However, their other possible reasons why the U.S. declared war on May 13, 1846, despite no official declaration of war from Mexico. According to Jennings, “If the war against Mexico demonstrated the potential for the Army to lead multifaceted teams to decisively win on distant and unfamiliar terrain, future endeavors in far-flung theaters will surely provide the opposite, and ultimately crucible, to do so once again” (48). If the U.S. were to be victorious in this campaign, then they would feel confident in future war endeavors. During this campaign, even though the U.S. was winning over the ill-prepared Mexican army, President Polk was blindsided by exiled General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana who claimed that he was able to make peaceful negotiations with Mexico; if he was able to return.
He helped the American military win the Revolutionary War, and was likely one of the most influential people of the entire war. Even with little experience as a general, he became one of the greatest, most widely known leaders of all time. He made mistakes, but he always learned from them and fought his way through. He fought battles bravely and overcame difficulties in the military with ease. This eventually led to him becoming the first ever president of the United States.
The novel also correctly portrays the discipline of the army within the battle, and how that discipline led to vastly successful battle strategies. Finally, the novel accurately reveals the significance behind the weapons that the Macedonians used against their enemies, and how this contributed to their success. Ultimately, Pressfield’s novel not only reveals why Alexander the Great and his army were so successful, but how Alexander and his army affected the rest of the ancient world in the years after. Alexander’s glory and virtue continues to be remembered, and his militaristic
This view clearly ignores the importance of the indigenous allies for the Spaniards. These allies played an important role in aiding and supplying the Spanish forces. They also provided the manpower needed to move these supplies, as well as the Spanish cannons, forward in their movement across Mexico. These allies also provided thousands of warriors who fought and died to support the Spanish victory. Examining these facts it is clear that the Spanish were neither as alone, nor as outnumbered as is popularly
He became leading minister of Charles II and then a founder of the opposing Whig Party, who pushes for constitutional monarchism. Shaftesbury lead the 1679 “exclusion” campaign to bar the catholic duke of York (the future James II) from the Royal succession. (www.let.rug.nl) For John Locke knowledge was not the discovery of anything, but simply the accumulation of “facts” derived from sensory experience. He wrote Two Treatises of Government that put his revolutionary ideas concerning the nature rights of man and social contacts. He also developed a definition of property as the product of a person’s labor that would be foundational for both Adam Smith’s Capitalism and Karl Marx’s Socialism.
He ruled each land according to its own traditions and customs. This made his entire empire weaker because they were not fully united. Another obstacle that Charles V faced was the fact that he had no ambition to extend his influence using military force. He collected wealth to maintain an army, but it was only used to put out rebellions and uprisings within the areas he already controlled.
Locke’s ideas from the Two Treatises of Government and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, were based upon the natural rights where power comes from the people. Both of his pieces contributed to revolutions, most importantly the American Revolution as power from monarchies was removed and democracies were created. Allowed for limited government power and all obligations were to the citizens. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding basis was on how the knowledge existence of God, certain moral truths, and laws of logic or mathematics pertained to the natural rights of
Dismissed by Mark Antony and by the senate as a bit player, he lacked the influential support that most leading Roman politicians, including Antony, found essential to their success, and therefore he had to rely more on direct appeals to the masses as well as Julius Caesar’s troops and supporters. At this stage in his career, Octavian had only two reliable tools available to him— his new name, Caesar, and promises of rewards to the soldiers; he deployed both with daring and decisiveness, and proved repeatedly capable of deft and resolute action in defense of his
first chapter of The Constitution of Liberty, Hayek (1960) calls Dewey’s attempt to reconcile liberty and equality as jugglery (p.16). Dewey proposes an early version of capability approach on the issue of liberty. In his article Force and Coercion, Dewey (1916) says “Whether the use of force is justified or not....is, in substance, a question of efficiency (including economy) of means in the accomplishing ends” (p.362). In another article Liberty and Social Control (1935), Dewey says “Liberty is not just an idea, and abstract principle. It is power, effective power to do specific things...
Introduction In 17th century, Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes are not only known to have simply disagreed on their scientific theories, but also to strongly disagreeing on the basic method of developing theories. While Descartes deduced physics from axioms, Newton induced his laws from observational evidence. The Age of Reason of the 17th Century and the Age of Enlightenment, a century later along with the great advances in science, the growth of religious tolerance and the rise of liberalism marked the real beginning of modern philosophy.
The Patriots were the underdogs, no one expected the small Patriot army to beat the massive, powerful British army. How did they beat such a big army who had more than double the amount of soldiers as the Patriots? It was because the Patriots had strengths while the British army had weaknesses. The British did have stronger troops, better supplies, and a larger army. However they were thousands of miles away from their supplies, and their leader they also had no allies to help them along the way.
He promoted his soldiers based on their individual ability and personal achievements, and did not approve of having gentlemen who had no clue commanding his armies. “I had rather have a plain, russet-coated captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and nothing else,” is what Oliver Cromwell once said. Maintaining tight discipline both on and off the battlefield was difficult; however it was easily achieved by Cromwell. He also fought alongside his men on the front lines and personal courage led to many of his military successes. Nevertheless, he cared and loved everyone in his army and everyone who served with him.
American generals made mistakes but learned from them. They also had strong leaders like George Washington inspired the troops with loyalty. On the other side of the Atlantic the British were way to confident and their efforts were mostly uncoordinated. Another thing was the Foreign Allies. The Americans had many allies like France, Spain, and The Netherlands.
Mistakes were made by both parties of the short lived battle. Most of which were completed by the United States army and government. For starters, the United States government had no right to eradicate the Native Americans from their tribes. Attempting to move these people was a bad call and should not have been made. All of the Native Americans that stood up against the government made the right call.
Making a Great Civil War General The age old question of what makes a great Civil War General is not an easy one to ask.. I don’t want to address the reasons why or the causes of the Civil War because depending on your geographical location they tend to lean in favor of our statehood and education in where you grew up from. In my opinion, Generals are not made in a class room environment. They are taught by experience in the battle fields where enlisted men are sent to defend and fight to the death.