Analyzing The Origins Of The Dutch Armies And Its First European Applications At The Battle Of Nieuwpoort

In 1645 Oliver Cromwell and Sir Thomas Fair Fax, built the new model army, and in the same year parliament won the battle of Naseby, while the royalist’s armies were still indiscipline. The King had rich supporters, but they also ran out of money, when it came to the battle of Naseby, so the king’s soldiers were in a bad state compared to the parliament’s new model army. After this battle he could have had another chance, but because King Charles was short of money, and unable to build a new discipline army like the Parliament’s. King Charles suffered from his immature army. In many times soldiers forgot to change sashes they wore when fighting, so their new allies shot them.

The book “The Face of Battle: a study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme” authored by John Keegan is a non-fiction resource dedicated to enlightening the reader concerning the history of the military with the emphasis being between the 1960s and 1970s. Keegan provides a more detailed and accurate representation of combat in three fundamental battles in British history, and these include Agincourt, Waterloo, and Somme. In addition, the author attempts to explore the life of a common soldier, which according to him, is shaped by blood, anguish, and gripping fear.

The Battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945) was the last major German offensive campaign on the Western Front during World War II. It was launched, in the dense forest of Ardennes Wallonia in eastern part of Belgium, northeast France, and Luxembourg. This battle was one of the largest fought by the United States Army, on the Western Front in Europe, during World War II. This fierce battle, was between the German Nazi’s, the American Army, Canadian Army, and the British Army, was one of Hitler’s last attempt to split the Allies driving them towards Germany and destroy their ability to supply themselves. Were the Germans able to stop the Americans and the British from getting their supplies? Was the weather a factor and if so, who did it assist in the battle? Was the American Army able to counter attack in a timely manner and stop the German Nazi’s invasion?

The Battle of Passchendaele, also known as the Third Battle of Ypres, was a war between the Allies and Germany from July 31 1917 to November 6 1917. The Allied powers in this battle included France, Great Britain and Canada. The purpose of this battle was to get Germany’s attention off of France, to avoid a collapse of the western front in Belgium, undertaken by Britain. At the same time of helping France, this battle would gain the ridges South and East of Ypres for the allies. This battle was fought at Passchendaele, a town along the Western Front, 5 miles from Ypres. The location of this battle, chosen by Sir Douglas Haig, a British field marshall. This was a horrible location because of the fact that it was marshy and low lying, surrounded by hills with trees, which made a battlefield with poor drainage and hills where German artillery could watch the battlefield

Source one is a primary source with interviews elucidating the strategies undertaken at the Battle of Verdun and the soldier’s perplexing encounters of war. The perspective of this source varies with differing speakers with the first is that of the narrator, describing the history of of the German armies, with mention of Allied responses, giving it the main perspective that of a German history. Due to the first perspective not having a name identified, it therefore reduces the reliability. German solider Ernst Weckerling is that of the second perspective, reiterating his duties and events during his time in Verdun. The final perspective is that of Marcel Batreau, and is analogous to Weckerling’s perspective, with Batreau, a French soldier, telling his version of events during the battle.

Kelly DeVries and Robert Douglas Smith. Medieval Military Technology, Second Edition. Toronto. University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2012. XVIII + 356 pp. Illustrations, bibliographical references, Index. ISBN 978-1-4426-0497-1.

The 100 Years’ War was given a misleading name, as this conflict between England and France was not a war that lasted one hundred years, it was rather a series of related clashes that lasted just over a century. However, the fact that this conflict lasted more that one hundred years meant that many new tactics and weaponry came into play that changed the concepts of warfare forever. During this one hundred years, tactics changed from the system of feudal armies dominated by heavy Calvary, to the first attempt at some sort of ‘standing army’. The evolution in the types of tactics and weapons that nations used caused the battlefields of Europe to be covered in blood, as the more advanced the weapons, became, the more casualties amounted. The 100 Years’ War was the first time that strategy was used in order to command troops on the battlefield, and it was during this time that the fabrication of early martial handbooks also came into the battle. One of the more famous authors of one of these books was “the great Swabian practitioner and teacher, Johannes Liechtenauer” . Unfortunately, there are no French texts concerning martial handbooks that predate 1570, meaning that in order to look at tactics, sources from surrounding nations at the time have to suffice. Another thing that evolved extremely rapidly during the 100 years’ war, was the escalation of the types of weapons used during conflicts. Inasmuch there were 100 years of outright fighting, each side had a chance to

The purpose of this narrative is to detail the battle of Fort Wagner during the Civil War. This focus explains the defeat of Union forces and how the implementation of intelligence assets may have resulted in Union victory. The use of reconnaissance and scout assets by Union forces would have resulted in the success of the Union Army at Fort Wagner. Fort Wagner was a key stronghold for Confederate forces, securing the Charleston Harbor and protecting passage to the Rebel birthplace and Confederate capital of Charleston, South Carolina. Union regiments stormed the beaches of Morris Island on 10 July 1863 with the intention of assuming control over Fort Wagner. The Confederate forces fortified the camp with artillery and mortars, thwarting the Union Regiments’ advances. The use of intelligence assets would have revealed the Confederate Army’s disposition, allowing the Union Army to refine their attack strategy and conclude with the success of the Union.

On the morning of April 19, 1775, about 700 British troops arrived in the town of Lexington from Boston on their march to Concord; seventy-seven American militiamen met them on the town’s green. A British Army officer yelled to the militiamen to “Throw down your arms! Ye villains, ye rebels!” (Fighting Breaks Out, n.d.). An officer within the militia ranks gave the order for the militia to disperse. A single musket shot rang out from an unknown source shortly after the militia began to leave the field. The British unit then fired several volleys at the American militiamen. Eight American militiamen were dead, and nine lay wounded when the engagement was over. The British suffered one

The Dutch fought to retain holdings in Africa, Asia, and South America.. But they surrendered New Netherland in 1664 w/o a fight.

REVIEW THE SETTING (Set the Stage): This portion of the battle analysis format establishes the setting for the study. You must have a good understanding of the strategic, operational, and tactical situations before you can analyze the battle. The level of detail in this portion of the battle analysis will depend on the purpose of the study and the audience for which it is intended. If the causes of the war and the opponents are well known, there is little reason to go into great detail.

The Battle of Thermopylae was one of the most significant battles in all off ancient history. It occurred in 480 BC between the invading Persian army, led by the self-proclaimed god-King Xerxes, and the Greek city-states, led by King Leonidas. Analysis of the battle of Thermopylae presents a classic case study highlighting how proper training; pre-battle planning and preparation; superior implementation of observation and fields of fire, avenues of approach, key terrain, obstacles, and cover and concealment (OAKOC); and cultural differences allowed a smaller military force to withstand a much larger opposing military force. This paper will apply the United States Army’s Four Steps of Battle Analysis to evaluate the key factors that

Military strategy forever had been battles of attrition, men throwing themselves at each other until a winner was determined, this form of battle was replaced in Europe during the 16th and 17th century. The change in military strategy took place mostly in Europe, and the countries at the forefront of this were the Swedish empire and the Netherlands. The Swedes and Dutch changed many military strategies and practices which were in place for thousands of years and changed the standard for militaries. They helped to show the first realistic application of David versus Goliath, using smart tactics paired with a smaller army to destroy militaries of greater size. The two smallest nations in Europe took control and led the world in military innovations in the 16th and 17th century through competition and loss. The Swedes and Dutch managed to create fluid militaries which were able to overpower larger armies through deception and agility. The Swedish and Dutch nations during the 16th and 17th century gained military strength through the reformation of tactics, reorganization of the military, improvisation of weapons, and as a result changed the image and action of the military forever. The idea of a military revolution was first explored by a man named Michael Roberts in the 1950s. Roberts said that if the Swedish Empire and the Netherlands had not developed as they did, military strategy and organization would have not evolved for much later.

     Medieval tactics were essential for an attack or siege of a castle. Many tactics and strategies helped develop much-improved version of an attacking artifact, like weapons and sieging machinery. The knights of Medieval England which were the cavalry, improved as the years went by, but never actually had any tactics or strategies. The usual knight would just go out there and fight. The knights were the counter offensive against a small siege, but they were ineffective against a large siege of a castle. A siege was very essential for medieval warfare. Siege was like the most important part of an attack; that is if you’re attacking a castle.

The battle of Thermopylae was the Greek’s first stand against the massive army of King Xerxes, and was the most influential battle of the entire war. Up to this point, the Persian army was seen as too massive and powerful to be stopped. The once warring city-states of Greece knew they couldn’t stand against the Persians alone, and knew in order to defend their homeland they would have to unite. A unity of command was agreed upon; King Leonidas of Sparta was chosen to lead the Greek forces. He was chosen to lead because of the unsurpassed warring abilities the Spartans were so well known for made him perfect for the objective of stopping the Persians.