or Allah.

Word Count: 449

Sources:

Second Crusade Document from readings

Pope Urban II speech Robert the Monk version

https://www.onfaith.co/text/9-similarities-between-christianity-and-islam

Sun Tzu’s over-arching principle in Art of War is to defeat your enemy with tactics and not just brute force.  Strategy is the most important part of war.  This sentence from the reading sums it up well, “Victory belongs to the side that scores the most in the temple calculations before battle” (Sun Tzu 8).  Here at USNA, the main focus is mentally preparing us to become officers.  We are not necessarily learning how to kill people or win wars just yet.  However, the education we receive is setting a foundation for us to become military leaders.  Sun Tzu would agree with this based on the emphasis he describes on the strategy and tactics party of war and not the physical act of killing the enemy.

One of Sun Tzu’s five fundamentals in the Art of War is discipline.  The practice of discipline is one that is very prominent here at USNA.  Between marching, drill, maintaining proper uniforms, and staying on top of homework, discipline never goes away.  That is because just like Sun Tzu says, it translates to war.  Sun Tzu says that discipline is chain of command, a concept we encounter everyday within our companies.  We also practice discipline by having unpleasant punishments for breaking the rules such as restriction.  Another one of these fundamentals is command, which Tzu describes as integrity and compassion.  Integrity is probably the most important thing for a midshipman to have.

The passage emphasizes the importance of good military leaders.  Here at USNA, everything we do is supposed to help us with becoming a better military leader one day.  Some of Sun Tzu’s advice is to be ready for the unexpected, and know yourself.  These are two things we certainly learn here at Navy.  We really get to know ourselves after becoming a midshipman.  We face serious challenges through a combination of academics, athletics, and military training.  We fail, learn why we failed, and become better from it.  We learn what we ourselves are capable of and what our limits are.  This constant learning about ourselves is in my opinion, probably the most effective in becoming a better future leader because we really get to know our flaws.  Sun Tzu says that before we know the enemy, we must know ourselves.  In order for militaries to be great, they have to have good leaders.  Not every one of them can be strictly an excellent warfighter.  They will need people to be able to lead them.  Teaching us how to think as leaders first here at USNA, is more effective than sending us directly into military war fighting training.

Word count: 435

When a great empire and society that has been functioning off the principles and beliefs of a certain religion is suddenly challenged by a radically different religion, bad blood is bound to occur.  At the time, it was reasonable for the Roman’s to consider Christianity a threat to the empire.  When so many people of a society believe one thing and another group begins to passionately think radically different than you, it is going to be pretty concerning.  The old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” applies to the Romans in this case.  If they have been able to build such a great empire with the polytheistic religion and worshipping of many gods, why would anyone want to change it?  Because the two ideas of polytheism and monotheism are so different, it can be expected that people will strongly think each other’s beliefs are wrong.  Even looking at today’s statistics, according to Pew Research Center, 80% of kids that are raised Protestant by their parents will remain Protestant.  It is natural for humans to stick to the beliefs they were initially taught.  In Rome, families would have special ties to certain gods, further strengthening their dedication to this religion.  Unlike our society today where we have separation of church and state, the Romans did not.  Their government made it an obligation for the citizens to worship Roman and Greek gods, thus, making it even harder for Romans to think Christianity was okay.

Because the Romans believed that Christianity was a radical cult, it would make sense for them to try to stamp it out.  They did this by severely persecuting Christians and using them as human sacrifices.  Pliny states in his letter to Emperor Trajan that both males and females of all ages would be brought to trial.  The Romans would try to give these citizens a chance to deny their beliefs in Christianity in hopes that they would revert back to the polytheistic religion.  The stubbornness of Christians was especially concerning for the Romans and was seen as a threat.  In the Roman’s minds, these close-minded people could one day form a large cult and possibly revolt.  Justifying whether or not the Romans had the right to try to stamp out the Christians is a tricky question.  According to their beliefs and their gods, they did have the right.  According to natural law or Christian beliefs, they did not.  Either way, they believed that in order to protect their empire, they did have that right.

Because of the Roman’s strong vows and tradition with their gods, it would be easy to see why Christianity would be considered a threat and immoral if we were in the Roman’s shoes.  However, when now looking back on history, we can see that it would have been better for this issue to not have taken place.  The relatively quick change in religious beliefs from polytheism to Christianity in Rome shows that the Romans eventually believed this was a better path.  The Edict of Milan would have seemed absolutely crazy three hundred years before.  Theoretically speaking, the hassle brought upon by persecuting all those Christians could have been avoided if the Romans had been able to see the big picture.

Word Count: 538

The biggest difference between Athenian democracy and our American democracy today is that not all people of Athens were granted citizenship or allowed to vote.  These included women, slaves, and lower class farmers.  One must be part of the higher class and own land to be able to vote or speak at assembly.  Compared to the overall population of Athens, this was not a very large number.  Of course, on the contrary, everyone who is a citizen in American has the right to vote.

Another big difference is in Athens, even though it was only the elite who voted and debated, these men also had to go work on their normal jobs or be part of the military.  Today in America, we have politicians who work full time for the democratic government, and then also all the normal citizens who vote.  In Athens, it was just the ones who voted that also would debate.  Additionally, high ranking military members had a significant influence in the Athenian assembly.  Today, although they work together, politicians and members of the military are distinctly part of separate departments.  This meant that the members of the assembly in Athens would have to debate and vote until they came to a solid conclusion.  They could not always be leaving their other jobs.  The Athenians would stay at the assembly until they got a solution.  This is unlike our politicians who take their time and constantly try to block or delay the opposing party’s agenda.  This smaller number of voting citizens also meant that not all sections of the population were represented in an assembly like we have today.  Our congressional districts ensure that citizens from different walks of life all across America each get their voice heard.  In Athens, this was not the case.  If a citizen was part of a social class that was not allowed to speak or vote, they likely did not have their voice heard.  An example of this were metics.

I believe a similarity that both Athens and America possess is a sense of nationality for their country and government.  Although Athen’s democracy was limited, they were proud to have their democracy and be different than other city-states.  They knew they were part of the best of the best city-states.  This nationalism also contributed to their confidence in going to war.  Athens was often engaged in military conflicts and devoted a lot of their money to the military. This is another reason why high ranking military members were also significant parts of their government.  This is very similar to the United States.  Our government strongly supports our military and gives a great deal of money to it.  Nationalism is very strong within the U.S. and just like Athens, our citizens are not afraid to show that we are the best.

In modern times, the word tyrant has a strong negative connotation to it.  When one hears the word tyrant they normally never think of any good that comes with it.  They probably think of a ruler of a country with absolute power.  They probably think of the ruler as using violence to maintain order and keep their power.  However, the term tyrant did not always mean these things.  In ancient times the word tyrant usually described a monarch who had gained power in an unorthodox way as a strong ruler.  They often possessed strong military ability or were an aristocrat.  Tyrants were able to rise to power by pleasing their commercial and industrial supports through promoting trade and colonization.  These attributes all have a similar basis.  They are all positive changes that the tyrant is bringing to society.  The biggest difference in this kind of politics is the way that the leader rose to power.  Because of this, the new leader earned the name tyrant.

Recently, the president of Nicaragua, David Ortega, has been called a Tyrant.  He has received this title for violence that he has imposed on the citizens that protest against him.  The police and paramilitary in Nicaragua have killed over three hundred citizens in just the past four months.  If they do not kill them, they detain and torture them.  The police do this simply because they openly oppose the president.  Although he was not a standout military leader, David Ortega did participate in the rebel military to overthrow Dictator Anastasia Somoza.  He became involved in politics in the new political era.  The way that he initially gained power was in a similar way that an ancient “tryant” would.  He claimed that if elected, he would seek foreign investments to help poverty in Nicaragua, probably the country’s biggest problem.  However, he is now called a tyrant instead of president because of the way he uses violence to maintain full control of the country.  His stubbornness and the way he deals with protests has created a civil war in Nicaragua between parties.  The way he offers big businesses tax exemptions in exchange for political support in no way helps stimulate the economy and only helps him maintain his power.

By the modern definition of the word, David Ortega is indeed a tyrant.  However, if sticking to the more fundamental term first used in ancient times, David Ortega would not be a tyrant, but just a violent and greedy ruler.

Bibliography

Belli, Gioconda. “How Daniel Ortega Became a Tyrant.” ForeignAffairs.com, 24 Aug. 2018, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/nicaragua/2018-08-24/how-daniel-ortega-became-tyrant.