Song remains the same
This week we examined the battle of Thermopylae, between the Greeks and the Persians. This battle has been a favorite of scholars as well as Hollywood and has produced many books and scholarly articles as well as two movies. It took place in 480 BCE at a time when Xerxes and the Medes sought to sweep over the world. Famously 300 Spartans under the leadership of their king Leonidas held the Persians at bay in the narrow pass of Thermopylae also called the Gates of Fire, so that the Greek army would have time to gather their forces against the imposing threat. It turned out to be a real underdog battle between the 300 Lacedaemonians and the one billion Persians. But what are the truths to this battle? two differing accounts of this war has been told by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. Why would the Spartans choose to fight against such a great army the Medes had assembled? Where was their flight or fight instincts common to all men faced with certain death? What kind of Leader was Leonidas and why would his followers plunge themselves into such circumstances at his calling? These were a few of the questions asked in this module.
Xenophon, in his Constitutions of the Lacedaemonians, considers why Sparta, though among the most thinly populated states of Greeceis one of the most populated and celebrated. The institution that the Spartans follow was given by Lycurgus, in the hope that they should obey to their prosperity. Lycurgus put into practice customs and laws that set a culture very different from any of the other greek states. It focused on stoicism (defined as the endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings and without complaint). The constitution focused on the militarization of the Spartan state, both men and women. He insisted on physical training for the women and men, believing that they both being vigorous would dutifully produce vigorous childeren. The adults were not to have casual intercourse, but strictly for the purpose of producing children, and these children, especially the males, were groomed into soldiers from the youngest of ages, fighting, training, hardening their feet by barefootedness, and they were to eat a lean diet that would stretch them tall and avoid lethargic tendencies. The young men,from their youth were ever in the care of someone, so that they would always be accountable for their actions. Very much unlike what young men experience today, for when they turn eighteen and twenty-one, they are considered independent and only accountable to themselves for their actions and to the law.
Thursday 12noon-1pm Douglass Hall Private study
In Sparta, the law governed every aspect of life so much that the individual would be entirely subjected to it. And in every case "men punish a learner for not carrying out properly what he is taught to do". Another interesting custom that pervaded Greek nations, but that were contrary in the state of Sparta is the intimacy between men and boys. Whereas we observed in last weeks module "Socrates' last stand" where many young men admired Socrates including Alcibiadies and sought to develop a intimacy with him; Spartan states duly discouraged and punished any man for loving young men based on their outward appearance. Although I suspect that in Sparta, Socrates would have come under no punishment since he rejected Alcibiadies so absolutely. But the Spartans, after the laws of Lycurgus, only approved of this pederasty if, "someone, being an honest man admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and tried to associate with him".
And so it was that these laws and other developed the Spartans into a modest people in complete subjection to the law and even the pleasures of the flesh in regards to intimacy and appetite. Their amount of food was neither too much or too little; they lived by the sword and by the honor of their customs; they hunted and made war; and in every aspect of life, a competitive spirit developed between the young men that caused them to vie among one another.
Even the women in their conversations embodied a stoic spirit as it concerned the life of their husbands and their sons. One women when she was handing her son his shield exclaimed, "Son with this or on it!". these and many other pithy language expressed and uplifted the spartan ethos. They were a people that valued their reputation, and the reputation of their State more than any individual, or group or even king (as we will see in the story of Leonidas. They concluded that to die a noble death in battle, at eh forefront of the van, among their brethren was the most noble of was to die; and that to stand near and thrust at the enemy in war, and to stand ground and never retreat or surrender was the most noble way to live. Thus they were a military state of great power, under a king of great repute and leadership, Leonidas.
Knowing all this, we were asked in class, "what are the challenges in trying to undercover the truth of any given leader? Are these sources that we have accurate? Was it a factual approach in recording these histories?" How much cross-referencing can we do?
The leaders of today also prevent a certain restriction of access to information, for example the emails that were withheld from Hiliary Clinton. Many other truths are withheld, either through
- Outright lying (lie of commission), with the intent to mislead
- The lie of Omission, with the intent to withhold the truth
- Credibility also present an obstacle, because people tend to believe credible sources
- People withhold the truth under threat of punishment from the law or institutions
- Governmental or institutional Privacy (matters of national security, and classified information
- Personal privacy, how important is it for us to know private details about our leaders and where do we draw the line
- Impression management, where leaders seek to answer the closest version of an answer that will allow them to stay on topic even while they push their agenda.
- Reporters may be conflicted on reporting on heralded leaders can also pose a threat to truth
- And also Interpretation, this plays a part in how the truth is represented and in what light it is revealed. People can interpret facts and event much differently than others
- Forgetfulness and bias obscure the truth too
- Finally, history is essentially story telling. the more interesting a story will be appreciated. Stories can be told to awe its audience (like what comics do) or to instruct and persuade its audience through argument
The kinds of truth that we are likely to uncover about any leader depend on a lot of factors. How private is the person, how much can we really determine about their physical and mental health, and are these objective?
We explored the Goldwater rule: which determined how ethical it was for psychiatrists to speculate about the mental health of public figures they have not thoroughly examined. The APA (American Psychiatric Association) said it was unethical. We in the public do it all the time.
Although Xenophon was a man of war and had traveled with the Spartan infantry and even commanded Spartans himself, he was speculating on the effectiveness of the laws of Lycurgus. Laws that were created 150 years before his life. Yet the element that differs between Xenophon contemplating these laws "with regard and wonder" and commenting that Lycurgus, "had reached the utmost limit of wisdom" and us doing the same today is that Lycurgus is said to have went to the Oracle of Delphi and inquired of Apollo about his laws and received approval. The blessings of the gods trump the Goldwater standard any day.
When I consider the saying of Spartan women, one saying strikes me in particular:
When some woman heard that her son had been saved and had escaped from the enemy, she wrote him a letter: “You’ve been tainted by a bad reputation. Either wipe this out now or cease to exist.”
This is interesting, because according to the Laconic Spartan saying: "with it or on it" the only honor for a Spartan soldier is to die in the van at eh forefront of battle and be carried on your shield (now a stretcher) or to come back with your shield in hand after being successful (brave) in battle. What the pithy saying meant was that there was no other options for a Spartan, one did not have the option of dropping their shield and sword and running away from battle (like what happened in 424 BCE).
But the saying by the Spartan woman to her son that had shown cowardice in the face of the enemy is that he must wipe out his tainted reputation or cease to exist. But how could he "wipe out" the reputation, he had already ran away. There were no other options for him. what I think his mother really meant was to kill himself; mercy killings were not novel among Spartan women, because it is reported that they did indeed kill their own sons who had disgraced the Spartan law in battle. I think the "cease to exist" of what the Spartan woman was saying to her son was no real option for him and it did not mean to kill himself, but rather it meant for him to cease to have ever existed at all. to make himself wiped from memory clean as if he had never been born to her. He could not have ever ceased to exist--though she would disown him indeed-- but he would still exist in memory, he could not wipe himself from history clean. Thus I believe that in the statement about his tainted reputation, "Either wipe this out now or cease to exist" she really offered him one option, which was death. Death was the way to wipe his tainted reputation clean, for he could not cease to exist in the proper sense of the term.
And so it was that Among all Greeks and warring nations of the time, that you either deserve to die in battle, or to live to be a slave, disgraced. And this is what happened to the Spartans that had gave up arms and surrendered. They were disgraced. They had disobeyed the laws of Lycurgus, and their ethos and identity was shattered, to the point that I believe they could not recognize themselves. I liken it modern day society where a law abiding citizen, middle aged taxpayer and someone with a great reverence for the laws of the land and their God, to kill someone. They must inevitable have a shattered sense of their identity. They had always followed the rules of law, they were well indoctrinated into the beliefs of, say the Ten Commandments(if they were Christians) and they identified themselves by these laws and by their way of life from a young age only to kill someone in the middle of their life. This would have turned their world upside down, and made them question who they are. This is what I believed happened to the Spartans that had broken their law and ethos.
Spartans either die or be victorious in battle.
Thursday 9/29 9-11am Classroom
What was the way of Leonidas' leadership? True to the Spartan way. True to the laws of Lycurgus. True to his identity. Also he was a descendant Of Herakles, so in this he was much more informed and encouraged to bravery in battle. Leonidas did such things as:
- Led the front of the battle: this encouraged the rest of the Greek nations who say the Persians as such a great threat that they had already sent sand and water to Xerxes, a symbol of submission that he could have their nations and they were to become his subjects. These nations also knew the Spartans to be a great warrior nation and respected them for them military prowess, as indeed exhibited in Leonidas leading them at the front of the battle to delay the Persians crossing the Thermopylae. Here Leonidas exhibited his bravery, Herakles heritage and the Spartan way, plunging himself deep into battle.
- He took only 300 of his soldiers: here he made a striking statement, that if he could delay the one billion Persian army with just so few of his soldiers that they Medes were not so intimidating after all. A point that he expressed to the Greek nations he rallied with his was that Xerxes was a mere man mortal and could fall like any other. Taking only 300 of his soldiers sought to encourage his men attending him on the journey as well as those Spartans preparing for war that would come after. In the words of the Spartan poet Tyrtaios, "when a man standeth firm in the forefront without ceasing, and making heart and soul to abide, forgetteth foul flight altogether and hearteneth by his words him that he standeth by."
- He brought the Thebans with him, because it was known that they were sympathetic to the Persians and did not wish to make war with them. In this action he exhibited foresight and military acumen, knowing that by forcing the Theband to unite with him, he would cause other Greek nations to unite and also prevent them from subverting the cause of resisting the Medes.
- He dismissed the Greek armies assembled with him when he discover that the Persians had circumvented the Thermopylae and were coming to surround his army. Here he showed mercy to them, and did not force them to stay with him (although the did make the Thebands stay for obvious reasons). Leonidas and his men stayed although they had the opportunity to escape, showing themselves worthy of being called Spartan men and worthy of being called the sons of Spartan women and the followers of law until death.
- In the version told by Diodorus, Leonidas made his men to eat breakfast quickly and attacked the Persian army while it was still night, slaughtering many of them and sending them into confusion and panic, slaying Xerxes two brothers, princes of the persian army and even aiming to kill Xerxes himself who narrowly escaped. Here Leonidas spearheaded a great assassination attempt that could have ended the war between the Greeks and the Persians with one blow. By allowing hismen to eat and early breakfast and other acts that they did like combing their long hair and fussing over their appearance they showed calm resolve to their fate and I assume this would have encouraged them and boosted the morale of the army.
- He sent back messengers with poor vision and also consulted the Oracle before he left for war. Here he showed the traits of good judgement by sending wounded messengers instead of able bodied men, who he would have needed for the fight, and also he showed compassion for them whose eyesight was failing. In consulting the Oracle he also showed good judgement, because he used his resourcefulness and consulted the gods.
- Finally he went with his 300 men. this ensured that he would be able to see that job done right instead of entrusting the mission to another. He know that if the Medes were to cross the narrow path too quickly that the Greek armies would not have time to assemble, and also the prophecy declared that either one Spartan kind must die or the whole Spartan race must perish. He showed a sense of selflessness and sacrifice for the greater good of his people and their future.
Bravery/Courage. Emotional awareness. Resolution. Piety.
Sacrifice. Foresight/ providentia. Composure. Cunning. Pride (although his motives may have been overdetermined in the search of glory. But that can be debated). Rhetoric. Subtle humility and Badassness.
Xerxes wants our weapons? Okay. "Molon labe!"
"Come and get 'em!"
In class we also discussed the difference in leadership styles of Leonidas and Lycurgus.
I have already attributed many deeds and characteristics to Leonidas, here are a few for Lycurgus:
- He was an innovator and a visionary
- In being this type of leader and inventing the Spartan Law, he had to think about a variety of "moving parts" as Dr. Sandridge coined it. The politeia/polis or political state had to be thought of very meticulously. Lycurgus contemplated and implemented into his laws everything from gender relations between the male and female sexes of every age. Education of the children. Recreation and lifestyle, hobbies and sport. Diet and even proportions, the growth of the human body and how it develops from height to width. Culture. International relations and what Sparta would represent to the rest of Greece. Reproduction and how to create the most vigorous and physical offspring. These are all great topics of debate of today with many differing opinions and customs, and I'm sure it was the same way back in ancient times as well.
If I had to put myself into one of these categories (which I was asked to do in class) I would have to be honest and say I'm a Leonidas, and although Leonidas is a great and wonderful leader I admit what I say this with a hint of sadness. Loenidas was a managerial leader, He was no Steve Jobs.
I see myself developing into a Lycurgus now, but my track record has been that of Leonidas. because of the Education I've received up until now and the unexamined life that I've lived, I have never seen myself as an innovator or someone that thinks as deeply or challenges the status quo enough to consider alternatives or to change things. I would say that up until these past two years I have suffered from a lack of drive to innovate and even when I got this nudge to do great things and think bigger, I have been stumped at how to start and where to start first. But a quote from Mark Twain: "The secret of getting ahead is getting started". This quote has encouraged me to start where I am at now, to forget about the resources I don't have and to concentrate on the ones that I do have. I other words, "I have to start now, wherever I am at, with whatever that I have."
Thursday 7-11pm Private study and contemplation
The way that I understand this question of Lycurgus vs. Leonidas is by comparing startup companies.
in startups, there are IDE's and SME's.
- IDE's or Innovation Driven Enterprises are companies that are original in their design and novel in the function they seek to serve within the market place. The investment is higher (the organization of all those moving parts), and although there is a greater risk involved, there is a much greater opportunity for growth and expansion and for scaling the company up. This is Lycurgus.
- SME's or Small and Medium Enterprises are companies that are created to serve a specific need in the market that has been well established and explored. They support an existing need and specifically defined purpose. The investment and risk is much lower, and so is the chance for growth. This is Leonidas.
In this common session held by William Hobart College and Dr. Forbes, we tackled whether leadership has changed much from ancient times until now, something that we have talked about in previous models. However what I found interesting is the concept in Military literature journals that young soldiers were becoming mentally agile, and being able to contextualize context. they are able to recognize and diagnose a plethora of different factors in order to determine the most intelligent course of action.
When a leader can look back on past experiences as well as draw on their current training, they are able to achieve what is called a dual lens. They become better informed of the logistics and dynamics of a situation. And not because someone may have more experience than another person means they have a better dual lens. I learnt that experience is not so much the amount of time someone has been doing an activity or task or job, but experience is more of an ability of someone to look at their past history and experiences and their ability to extract wisdom. Experience is extracted wisdom from past experience, not the experience itself. This knowledge is only wisdom if it can be reflected upon and utilized in an effective way in present situations.
I learnt that a great tool to contextualize a decision is through STEEPLED
- Social
- Technological
- Ethical
- Environmental
- Political
- Legal
- Economical
- Demographics