Military Strategy : The Dutch Empire And The Netherlands

“For the Common Defense, a military history of the United States from 1607-2012” is a military historic book written by Allan R. Millet, Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis. Millet is a historian and a retired colonel of the Marine Corps. Maslowski is a professor at the University of Nebraska. Feis is a professor at Buena Vista University. This book was published in September 2012. It focuses on chronologically describing the changes of the United States military for over 400 years. Even though that is the main purpose, it does include political information. Although this book does not have an exact thesis, its purpose is to inform readers of the creation and enhancements of the US military. At almost 700 pages, this book educates about

There is a sense that modern weapons during the 20th century proved to be the most technological advancements and thus created competition in which sprawled into a new stage of warfare enlightenment. At the brink of the war and the salient of forces perhaps the most technological tool used had been the trenches. The pursuit of territorial conquest would halt at the trench lines inventing a new progression in how war is envisioned today. The disadvantages often outnumber the benefits of war, however, war managed to create a boosted in advanced warfare starting as early as the Franco-Prussian War. As the war progressed during 1914, items such as uniforms called for change. The sense of pride in nationality struck in numbers and not in bright colors. For the sake of duty and country was the most powerful drive including those who sought ground in the western lines.

World War 1 had a source of Militarism. “The armies of both France and Germany had more than doubled between 1870 and 1914 and there was fierce competition between Britain and Germany for mastery of the seas (Anorak)”. Germans soon followed though the suit for their own battleships. Von Schlieffen drew up a plan which involved an attack on France through Belgium if Russia made an attack on Germany. Another example that shows

DeVries and Smith have succeeded in laying out and proving their argument, which is that medieval military technology was influenced both by that of society on technology, and technology’s influence on society; although, the argument of this book was somewhat difficult to figure out. Neither the introduction nor conclusion in, Medieval Military Technology is clear at pointing out the central argument of the book. Instead, these sections describe other historians’ contributions to the field of military technology, the structure of the book itself, happenings during the Middle Ages, and the dying out of military practices. It is not until you have thoroughly completed reading the text and reviewed its contents that you understand the books purpose.

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

In the book “ For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012” by Allan R. Millett , Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis tell their readers about all the major historical events that occurred in the United States and how they either brought up or brought down the United States later in the future. The authors organize the book by listing the historic events in chronological order. The authors built the structure of the book by using a large vocabulary and by having a formal tone in order to catch their audience attention which are professors and/or students. The purpose of this book is to inform and educate others on the major historic events that occurred in the United States so that they will have a better understanding on the events that built up the Unites States.

Technology also played a major role in the evolution of warfare. The change from Roman and Grecian tactics into guerrilla warfare was due to the inability to sustain large amounts of troops and the causality losses with the improvement of artillery, biological, and personal firearms allowing for greater efficiency against larger numbers of individuals. Attempting to deal with a larger, better equipped force, smaller, subversive groups were force to resort to not directly engaging their foe.

During the time period of 1789 to 1914, several changes began to occur within the European military. Leaders began changing their techniques on how they would approach battles, placement of their men, what kind of equipment they would utilize, along with their means of transportation, how would they communicate with others, along with several other changes. During this time period, the use of technology began to increase which had allowed for the battles to become easier for those using the new technology. There were three important changes that had occurred in the European military which included: transportation with the service of trains and railways, the newest weapons such as the breech-loading rifles, and communication by using telegraphs. With these three inventions, this had changed the outcome on wars and battles for the days to come.

MP1 One of the Carl Von Clausewitz’s central issues that describes war’s dynamic is the concept of “culminating point of victory.” Clausewitz advocated the idea that an offensive should be focused on the defender’s collapse, otherwise there is a “culminating point”, a momentum where the attacker loses his advantage for strategic victory. As he mentioned, “every attack which does not lead to peace must necessarily end up as a defense.” Military history has been enriched by battles of commanders with an overestimating self-confidence and high spirit who failed to identify this momentum. As a result, they lost the tactical advantage and they were defeated. Classical example in the World War II

The Dutch West India Company settled New Netherlands, and the Dutch bought Manhattan. New Netherland was aristocratic and feudal.

Unique systems of finance such as nation state resources, levee en masse, and alliances provided the means to build, strengthen, and maintain military forces for war. Innovation was used to change organizational design and maneuver practices which allowed the command and control of large military forces and successful engagements of the enemy. Discipline allowed forces to understand and study tactics through Bildung and Nationalism among troops allowed forces to move great distance by pillaging for logistic resources without deserting their units.

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

Countermarching is the military maneuver in which rows of infantry take turns advancing and firing upon an enemy, only to be replaced by the rank behind them which had already reloaded. The maneuver would allow ranks of infantry to establish a constant base of fire while involving a greater proportion of rifle bearing soldiers at a single given time. The deadly practice saw its first applications in late 16th century Japan and later developed independently in the midst of the Dutch Revolt in Western Europe. Western European countermarch stemmed from humble and classical origins, but would grow to be the status quo used by every major military power in Europe by the end of the 17th century. To fully grasp the importance of this development,

Throughout the ages of history, there were many wars that were fought. For every victory and defeat, what was it that really determined the outcome of the war? Which army leader had the better or worse battle plan? With the plan they had, did it increase their chances of victory? Were there key factors in an army leader’s plan that lead to their defeat? Or, was the best decision made to completely avoid war? For a lot of the wars that took place and the ones that were avoided many years ago, the mystery still remains unsolved on how and why certain army leaders were victorious or gained a certain advantage because of the choices they made. On the other hand, it is also unknown on how or why an army leader failed to a certain extent

The nation of Indonesia has barely had independence for less than a hundred years. Before the Japanese captured the country; Indonesia was in the control of the Dutch for 350 years. Indonesia did not receive its independence till December 1949. Why did the Dutch decide to settle land in what was commonly known as the Dutch East Indies and how were the lives of the natives affected?