Romans could control over their vast territories by basically being smarter than other civilizations. If they wanted to take over an area they wouldn’t create chaos and try to take over extremely forcefully like many other civilizations. They devoted themselves to the disciplines of warfare unlike the Persians and many Greeks. Being able to conquer so much land, meant that they had to have specific ways to control it. One of the ways they did that was by not imposing heavy taxation to conquered land.
The colonists won the War for Independence due to their superior tactics and soldiering. We won the war because the people of that time had the will to fight. We mainly won the war because of the French. Until the French decided to give aid, our soldiers most likely did not have enough weapons and ammunition. I imagine that there would have been more battles like Breed 's Hill without them.
This way, no one got hurt and the Incan Empire grew. However, if the opposing tribe chose to not become part of the Incan empire, the Incas would fight them and often win due to the size of their military. The majority of opposing tribes
Isolating Chaeronea and Issus, as units of analysis, illustrates the importance of the Macedonian army equipment and weaponry. First, the sarissa is arguably the hero of Chaeronea due to the opportunity it provided Alexander’s cavalry unit as previously mentioned. In contrast, the sarissa was scantly mentioned at Issus to a point were some historians question its presence. Nonetheless, the second and third order effects of the sarissa, namely the increased armor of the cavalry units and hypaspists, were critical to Alexander’s victory over Darius and the Persians. Additionally, Alexander relied on his infantry in the middle of his battle line to provide a sturdy base for flanking maneuvers along the wings; a tactic similar to Philip’s at Chaeronea.
Why did William win the Battle of Hastings? In this essay I will be talking about why I believe that strategy was the most important factor in the Norman’s victory at the Battle of Hastings. I will also be looking at how the other factors, skill and luck, fit in with their win. Many different factors contributed to William’s win; however, I believe that the most important was strategy. I believe that tactics were the most important because the Normans would not have won if they didn’t lure the English away from their position on top of the hill To me the second most important factor of William’s success was skill as, had William’s army not been skillful, their attack would not have been as effective because the archers were there to soften
One reason why Kamehameha was an effective leader is because he had a strong military. He set up trades with foreigners granting him advisors, weapons, iron and steel which were rare resources to the Hawaiians. The foreign guns that he traded were more powerful than the traditional Hawaiian weapons giving an edge in simply brute force. His foreign advisors taught him complex, but efficient battle strategies that worked better than just rushing at
Alterman starts off explaining his view that using the term “war” is a misleading notion which has been erroneously used by leaders. Alterman states, “We like the idea of fighting wars because we think we can win a clear victory. And in our long history of wars against other nations, we 've defeated many of them. But we can 't win a war against a complex phenomenon like poverty, drug use, or terrorism.” (2017). He expands on how terrorists have the advantage of relatively easy access to weapons, and the easy communication, including social media and TV.
•Both sides realized it would be a longer and bloodier war than they expected •It helped both sides get prepared with strategies •It helped inexperienced soldiers for battle •The first couple battle can add or subtract support •It showed that even though the south had less people they were still fight •It showed that the North neede better generals and soldiers •Most of all it showed the Confederates were prepared and ready to win after winning the first two battles
This habit, if practiced, would, as he believed, enable to scale heights more easily and clamber down precipices with less danger”. This along with the harsh training tactics such as lack of food and dealing with changes in temperature further helped young Spartans acquire the basic elements of military for their fighting. The Spartans were fully invested in being militarily dominant. Like the Roman legions, Spartans had an undying loyalty to their country and fellow soldiers. Both Roman and Spartan soldiers would rather die than concede their honor by
The more liberal view of othismos in hoplite warfare presents that instead of a literal mass shove of shields and bodies against each other, there was more leeway between two opposing sides due to the nature of the phalanx formation. It is suggested that perhaps the organisation of the hoplite phalanx, with close order shields and an underarm spear technique, managed to keep a spear length between two opposing battle formations. Furthermore, this idea is perhaps the most commonly represented mode of battle for hoplites represented in the ancient texts, lending weight to the more liberal interpretation of
To make an assumption that either style of fighting is more superior, even knowing them, is going to be highly opinionated. The truth is that either style could win you a battle if other standards are met. Certain factors include, the morale of the troops, how well your men respect your leadership, and what enemy you’re facing, and the list goes on and on. The Union’s style of fighting derived mainly from the Anglo-Saxon style of fighting. Their way of fighting included exchanging missile attacks, in that era gunfire, while advancing in a shield wall, now in that era, they did not use shields, thus they just advanced or stood still in a strait line.
In order to Mission Command the BDE in direct action fight against a near-peer threat, our MAIN CP configuration had to evolve. Doctrinally, a command post’s configuration boils down to two opposing forces: Survivability versus Efficiency. A command post’s survivability is vital to mission success; however, command posts often gain survivability at the price of effectiveness. When concentrated, the enemy can easily acquire and target most command posts.
The more mass and weight behind your army, the more powerful it was. By having a substantial weight advantage over your adversary, an offensive gain was the natural result. Since the sarissa provided the Macedonian commanders with more offensive power than their opponents, Philip and Alexander were able to dictate the tempo and position of battle. As the offensive element, the tempo of battle is manipulated because the defending unit is put into a reactive stance instead of a proactive one. The reactive element cannot choose where and how to fight, but is limited to counterattacks in confined manners.
With Alexander’s brilliant mind, outstanding tactics and being a military specialist he made in battle adjustments without hesitation. Although, in order to do so he needed a light weight army to move fast and quickly relocate from one position another. To do so his men had light armor to maneuver better in battle. Another perk to the light weight armor was after running and fighting his men we not nearly as tired as the enemies men were which kept his men in full force. Before battles he would scout the terrain of the next up and coming battle to strategize ahead of time to find what would work best according to the terrain.