Ancient vs Modern Conflicts: Not So Different After All

The saying goes that history repeats itself. Despite our best efforts to learn from the past to prevent future conflict, humans continuously find themselves in a constant cycle of peace, conflict, and war. For every current conflict or event, there is likely a precedent. Take Ancient Greece, for example. In Ancient Greece, the Greek city-states had placed their trust in Athens as the superior navy to take the lead when it came to defeating the Persians. They paid tribute in money or supplies, and allowed Athens to do whatever it took to shut down the Persian Empire. Little did they realize that the true danger was laying right under their noses. To combat the Persians, the Delian League was implemented with Athens as its head. Once the Persians were defeated, there would be no reason to keep the Delian League intact. However, despite the efforts of various city-states in Greece, the Athenians refused to allow any member to withdraw from the League once the war ended and demanded continual tribute, attacking any city-state who challenged Athens. It wasn’t unit the Spartans allied with Persia in the final Peloponnesian war that the Athens was brought to her knees.

Centuries later, we a see Germany attempt a similar stunt in its quest to conquer first Europe. Similar to the leaders of Athens, and Pericles in particular, Hitler had a talent for public speaking. He projected an image to the citizens of Germany, and the rest of the world The same way Pericles took complete control of the Athenian assembly and turned what appeared on the surface as a complete democracy into “government of the first” (Thucydides ____), so Hitler was able bring the Nazi’s to power and seize Germany without anyone batting eye. And just like it was up to the Spartans and their ally with Persia to bring down Athens tyranny, so it fell to the United States and the Allied Forces to bring down Germany.]

Looking at how these two empires we see many similarities. First and foremost, both Pericles and Hitler were phenomenal public speakers. In an article on how exactly Hitler came to gain so much power, he is described as being able to “[whip] crowds into frenzies” and “not only the Chancellor of Germany, but a beloved celebrity”. Through there charm both Hitler and Pericles were able to gain favor of the people. When looking at the actions of Athens as a whole, they were able to use the policies in place from the Delian League, such as the demand for tribute, to continue their growth as a city-state and the strongest power in Greece. This power enabled them to establish dominance over other city-states, they did not need permission to act on anything from anyone but themselves. In a slightly similar case, Hitler was able to implement the Enabling, allowing his cabinet to act without consent from parliament, making it much easier for him expand his power over the government. Both nations had a gradual and strategic rise to power, and both nations were taken down by the unified efforts of rivaling nations. On the surface, these two nations seem very different, however, if we strip away all the extra details and look at the core of what these two nations planned to accomplish and how they went about it, we see the repeating cycle of human nature in history.

word count: 564

https://www.livescience.com/54441-how-hitler-rose-to-power.html

The Modern Crusade

The original Crusades were fought over religious sovereignty in the Middle East. Since then, the use of this term has expanded to more than just the wars over the Holy Land. Today, the term “crusade” can be used to describe any mission or plan to carry out an objective. Usually the modern use of the term “crusade” indicates a passion or strong feeling about something. According to Google, the definition of “crusade” is to “lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue”. While the current use of the term does not necessarily have to have a religious attachment, it is still commonly used to describe efforts in promoting or campaigning for a religious group.

In October 2018, The Daily Advance published an article about a collaboration between 25 different churches, of all different denominations, in an effort to bring awareness of Christianity to Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The mission began with a focus on a small section of Elizabeth City, referred to in the article as a “pocket of lostness”, and quickly expanded to a city-wide intervention. In the article, statistics showed that “70 percent of people within a three-mile radius….did not know Jesus Christ”. The 25 different churches met once each night for four consecutive nights. The pastors involved in this endeavor described their efforts as an “evangelical crusade”. While the nature of this situation differs slightly from the nature of the Crusades, I think using the term “crusade” for this mission is fitting. While on the surface the mission in Elizabeth City and that of the Crusades seems to differ greatly, the underlying ideas are the same.

The conflict of the Crusades centered on religion and control of the Holy Lands. The main purpose behind the Crusades was to expand and promote Christianity. Similarly, the pastors involved with this “crusade” had the main intent to educate and preach Christian word. I think these two events had the same basic goal which is to spread Christianity. However, they differ in their nature. The Crusades strategy to attain their goal was to fight other religions and engage in warfighting. However, in this recent event we see much different approach.

The nature of the so called “evangelical crusade” was clearly not to overthrow or take over Elizabeth City. Rather, the pastors clearly wanted to preach and educate the residents of the city in a peaceful manner that would invite people to the Christian community. While with the Crusades there is a rift between religions and various sects within religions, here we see the exact opposite. In the case with Elizabeth City, the 25 churches are all of various denominations who come together under a common goal.

When we look at the original Crusades and what they stood for, and how the term “crusade” is derived and interpreted to meet modern descriptions, I think it fits the mission of pastors in Elizabeth City. Both endeavors were to spread Christianity, and while they reasons and methods may differ, the ultimate goal is the same, or at the very least very similar.

Article: http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2018/10/20/25-churches-team-up-for-crusade-that-starts-Sunday.html

Word Count: 517

Sun Tzu and the Naval Academy

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu explains the various ways an officer attains success in the military. The way Sun Tzu presents the topic of war, the reader gets the sense that Sun Tzu does not think of war as a violent or sought out engagement. In fact, Sun Tzu state that “better take an army…intact than destroy them”, suggesting that direct battle is not what we should strive for. Instead, Sun Tzu speaks about strategy and deception. One common theme that could be found in each of Sun Tzu’s chapters is knowledge-knowledge of self and of the enemy. Sun Tzu places a general’s ability to succeed based on his awareness of his own strengths, the strengths of his men, the strengths of the enemy, and the awareness of how the surrounding environment can enhance or hinder each of these strengths.

Similarly, one technique we are taught at the Naval Academy is our ability to manage time. We must know where we exceed and where we struggle in order to know how to prioritize the tasks we are given with the limited time we have. For example, a midshipman who is already fit and can pass the PRT but struggles with academics will most likely put more time into their studies than in working because that is where they are weak.

I think both Sun Tzu and the Naval Academy teach a necessary and effective technique. As military officers we must be able to evaluate ourselves and our men, constantly seeking improvement. If we neglect to do this then we run the risk of remaining complacent. This lack of awareness also keeps us from either not using the combined talents of our forces to their fullest potential, or stretching ourselves too far to the point of breaking. I also think that knowing the enemy and understanding where their strengths and weaknesses lie allow us to strategize effectively.

In the beginning of Chapter One, Sun Tzu states that there are Five Fundamentals when thinking about war. One of these fundamentals is what Sun Tzu calls Command, described as “Wisdom; Integrity; Compassion; Courage; Severity.” Reading this I immediately thought of the ethics and leadership classes we are required to take, and the discussion of virtues in both of these classes. One thing that is stressed to us as midshipmen and future naval officers is the importance of virtues, and how knowing what our own virtues help us develop our leadership skills as well how we are influenced when making decisions as an officer in charge of Sailors and Marines. This another example of how the teachings of both Sun Tzu and the Naval Academy are in alignment with their view on what is most important when serving in the military and in war. I do not think it is a coincidence that the teachings of the Naval Academy and those of Sun Tzu overlap, and both are effective in helping the officer comprehend the complete magnitude of war and the full impact the consequences of our actions can make.

Word Count: 508

Rome vs. Christianity

Humans are naturally skeptical of new ideas, especially those ideas which challenge a person’s own personal beliefs and traditions. It is very difficult to completely change a cultures way of thinking, and even more so when that culture has been established for a period of time. So it is not surprising that when Christianity began to spread, the Roman Empire did not welcome it with open arms.

Christianity came at a time when most nations practiced a religion that believed in many different gods. The Romans were no exception. Similar to the Greeks, the Romans worshipped a multitude of gods. Some of the major gods include Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune- equivalent to the Greek’s Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon. The Romans based their religion on the idea that everything around them was embodied by spirits. They believed in strict rituals, and that worship was not to take place inside the temple itself, but rather just outside. Even though the Romans and Greeks differed in the way they worshipped their gods, they shared many similarities in between the gods themselves. This is largely due to the fact that the Romans and the Greeks were in such close proximity to each other. The Romans also tended to adopt and blend many beliefs of conquered nations into their own customs.

One of the reasons the Romans were so strict with the way they worshipped the gods was because they did not want to fall out of the gods’ good graces. It also set an across the board standard for the entire empire, and while the Roman Empire consisted of many different nations, they were united in their religion. This is part of the reason why Christianity was seen as a threat to the stability of the empire. Shared religion is a major factor in successfully bringing large groups of people together as one, and in a peaceful way. So to have this new religion that no one knows a lot about that appears to directly contradict the exact thing that helped bring unity across the empire is very scary for an emperor.

Another reason Christianity seemed like a threat was because it talked about a much higher power, God, who was in charge of all the universe. God alone was only one who could bring us to salvation. As a ruler who claims to be part divine, this statement in a religion completely negates the emperor’s claim to divinity. Lack of communication is another reason Christianity might have seemed a bit scary to the Roman Empire. It was very hard for word to pass in its entirety because the primary way to communicate something was through word of mouth. This can be problematic because there is a lot to Christianity that is metaphorical and has a much deeper meaning that what is being said. It takes a deep understanding and a lot of practice in the faith to even begin to fully comprehend the religion in its entirety. As a result, when people talk about drinking blood and eating flesh, the first thing that comes to mind is a cannibal. This is a very scary thought and human nature is designed so that once a sense of fear is established it is very hard to see something as it actually is rather than how you see it. The Romans did not understand the meaning behind the words being said and that Christians were not, in fact, making human sacrifices. This also contributes to why the Romans believed Christianity to be immoral. Not only did Christians openly refuse to worship the Roman gods and pay the respect that was due, but they were eating a person’s flesh and blood.

It wasn’t until Constantine came into power and passed the Edict of Milan that the Roman Empire was fully introduced to Christianity. Once this happened, Christianity was able to grow at a much faster rate, and eventually it did overtake the old Roman faith and worshipping of many gods.

word count: 676

Sources: https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Religion/