It was made up of 10 cohorts (About 480-500 men each), which there were 4 cohorts in the front lines and the rest in the second and third lines. The Roman Legion was a powerful tactic, as for it destroyed almost every Phalanx tactic known, and it was very good at attack and defense within the Legion(s). The Legion consisted of enough men that it could be helpful on both flat and rocky terrain. It is very open to arrows and flammable items, but defended almost everything else. The Roman Legion was very powerful, but was defenseless to big attacks, such as a war elephant or catapults.
He first discusses their armor and says, “there would have been little if any metallic armor.” He then when on to state that most likely the armor was made of bronze or leather. Joshua J. Mark contributes to this topic as he says they wore “breast plate, helmet and greaves.”5 On to the subject of weapons, Lazenby states, “Offensive weapons were probably predominantly-throwing spears and swords.”10 These spears were named ‘Dour’ and were roughly seven feet long.10 Dour spears were not only used for throwing but they were crucial for the success of the Phalanx
First he was strong enough to stand up to Grendel and claim his victory against his opponent. Everyone knew his strength and therefore believed he was the only one capable of fighting the monster Grendel. In the text the guard for Scyldings tells Beowulf, “I have never seen a mightier warrior on earth” Beowulf was also very strong when he was able to rip out Grendel's shoulder, a monster who made the Danes suffer a tremendous amount. Beowulf was also courageous in his battle because he didn't back down against Grendel. He knew of Grendel's fierce attacks on the Danes but he still came to fight him.
Heracles and Hercules are the same mythological hero. Heracles was perhaps the most famous ancient hero. He was a demigod, the half-god, half-human son of Zeus and a mortal woman. Traditionally, this myth has been passed down orally. Heracles was very strong; skillful with a bow and arrow and master wrestler.
Why did Plato reject democracy in The Republic? Cormac O'Herlihy 14318287 There is a strong case to be made to call Plato the greatest of all ancient Philosophers, and a stronger one still to say that The Republic was the greatest of his works. Written as a dialectic between Socrates, Plato's teacher, and a number of Socrates friends and students, The Republic deals with the question of Justice, the character of the just city/society, and the just man. The first seven of the ten books concern themselves with the definition of justice, and the structure of a just city state, with a Guardian class to act as its leaders and protectors. It is not until book 8 that Plato addresses the matter of different systems of rule.
The reason it earn an A because the soldiers were protected with their gear that help them with wars and other stuff. The legions were the basic unit of the roman army. Each legion had from 4,500 to 5,000 heavily armed soldiers. A maniple was a unit of between 60 to 160 soldiers. Roman soldiers were builders as well as fighters.
But in ‘1206 there was at least 105,00.’ (Sverdrup, 2010). Although the military origination and strategies were simple they were extremely effective, each squad was made up of the four main tribes the Arbans, the Mingghans, the Tumerns and the Zunes. The Mongolian empire was famous for their horse archers, but their lanced armed Calvary were as equally skilled with their weapons as the archers. As the Mongols concurred more cities they recruited many other strong soldier types thus allowing them to become a force to be reckoned with. After concurring most of china they recruited the bombardier corps who were classified as master builders and Chinese engineers, thus giving them people who could build siege weapons.
Spears, called spere, ord, aesc, sceaft or gar, were a pretty common weapon. More often than not, they were over 2 metres and could have been used for warfare or hunting. It was encouraged that every freeman have a spear according to the Anglo-Saxon laws. Swords (sweord, secg, heoru, and ecg) were very hard to make and cost a lot of money, so not many people had them unless they were warriors or otherwise quite important. Helmets and chain-mail were worn by only the most important and richest Anglo-Saxon warriors.
While Athenians held such novel freedoms, the fatal flaw of Athenian freedom was its overly collective nature and protection of these freedoms. Athenian demokratia certainly has its merits and proves to have been a system of government and way of life way ahead of its time. The guarantee of political freedom, as the heart of demokratia, is what made the Athenians free. Among the very restricted membership to the citizenry, a system was established that made all citizens free from tyranny. Athenians were also free from invasion and external oppression due to the grandness of the Athenian navy and their monopoly power of the Aegean Sea.
The only form of government discussed above, capable of transparency, good governance, stewardship, freedom, and equality is the democratic system of government, where there are hierarchical administrative structures that ultimately report to the executive arm of government. Notwithstanding the nepotism, corruption, and inequalities that mired the Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy forms of government. We can argue that there are peace and stability in Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy forms of government, compared to the democratic system, for example, the madness of the mob in the Athenian poleis. These are a false sense of peace due to fear of repression and victimization. These forms of Government are the similarity in their style of governance, power is in the hand of the few individuals by hereditary or usurpation, it is an unrepresentative system of governments, unlike the democracy, where power is in the hand of the citizens.
Everyone has their own opinion on how a government should be and how the order should be. Some people are known as the best leaders and some have been known hostile. Certain philosophers have made history based on their views and how they think a society should be handled. Such as John Locke and Niccolò Machiavelli have had different views; how a government should be and what rules should they place on their public. Locke was one of the best “Enlightenment Thinkers”, as for Machiavelli, he was the complete opposite of the other philosopher, Locke.