The Roman Legion was very powerful, but was defenseless to big attacks, such as a war elephant or catapults. The Greek Phalanx was powerful on flat terrain, and better at defense than offense, whilst the Roman Legion was good at rocky and flat terrain, and better at offense. The Roman Legion has beaten (not necessarily the Greek Phalanx) Phalanxes before, and the Phalanxes have beaten a Legion before. They are both better than each other in their own tactical ways, but one is obviously better than the
Submarine Warfare In World War 2 Did you know that 90% of Japan’s merchant ships and battleships were sunk caused by submarines in World War 2? This happens due to invisibility from ships, submarines were very popular and widely used by many countries. Although naval battles were mostly ships, submarines had the upper hand for many reasons. Most people would think that submarines in World War 2 would be underwater at an enormous depth but actually they weren't! This is why I think that submarines were the best battle tactic in WW2 The basics of submarines is they were surface ships so they would be barely touching the water.
Although Wolsey was able to celebrate success at the beginning of this juridical reformation and served his King successfully by making the system more efficient, meaning that his subjects were subjected to less waiting time and the system had less chance of being corrupted, it was eventually corrupted and abused. This turned a success into a failure and his own goals of removing threats to him from Henry, so that they would have no further influence, brought about another failure. He not only failed to serve his King, as his duties suffered when his timetable was overcome by too many court cases, but also failed to serve himself or the country.
The depth charge was first invented late in World War I and was therefore not used by many navies until World War II (Fontenoy, “Depth”). Depth charges were thrown off the side of ships or dropped out of aircrafts into the area where the U-Boat was last seen (Fontenoy, “Depth”). U-Boats were so effective in destroying U-Boats because the U-Boat was already under pressure due to being underwater and was not built to withstand any kind off blow so depth charges could very easily destroy a U-Boat and could do so in a short period of time. Depth charges were used in both World War I and World War II, but changed a severe amount between these two wars (Fontenoy, ”Depth”). The major way they changed between these two wars was not in the depth charges themselves it was more in more advanced drop patterns and more effective pressure readers that allowed ships and aircraft to destroy the U-Boats more efficiently (Fontenoy “Depth”).
While the land battles took their toll on the manpower of countries, severely depleting it, the navy was more of a hindrance to enemies. There were no naval battles of extreme proportions, and the navy could not influence the land battles which were the main way of fighting. Instead, the navy served as means of depleting the enemy of food such as the British blockade of Germany with only minor skirmishes and medium sized battles such as the battle of Jutland. Both Germany and Britain had large navies, Britain even had an advantage in size, but the fear from losing their navies didn’t result in their full
Overall, Thomas Jefferson would be the best choice if he ran for the presidency today when compared to Andrew Jackson. This choice is based singularly on fact, not opinion. Jefferson was more qualified to deal with economic issues considering he consistently paid off national debt so it did not accumulate. Also, while Andrew Jackson was more coordinated and qualified when it came to matters of national defense, it only contributed to his lack of gracefulness when dealing with the economy. Lastly, Jefferson would be much more eligible for office when considering issues of racial controversy since he made more of a stride to equality for all races than Andrew Jackson.
The doge himself did not have much power; he was a just a political figure seen by the people. The Republic of Venice thrived because it needed more than one person to authorize a political move. This decreased the chances of corruption, because everything in the council was
However, Aragon experienced a lot less problems filling the ranks of the distant fleet rather than the fleet at home. The issues that Roger encountered trying to maintain his fleet was extensive and tedious. He was always lacking sufficient men. This resulted in the fleet being a mixture of Muslims and Christians from North Africa, Iberia, Sicily and Calabria. This would normally seem to be a power keg of an idea, fearing a separated fleet.
At some point, both settlements were involved with trading with Native Americans. An area where Plymouth were more successful was how they prevented casualties by befriending Native Americans. Although Jamestown and Plymouth were plagued by hunger, disease and environmental hazards Plymouth was triumphant because they overcame their setbacks. This proved that the English and Native Americans could live together in harmony. Although Jamestown had better success in creating a thriving economy, it 's ceased to exist in the 1700s because people had lost interest in it.
They also feared that if the middle class protestors joined the lower class unrest, they would pose a massively bigger threat. However it was perhaps not as dangerous as these landed classes believed as the violence was mostly handled well by the government, as there were usually not large numbers of protestors, the urban violence was not linked very strongly at all to the middle class political organisation, and few of these riots actually spread to nearby areas. The parallels to the French Revolution are perhaps not accurate as it could be said that the riots were actually closer to the popular riots in the 1700s than the French Revolution. In fact the Hamburger Thesis suggested that threat these protests and riots posed were exaggerated by pro-reform politicians in an attempt to scare those who were still undecided into supporting the reform
In that case, the results were diametrically opposite to when it was first employed in Vietnam where the Iraqi army was turned back in virtually no time and Kuwait liberated. U.S. casualties were limited and the conflict was a boon to the U.S. economy where it prevented Iraq from controlling a substantial portion of Mideast oil reserves. It also kept in check the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and helped the U.S. obtain support from several allies in that region and across the world. Although the Munich analogy is generally seen to be a poor strategy because appeasement usually does not work as was the case with World War II, the Vietnam War presents some evidence it is not always the best cause of action. Appeasement in that case would have been the better option where the communist expansion would be limited and many American lives saved.