History Of The Prussian Army

Drill and discipline, are what make it possible for a victory in battle. If warriors going into battle are not accurately trained in the practice of drill and discipline it can result in a mere senseless blood brawl ending with large amounts of casualties and grave losses. In the battle of Agincourt 1415 is was a battle between King Henry V of England whom wanted to reclaim lands both “won and lost during the previous century” from France which was under the rule of King Charles VI although the army outnumbered the English, it was in this battle the French suffered many casualties due to poor strategy. In the battle of Waterloo 1815 two hundred years later it was a battle between the English army commended by the Duke of Wellington and

The British enrolled about fifty thousand American Loyalists and enlisted the services of many Indians, who though unreliable, who fair-weather fighters, inflamed long stretches of the frontier”(135). This extra help from colonists, Loyalist, hessians, and the Indians only add to the army creating a bigger advantage towards the colonists. Even though they did not win it can said that the British seemed to have a bigger lead on the colonists. Colonists presented themselves as weak and disorganized, where one would presume that they wouldn’t win at all, “Yet the American rebels were badly organized for war. From the earliest days, they had been almost fatally lacking in unity, and a new nation lurched forward uncertainly like an uncoordinated centipede”(136). Organization is important for the colonists because they are competing against a well-developed and trained army.

The types of challenges that the Generals have faced during The Battle of Gettysburg are, location, following orders, and the weaponry. In a life or death situation, the position of where your men are stationed is crucial due to the fact if the opposite army crawls up behind or has the higher ground then there is a greater chance of getting murdered. General’s must accept the system that a more experienced General has stated and to not promote their individual procedures. Finally, the rifles, pistols, muskets, cannons and other artillery the Generals had to work with may have been difficult to shield or perform with. In conclusion, the Generals faced many complications when battling in the Battle of

Professor Freeman, in her lecture titled: “The Logic of a Campaign (or, How in the World Did We Win?)”, talks about “logistical” problems that the British Army faced. First and foremost was the simple problem of supply and demand; regarding both fighting men and basic supplies. England was an ocean away and America’s ports were not always welcoming. Second was the actual lay of the land. British forces were not accustomed to fighting over such a vastly spread out region, nor were the accustomed to guerilla style warfare (Freeman).

Omer Bartov’s book Hitler’s Army takes an interesting look into the social constructs of the Wehrmacht during World War II. Bartov proposes a question of was the Wehrmacht Hitler’s Army. By that they mean did the soldiers of the Wehrmacht believe in Nazi ideology and what they were told they were fighting for, or were they simply soldiers fighting because they were told too. Bartov’s ultimate answer is yes they are loyal to Hitler and his ideology, and he is eventually correct. After training a generation mentally and physically from the age of ten through Hitler Youth programs the Wehrmacht became Hitler’s Army and their blind loyalty distorted their morality to carrying out war crimes when believed to be necessary. He reaches this conclusion by analyzing the Wehrmacht’s time in Russia and how that devastating campaign effected the enlisted soldiers. He finds that the only way the Wehrmacht’s moral even survived this was their warped mentality and cohesion between the soldiers due to harsh discipline.

It is our duty, as soon to be Second Lieutenants in the Army, to learn from history. Learning from mistakes in the past is necessary to understand the responsibilities we will soon have. The Battle of Gettysburg shows prime examples of the nine principles of war: Objective, Offensive, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, Surprise and Simplicity. In the military today, we are overwhelmingly blessed with every asset that we have including technology and monetary resources the list could go on forever but the most invaluable asset is history. Although all nine principles of war are pertinent to success on the battlefield, only five will be discussed in this analysis.

The morning of 2 July did not leave those in Colonel Devin’s 2ND Brigade unengaged as they were held on the front lines from early morning until past noon. Though the fighting continued, General Buford requested “to be allowed to go to the rear for an extensive refit” (Longacre, 1986, p. 205). With only the 9TH New York Cavalry left to support the infantry and protect the flank of the Union Army’s III Corps, General Buford and his division marched to the rear of the Union’s lines. This was not the first questionable decision made by Union commanders during the battle. The multiple conflicting orders that Brigadier General David McMurtrie Gregg, Commanding General of the 2ND Division, Cavalry Corps, received from Major General Alfred Pleasonton, the Commanding General of the Union Cavalry Corps. Those orders regarding the movement of his division “though merely reflecting the uncertainties of the developing campaign, the dispatches harassed Gregg’s troopers almost beyond endurance” (Longacre, 1986, p. 203). When General Gregg’s division arrived to the battlefield his men engaged the Confederates at Brinkerhoff’s Ridge. This effort stalled Ewell’s advance yet again, and did not allow them from engaging in further assaults on Culp’s Hill and East Cemetery

During the 19th century, the United States had two armies. Authorized by congress in 1789, the first was the standing army called as U.S. army. This force consisted of officers commissioned by Congress and men who joined for a five year period. In 1792. Congress created an auxiliary army called as militia. The U.S. army was a national force while the militia was the armies of various states. The militia could be called for federal service: to execute the laws, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions. This two level arrangement formed the basis of military establishment during the war. The U.S. army was not prepared for the war. The congress authorized 8613 men and officers for the war but, the actual number was fewer than 5500.

An examination of how Britain supplied its army, Great Britain could not sustain the Army neither could the colonies (McCoy, 2012). The failure of the British Army supply system demonstrates how the status of essential commodities

Leading into the Fall of 1914, tactics on both sides of the line involved the rapid mobilization, maneuver and envelopment of the opposing side.10 Pre-1914 doctrine took little into account the effects of emerging new technology and their impact on both defensive and offensive operations. This disconnect between doctrine and technology contributed to the failure of early offensive operations in the Fall of 1914 and resulted in staggering casualties.11 Both sides developed doctrine that took into effect the unique terrain and technology that had been developed prior and during World War I. However by the end of the war, a combination of flexibility, decentralized control, and counterattack at every echelon made the German defensive system the most effective.12 This “elastic defense” had three unique characteristics; dedicated counter-attack force at all levels, decentralized command and control, fluid defensive belts and integrated artillery support at the Division level. Under this new doctrine, Corps headquarters had the role sustaining subordinate units, but not directing their actions during battle.13 This defense-in-depth and the lessons learned during the Verdun battles of 1918 were so successful that British forces adopted many of the German tactics with a special emphasis on their counterattack capability.10 Utilizing the new doctrine, by August 1918, Germany had made substantial gains, however had

My first article is the making of Hitler´s army. It’s important to know , because maybe some people would like to know how Hitler´s army was made , and how it all began , so I thought it would be a good topic to talk about , since maybe not many people know how the army was started.My quote below is basically saying that the conservatives and the officers , they all thought hitler would be the kind of person they needed . They thought that he would be a great leader , and lead them all well.“Germany’s conservatives , including the army officer corps increasingly saw hitler as the reiches potiental political savior , a man who could thwart the communist and provide the nation with a unified political leadership , and support the army had supposably lacked in the last war.”Overall , everyone thought that he needed to be leader , and they were excited because they thought he would get them to do what they gotta do , and he’d be a great leader , they all thought that he would help do the things they didnt do from the last war . That’s pretty much how his army started.

If there was one person in the world dead or alive I could met it would be.Adolf Hitler because I would like to know why he didn’t like the Jews. What his military experience was like when he was a dispatch runner and.What was it like to be the president of germany and.We would talk while having lunch at some German restaurant.

In preparation for the war, Bismarck improved the Prussian army and bettered the training in 1862. An alliance was built with Austria in 1864 because they wanted to take over Denmark's southern provinces of Schleswig and Holstein. Australia was given Schleswig and Prussia was acquired Holstein. This settlement was quickly provoked because Bismarck now wanted control over Holstein also. The result was the Seven Week's War which quickly ended, hence the name. Prussia ended up defeating Austrian defenses and Holstein was now in the hands of Bismarck. The loss of Holstein forced Austria to remove itself from all German affairs. Bismarck forged a letter from the French in 1870, indicating that the French ambassador insulted the Prussian king. In

The Battle of Leipzig involved an exciting alliance that put into the battlefield against Napoleon, close to one million soldiers. This is the most substantial number of Soldiers ever assembled at this time in history. The battle of Leipzig is incorrectly compared to the campaigns of Austerlitz, Borodino, and Waterloo. Similarities are the disposition of forces and how events unfolded on one battlefield among two distinct lines of troops. Each line advanced towards each other, with the cavalry making a critical decision to turn a flank or risk opening a line of advance in the center. The infantry may exploit this action. The Battle of Leipzig was nothing like former assaults that were decisive by day’s end, and most resemble the apparent disorganization of vast armies and retreat which were characteristic of much of the fighting in Russia just a year earlier in 1812.

The heavy reliance on superior military technology, increase armaments, and understanding the importance of kinship and culture are three significant drawbacks associated with the Western Way of War. Due to limited military technological advantages, disrupted revolution of military armaments and strained the economy. The lack of understanding of the importance of kinship, culture, and inability to change left the West at disadvantages in some countries, but also impacts today’s military. The Prussian Army, like other western armies, fatefully attempted to grapple with the dilemmas of technological change. As armaments increased the Russian Campaign of 1812, the war continued for beyond what was expected. The lack of understanding the importance of kinship and culture has created some challenges during the time of war.