Journal 8

Shaniyah

Ideas In Antiquity

Journal Week 8

“In this chapter we look at a fictionalized account of the life of Cyrus the Second (a.k.a., “the Great”), the first king of the Persian Empire, as he is described by the fourth-century BCE Athenian author, Xenophon (written c. 365 BCE).”

Leader in My Life:

I would say my middle school law coach who I have kept in contact with has shown

the most leadership in my life. He has guided me through so many vital points in my life as well as opened so many doors for me and allowing me to seize opportunities. He was originally a lawyer who woked the Bronx Supreme courthouse and he is now a manahattan criminal court judge. I listen to 100% of what he tells me just because I know he has my best interest in mind. He has known me since I was 12 and I appreciate him so much because I wouldn’t know my career passion without meeting him. All of my legal success and internships started with him.

Readings:

Xenophon states the essential question from the outset: How can human beings rule other human beings without revolution? Xenophon claims that he first thought the problem of regime stability insoluble, but reflecting on the life of Cyrus the Great changed his mind toward thinking that ruling human beings is not only possible, but “not even difficult if done with knowledge.” The life of Cyrus caused this change in Xenophon’s thought because Cyrus not only ruled the Persians, but also many nations and cities — indeed, he for all intents and purposes ruled the known world. Thus Cyrus was not only a successful king of Persia, he was also a successful emperor that found separate and independent polities with the concomitant continual war and shifting alliances, and brought them into an ordered whole that guaranteed peace in Asia. The Education of Cyrus, then, is about a man who not only learned how to rule his own people, but took rule to its maximal case — rule over all human beings. — IEP

Xenophon’s work covers the rise of Cyrus the Great and Persia, described as a small republic, over the other Asian nations. Book I offers a consideration the regime of the Persians, where boys learn “justice” as boys from other regimes learn grammar, and where hunting is a matter of public concern because it prepares the youths to endure hardship and learn the skills necessary for warfare. Cyrus is raised in the regime of the Persians, where the laws look to the common good in all things. But he also spent time as a child in the kingdom of the Medes, which Xenophon paints as an education in tyranny. Thus Cyrus’ education is a mixture of lawful pursuit of the common good, and tyrannical taking of all things for himself. When the king of Assyria, fearful of the Persian-Median alliance, forms a coalition of nations to destroy Medea, the Medes call upon Persian help and ask for Cyrus as a general. This act of Assyrian injustice against the Medes begins Cyrus’ rise to greatness. — Classics of Strategy and Diplomacy

But being a good leader is itself a complex mixture. Cyrus was raised in the Spartan-like regime of the Persians, learning the arts of combat and endurance. While he with the other Persians boys “learned justice” the way most boys learn grammar, meaning they learned to be lawful, Cyrus supplemented his education by learning the Median way of life, a tyrannical way of life. Thus we might suggest that Cyrus’ blending of Persian lawfulness and Median tyranny is one element in his style of successful leadership. More obviously, Xenophon points to Cyrus skill in handling alliances as a necessary aspect of his empire building. Cyrus never misses an opportunity to enlarge his coalition, either by subjugating the Armenian rebels or detaching Assyrian noblemen from their king. But not only did Cyrus enlarge his coalition, he then changed that coalition into his own empire by being an object of love for all his subjects. Xenophon notices the tangible benefits to being ruled by Cyrus. Thus Xenophon is not necessarily arguing that selfless love was the basis of Cyrus’ rule — he at least partly bought the love of the ruled. To attain love, the basis of political stability of empire, one must give good things to the ruled. — Classica of Strategy and Diplomacy

Cyrus does not delude himself that he will defeat the enemy through simple cunning or maneuver. Instead, he changes the very nature of the Persian army. Most Asian nations, including the Persians, had placed an emphasis on long-distance skirmishing with javelins and bows. The Persians, however, included an element of heavy infantry made up of aristocrats. Cyrus recognizes the possibilities of changing the Persian army into an army of heavy infantry, and expands the heavy infantry element to include all Persians. This democratization of the military has far-reaching effects. The first and most obvious effect is the ease with which the Persian army defeats its enemies using shock tactics. The second is disruption of the Persian regime, which begins to change from an aristocratic regime to a democratic one. In this democratic vein, Cyrus easily mingles and gets to know his men, inviting them to his tent to share dinner and jokes. Shared laughter is an important way to obscure the distinction between the ruler and the ruled, thus increasing the appearance of democratic rule even in the presence of the greatest of monarchs. — Classics of Strategy and Diplomacy

My favorite Passage:

At last, however, his mother went away, but Cyrus remained behind and grew up in Media. Soon he had become so intimately associated with other boys of his own years that he was on easy terms with them. And soon he had won their father’s hearts by visiting them and showing that he loved their sons; so that, if they desired any favour of the king, they bade their sons ask Cyrus to secure it for them. And Cyrus, because of his kindness of heart [philanthrōpia] and his desire for popularity [philotīmia], made every effort to secure for the boys whatever they asked. [2] And Astyages could not refuse any favour that Cyrus asked of him. And this was natural; for, when his grandfather fell sick, Cyrus never left him nor ceased to weep but plainly showed to all that he greatly feared that his grandfather might die. For even at night, if Astyages wanted anything, Cyrus was the first to discover it and with greater alacrity than any one else he would jump up to perform whatever service he thought would give him pleasure, so that he won Astyages’s heart completely. — University of Chicago.

This all reminds me of the greek history I am learning about in my international relations class. Each of these readings that I have read have related to Thuycides writings in my opinion. I will show the parallel between the two ancient greek writings.Thucydides offers what is believed to be a dramatisation of the discussion between the representatives of the two sides. It basically goes as follows. The Athenian envoy speaks without pretenses. Athens comes as a conqueror. To enslave the Melians or to send them into oblivion. The envoy puts this in clear terms, by famously alluding to the fact that the strong do what their power renders possible, while the weak suffer what their weakness entails. This is often translated as “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”. Xenon and Thuycides is similar in that they are both looking at ancient greek to determine and study causes of revolutions. As to the first passage I cited, Cyrus is better than the Athenians because he is becoming a Ruler with his knowledge and kindness. The Athenians were coming with the attotude of a know it all and put themselves on a pedestal. Cyrus would never. The second passage I cited I compare Cyrus to Thuycides. They both have a diverse upbringing. Cyrus having lawfulness but also common good is how Thuycides was raised. The last two paragraphs I cited basically talk about proper diplomacy in the ancient world which is what struck me the most when comparing my two classes this semester. In my international relations class we learn it is not just conquerors that make assessments on the basis of power. Potential allies do the same. States judge alliances in terms of power and control. An alliance must be a platform for expanding their influence and forwarding their agenda. Mere intentions and good will do not grant any kind of superiority when things are to be decided. According to Thuycides, Athens understands that and expects Sparta to not interfere. Other than resist the impending Athenian onslaught, the Melians appeal to morality and the ideals of Justice. To which Athens has an expectedly straightforward answer. Matters of justice only become relevant between equals. Otherwise humans resort to their natural propensity of ruling and dominating whenever they can. Cyrus as a ruler understands this as well. And this is, in a way, the essence of Political Realism: it is possible for humans to abide by ideals, but what makes this more likely than not, is the appropriate configuration of the factors of the case. The imbalance of power engenders a belief in the inequality of those involved. Cyrus was known for his balance of power and where he stood as a leader. This provides incentives for the dominant force to abuse its favourable position. All in all, Humans have the capacity for such behaviour to be a great ruler without being an evil one. Cyrus represents what we learn in international affairs the idealogy of Idealism, where in an Ideal world, we would want to have peaceful transistions of power. Thuycides’ explanation of the Athenian military shows the ideology of Realism, where it is quite harsh and straight foward to the point that war and killing is needed. This theme of geopolitics is why I am an international affairs major. I love it.