Category: Blog 3

Alexander… the Great?

March 3, 2019  | Blog 3

By 326 BCE, a thirty-year-old man had conquered the largest empire that the world had ever seen. Spanning almost 3,000 miles, this empire stretched from Greece to northwestern India.

Who was he?

His name was Alexander III of Macedon. His father, Philip II, had already taken Greece and begun the invasion of Asia. Alexander, a brilliant military commander, did benefit from Phillip II’s initiative, but Alexander himself was more responsible for his success.

By 336 BCE, the Philip II, the king of Macedon, fulfilled his first goal by securing the majority of Greece under Macedonian sovereignty.

According to the Greek historian Xenophon, “Philip found the Macedonians wandering about without resources […] and made them a match in war for the neighboring barbarians” (Xenophon Anabasis, 7.9).

As the founder of the League of Corinth (337 BCE), Philip II organized an army of 10,000 to free Greeks living under Persian rule. Philip’s dreams of conquering Persia were cut short by his assassination, and Alexander ascended to take his father’s place.

Alexander fulfilled his father’s second goal and accomplished much more: in 13 short years he amassed an enormous empire on foot and spread Greek culture around the world.

There is no accident Alexander is known as the “Great”: it was due to his incomparable success as a military commander. Despite typically being outnumbered, he never lost a single battle.

While Philip created the phalanx tactic, Alexander perfected it. Through rigorous training, the Macedonian phalanx developed in conjunction with cavalry to be deployed at such speed and maneuverability to have a significant effect on larger forces.

Furthermore, Philip had no reason to worry about disloyalty in his army that was made of Macedonians. His military skill and desire for expansion fueled a similar-minded army for success. Philip did not have many enemies. Conversely, Alexander commanded a diverse army of various languages and weapons. To overcome potential disunity, he personally fought in every battle.

Finally, Alexander successfully adapted his forces to his opponents’ style. For example, he faced opponents in Central Asia and India with unfamiliar fighting techniques. Some notable adaptations were shown in Bactria and Sogdiana where Alexander used projectile fire to counter flanking movements.

All of these attributes allowed Alexander to be quite successful. As we study Alexander, a man who lived more than 2,500 years ago, we notice similar patterns of succession in terms of effective regimes due to solid foundations laid by predecessors.

Immediately, we can point to something close in place and time: Truman’s Marshall Plan and America’s resulting ascendence as a global superpower.

The United States in the earlier 1940s witnessed the destruction of Europe, and with knowledge that the Soviet Union had no intention to help, Truman signed the Marshall Plan in 1948, granting $5 billion in aid to 16 European nations.

The U.S. was able to help Europe at such significant measures because of President Franklin Roosevelt’s successful presidency in terms of economic growth. Similar to Alexander’s military success, Truman’s Marshall Plan was built at least partially on the exceptional economic circumstances that FDR cultivated.

However, like Alexander, Truman’s success in bringing America from an isolationist nation to the leader of the free world was his own. Truman, much like Alexander, inherited favorable circumstances, but it was not the mere existence of these favorable circumstances that created Truman’s, or Alexander’s, world-changing success.

— Cameron Guan

Word Count: 549

Sources:

Anabasis by Xenophon (c. 370 BCE)

Immigration Yesterday and Today

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program implemented during the Obama era and the debate surrounding it bears an eerie resemblance to the debates in Athens surrounding metics following the Peloponnesian Wars. Similar to DACA “Dreamers”, metics functioned in the society in which they lived, though they were not necessarily citizens. Many metics were well respected and educated, gaining the respect of citizens; others detracted from the positive perception of metics, some being loan sharks or even criminal. Facing a similar situation today in America, we must make a very similar decision regarding the non-citizens living within our borders.

The similarities between Athens’ and the United States of America’s circumstances regarding non-citizens inside the borders is almost exact. Both states held apprehensions about allowing foreigners into their borders without correct qualifications. Both are willing, to different extents, to make exceptions to this rule or even grant citizenship to their aliens. Both have parties in opposition and promotion of granting leniency to the foreigners.

Regarding the electorate debate in class, the debate largely did not persuade or dissuade my views regarding dreamers from their current state. In fact, even though my character was forced to take a hard stance against granting metics citizenship (due to his enormous debt), I personally agreed with the moderate democrats in their policy of granting citizenship on a case-by-case basis. I agree with this policy (in the general sense) to the point where I believe it is the best course of action for our country to take regarding DACA “Dreamers” or any immigrant wishing to become a citizen in this country.

As of late, President Donald Trump is pushing for a border wall to prevent the illicit/criminal activities taking place on and across our southern border. Though he recently circumvented Congress in favor of declaring a national emergency, during previous negotiations he offered a “pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young immigrants living in the country illegally, in exchange for new restrictions on legal immigration and $25 billion in border security.”1 Relative to hardliners today, this seems a relatively acceptable compromise, similar to the way in which many, if not most, parties were relatively open to the moderate democrats’ proposition during the electorate debate.

Plato in his Laws proposes:

“Any one who likes may come and be a metic on certain conditions;…he must practise an art, and not abide more than twenty years from the time at which he has registered himself;…when the twenty years have expired, he shall take his property with him and depart.”2

This proposal, while radical today, was not reviled during its time. This policy does not provide a pathway to citizenship for any foreigner, something modern values of human equality cannot tolerate. However, working visa policies today do bear great resemblance with Plato’s recommendation. In relation to DACA “Dreamers”, Plato’s proposal is too extreme; however, working visas are a solution that can perhaps sate some of the desires of both sides.

Athens and The United States of America, as well as other countries around the globe, past and present, have grappled with the controversies regarding foreign aliens and non-citizens, inside and outside their borders. The similarities never end: human nature simply mirrors itself over and over again. The electorate debate in class allowed for arguments taking place today to be replayed in a past era; at the same time, the activity forced everyone into the shoes of someone else, perhaps someone whose notions were disagreeable, and necessitated the argument for a side they did not choose. Even though the platform of this debate lent itself greatly to the possibility of a change of mind regarding today’s issues, my mind was not changed; however, it is now more open.

-Gregory Mathias

Word count: 544

1Miller, Zeke, et al. “Trump Plan Offers Citizenship Path to 1.8 Million Immigrants.” AP News, Associated Press, 26 Jan. 2018, http://www.apnews.com/e4536bf8932e43ea89203a16d904c561.

2Plato. Laws, Book VIII. 348 BC.

Dreamers- The Modern Day Metics

            Immigrants covet citizenship whilst native citizens often forget what they have. Needless to say, citizenship remains one of the most valuable things a person can possess, whether they know it or not. The metics of ancient Athens share similarities with the Dreamers of today because both parties contribute to society, but lack the citizenship required to reap the benefits from the country like the ability to vote, citizenship for your children, and the ability to hold a government position.

            Metics served as an integral part of Athens. They breathed, ate, slept, worked, lived, and died there. Many of them, such as Lysias, aided in the war against Sparta and reinstating democracy after the fall of the Athenian empire. They dedicated their lives to helping a nation that did not even recognize them as citizens. Lysias said in his writing that “What I say is that only those have the right to sit in Council on our concerns who, besides holding the citizenship, have their hearts set upon it. For to them it makes a great difference whether this city is prosperous or unsuccessful, because they consider themselves obliged to bear their share in her calamities as they also share in her advantages. But those who, though citizens by birth, adopt the view that any country in which they have their business is their fatherland, are evidently men who would even abandon the public interest of their city to seek their private gain, because they regard their fortune, not the city, as their fatherland.” (Lysias 31.5-7). He argued that some of the metics acted more like Athenian citizens, especially during the reign of the Thirty, than some of the actual citizens did. Majority of metics were also of some Athenian descent. They either had some Athenian parent or grandparents or higher.

            People not supporting metic citizenship would argue that the metics owed no loyalty to Athens. Instead, they claimed a different nation as their fatherland. To them, this meant that at the first chance, the metics would abandon Athens. Lysias proved this concept wrong though when he donated money and weapons to aid Thrasybulus. In the end, metics never received citizenship for their service, even though they often contributed enough to.

            In a similar manner, the Dreamers live in the U.S. with the hope that they will have better lives here. They live in the U.S. for most of their lives, being brought here by their parents, oftentimes without citizenship. Yet everything they do goes towards benefiting the U.S.. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals causes the immigrants to become a form of metics. DACA gives immigrants protection against deportation and allows them to work, but it does not serve as a route to citizenship. If these Dreamers stay in the country and work here their entire lives, than there’s no reason why they should not be given citizenship.

            Opposition to DACA argues that these immigrants- whether legal or illegal- do not contribute anything to society. They take up good jobs that should belong to hardworking citizens. However, some Dreamers work to earn their share in the American Dream. One Dreamer, Jin Park states that “According to a 2017 study, 91 percent of Dreamers are employed and will contribute $460.3 billion to the gross domestic product over the next decade. Over 65 percent of us are pursuing a degree in higher education.” (Park). Park received the Rhodes Scholarship, the first Dreamer to ever do so. Because of his status as a Dreamer, when he left to study at Oxford, he had no idea if he’d ever be able to return.

            In conclusion, metics and Dreamers share several similarities. They contribute as much to society as they can with their limited abilities. In both time periods, they prove that they should be given the chance at earning citizenship. Our debate on the Electorate revealed that in hindsight, metics should have been given the opportunity to receive citizenship. The fact that a similar issue exists today shows how much of history society has forgotten.

-Moira Camacho

Word Count: 526

Lysias 31.5-7

Park, Jin. “I’m a Dreamer and a Rhodes Scholar. Where Do I Belong?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Jan. 2019, http://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/opinion/dreamer-rhodes-scholar-human.html.

Death of a Government through Death of a Leader

In various circumstances throughout history, succession changes have been initiated through the killing of worrisome or cruel leaders. While murdering a leader may seem like a viable option to oust government corruption, it is not the answer to provide a smooth and stable change of power. This is demonstrated by ancient Rome’s Julius Caesar and modern Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, as the assassinations of these leaders only created more problems than existed while they were alive. In both cases of Caesar and Gaddafi, their deaths established power vacuums that brought great disorder and death.        

Upon the assassinations of Caesar and Gaddafi, their states were left in complete disarray. With Julius Caesar, his death brought “immediate panic on the Senate floor” (1) of Rome and his conspirators had no clear plan on how to take control. Caesar had left no immediate heir to his rule and he surprisingly named his teenage nephew Octavian as his successor; this eventually created a battle for power between Octavian and politician Mark Antony. Plutarch compares the effect of Caesar’s death to the sun: “for during all that year its orb rose pale and without radiance” (2). While Gaddafi’s death induced joy rather than panic, a similar power vacuum emerged in Libya. Two governments began vying for power in addition to various extremist groups who wanted to take control of Libya’s vast oil reserves. Libya was destined to crumble without an immediate and strong government presence, as Gaddafi “used a military funded by oil to crush any opposition to himself, rather than build state institutions that could survive beyond him” (3). The transitional governments existing after Gaddafi’s rule were more focused on gaining support, similar to Octavian and Mark Antony, than putting lasting propositions in place to turn around the Libyan government.

Due to this unrest caused by these rulers’ murders, civil wars and deaths emanated in ancient Rome and modern Libya. A civil war in Rome began immediately following Caesar’s death and was conducted between the Second Triumvirate of Mark Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus versus the “Liberators”, or Caesar’s assassins, including Brutus and Cassius. Mark Antony and Octavian then promoted mass murder across the Republic by starting proscriptions and rewards for killing any enemies of the state; this was used to rid of opposition and gain money. The final civil war of the Roman Republic was conducted between Octavian and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium, which marked the end of the Roman Republic and the start of the Roman Empire under Octavian. These events demonstrate that Caesar’s death sent the Republic into a crisis that led to the death of the Republic and the birth of an imperial system. A similar chain of events occurred in Libya, where the Arab Spring protests of 2011 gave way to foreign military intervention and a civil war in 2014. Since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has been unable to assume a unified national identity and rival factions are currently dueling for control of territory and oil. There have been tens of thousands of casualties as a result of this Libyan civil war.

Julius Caesar and Muammar Gaddafi were by no means universally popular rulers and were in fact killed due to their ambitious and cruel natures. While their murderers may have had good intentions in the killings, it is clear from the events discussed above that their deaths had horrific consequences. Caesar’s death and the events that followed provides a foreshadowing for the havoc that would exist in Libya after Gadaffi’s assassination. Both deaths changed the course of history in their respective states, and probably not for the better.

Lauren McDonnell

Word Count: 600

Sources:

  1. “Aftermath of Caesar,” United Nations of Roma Victrix. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.
  2. “Consequences of Caesar’s assassination,” Daily History. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.
  3. “Libya in ruins four years after Gaddafi’s death,” The Newsroom, 20 October 2015. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.
  4. Plutarch, The Life of Julius Caesar, trans. by John Dryden, 75 A.C.E. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.

Power Vacuums in History: the Macedonian Diadochi and Post Colonial Mexico 1821-1860

Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE, leaving behind a massive empire which sprawled across the known world. Dying before giving his empire a proper heir, political strife ensued and the outcome was the Diadochi. This group was Alexander’s ‘successor generals’ who used their military power to carve the inherited empire into distinct regions, which they themselves began to rule individually (Demand 330). Alexander’s stable administrative apparatus is resembled somewhat by the period following Mexico’s War of Independence from Spain nearly two thousand years later in history. Once finally detached from the Royal Crown of Spain, there created in the ‘new world’ of conquered land a vacuum of power. For those living in this place previously considered an European empire, there were two institutional bases of power, the Church and the military (Green 50). These groups dominated national politics, and, as a result, Mexico has at least fifty separate presidencies in the forty year period following the war for independence. Majority of these regimes were led by army officers, whose basic means of winning presidential offices was a military coup (Green 50). The most prominent similarity between these two events is the removal of an empirical monarch power structure resulting in a power vacuum that can only legitimately be filled by the strongest surviving institution of the respective society, in which both of these events is the military.

Despite this striking similarity, the two historical events are by no means mirror occurrences. Those ‘successor generals’ wielded the support of their armies and rivaled each other. This was the major source of conflict within the Macedonian Empire after Alexander’s death. For the newly independent colony of New Spain, the conflict was not just limited to the rival ‘caudillos’ competing for the presidency of the new nation. The society of those born in the Americas had cultivated a hatred for any Spanish born person, and its social structure changed during its war of independence. This change was institutionalized when the new government decreed that any Spaniard was henceforth banished from Mexico, which served to ultimately remove the upper class from Mexican society (Green 50). Such a tumultuous societal change did not occur in response to Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BCE as did in Mexico in the late 1820s.

Given these two historical examples, the events of the past create a strong argument of the necessity of strong institutions in which the people can participate. Within the midst of a power vacuum, which can cause drastic and dangerous changes within a society, those groups which yield legitimate authority, meaning the ability to coerce a population by force, will be the ones to fight for power. These groups tend to be institutions such as the military, which lead to autocratic regimes. However, if there were efficient institutions in which the majority of the population could participate, the dominance of autocratic groups may be prevented. Therefore, nation-states today which may face power vacuums as a result of political upheaval or strife must first consider the strength and legitimacy of those institutions which will remain after such conflict.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 514

Works Cited

Demand ch.15 Alexander the Great (taken from syllabus)

Green, Skidmore, & Smith. Modern Latin America. Eighth Edition, Oxford

University Press, 2014. Print.

Alexander vs. Modern Egypt’s Regime

In our ancient history studies, it is clear that in many instances there were no legitimate or smooth transitions in a regime change. One example of this is before, during, and after Alexander the Great’s ruling. He used the power of his army to seize control as King. There were no successors that were set to take over if he were killed, which was a likely case for somebody with that much power. This is similar to the issue we have had in the Middle East, more specifically, modern Egypt. Their corrupted government does not contain a law that limits the term of the president. As long as the president is alive and is not overthrown, he remains in control. There are many similarities and differences in a change of regime between Modern Egypt and Alexander the Great.

Alexander came to power after his father, King Philip II was assassinated. This reign did not occur automatically, even though he was the son. Family members were assassinated and Alexander the Great ensured to use his army to conquer land in order to gain the support of the Corinthian League. During his rule, he conquered the Persian Empire and became King after assassinating Darius the II and lying to Darius’ supporters. With all of the power and wealth that Alexander was almost bound to be assassinated. What intrigues me the most is the fact that someone with as much supremacy as Alexander the Great had “no arrangements for the succession… they agreed that Roxane’s unborn son, if it turned out to be a boy, should be king under their combined regency” (130).[1] They were lucky in the sense that the unborn child did happen to be a boy, but it would be years until he was ready to rule. In the meantime, the army had no choice but to take control. A lot of the land that Alexander conquered, became independent.

This situation, in many ways, is similar to Modern Egypt’s presidency. One difference would be that they hold an election to designate their president, whether or not it is a fair election is unknown. Once a president is chosen, he remains in office until physically incapable, dead or, in their case during their revolution in 2011, overthrown. Hansi Mubarak was president for about 30 years when he was forced to resign by military action due to his unpopular decision making and disagreeing to a fair election. Like after the assassination of Alexander the Great, the military was briefly in power. After 16 months of no legitimate president or election, Mohomed Morsi was elected. Even he was overthrown, leading to a new election. This revolution led to thousands of dead civilians, policemen, and members of the military.[2] This is an issue that is caused by a corrupt government with no means of a fair election for rule.

It is clear that even in today’s regimes, there are still issues that have existed dating back to Alexander the Great’s supremacy. It is true that history repeats itself even if not in the exact manner. A solution to this issue would be similar to what the US has developed in the amendments that limit the presidential term to four-year terms. The ability to impeach a president is also available. Although it seems as if we have a system that works, there is no perfect way to run the government. Solving issues that have occurred in the past would be a step towards the right direction.

-Kevin Semma

Word count: 562

[1] Demand Ch. 15 Alexander the Great

[2] Masad, Ilana. “What Happened to the Revolution in Egypt?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Mar. 2017, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-happened-to-the-revolution-in-eqypt/2017/03/03/96c79c9c-e68f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.e924d2009937.

Give the Man his Due

Alexander certainly owes much to the military reforms of Philip II. Philip’s military revitalization of Macedonia was crucial to the success of Alexander on the campaign trail. Yet, to give Philip credit for the conquests of Alexander would discount the decisions made and actions taken by Alexander that were uniquely his. It is true that Alexander’s conquests would not have occurred without Philip’s foundation, but Alexander nonetheless deserves the most credit for his successes.

Philip changed the organization and equipment of the Macedonian infantry to increase its effectiveness. Rather than utilize the traditional spears used by infantry forces worldwide, Philip introduced the sarissa, measuring 14 to 18 feet in length. This extra reach allowed Macedonian infantry to attack while being out of range of their adversary. The trade-off was that it required both hands to wield, preventing use of the normal heavy hoplite shield. Philip, however, transitioned to a lighter shield that is worn from the neck. Philip also created an elite cavalry unit called the hetairoi, which due to their mobility and height advantage were devastating to hoplites.

Philip’s military reforms were impressive, and enabled him to assert Macedonian dominance in the local area. However, it was Alexander who built a true empire. Alexander’s sweeping conquests in Persia prove he deserves credit for his actions. Specifically, Alexander captured Darius II’s royal train at Issus, and chose to refuse offers of reconciliation. There is no way of knowing if Philip would also have refused such an offer from Darius; the end result of Alexander eventually taking complete control of Persia was a result of only his own actions.

Likewise, the events that transpired at and after Alexander’s visit to the oracle at Siwa can only be attributed to him. After meeting with the oracle, Alexander proclaimed that it confirmed his divinity, and used that to justify and solidify his rule over Asia Minor. This self-deification helped Alexander assert himself as ruler of the Persian people. It was the particular actions of Alexander that enabled his success at war, and though Philip’s reforms were a boon, Alexander was still the driving force of his own victories.

While not a regime but a strategy, the tactics of the United States in the Gulf War reflected lessons learned and foundation laid by the US military following the war in Vietnam. Announcing the American entrance to war against Iraq, President Bush stated he “instructed [American] military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as quickly as possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for American and allied service men and women.” [1] The Gulf War was a resounding success for the American military, swiftly driving Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait, lasting only for a few months.

This was only possible because of the setbacks faced in Vietnam. American military reforms following Vietnam ensured that the next conflict the United States engaged in would be quick and decisive. Instead of indiscriminate bombing campaigns over the whole nation, the US undertook airstrikes against specific targets to “knock out Saddam Hussein’s nuclear bomb potential” and “destroy his chemical weapons facilities.” [1] Actions such as these were aimed at swiftly crippling essential enemy functions to end combat as quickly as possible. In all likelihood, without those reforms the United States would have met more of what it encountered during Vietnam in Kuwait.

Like Alexander, the US government and military at the onset of the Gulf War utilized new ideas incorporated by previous people in power in order to achieve military success. These ideas enabled both Alexander and the Bush administration to project power in a fashion that would not have been possible before Philip II and Vietnam, respectively. In each case, however, the impetus was with the leader himself; credit should not be bestowed upon previous leaders, irrespective of how helpful their actions were.   

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 595

Sources:

[1] Bush, George H.W. “January 16, 1991: Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq.” Miller Center, 4 May 2017, millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/january-16-1991-address-nation-invasion-iraq.

Transitions of Power

Successful transitions of governmental power are vital to the well-being of any empire or nation-state. How a nation proceeds from one regime to the next can greatly affect the ability of the incoming regime to govern and the standing of the state in the world. Alexander the Great built a vast empire spanning from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush mountains in eastern Asia. It was the greatest empire the world had ever seen, built through masterful conquest. However, conquest was all Alexander seemed concerned with because upon his death his empire was left with no king, no heir, and no system by which to govern his vast empire. Alexander’s generals divided up his empire amongst themselves in the aftermath of his death. This parallels to what happened after the fall of the Ottoman empire after World War I. When the Ottoman empire fell, there was a power vacuum because no there was no plan on how the territory would be governed. The French and British stepped in and, “divided the land that had been under Ottoman rule since the early 16th Century into new countries – and relegated these political entities to two spheres of influence…” (Osman). The events following the fall of the Ottoman empire are similar to the events following the fall of Alexander’s empire. However, while both empires were divided up into new countries following their demise, the major difference between the two is that while the people under the control of the Macedonians had no hope to regain their independence after Alexander’s death as his generals were certain to take control, the people of the Middle East had been promised independence by the British when the Ottoman empire fell during World War I (Osman). When the Ottomans fell and independence did not materialize, the people of the Middle East were not pleased with the British and French stepping into the role of governors. This set up for a very shaky transition of power and led to instability in the region that has continued to this day.

Smooth transitions of power are essential to stability. When Alexander died, his generals divided up the land of the empire evenly and the transition was smooth. They died not fight over who would take control of the entire empire; each general was satisfied with his lot. The Arab Spring is a more recent example of transitions of government, however, these transitions were not nearly as smooth and greatly destabilized many Middle Eastern and North African nations. In the Spring of 2011, many countries in this region of the world experienced protests and uprisings that brought about the end of many dictatorial governments. However, the hopes for a brighter future were quickly ended by the power struggles that ensued. Since these uprising, countries like Libya and Syria have fallen apart, with factions in Libya vying for control and a violent civil war erupting in Syria that continues to this day. Libya is a prime example of when there is no plan to transition governmental authority after the fall of government and Syria is an example of when a government refuses to cede their power to a new government. In 2011, a Damascus business women said on the state of Syria, “All that anybody wants is to be able to feed their families and that is getting harder and harder to do” (Shah). Without stability and smooth transitions of power, the people suffer and nations fall into chaos.

From the past and present, we have learned stability and smooth transitions of power are necessary to ensure a well functioning government. Without these, nations can quickly degenerate and fall into disarray, with no easy way to fix it. Even with these lessons from the past, we consistently relive the mistakes of poor government transitions in the present.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 583

Works Cited:

NPR Staff. “The Arab Spring: A Year Of Revolution.” NPR, NPR, 17 Dec. 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/12/17/143897126/the-arab-spring-a-year-of-revolution.

Osman, Tarek. “Why Border Lines Drawn with a Ruler in WW1 Still Rock the Middle East.” BBC News, BBC, 14 Dec. 2013, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553.

Shah, Dhruti. “Arab Spring: ‘It Was the First Time I Felt I Belonged’.” BBC News, BBC, 26 Dec. 2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16275176.

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.

The Metics Were Scammed

Our RTTP debate made me realize that metics and slaves in Athens should have been given the access to citizenship like the Dreamers in the United States. The topic of enfranchisement for metics and slaves in ancient Athens is eerily similar to the debate over legal protection for Dreamers in the United States. In Athens, the debate was largely centered on the idea of giving metics- individuals who had immigrated or were born in Athens to non-Athenian parents- an established path to citizenship and the right to vote in the Assembly. The metic population was often heavily comprised of freed slaves and men who had served the city of Athens in battle. There was a massive population of slaves and metics in Athens, and those that were opposed to their enfranchisement most likely feared the power the slaves and metics would have once they could participate in the assembly. In America, there was a debate over whether we should deport individuals who had been brought to America illegally by their parents when they were children or if we should give them the chance to obtain citizenship.  These “Dreamers” are often productive members of society who contribute much value to the work force.

Though similar in the nature of the debate, these two instances vary greatly in the execution of policy. In Athens, the Assembly never opened up citizenship to all slaves and metics. Demosthenes states that “many more menials may be observed among you speaking their minds with more liberty than citizens enjoy in other states,”[1] meaning the metics and slaves were given the freedom of speech, but Blackwell clarifies that though Demosthenes speaks of a freedom of speech, “he is certainly not talking about participation in the Assembly”.[2] These quotes serve to exemplify that the Athenian attitude towards enfranchisement for slaves and metics was far from supportive. Metics and slaves would have been extended more democracy if they had a program like DACA. In America, the DACA program provides a grace period from deportation for individuals that were illegally brought to the U.S. by their parents and allows them to find good jobs and apply for citizenship. Since its inception, the program “has opened new doors for undocumented youth, leading to a stronger economy for everyone”.[3] The metics and slaves never had access to the true democracy that they served, and an Athenian program like DACA would have provided a path for them to experience the same democracy that they defended in battle.

Word Count: 478

[1] Demosthenes, Philippic 3, 9.3

[2] Christopher W. Blackwell, “The Assembly,” in C.W. Blackwell, ed., Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy (A. Mahoney and R. Scaife, edd., The Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org]) edition of March 26, 2003.

[3] Perez, Zenen Jaimes. “How DACA Has Improved the Lives of Undocumented Young People”. Center for American Progress. Published 29 November 2014. Accessed 2 March 2019.