The Roman’s Legion was a powerful 5,000 man army that would charge the enemy. But whose tactic was better? The Greek Phalanx was a powerful 8 man deep “army.” A Greek Phalanx was very powerful on flat terrain, and very useful against spears and or arrows. A Greek Phalanx was almost useless on rocky terrain, and very exposed to large attacks (Like a Legion), but is able to defend and attack at the same time. The men in the Phalanx can put up their shields and make a shield, or they were able to put their spear heads forward, and defend against oncoming attackers.
On the other side, the winners try to extend their lead by charging and attacking. The painting shows a similar situation. Even though the Americans repulsed some of the earlier attacks, the British eventually manage to break through (“Battle”). Hence, the Americans are the losing side. In the background the surging British men outnumber the Americans, but the patriotic fighters use the hill and the higher ground to temporarily hold back the attack.
This ability to plan wisely when preparing for battle, after many years of experience, gave Spartan kings and military officers an advantage over empires with less experienced leaders when heading into war. Battle plans for defense and attack were devised with years of practice behind them and therefore were stronger than most empires’. Their soldiers were heavily armed and had been well prepared for battle after their many years of training in the woods. Strong Spartan war tactics gave them an advantage during combat which is why the majority of their wars were victories. From this, the Spartans grew stronger and more powerful and the empires they defeated fell under the heavy swords of Spartan
When Theodosius II, the emperor of Rome, begged for terms, Attila's tribute was tripled, but, in 447, he attacked the empire again and negotiated another, more expensive, treaty . Additionally, in 451 Attila attempted to conquer Roman Gaul (modern France), however he was defeated at the Battle of Catalanunian Plains. Although, by 452, he invaded Italy, devastating the Northern provinces . Additionally, the Huns played a large part in the eventual fall of Rome. It is known that Attila thrived on warfare and bloodshed, but these accounts of success show how he must have been more than a savage leader to control such a barbaric race.
The Northern railway system was way more effective to the existing railways in the South. “The Civil War was the first war to use railroads, encouraged by President Lincoln — himself a former railroad lawyer — who understood how vital they were for moving men and supplies. The trains allowed generals to move their soldiers, supplies and armaments to where they were most needed.” (Doc 5). These inventions were crucial to the Civil War and some are still used in today’s everyday
To add on, due to this famous battle that the Americans won, the French became convinced to join the war as allies of the Americans. As the war progressed on, the Continental Army became short in their supply of weapons and artillery, but as the French joined the war, they “provided supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army”(History State 1). As the French provided aid and support to the Continental Army, there was a greater chance that the Americans could defeat the British. Also, the increase in their supplies made the military officials more bold and fearless in their attacks which actually brought them more success in the war. On the other hand, the French did not only help the Continental Army by providing them supplies, but instead, the French Army even protected the Americans in attacks from the British.
The transition from republic to empire was due to the colossal feats of both Julius Caesar and Octavian also known as Caesar Augustus. Julius Caesar was a pragmatic military commander and politician that eventually rose up and became the first emperor of Rome. His accomplishments for Rome were vast due to his military expertise but eventually lead to his betrayal and demise. Octavian lived a similar but different life than Julius Caesar. While Julius Caesar’s life ended in tragedy, Octavian was able to live out his life and be an emperor.
They were also had far much more money and industrial power. The north did have its hindrances though. Northern officers were terrible compared to southern officers. Because of their experience in the Mexican American war, southern military commanders were able to more effectively lead troops. The casualty rate between the two sides remained to be in favour of the confederates, and In some cases, battle
Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire dominated the ancient world from 336 to 323 B.C. through military force and cultural exchange. The army of Macedonia had achieved an abundance of success due to Alexander's ability to provide his militaries with the best weapons, instill the training needed to perform battle formations and endure battle as well as the attitude needed to overcome adversity such as being outnumbered by the Persians. Despite conquering various lands, Alexander the Great chose not to impose his rule, but rather embrace certain customs, in order to spread Hellenism and eliminate the perception of being foreign; the process of unification impacted western civilization by mixing the people of Macedonia with other conquered
“The Charge of the Light Brigade”, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, affects my understanding of the real events behind the narrative poem in the following ways. Tennyson used repetition and metaphors and rhyme to deliver his message that battle is intimidating, deathly, and heroic. As depicted in “The Charge of the Light Brigade”, war can be intimidating. A phrase that is repeated twice is “Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them...” Therefore, this imagery presents the army as small because they felt as if they were outnumbered by even the cannons. The detail that Tennyson provided about the number six hundred is crucial because it explained how outnumbered the Brigade actually was.
In the beginning of World War 1 this form of fighting in which two armies would use their cavalry to charge at one another was very common because of its multiple advantages including that the troops had a greater mobility, a larger impact, and the riders had a higher position. For these reasons this type of fighting was a favorite of many generals, including the British cavalry which in 11918 had over 75,000 horses that were used in charges. However, this type of fighting worked well in the beginning of the war, some may argue that it had become completely useless by the end of the war because of the proliferation of war technology. Although horses were used less often by the end of the war compared to the beginning, it does not change the fact the cavalry battle tactics were still being used until the very end of the war. One example of this attack happened in 2March of 1918 when over 150 horses of the British cavalry charged on German fire.
In response, Major Ringgold and Captain Duncan pushed their batteries two hundred yards ahead of Taylor 's line and initiated counterbattery fire. From the onset, it was clear that the US. artillery would dominate on the open field of battle, if only because the Mexicans ' copper cannons lacked the necessary range to be effective. Their iron round shot often fell short of their targets and bounced slowly toward Taylor 's men. By contrast, the American guns were updated 1840
Brian Linn gives the example of a hero as General George S. Patton who went from being a supporter of mechanized warfare, a cavalryman, and then finally becoming one of the greatest practitioners of maneuver warfare. Unlike the Guardians war is not defined by rules or formulas, but by experience and an almost guttural response to combat. Heroes criticize those “who seek to impose predictability and order on a phenomenon they view as chaotic, violent, and emotional” (Linn, 6). At its finest, the Heroic sub-culture provides both an “intellectual and practical framework” (Linn 6-7) that leads to victory on the battlefield. It also can lead to posturing and elitism especially among leadership, and can lead to an “anti-intellectual” (Linn, 7) environment that sees war as an end rather than the means to achieve a political goal.
The North had beaten the South in the Civil War. The North won the war for many reasons; they had some advantages over the South, a great leader, and the desire to win. The North and South fought many battles before the Civil War ended. Each battle had a different outcome and some encouraging the fight and some ended in despair. The North had many advantages.