Philip > Alexander

When looking back on Alexander the Great’s notable achievements and accomplishments one may say that his quick and strategic thinking was the reason he was so successful in his campaign in Asia. However, Alexander the Great would not have been so successful if it wasn’t for his predecessor, Philip the II. Without Philip the II’s strategic victories that included defeating the Greek city states, Alexander may not have been able to conquer Asia. When Philip rose to power he made several technological advances that help to strengthen the war fighting capability of his armies. He instituted the sarissa, a fourteen foot spear, instead of the smaller spears that Spartans carried. This allowed Philip’s forces to engage the enemy at a longer range, while his men also carried smaller shields to defend from enemy attacks. This seemingly unstoppable infantry was complimented by his elite cavalry force called the Hetairoi. Lighting quick cavalry forces can quickly flank enemy forces engaged with his infantry. This can be seen in the Battle of Chaeronea. This battle was a very pinnacle event for the Macedonians as the win here would destroy any army that could compete with Phillip’s. Philip destroyed the Athenian and Theban armies then persuaded the Greeks to become allies. Philip’s view then turns to Persia, but a sudden death prevents him from advancing to Persia.

By allying with their Greek neighbors, Philip the II eliminated the possibility of an attack on the homefront. When Alexander the Great rises to power, he did not have to worry about the Greeks and instead focus on conquering Persia. Allying with the Greeks also allowed Persia to be the only other active player besides the Macedonians to control the Aegean seas. If Philip the II did not win in the Battle of Chaeronea, the Greeks could have conducted guerilla warfare and attacked the Macedonian ships transiting to Persia. In the end, Philip the II built a firm foundation that allowed Alexander the Great to propel himself and his army into Asia and allowed him to expanded and conquer the known world.

A modern example of Alexander the Great would be the Chinese president Xi Jinping.The rapidly industrializing country of China that America knows today could not have happen without its previous leaders, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Jiang Zemin. Mao Zedong’s five year plan, focused China’s resources and manpower on becoming independent and a world power. Deng Xiaoping focused more on making China a more export led country and allowed the money gained from exports to make advances in production means. Jiang Zemin focus on economic growth allowed China to increase their GDP 8% every year. These men and their policy changes had allowed China to become one of world’s superpowers today. With its second largest GDP, China’s Xi Jinping has made a robust and rapidly developing military that rises concerns with the United States. The Chinese Navy has quickly grown in size and technological capability in the past ten year. Their growing presence in the South China Sea threatens U.S, ships, which twenty or thirty years ago, China would not be able to stand toe to toe with American forces.Like Philip the II with Macedonia, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Jiang Zemin paved the way and created a firm foundation that allowed their successors to become strong leaders.

Word Count 555

Vincent Potente

To Be or Not to Be a Citizen

It is commonly stated that history repeats itself. Now, we are able to look back and see One of the struggles of the modern world is the divisive discussion of what constitutes a citizen. In the United States, we have been dealing with this problem for decades, with it becoming hot-topic debate in the recent years. However, Ancient Greece Rome had similar disagreements between its people over 2,000 years ago. After the Peloponnesian War, Athens had to decide whether or not metics and slaves were going to be allowed citizenship as the city was rebuilding.

During our the second assembly meeting in class, we discussed the electorate, or how we were going to define Athenian citizenship as. I was a moderate democrat, so we proposed a bill that people with Athenian parents will be granted citizenship prima facie, while metics could apply to be citizens and be screened to see whether or not their allegiance is with Athens. The assembly must be filled with those who will take the best into account for Athens and its citizens. The main argument we had is that Athens is already having to fight with external adversaries, why should we have to deal with major internal strife as well? This is also seen in current disputes over immigration.

It seems as though immigration has become the focus of major political campaigns. The American public feeds off of political debate regarding the border between the United States and Mexico. In 2012, Barack Obama developed the “Dreamers” protected under The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, also known as DACA. Children that have been living in the States for their whole lives have an attachment to this country and should be able to have the opportunity to become citizens. They have grew up with a different familial culture, but that just adds to the diversity of the population in the United States. We are already able to see that some things never change, because even with DACA, the people applying are “vetted for any criminal history or threat to national security and must be students or have completed school or military service” (The Guardian). This goes back to our assembly meetings in class where we decided that metics may be granted citizenship after our own vetting process that determined their loyalty to Athens. In reality, metics and other loyal supporters did receive Athenian citizenship (UChicago). It is interesting to see the parallels between two situations thousands of years apart.

Honestly, I did not even recognize the similarities in current problems we are dealing with today. I think that is the importance of history. We need to be able to understand the historical significance of events and learn from them for the future. Writing this blog and doing some more research has definitely refined my views on DACA and Dreamers. I would have never been prompted to do more research on the modern problems without learning more about the past.

Corinne DeSpain

Word count: 471

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/04/donald-trump-what-is-daca-dreamers

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/4B*.html

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.

Julius Caesar and Nicolás Maduro: Regimes

Regime change is a common occurrence in every political climate. Death, dislike, and inability to command are just a few causes of leaders or systems being removed for something more preferable. Looking at the past and the present there are many different regimes of men that can be compared to see what went right and what went wrong, while also showing what mistakes cannot be made if a nation wants to maintain their government. An example of two of these rulers are Julius Caesar, whose career was highlighted by his amazing ability as a general, and Nicolás Maduro, who inherited a rich and prosperous country built on its abundant oil supply.

Both Caesar and Maduro had many opportunities available to them in their positions. Caesar, the leader of the most powerful empire of his time, could have done anything with the nation he had built. While he did provide for his citizens, supplying them with a better and more enjoyable life, he let his own personal greed get the best of him. He “accepted excessive honors… too great for a mortal man,” an aspect of Roman culture that was looked down upon with severe disgust.[1] An example of this is the minting of coins with his silhouette. This deified him, putting him above the rest of mankind. The Romans looked at this with extreme discomfort and fear, worrying that Caesar was planning on instating himself as a king. This led to his assassination and the end of his regime. Maduro serves as another example of regime failure, but his has not yet reached its conclusion. He gained power following Hugo Chávez, and had the opportunity to utilize the great stores of oil in the country to better the people and bring about a new era of industry. Instead, he has continued to plunge Venezuela into debt.[2] He has caused the country to go into a food and medicine shortage, with “thousands of people [fleeing the] dire crisis there every day.”[3] Though his reign is terrible and tyrannical, his end has not come to fruition yet. His actions have prompted political suicide rather that assassination, as his recent rigged election has led to more than 40 countries “refusing to recognize Maduro’s government.”[4] His rule is deteriorating quickly, and soon Venezuela will have to find a new leader.

There are many differences between Caesar and Maduro, most notably in the ways that they came to power and the large period of time between their rules. Caesar did many great things for his people in the time that he was dictator, but his few mistakes were fatal. He brought about a great age for the Romans, and left Augustus behind to continue this trend. Maduro is, simply, a tyrant dictator in the position for his own good. Nothing is going to come from what he does other than pain and suffering of his people. What we can learn from Caesar is great, when looking at the situation from this scope. Perform actions with the best intentions, but do not allow oneself to get carried away in the position. Be a kind and compassionate ruler that serves the people, not one that serves himself. Maduro could have learned from Caesar, but chose instead to rule with an iron fist of oppression.

Cyrus Malek-Madani

Word Count: 599

[1] Suetonius, “The Lives of the Caesars, the Deified Julius,” 110 CE, Section LXXVI.

[2] Garcia, Henkel, “Nobody Is Going to Bail out Venezuela,” The Conversation, September 19, 2018, Accessed March 02, 2019, https://theconversation.com/nobody-is-going-to-bail-out-venezuela-87428.

[3] Smilde, David, “Venezuelans Reject Maduro Presidency – but Most Would Oppose Foreign Military Operation to Oust Him,” The Conversation, January 14, 2019, Accessed March 02, 2019, https://theconversation.com/venezuelans-reject-maduro-presidency-but-most-would-oppose-foreign-military-operation-to-oust-him-109135.

[4] Smild, “Venezuelans…” X1

An Ancient Problem in a Modern World

Democracy has established itself around the world as the gold standard for governance. This is largely due to the success of Western democratic nations following World War II, and the prosperity that continues to accompany them today. The foundations of democracy in current countries is largely due to the Romans, specifically the principles of majority participation in politics. However, democracy is not perfect, and often takes many years to develop before growth is recognizable in a new regime. This has been the case in the Middle East since the United States increased its presence in the region in 2003 (specifically Iraq), with little progression in terms of concrete regimes establishing control.

Countries like Iraq have a rich history, and customs that date back to the dawn of humanity. This is important to understand, due to the reality that people are less susceptible to change after they immerse themselves in a culture and familiar environment.[1] The political instability in Iraq following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the United States and its allies effectively created a power vacuum in the country. This is comparable to the premature death of Alexander the Great, and his lack of a plan for a successor. Alexander’s early death contributed to “the [lack of] opportunity to implement whatever plans for the organization of his empire.” [2] The result of the absence of a clear successor for his empire saw stark divisions of territory by Alexander’s generals, along with armed conflicts between them.

The lack of a clear leader of a state is a recipe for conflict. In the same way as Alexander’s empire, Iraq, following the death of Saddam Hussein, fell victim to terrorist groups and civil war. Iraq remained somewhat stable with U.S. presence until 2011, however after the U.S. removed itself, the state fell into turmoil. Even under the governance of a Republic with a parliament, prime minister, and president, Iraq has fallen victim to ISIL along with ongoing insurgencies. These extremist groups have been the root of ongoing battles with the state, and in turn, the cause of instability. This constant instability without defined leadership is preventing the democratic regime from establishing legitimacy.

Unfortunately, the phrase “history repeats itself” holds true when comparing issues like regime changes. Although some countries have successfully implemented systems in which peaceful turnover of power is possible, many young countries still struggle to gain a foothold on this principle. Man’s lust for power when comparing regime changes such as those of Alexander the Great in the ancient world and the Iraqi government in the modern world, illustrates how some things fail to change. Without understanding the failures of regime change in the past, we will never be able to implement systems in which leaders maintain control of their territory while simultaneously being supported by their people.

-Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 471

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-struggle-for-middle-east-democracy/

[2] Class Folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1n2a9ZyZq8GaiNVbC1g__UtRftr15wf4g