Modern Rome

by lightweight225

 

 

Modern Rome

Although the United States of America is not called an empire many believe it is. Many today in the 21^st century believe that the Untied States is the world’s supreme power due to their influence and military presence and power in the world. In fact, the United States has a presence in nearly 150 countries. This presence is similar to the way the Romans ruled their empire. The romans had rule and a military presence throughout Europe, parts of the Middle East and northern Africa. Like the Untied States, the Romans had the most advanced military like the Untied states. Not only were the Militaries similar, but governments.

Both the Roman Empire and the Untied states were founded in rebellion against a tyrant or throne. The Untied States rebelled against the British throne of King George and Romans rebelled against the last Romans King Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Both societies realized that they wanted a government for the people, so they created their own. The United States decided to created a constitutional federal republic and the Romans had their Roman Republic. Both put in place measures, like a senate, to keep powers in check to not allow their nation to be run by one overpowering ruler. With their new governments both nations are considered to be incredibly tolerant and became a melting pot of cultures and nationalities, which allowed for an advanced society.

Many believe that the United States is on the same path as Rome when it comes to its decline. But one of the main reasons for the Roman decline was due to barbarian invasion in parts of their empire that they couldn’t reach quickly. Today the Untied States military can be nearly anywhere in a few hours and invasion is no threat. Also the United States is not over expanding, as it does not acquire new territory after war unlike the Romans. The United States gives the land back and helps rebuild these territories. Although the United States is very similar to the Roman Empire, if it does fall it will not fall like the Romans.

Leadership in Times of Crisis

by lightweight225

 

When looking at the theme of ”Presidential Leadership in Times of Crisis” one must analyze the effect a simple speech can have on a nation. Every single word has its significance and no word is random. Pericles’ “Funeral Oration”, Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”, and FDR’s speech responding to the attack on Pearl Harbor are some of the most well known speeches of all time due to the influence that their speeches made on their nation. All three speeches are about the death of soldiers, yet the leader spends little time talking about the deaths, and focuses on rallying their nation to greatness and focusing on the positive aspect of the nation to try to gain nationalism and fight for freedom. In Pericles’ speech he constantly talks about the greatness of his nation and how it is better than Sparta. He says when speaking about Sparta that “It has been to show that our stake in the struggle is not the same as theirs who have no such blessings to lose.” (pg. 80) He reminds his people that the richness of culture in their State would be a loss to humanity if they were to lose the War. Like Pericles’ Lincoln’s Gettysburg address also addresses the important aspect of defending the nation for those who created it. “Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” (pg. 150) Lincoln says this because at the time the country was torn apart by civil war and President Lincoln wanted to unite the country without dwelling on the fallen soldiers, but by showing the roots that they all came from. FDR does the same, by only motioning the dead briefly and moving on to more important things. FDR quickly move on and talks about the Japanese and their “Empire.” He dehumanizes their nation in order to unite the Country to rally behind the war effort after trying to be isolationists. All three leaders only briefly mention the deaths of their troops in order to make sure people rally behind them and focus on the future of their nations

Two Sides

by lightweight225

When looking at the contemporary world, we must realize what side we are taking. Today in media we rarely get to see the other side of the story when it comes to international affairs. It may seem necessary for nationalism, but it withholds people from the truth. For years it has been this way starting with Herodotus and his work. Herodotus’ work is the only work we have written about the Persian War when Persia tried to capture the city-states of Athens and Sparta. We read that the Persian were trying to take away their freedom and enslave the Greeks, but it is hard to see the perspective of the Persians. Today it is quite similar when it comes to the United States and the Muslim perspectives like Al-Qaeda. We think they are people who are withholding our freedom due to the “War on terror”, but the Islamic extremists also think the same way as the United States is a large threat.

President Bush described his campaign against the terrorists as “no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death (pg. 223). Herodotus claimed “Hellas defends herself from poverty and tyranny (pg. 60). Both are incredibly similar appealing to free rule and a more democratic state. But, Hellas (Greece) was no freer than Persia was. Persia was one of the first tolerant empires of the classical civilization era. Persia allowed anyone to live under their rule and freedom to practice their own religious beliefs. The United States is an incredibly tolerant state also. But the terrorist he speaks of think that the United States in a incredibly corrupt and overpowering empire like the Greeks thought of Persia. It is clear that both in Herodotus’ world and the contemporary world that people are inevitably going to hate the most powerful and their dominance as it imposes a threat at all times.

Shame Culture

by lightweight225

Killing another human is one of the most difficult things a man can do. To overcome this people need reason to do so. Many dehumanize their enemy and go on berserk killing sprees like Achilles. But many fight to defend their honor. Honor and pride have been forever one of the most important parts of a Man’s life. O’Brien in “On the Rainy River” from The Things They Carried is subject to the United States first conscription. He is drafted and wants to flee yet his mind is caught between what is doing right for his name and for himself. Along with Hector is Homer’s epic, The Iliad, Hector is forced to duel his enemy Achilles although his chances of winning against a demigod are slim, he still fights to the death in order to keep his pride for his city of Troy and his family. It is clear that throughout the history of War characters have been struck between what they want to do and what they should do for sake of their honor and family.

Shame culture is a massive part of War evidently noted in O’Brien’s “On the Rainy River.” O’Brien the main character wants to flee for the border to escape his duty in Vietnam, yet when he is a mere 20 yards away he decides not to go. Everything is clear to O’Brien while he decides not to flee to Canada. He writes “ All those eyes on me—the whole town, the whole universe—and couldn’t risk the embarrassment… I would go to the War—I would kill and maybe die—because I was embarrassed not to.” (pg. 196) These are very powerful lines describing the nature of O’Brien’s views and what others would think of him if he tried to escape the draft. In the end O’Brien choses to risk his life for something he does not believe in, in order to not bring sham upon himself and his family and to honor his country. Hector from the Iliad was in a similar situation involving a situation where he knew he had to fight his enemy Achilles.

Hector, a mortal, was pinned up to face Achilles who wanted revenge for the death of his best friend Patroclus. Hector did not have to face the divine Achilles, but felt he had to as he could not show any weakness to his city of Troy during War. Hector was Troy’s best warrior and the death of him eventually leads to the fall of Troy, yet Hector was still willing to fight. Hector fights to show strength for his city and not to dishonor his father and his family’s name. As Hector is dying after being hit with a spear he exclaims, “Well let me die—but not without a struggle, not without glory…”(pg. 41) Hector knowing he will die and want to make sure he does not die without glory. Shame culture seems to be the largest concern of one faced with War.

Both of these characters during war, Hector and O’Brien face difficult deathly decisions, but both chose to face death to not dishonor their name. It is clear that people rather die with honor than to live with shame and dishonor.

The Chaos Of War

by lightweight225

The goal of many wartime authors is to bring the reader as close as possible to the feeling of war and to give one a first hand perspective. Homer (“Iliad’), Ernest Junger (“Storm of Steel”), and Steven Spielberg (“Saving Private Ryan”) are authors and directors who focus on the chaotic aspect of war and show the dehumanization of war. All the authors want to reader or viewer to understand the horrors and chaos of war and  they do this through the way they film or the way they write.

Homer writes in a chaotic manner when describing the killing rampage of Achilles after he learns that his best friend Petroclus was slain by Hector. To achieve the brutality and heartlessness of Achilles rage, Homer describes each death by Achilles in less than two lines. “Achilles drove his sword into and the liver came rolling out…” (pg 25). Achilles shows no empathy for those slain. This goes on for a few pages and Achilles nearly kills over 10 people. This also shows the front lines of dehumanization and the value of human life. Ernest Junger achieves this reality of war in his two page story also by the berserk state of the story.

Junger describes the front lines of World War I by dehumanizing the whole event. The men he describes are no longer men, but just one piece to someone’s puzzle. The soldiers in the trenches no longer reacted to bombs around them. “It was as though nothing could hurt them anymore.” (pg 170) The men are in a zombie mode and transform into a berserk state of war. Nothing means anything any more and the men are no longer afraid to die, but they are not conscious of the rage surrounding them. Steven Spielberg describes this chaotic time best in his movie “Saving Private Ryan.”

Steven Speilberg creates his movie by recreating the storming of Omaha beach on D-Day to the most realistic extent ever achieved. He does this by altering camera angles to make one feel like they are with the characters. Also he does this by creating the realistic imagery and sound of scrap metal and bullets hitting off of metal. The cries of nearby soldiers and constant fire from machine gunners put the viewer into the chaotic scenario of those men on Omaha beach on June 6, 1944.

Overall all three authors chose to use their writing or directing show the chaos and horrors of war. By writing and producing films like this people who have never been to war are able to grasp a better understanding of the truth of war.

An Unhealthy Leadership

by lightweight225

Soldiers are supposed to look up to their superiors and trust them in their decisions. But throughout history there has been an unfortunate pattern of untrustworthy leaders who abuse their power. In the Iliad, Base Details, and Paths of Glory all three have trouble with a corrupt leadership. It is a significant problem that all three books can relate, but also have their differences. Unhealthy leaders can cause great harm to an army through their toxic leadership.

In the Iliad Agamemnon is supposed to lead his army, but gets caught up in greed. Agamemnon lets his men suffer as he would not give up Chryses. He let his men suffer will illness and he is more worried about his honor and prizes. The leaders described by Sassoon in Base Details are drinking and fat and let their men die without any respect to their lives. The Generals use the men as their puppets in war and Sassoon risks his life to write about it. General Mireau, in Paths of Glory is willing to fire on his own men to gain honor from his commander. He forces Dax to send his men up Ant Hill to certain death. All of this terrible leadership leads to nothing but setback and failure amongst the armies described.

Honor and greed have clearly gotten in the way in all three stories. These leaders care far more about themselves then their army. In all three cases it led to tragedy and death. This kind of leadership has been around for thousands of years and has only led to failures of war which has ultimately started with an unhealthy leadership. There are true heroes in all the stories, but they are unfortunately hidden in the shadows of the corrupt leaders and can not rise above them.