Characteristics Of The Unstoppable Force?

The strong and unconquerable army in both cultures ensured phenomenal military conquests and the protection of the state. In the Greek culture, the army is very important. For example, in Sparta from the age of seven boys leave their family and live in barracks with soldiers in order to prepare for the military life. In Macedonia, army is also very important. For instance, boys are trained to endure harsher things in order to be ready for war. The military techniques of the respective armies in those two cultures demonstrate that nothing is worth more than military success. In fact, the special technic used by Spartans (the phalanx), usually ensured their victory for example against Persians. Macedonia army also have a particular technique

The soldiers would enter the battle in chariots, launching javelins into the enemy formations, then dismount for hand-to-hand combat with more javelin throwing, rock throwing, and hand to hand sword and shield fighting. In the Iliad Homer also mentions the use of the phalanx formation being used by the Greeks. The phalanx is a rectangular mass military formation, usually composed entirely of heavy infantry armed with spears, pikes, or similar weapons . Scholars suggest that the Greeks would have used this tactic because the alignment of shields minimises the chances of projectiles hitting the men, and the men can move as one, strong unit.

The Greeks, Trojans, and Spartans armies were very strategic and resourceful. They used battle forms, The Gods, their religion, and outside the box thinking to overcome battles and win wars. Tactics were highly impressive in the “Bronze Age” and are shown through the very impressive wars they have won. The Greeks used many tactics that included some strategies that are still used in today's

Current militaries have benefitted from the principles of ancient Greek and Roman warfare by studying the ancient battles, tactics, and use of supplies to develop effective military plans. Current militaries study and debate historical turning points of the ancient battles to understand how the leaders planned and executed battles. The empires’ growth was due in part to the might and successes of their military. The strength of their militaries came from many factors including their use of armor, weapons, and military tactics. The empires’ leaders used these three advantages to create the superior armies of their time.

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

Hoplites fight in an organized line called a phalanx. They would overlap their shields, thus producing an impenetrable wall. This phalanx would be able to spread out into a line and place itself into valleys or between mountains, causing their enemy to have to go through them rather than around. This phalanx would work very well within Greece due to the geography of Greece itself. Greece has many mountains and valleys that work well for this type of warfare. Throughout this paper you will learn why hoplite warfare is the single most effective type of warfare in Greek history.

That these weapons by being relatively immobile would be default provide soldiers and armies in a defensive posture with a tremendous advantage, as occurred in Manchuria between the Russians and Japanese, did not seem to deter Europe’s strategists from their predisposed affinity for the offense. It did in fact appear to strengthen further their belief in what was believed to be the ultimate deciding factor, that being an unconquerable warrior

At the very beginning I would like to express excitement by “The Peloponnesian War” and its relevance despite 2400 years afterwards. This book is not only relevant for military science, but civil society too. However, this book provides broad and comprehensive details for all levels of military war: strategic, operational, and tactical. I will focus my paper to the military sphere, more particularly, to the evolution of Spartan strategy throughout the War. My intention is to do so through analysis of ends, ways, means, and merge them with related risk. The purpose of this paper is to explain how the changing environment and circumstances influenced and shaped the strategy of

While the ‘political’ level and ‘structural’ level entail that “ancient communities were determined by military factors” (Echeverria 2010:22) and that these military factors “produce and explain broader socio-political change” (Echeverria 2010:22) respectively. By focusing in on the ‘battlefield’ level in his paper, Echeverria Rey stresses the distinction between these three levels and maintains clarity in his argument. He supports his argument by also putting “to the test the assumptions, that first some kinds of weapons and tactics are objectively ‘superior’ to others and that secondly, societies are always trying to create or import such superior weapons and tactics” (Echeverria 2010:24.) While hoplites may not be the epidemy of ancient warfare technological innovation, they are an important part of the history of ancient warfare and exemplify Echeverria Rey’s argument.

The hoplon allowed soldiers to form a phalanx, a positioning strategy involving hoplites to bunch up together in a tight formation. This required soldiers to stand close to each other with their shields raised to provide cover akin to making a moving wall protecting the soldiers as they either moved forward or held a position. The phalanx was a very different style of battle compared to the "looser type of mass formation depicted in the Illiad" (BHAG 73-74). During the Bronze Age of Greece, wars would typically be fought by having thousands of men simply charge at each other without much

As king, Leonidas was a military leader. Like all male Spartan citizens, Leonidas had been trained mentally and physically since childhood in preparation to become a warrior. Hoplites were armed with a round shield, spear and iron short sword. In battle they used a formation called a phalanx, in which rows of warriors stood directly next to each other so that their shields overlapped with one another. During an attack this wall of shields provided significant protection to the warriors behind it. If the phalanx broke or if the enemy attacked from the side or the rear, however, the formation became vulnerable. It was this fatal weakness to the otherwise formidable phalanx formation that proved to be Leonidas’ loss against an invading Persian

The balance of threat theory will now be applied to the Ionian Revolt. First, we must analyze the aggregate power, geographical proximity, offensive capabilities, and offensive intent of Persia. Persia’s aggregate power can be seen in picture 1 in the appendix. It had a very extensive rule and a population of approximately fifty million in 500 BC. Next, the geographical proximity of Ionia and Persia was very close because they shared a border. This caused the Ionians to feel a great threat from Persia. Furthermore, Persia had enacted Persian tyrants within Ionia, which caused the geographical proximity to become even smaller. Since the geographical proximity was low, the threat from Persia increased. In relation to offensive capabilities, Persia was very capable. The military of Persia was known as the Achaemenid Army. The Army consisted of infantry, cavalry, and navy.

Alexander III of Macedon or commonly known as Alexander the Great was a King of Ancient Greek kingdom Macedon and a member of the Argead dynasty. He spent most of his ruling years on an extraordinary military campaign through Asia and northeast Africa and by the time he was 30 he had created one of the largest empires of the Ancient world, stretching from Greece to Egypt and into northwest India. Alexander is thought to be by most people as the greatest military command that ever lived however this wasn’t always the case. Many historians argue that Alexander was in fact the opposite to what he perceived to be. This essay will essentially focus on the good and bad side of Alexander’s campaigns and through the study of various sources we will be able to determined the real truth behind his leadership.

Alexander’s men also had long spears that proved very useful by providing more damage with a longer range. (Fisher, Alexander the Great; Seize the Night). The Romans placed their weaker soldiers in the front and the lighter armed soldiers in the back. This was because the front line is where you would be in the most danger, as they were not commonly attacked from behind. The Romans continued the use of the phalanx formation even though Alexander’s was much more powerful. The phalanx formation was the most dominant formation used in ancient times, which both the Romans and Alexandrians relied upon greatly. The phalanx formation is one of the prominent similarities between the two empires (Alexander,70).

Ancient Egyptian civilization is known for its impressive achievements in art, architecture, scripture, medicine and more. In its earliest stages, geographical location and natural boundaries such as the Nile River, desert landscapes and Mediterranean Sea provided vital protection to ancient Egypt from any foreign invasion. Over the years, as threats became more apparent, and the ancient Egyptian civilization went through a series of militaristic restructures in order to become one of the most powerful civilizations in the ancient near east. “Warfare in Ancient Egypt” by Anthony Spalinger analyzes and explains the chronological development of warfare in ancient Egyptian civilization and their significance in the larger context of the ancient near east. Throughout his analysis, he develops the understanding of socio-political effects of the military system while expressing the idea that warfare developed Egypt as a centralized, hierarchical organization. As a result, the development of warfare in ancient Egyptian civilization led to the continuity of the civilization for years to come. In this essay, we will analyze “Warfare in Ancient Egypt” by asking three separate questions: Is the essay easy to understand? Is the essay informative? And finally, would you recommend this essay to another reader?