In the times of the Peloponnesian war, the small island of Melos, whose people back then served as allies to the nation of Sparta, found itself caught in the crossfire between their allies and the great nation of Athens. The more powerful Athenians were drawn towards Melos as it was very strategically placed. They sent a delegation to Melos, in the hopes of persuading its people to surrender, rather than having to suffer an all out attack. Melos, however, though clearly outnumbered, refused, stood proud, chose martyrdom over strategy, fought, and failed miserably. Their allies, the Spartans, whom they had hoped would eventually come to reinforce them, never showed up. In the end, the Athenians claimed Melos, killed all of its military men, sold its women and children for slaves, and repopulated the island with their own people.
Law 22 simply teaches us that in times we are faced with an unbeatable foe, it would usually be best to lay down our arms and surrender. This would place our adversary in a position of momentary satisfaction and complacency. We on the other hand, would be given the chance to recoup, and behind their back, plot our revenge. In the long run, this is more strategic and proves to be the wiser choice. Simply stated, it merely tells us to take strategy over pride. Had the Melians chosen to surrender, and become allies to the Athenians instead, they could have had the chance to momentarily feign obedience and plan a rebellion, eventually tearing up the colonizers from the inside. At the very least, they could have gained a few things, either economically or culturally, from the invaders.
The application of this law could be seen through the course of our history as a nation. Being outnumbered, our forefathers were wise to temporarily succumb to each of our invaders, getting what we could from each of them before eventually striking back, and gaining our sovereignty. Indeed, we would not be what we are today without the few contributions of each of our colonizers.
Submitted by:
Angelo Ricardo L. Mendoza
II BS Communications Technology Management
History 18, Section L
Prof. Andrea Jalandoni
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
in my opinion, the surrender tactic wasn't really applied in our country since we never pretended to succumb and were never "temporarily" colonized. each colonization period lasted for years! So there. the surrender tactic is dangerous in itself since you're not at all sure if you can overthrow your enemy once he has control of your movements, allies/friends and your resources.
but of course, this law is a great thing to use if you aren't strong enough to defend yourself, or pretending to "be a sucker to catch a sucker" or simply calculating the proper "timing".
monica ang, L
i like this law because you make it appear that your have surrendered and are helpless and weak. it may seem as though you have already submitted but in reality, you just want your enemy to think that he has won. by giving your enemy a sense of triumph and satisfaction, you are actually putting him in a position of weakness. once he thinks that he has already won, he will think that everything is over. once he lets his guard down, that would be the perfect time to attack. by attacking at this time, you will be striking your enemy at a moment where he least expects it. this means that your enemy is not prepared to protect himself and to fight back.
one example that came to mind is the Trojan horse from the movie Troy. by giving the trojan horse to the trojans, it seemed as though the spartans had already retreated and thus, surrendered. the trojans felt that they were victorious and they eventually celebrated. they had nothing to worry about and everything seemed alright. at that very moment, the spartans emerged from inside the horse and attacked. the trojans were very vulnerable because they did not see this coming. from here, we can see how strategic the spartans were and how they effectively made use of the surrender tactic.
-Philip Albert T. Verde
Hi18 K
One must be very cautious with respects to practicing this specific tactic. The scenario must be setup in a particular way in order for this tactic to be successful. A civilization may cease to expand If this tactic is used to often, especially when given the perfect opportunity.
Never the less, the surrender tactic could be used as a tool of advantage over others. It permits one to hold a higher position against his/her enemies,
Richard Hahn
L
Your law could go well with my law ( Law # 35- Master the art of timing) . I think that in order for this to be successful,one must be able to know when the PROPER TIME is to use it.
After all, this cant be used often.... the "surrender" may turn into a failure.
The law does have its risks.
Raizza Encinas
Hi 18 Section L
This is very similar to my law (39: Stir Up Waters to Catch Fish). It's a rational one actually. The whole idea of making our opponent think that they've won when they haven't is devious. At the same time, we aren't exactly trampling upon them. It's just a matter of timing; delving away from a more evil approach that is absolute deception.
Monica Copuyoc
Hi18- L
i don't think it's about timing or pretending to be weak. it's knowing that you are and retreating because you need to regroup. and that's why i think this law is smart. it's about knowing when you can and cannot beat your enemy at your current state.
ocampo 18-k
I think Leonidas would have a problem with this law though lol. Sometimes pride gets in the way of logic. Sometimes the "never give up never surrender" attitude isn't the best alternative when it comes to making one's way to the top.
Surrender gives the one at advantage a chance - a chance to be merciful and noble in the eyes of his people. So if the one at advantage doesn't follow the law of "Crush your enemy totally" then he'll allow your surrender, and give you more time to brood about more ways to power.
Denis Flores
Hi 18k
A lot of these laws of power involve deception and this one may prove to be effective who is arrogant enough to put his guard down when the enemy surrenders. I see the logic in laying your arms down when faced with insurmountable odds. But a downside to this is time. Between laying down your arms and striking at the perfect opportunity is the wait. Waiting for the chance to strike may not come at once and whether or not the chance will come will depend on how wisely you spend your time preparing for the attack.
Gliza Marasigan Hi18-L
I don't think that absence increases respect and honor at all. In fact i believe that absence does the exact opposite. What can increase respect and honor is not the absence but it's what the person does do upon his or her return. You mentioned Mcarthur. Being gone, Filipinos surely hoped and prayed for his return. This did not increase their respect for him. This only brought the expectations of the people on him to a higher level. Imagine if Mcarthur was unsuccesful or if upon his return he was shot down without putting up a fight. Then the wait was for nothing and the people's respect and honor for him just went down the drain.
Gliza Marasigan Hi18-L
I also see the story of the Trojan War and the use of the trojan horse in relation to this surrender tactic. This has proven its effectiveness in the past, but it also has shown us that we have to exchange one's pride to surrender.
Sometimes i think about it.. what if we never fought with our colonizers? Would our country be in a better position today? Would we have been able to maximize the knowledge about politics, economy, etc that they know about? Look at Guam, as we all know it is now a colony of the United States I would say that they are doing very well especially now that their economy is growing because of the developments in their country.
The surrender tactic is effective but risky, because you have to actually persuade people that you really surrendered.
Laurine Fabul, L
I think that the surrender tactic should only be used as a last resort. Surrendering doesn't guarantee the opportunity to recoup and defeat colonizers. In the case of the Philippines, we were conquered for long periods of time, hence, we lost a big chunk of our culture and values. I agree with you when you say that we would not be what we are today without the few contributions of each of our colonizers, but really, are the beneficial contributions of our colonizers enough to offset the negative repercussions brought about by their colonization?
Elise Noelle Anne Lim
HI 18 Section L
I agree with this law; however, aren't there times where surrendering is not an option? During the time of Hannibal, had Rome surrendered when he was at their doorstep - possibly their most vulnerable point in history, they would have lost everything.
In times like these, with your back against the wall, all you can do is grit your teeth... and charge forward.
Filbert Tan
Hi18-K
Surrendering may not all the time be applicable. I mean if you know that you can win over your opponent through and through, why retract from that succession of "victory"? Sometimes, people just need to hold their ground, believe that they can push it forward rather than laying low momentarily which in my opinion may stagnate or lower the standard perse.
Rhea Entuna
section L
“Simply stated, it merely tells us to take strategy over pride…” I also think this is what this law is all about. Strategy over pride. But this is actually easier said than done.
Pride has always been a problem with “powerful” people. Of course, you need to have pride or people to respect you. And this law is telling a person to forget about it for a while. It’s like it’s saying “forget about how people will look at you.” Again, for an authoritative person, whose priorities include a great image, this phrase sounds like it’s saying, “Die.” And true enough, many people have died for pride, like those Melians for example.
About what was said about our forefathers, I don’t think I consider this a good example for this law. I don’t think they used the surrender tactic. I believe they didn’t really think about the colonizers as invaders when these foreign people arrived. So they didn’t actually plan on “temporarily succumbing” to them. It just happened. And the influence and the striking back was not something planned either. These just happened. I also would like to argue about the adjective for the contributions, “few”. I believe it’s a lot more than that.
Anyway, this is a good law if put to good use.
Chris Macalinao
Hi18 –L
Surrender is a wise option sometimes. If it comes down to it being a better way of recuperating your forces and re-establishing stability, then by all means agree to peace.
The biggest drawback for this law, though, might be the sense of beholdenness that could add to another state's imperialism--they could always demand favors from you because they saved you, and you might be under their control for too long a time.
Peep Warren
Hi18-L
This is a matter of trust and certainty. Those who are of lesser power may either be gullible or too loyal. This is because, like the Melos, they are not certain with that will happen. I don't think this tactic would be very effective because there are numerous concerns. And because obviously, these lower classes have nothing much to offer with their army. There is always a dilemma when you are the weak one. I think it is still most effective to build a better force rather than cling to others because there isn't much to do.
Czarina Kathryne Masagca
Hi18-L
Hey there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues with hackers?
My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended
up losing several weeks of hard work due to no back up.
Do you have any solutions to stop hackers?
Look into my webpage; registry cleaners
Fantastic articles is post by you in this blog. You give a nice thing. Thank you for such a nice article. Every word of this blog helps me to give detail to me.
Cook at 48 Laws of Power foods.
Post a Comment