Ultimately, Trafalgar was won in large part because of superior technology, but no major land battle was.” In this quotation, Broers implies that Bell too quickly dismisses the Royal Navy as a way to strengthen his argument. Moreover, there are many reasons to use naval warfare as the primary
He claims that the WWI was “Armageddon” or the end of the world because it was the most destructive war ever witnessed by humanity. He also says that because it was a great war, the criminals and heroes cannot be found in such a war. However, these features are not what we saw in the past wars because in the old wars, there are heroes, such as Fredrick, Napoleon, Hannibal who physically lead their soldiers in the front lines of the army, but this cannot be seen in this war because of the decline of individual’s role in the new war that the process is a cooperative affair rather than individual. Moreover, this new feature is the reason of not having “loin-hearted warriors” because if the leader is away from his soldiers, then who will motivate them and lead them physically to do their job. As he mentions that it is not a stock market for the generals to do their job far away from the center, but it is war and they needs to be at the center of the battlefield and seriously direct their army.
The late nineteenth century was an error military competition, particularly between the major European powers. The policy of building a stronger military was judged relative to neighbors creating a culture paranoid that heighten the search for alliances. It was fed by the cultural belief that war was good for nations. Germany, in particular, looked to expand their Navy. However, the naval race was never a real contest.
The main causes for World War I are bountiful and important to consider. One of the most important causes was that there was a mutual alliance set across Europe so if a country got attacked, countries would have to get involved in the situation as well which turns it into a bigger situation which forced many of the “powerhouses” to get involved. In this case, when the assassin from Serbia killed the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, other countries had to comply with their alliances, which brought Britain, France, Russia, and Germany just to name a few. More countries, even if not willing, had to get involved. For example, when Austria Hungary ordered to attack Serbia, Germany came into the war by vowing to protect Austria Hungary.
General Clinton’s inaction after General Washington’s force departure guaranteed the historical unfolding of the Siege of Yorktown. The largest contributor to this British disaster lay in the lacking of an analytical apparatus, which could have effectively processed and utilized British intelligence. General Clinton chose to focus more on salvation in the form of reinforcements from Britain than on the immediate steps he could implement in his intelligence war fighting function to cement victory. This overreliance on an ineffective logistical support chain, combined with poor strategy, toxic leadership, and indecisiveness, resulted in an overly defensive positon. This ineptitude set the stage for the loss of British populace support, costing him the war of attrition.
The interwar period, which separated World War I (WWI) from World War II (WWII) is characterized as the period between 1918-1939. During this time, the world witnessed profound changes in how technologically advanced military organizations would fight. Often overlooked though, are other contributing factors that hindered innovation during the period. Much like any time in history, countries were faced with challenges, threats and opportunities. It is the tension, which is nothing more than an obstacle, between the interworking dynamic of these factors – which drives innovation – that will be examined during the interwar period.
Rome went on to conquer and settle Gaul, the Celts and traveled as far as the British Isles. Polybius states that many had mixed ideas of Rome, “[…] thus securing the supremacy for their own country---were the actions of sensible and far-sighted men. Others contradicted this, and asserted that the Romans had no such policy in view when they obtained their supremacy; and that they had gradually and insensibly become perverted to the same ambition for power, which had once characterized the Athenians and Lacedaemonians; and though they had advanced more slowly than these last, that they would from all appearances yet arrive at the same consummation.” Rome left an indelible mark upon the world that is still felt and heard today. Rome after the Punic Wars was very different than the Rome before the long
The diplomatic tendencies of many prominent leaders invited war. Their diplomatic efforts consisted of building a larger military, and expanding their military alliances. World War 1 is considered a diplomatic failure due to this perspective. These leaders did not believe diplomacy’s main purpose was to prevent war, or serve as “the business of peace.” This is due to how war was handled after the Napoleonic Era. Furthermore, diplomacy was often times directly
Taking that, there was huge political chaos in France over the type of government; to at least strive away from an absolute monarchy. Huge rebellions went on to reform the monarchy for the sake of progress, and some of the greatest bloodbaths were from the instability of the radical people during the Reign of Terror. But in the end despite action they resumed back to have another King Louis in charge- even with the philosophy and the extent of violence by the people - due to the simplicity and familiarity of the monarchs no reforms were actually made; so disobedience failed in the eyes of
It signified a shift away from the limitations of 18th century wars; technological advancements inevitably resulted in military power conferred by industrialisation superseding traditional means, therefore causing far greater casualties. The war was characterised by poor leadership, with the legend of Napoleonic tactics rendering both sides blind to the power of modern weaponry, and poor communication. The consequences of both these factors are relevant to Alfred Tennyson’s poem ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’, which reflects on a poorly organised charge of British light cavalry led by Lord Cardigan against Russian forces during the Battle of Balaclava in 1854, “Forward, the Light Brigade!”/ Was there a man dismayed?/ Not though the soldier knew /Someone had blundered. /Theirs not to make reply, /Theirs not to reason why, /Theirs but to do and die. /Into the valley of Death /Rode the six
The author of Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era began this book as an update of existing research on the topic of revolutionary armies. However, in researching for the piece he came across two problems that were nearly universal in works studying the revolutionary armies in the modern era. The first problem was that the comparative analysis utilized in most works ignored the human lives and flaws of the individuals. The second problem was that revolutions had to produce new ways of fighting and a new rugged type of soldier. In recognizing these two things Mackenzie changed the goal of his work.
Argentina was very unique during this period of time, they had a formal and informal power conflict that proceeded after the formal government was established. After this establishment what made them different was their way of further increasing the military. This being said, what Argentina did was not only build political power but also expanded their military power along with it. Sarmiento I feel viewed these caudillos as an end of proper civilization in Argentina. These caudillos and Sarmiento wanted completely different government types, while Sarmiento wanted the western European ways to be established this isn 't what the caudillos wanted.
Not only did was this a threat to everyone, but military leaders began to gain more power in the say of politics. (25-1b, Spielvogel) This actually ended up pushing political leaders to make decisions based on militant reasons for the fear that if they did not they would create mass chaos within their armies. (25-1b, Spielvogel) This was evident in the crisis of the summer if 1914 where many saw the dangers in the combination of the Serbians wanting their own nation and the Russian opposition to Austria. (25-1c, Spielvogel) Combine these two major factors with the governments thinking that a war would suppress internal strife and you have a the powerful mixture that caused World War