Top 10 Battles of Succession: Concubine 1 vs. Concubine 3

Michelle Therianos

The Wanli Emperor, Zhu Yijun, did not like his wife. It was not necessarily that he hated her, but rather that the arranged betrothal was simply loveless. Married at the tender age of 13, he and Empress Wang Xijie were only lovers in fine print. The distance between them only grew when she was unable to provide a male heir, their only legitimate child being a female, Princess Zhu Xuanying. The emperor did have his concubines, though, and several of them. It was from these consorts’ children that the emperor was to name an heir, given that his legitimate wife remained sonless. The courts preached primogeniture, but the emperor had other ideas.

The first of his consorts to give birth was Consort Gong, who bore Zhu Changluo. In theory, this child would inherit the throne, as he was the first-born son. The emperor, however, vehemently refused to listen to his advisors on the matter of inheritance. His intention was to name the son of Consort Zheng, his third concubine, the heir because he loved her and hated Consort Gong. Straying away from primogeniture, the emperor denied tradition for 15 long years, a fact that alienated him from his court. He eventually folded and named Zhu Changluo the heir apparent, but he died unhappy with the decision.

This specific battle of inheritance was such a big issue because Emperor Wanli was, for the last portion of his 48-year rule, inadequate. Prior to the question of an heir apparent, he had already instigated a fight with his ministers, going as far as arranging a formal strike against them for over 20 years. He stopped holding court with his officials, ceased replacing ministers that died or retired, and refused to read petitions and memorandums, thus allowing the eunuchs to take control. His refusal to work with them about his sons was something of a “last straw,” the final, condemning blow to his image. This behavior goes against Confucius’ writings, which state “when he commits a fault, he is not afraid to amend his ways” (The Analects 1.8); the emperor was stubborn and feuded for decades instead of fixing his issues. In my opinion, the emperor should have just agreed to name his first son the heir, as it would have alleviated years of tension between him and his officials. Concurring would have also improved his dwindling public opinion. It was after this specific feud on inheritance that the emperor was truly gone, deaf to the Chinese people and their needs. If the ruler and his court had agreed on the matter, China could have perhaps been saved from almost a score of insufficiency and rot. By focalizing his own displeasure and failing to care for China, the emperor violated more of Confucius’ ways by going against “the gentleman considers the whole rather than the parts. The small man considers the part rather than the whole” (The Analects 2.14).

Word Count: 485

Star Wars and the Roman Empire

Kody Crider

The parallels between history and modern may media are amazing at how close they line up sometimes. One example in particular, the Roman Empire and the Galactic Republic, which became the Empire, from Star Wars. These two empires have striking similarities. The first being, both empires started out as a republic. In Star Wars, it is called the Galactic Republic or the Old republic. This was true in Rome too. Before Rome became an empire, it was a Republic. Both of these republics though, soon turned into empires, Star Wars’ emperor being Palpatine and Rome’s emperor being Julius Caesar. These two men also came to power in a very similar way. They had both been in their positions much longer than they should have been but they were given extended rule for safety of their republics. Furthermore, they both wanted and continued chasing after more power and a higher title. The only difference though is that Senator Palpatine actually declares this Empire while Julius Caesar was already ruling and fell into this position of emperor. Another parallel between these two characters were that they were both betrayed by someone they trusted. Julius Caesar was betrayed by Brutus and was killed. In Star Wars Return of the Jedi, we have the scene where Palpatine is electrocuting Luke and Darth Vader is standing by watching, then Darth Vader chokes Palpatine and sends him off the ledge to his death. As you can see, there are many striking similarities between the Empire of Star Wars and the Roman Empire. Star Wars is not the only society though that has strong resemblances to the Roman Empire. Modern America has some very alarming parallels between the empires as well. One of the most prominent examples is the collapse of the middle class. During the Roman Empire, the middle class was crushed by overseas labor which is something we are witnessing in modern day. We are losing jobs to overseas workers who are being paid less with fewer rights. Another similarity is using Politics as the road to personal wealth. The Romans did this and so do we. Congressman, senators, etc. use their government service to go to private sectors that pay three to ten times more than their government pay did. Their focus is on working for those who will make them rich. Although there are similarities, we are still far from being like the Roman Empire and I do not believe that America will collapse. We have a strong foundation and many more rules and regulation sin place that would stop that from ever happening.

Sun Tzu vs. USNA

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is one of the most influential books on war ever written. As a Chinese military commander, strategist, and philosopher, Sun Tzu wrote 13 chapters on every aspect of warfare. This has defined the way humans fought conflicts for hundreds of years. The overarching philosophy of The Art of War is understanding the different aspects of war. However, the teachings of Sun Tzu are not intended for the average soldier to understand.

They are intended for the general or the leader to employ. As military leaders, an officer’s job is to understand their troops and the enemy, a major concept of Sun Tzu’s teachings. Although the tactical aspects of war may seem outdated, the strategic teachings of Sun Tzu are still implemented today by militaries all over the world. At the United States Naval Academy, Midshipmen are molded to become future officers using many of Sun Tzu’s warfare concepts. In order to become more effective military leaders, Midshipmen should continue to apply and understand Sun Tzu’s strategic teachings.

At the United States Naval Academy, Sun Tzu’s holistic philosophy of understanding war becomes ingrained into Midshipmen’s brains starting on day one. As reflected within USNA’s mission statement, Sun Tzu’s teachings provide helpful meaning to Mids in all areas of their performance. At the core of his teachings, Sun Tzu argues that leaders must know when to fight and when not to fight. Since war is inherently costly, it is important for great officers to understand when fighting has a justifiable outcome and when it does not. This takes years of developing personal discipline. At the USNA, the honor concept helps Midshipmen understand the difference between ethical and unethical decisions. It teaches Midshipmen that lying, cheating, or stealing to gain an advantage over another is not the correct way to win. If an officer ever compromises his own integrity or the integrity of his troops to win a battle, it should be considered just as grave as a loss. The honor concept helps Midshipmen to gain the self-discipline and develop good habits that will one day help them to decide whether to fight or not.

Another crucial aspect of war that Sun Tzu argues is for leaders to know the enemy and their own troops. As a leader, understanding your troops’ capabilities and caring for what is best for them is important. Within the Brigade, many Midshipmen leadership positions involve leading peers. This teaches Midshipmen that sometimes, as a leader, the right decision is not always the most favorable one. Sun Tzu states that the most effective leaders understand the importance of leading by example. To gain respect from peers and comrades, it is necessary to lead by example, and not by force. If an officer lives by his word, even if unfavorable by many, his comrades will better follow and respect what he has to say. As a Midshipman, it is necessary to lead by example so that your peers will better respect you when a though decision comes up.

Although written nearly 2500 years ago, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is still implemented in many different aspects of the world. As a Midshipmen, understanding and implementing the teachings of Sun Tzu in the leadership development process will help us to become more effective and useful leaders.

By: Melissa Cortese

Word Count: 555

Ancient Influences

MIDN 3/C Ionatan A. Soule

Sun Tzu’s Art of war has been studied for centuries. Even though the context in which he wrote might be outdated, much of his advice through a little abstraction is still incredibly applicable to modern times, especially modern warfare. Here at the Academy, the goal is to produce capable and competent military leaders who will win decisive battles when the time comes. In order to be able to do this, they must be exceptionally well versed in decision making and strategic analysis. All of these components are mentioned and covered by Master Sun. Certain aspects between his doctrine and what is taught at the Naval Academy is remarkably similar and this is no coincidence. Master Sun’s overarching philosophy is one of knowledge and preparation and is very similar to what is taught at the Naval Academy. I think that a proper mixture of both is best as a military leader.

Sun Tzu first stipulates that war is, “A matter to be pondered carefully” (1). This could not be truer and is one of the reasons that officers in the US military must have a college degree and that the Academy exists. He then identifies five areas with which officers should be familiar: 1) the Way, 2) the Heaven, 3) the Earth, 4) Command and 5) Discipline. The Way, “Causes men to be of one mind with their rulers, to live or die with them, and never to waver” (1-2). Translated to modern English this simply means unit cohesion—an integral component of Academy education. Unity and the bonds that are formed are taught as the foundation upon which militaries are built and can be as small as a two-man sniper team or the classic four-man fire team. Sun Tzu’s concept of the Heaven, which includes Ying and Yang does not directly translate into anything taught here. The closest thing I can think of is the need for proper balance in all aspects of warfare to achieve the optimum result. The aspect covered by Earth is taught here extensively because it encompasses all physical aspects of the battlefield: “Height and depth, distance and proximity, ease and danger, open and confined ground, life and death” (2). The final two, Command and Discipline, are incredibly important here at the academy. “Wisdom, integrity, compassion, courage, severity” (2) and “Organization, chain of command, control of expenditure” (2) are heavily stressed here at the Academy in classes such as ethics, leadership, and law. On top of this, these are principle tenants of every single training we conduct.

Because of all this, I would argue that there is a clear similarity between Sun Tzu’s overarching message and what is taught here at the Academy. One difference I did find was Sun Tzu’s principle that, “If [the enemy is] strong, avoid him” (2). For the most part, the Academy teaches this. But it is also a habit in our military to honor those who have the courage to charge an enemy position when death is certain, an action against Sun Tzu’s teachings.

Regardless, I believe that both are still incredibly similar. If I had to choose which is more effective, I would choose the Academy’s simply because it has proven its effectiveness in our modern time.

Word count: 540

Blog Post #4 Topic #4

Sun Tzu’s Art of War analyzes the most crucial elements of a successful leader in war. The overarching theme stressed most in Art of War is knowledge. Knowing yourself and knowing the enemy and what you are up against are the most assuring signs of a powerful and dominant leader. Someone who knows his men that serve beneath him in and out and can utilize their potential optimally will see the best results. Much of what Sun Tzu stresses is used in many modern contexts from coaching to corporate business. As a Naval Academy Midshipman, I can personally say we embody many of his teachings whether we consciously know it or not.

From day one we are taught the importance of teamwork and unity. Doing small things to build comradery in the early stages ultimately will help us effectively serve as brothers and sisters in arms in the fleet. Art of War places a heavy emphasis on caring for your team, and throughout our progression at the Academy we learn the important value of looking out for our people. The caveat to taking care of others that Sun Tzu makes clear, is that the most effective leadership comes from ruling with toughness. Upholding the standard of honor and duty couldn’t be more in line with the mission of the Naval Academy. Knowing what’s best for your people, even it means not being liked by your subordinates, is the most important thing to building a strong unit. A leader aims to be respected, not liked. Fraternization and doing favors isn’t the job of a leader. Completing the mission is the most important factor at the end of the day and Sun Tzu would agree that winning is at the core of why we fight wars in the first place.

Another interesting thing acknowledged by Sun Tzu that resonates with Midshipmen is thriving through challenge and accepting failure. Knowing what your people are capable of, and challenging them is the most effective way to get the best from your people. Most Midshipmen would say that they always have a full plate, and often feel overwhelmed. Sun Tzu would say that this pressure will make people better in the end. Making mistakes now, when the stakes aren’t high, allows Midshipman to learn the importance of prioritizing and allows them to fix their issues before they are met with real world challenges in the fleet. This also gives them a realistic sense of what their people in the fleet will be capable of. Not working your team to death, or giving them unrealistic tasks are important to not only completing missions successfully, but also earning the respect of your people.

The bottom line is that Art of War is not only relevant, but a tool for any Midshipman trying to be the most successful leader they can be. The lessons taught by Sun Tzu are still relevant thousands of years after. A leader who is prepared, knowledgeable, and reasonable will have the most success in leading others in any field, military or not.

(509)

The Christian Cult

While Christianity today may be looked to as a faith of grace and good practices, in its beginning many did not see Christianity in its modern light. Notably, THe Romans were extremely frightened and suspicious of the practices and actions of the new religion. This fear seems reasonable considering some of the admittedly odd phrases and actions of the religion. phrases like “The blood and body of Christ” struck observers as being practitioners of cannibalism. Today if we were to hear of a group of people who ate the body and drank the blood of a man, we would probably freak out and seek the end of such a horrendous cult, so it is no surprise that in its early stages, Christianity was under a close microscope by the Romans.

In a letter Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, he wrote his concerns of Christianity and said very strongly that those who persisted to claim the Christian faith are to be executed. Interestingly, Trajan responded that Christians who prove they are not or have abandoned the faith, are to be pardon under the principle of repentance. This fear seemed to be heavy and it was corroborated by the emperor. Most noticeably in the letter to the Emporer, Pliny considers the size of Christianity. He notes that he must get the consultation from the Emporer because there are so many people converting to Christianity. He writes that ” the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages” (Pliny). He then goes on to point out that the best way to stop this possibility is to assert an extremely harsh punishment for being Christian, and then establish an opportunity for repentance. He thinks that this will reform people based on their fear of the punishment. He also has some sympathy it seems as he tells the Emperor that they don’t bind themselves to crime or hate, instead to not commit fraud, theft, adultery, not lying, and many other noble practices.

In reference to the execution of Christians, I do not think it was necessary to kill Christians, but because of the inflexibility of the governing emperor, It is easy to see how he might have suspicions that worshiping a new god might prove to be detrimental to his control of the Empire. However, because investigations showed that Christianity was not a cult, instead of a group of people who take an oath to noble and honorable practices. The employer should have instead allowed it.

Source: http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

Word Count: 417

Killing Christians: An Unnecessary Evil

Name: Michelle Therianos

The very concept of Christianity shook the Roman Empire. In a society where its rulers were considered gods, it was threatening to the state to have monotheistic constituents. The idea of having a single, almighty entity above the emperor was worrying, as it portrayed the Roman hierarchy as having less power and control. Christians were outwardly committing national apostasy, deviating from the standard Roman religion and thereby showcasing political disloyalty. It was only natural for Roman citizens to be unaccepting of a foreign cult that challenged their government and beliefs. By not offering sacrifices or respect to patron gods, the Christians were promoting disorder and breaking laws, something that made other groups distance themselves.

Aside from political conduct, Christians were also shunned because of their dogmas. The namesake of Christianity, Jesus Christ, was, after all, portrayed as a criminal, nailed to a cross alongside two thieves. The Christians worshipped what appeared to be a villain who encouraged cannibalism and incest; the notion of calling those within the same religion “brother” and “sister” implied incest, and, as far as they were concerned, partaking in “the body and blood of Christ” meant literally eating him. These instances, all written into their bible, frightened the Roman populous.

For two centuries, Christians were deemed enemies of the state and persecuted. While this panic was understandable, it was truly not justifiable. The Christians unfortunately played the scapegoat for the Roman Empire’s downfalls; they were blamed for the Great Fire of Rome by Emperor Nero, sentenced to death by wild beast in the Colosseum, and essentially forced to choose between their religion and their lives under Decius’ religious edicts. Emperor Valerian even attempted to rid the Christian church of its leaders, executing the Bishop St. Cyprian. Christians were maltreated simply because they were different, and that is the fact of the matter. Even though they did rebel in small ways, like not paying tribute to pagan gods or refusing to serve in the imperial military, there was never a formal, violent insurgency on their part. Their quiet worship was met with the sword, something I do not think was appropriate, regardless of the times. Even after they were recognized and protected as a religion, there was still internal turmoil due to the schism that arose from those who yielded to imperial pressure. The Christians never really posed a threat, and their persecution wrongfully crippled their religion for years to follow.

Word Count: 404

Invasion of Monotheism

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

Ancient Rome in Somewhat Ancient America

In the aftermath of a Civil War, what is a great nation to do? The Americans in 1865, and the Romans in 27 B.C.E. were both faced with the responsibilities of strengthening loyalties, and ensuring that things did not fall apart again. While there are obvious differences between Augustus’ role as the first principate of Rome, and the role of Congress during the Reconstruction Era following the American Civil War, there are some parallels to their administrative decisions.
When Augustus came into power, he had a lot to manage. He had a huge empire that needed to be managed, but he could not micromanage them as a dictator, because that would upset many of the Roman elite. He needed to control his empire without making it seem like he was controlling them.
Enter the position of principate. Essentially, this position allowed Augustus to control the Senate, while still remaining merely the “first citizen” of Rome, and nothing more. As the principate, Augustus controlled taxation powers (previously a power of the Senate), and also military powers, which he used to first demobilize Rome’s dangerously large armies, and later used to appoint military leaders and governors of Rome’s many provinces. Under Augustus’s time as the principate, Rome was peaceful, citizenship increased (as it allowed an increase in tax revenue), and the large empire became more integrated. For Roman citizens, there was a maintained appearance of the republic they once enjoyed, but Augustus was still able to control the empire under the title of principate.
At the end of the Civil War, President Lincoln had a lot to manage. He had to appease Congress, and determine what was to be done about the rights of freed slaves, and leaders of the Confederacy. Unfortunately, Lincoln was killed before much of his plan for Reconstruction could be put in place. The resultant actions of President Johnson, and Congress, who both faced with the same factors as Lincoln, both share similarities of the Roman principate.
President Johnson’s approach to Reconstruction is not remembered as very successful. He was almost impeached in his efforts. Augustus was so successful in establishing the position of principate in Rome, because he at least gave an appearance of working with the Senate. He may have been taking all of the power from the Senate, but he made it seem as though he was just a leader of the Senate. This is where President Johnson failed, and is arguably what made his plan for Reconstruction so unsuccessful. Johnson did not even try to appear as though he was working with the Radical Republicans in Congress. He vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1865 which marked a turn in his alliance from the Republicans to the Democrats, and angered Congress.
On the opposite hand, the same Congress that almost impeached President Johnson, employed some of the same tactics as the Roman principate, and were more successful in achieving their Reconstruction agenda. As I have previously stated, the idea of the principate is that there still exists all of the governing bodies, but one is clearly more powerful than the rest. After being acquitted by one vote, Johnson was pretty powerless when it came to shaping Reconstruction policies, and the Radical Republicans in Congress had the votes to pass the legislation that they needed. The most obvious difference in this case however, was that the principate was one person acting essentially as an emperor without the title, whereas Congress in the Reconstruction Era did not have one singular leader who came to power.
Much of the policies that Congress passed during the Reconstruction era were similar to Augustus’s as principate. Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment which does not discriminate the right to vote on the basis of race, and Augustus similarly increased voting rights throughout the Roman Empire. Additionally, Augustus increased his power by appointing the military leaders and governors in provinces, and Congress created military districts in Confederate states to ensure that reconstruction policies were being carried out (the appointment of leaders in previously Confederate states was another contented issue between President Johnson and Congress). These similarities goes to show that in history some of the success in restoring order after a civil war lies in social reforms to please the people, with a balance of appointing people to office who will carry out policies.
While Augustus’s time as principate was marked with peace, the Reconstruction era is not remembered as running smoothly and being completely peaceful. Arguably, it left as many issues unsolved, as it left solved. With the role of the Roman principate, the main idea was the appearance of unity with one person in power. However, there was neither a true appearance of unity within the federal government during the Reconstruction era (as seen with the clashes between the Executive and Legislative branches), nor was there really any individual who came to power (or even just took control) of implementing policies.
Sources: class notes (for Ancient Rome information), Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History. Harper and Row, 1970 (for Reconstruction information).

The Fear of a Strong Faith

Dean Caravela

Throughout history, nations were built and run on certain systems that were trusted and proven to pay off after certain trials. The people of these nations, though some differed in ideas, also took comfort in ideals and ways they have known and have known, for generations. However, in history there have been times of unrest when different ideals and ways of life came about within a nation. This is the case when Christianity spread throughout Rome. The idea of a new and powerful religion on the rise was scary to the very traditional Roman Empire. They had a fear that this religion would threaten the way of life they were used to along with their system of running the nation.

Change is never something one gets used to easy. This is especially true when trying to hold order of an entire nation. To the Romans, this idea of the spread Christianity was something that had the potential to tarnish everything they worked so hard to achieve. Christian ways were different than that of other religions. As Jesus taught and said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” (Matthew 5:3). Many in the past did not view the poor in this way. They did not care for the poor or praise them in any way, and this new ideal along with many others associated with Christianity was very threatening. The Roman Empire was also opposed to challengers. Thus, when, “Jesus wanted to reform and challenge the abuses he saw,” (Voyages 145), the Roman Empire felt this as a threat. Thus, followers and supporters of this idea in large numbers were believed by the Romans to up rise against the empire. This was another idea that instilled fear in the Roman government, so Jesus was convicted and sentenced to death by the public. Christianity was also a powerful religion, being that, “on the third day after [Jesus] died, Christians believe and the gospels concur that Jesus was resurrected, or raised from the dead,” (Voyages 145). The resurrection of Jesus was very powerful for Christianity as it instilled great faith in its followers.

The fear of Christianity as a threat to the stability of the empire was a valid fear. The unfamiliarity of the religion, the believed threat of its ideals against the Roman Empire, as well as the strength of the faith in its followers aid to it being a valid fear. An unknown religion having grown as much as Christianity did in a short period of time is enough to pose questions as to whether or not it would ruin the stability the empire accumulated over many years. The Romans, with this threat in mind, had the right to try to label Christianity as a dangerous new cult. In an effort to end this quick rising religions due to the empire’s built fears, they had nothing else to label Christianity as other than something negative. In the past, other nations saw foreign ways of life and beliefs that posed threats to their comfortable system of living. With this idea in mind as well as their fear toward Christianity, the Roman Empire reacted as they saw fit to try to preserve their current empire.

Sources: Voyages textbook reading (10/12)

Word count: 550