Essay about The Art of War in the 17th and 18th Centuries

Louis XIV turned France around from an unorganized feuding country to one of the most organized, powerful, innovative monarchies in Europe. In addition, he managed to advance civil equality among the people by turning all the people into his loyal subjects (Norton, p.175). How did he do all this? The armed forces that had formerly been a private enterprise who had been fighting against each other or had hired themselves out for payment, was taken over and consolidated into one entity fighting, by the king for the king. He made war an activity of the state which produced peace and order in France while strengthening the fighting power of France against other states (Norton, p.175). In addition, he put soldiers in uniform, taught them how to march in step and housed them in barracks which assisted them in becoming more susceptible to discipline and control (Norton, p.175). There was now a hierarchy in place and was able to get a greater degree of government control that put him on the top as the commander in chief of the army due to his power and the creation of the first large civilian administration (Norton, p.176). This was the first time that ministers of war consisted of civilians and this grew the armies power exponentially. Louis XIV also overhauled the grandeur of France when he took an old village Versailles and turned it into the palace of Versailles that became known as one of the most splendid marvels in Europe so much so, that it became the envy of lessor kings.

The definition of the Golden Rule is that those with the gold make the rules. In other words, those with the gold have the power as well as those with the power have the gold. History books will discuss the general reasons for war such as freedom from adversity or freedom from religion. But the real issue for any war is the thirst for power and control; and the means to finance them are the economic issues. Nations will endure years of fighting for power and control. France and England fought each other for more than a hundred years to have control of the Channel trade routes. 1 This century of warring was known as The Hundred Years' War and is the longest war in record history. It began in 1337 when King Edward III

The Great War , or as it is known now, World War One was a global conflict fought between the Allied Powers ; Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States along will other smaller nations and the Central Powers ; Germany, Austria – Hungary, Turkey/Ottoman Empire and other small nations from 1914 to 1918. World War One began from a series of tumultuous events, that in turn affected the balance of alliances that had been made between countries at that time in the world.

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.

Frederick William I, The Solider King, increased the ammount of soliders in the Prussian Army greatly. To recompensate for the increase of soliders, Frederick William I used the majority of the tax money for the Prussian military. Furthermore, Louis XIV desired to expand France by conquering other states. Louis XIV viewed war as a sign of being a powerful ruler. He fought as many war as he could. To recompensate for the expanses of the wars he increased taxes on the peasants. In the beginning Louis XIV saw great success by conquering The Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. Later he only recieved minor territories. In contrast, Frederick William I never fought in any wars. He believed his soliders were too valuable to

“A Splendid Little War” was an alternative title to the Spanish American War named by Ambassador John Hay to his good friend Theodore Roosevelt. This war was one of the shortest wars of all time, lasting only about four months. Surprisingly, the main cause of death in this war wasn’t by being shot, but by dying of diseases such as Yellow Fever, Malaria and other diseases. Only 9,413 Spaniards were killed by wounds and combat and 53,540 were killed by many diseases. In this “Splendid Little War” America was able to free Spain's overseas empire which included Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. The United States was also hungry for foreign good that weren’t available to them in the homeland. After an easy victory over Spain, American was able to control islands in the seas such as Cuba, The Philippines and Guam. After this war, Spain was no longer a world power and the United States was on its way to the top.

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 every major military operation, terrain, troops, and weapons often dictate the way the war is fought. The American Revolutionary War was a prime example of this military policy. It has been said that the Patriots’ use of guerrilla warfare was the reason why the Americans were successful in defeating the British. However, the Americans employed various tactics both on and off the battlefield that led to the ultimate defeat of the British. Though guerrilla warfare was an important facet of the Patriots’ military strategy against the British, the Americans ultimately won the Revolutionary War through an amalgamation of guerrilla warfare, linear battle tactics, and psychological warfare.

King Louis was an Absolute leader he believed that the higher hierarchy should live lavish. To fulfill this he needed money, he used his power to “collect taxes and use the money as he saw fit” (Becker, Doc 1). The Sun King Louis also made sure that what he wants goes, if he felt that something needed to be done good or bad he made sure that the problem was being dealt with.” It would take misfortunes in which they themselves were the sufferers to change their mind about the beneficence of the Sun King” (Glasser Doc 3). Louis’s impact was strong, throughout all his actions he made destroyed the country they were always in wars and the money begin collected went towards military and himself. It was as if he brainwashed his contemporaries to do what he wanted with them not knowing what the long term effects

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.

Although Louis XIV, also known as Louis the Great, brought death and destruction through his wars, there are many positive aspects of his reign, such as the creation of Versailles and the building of France’s national army. He did what had never been done before. He changed the lifestyle and the attitude of France by creating one of the most powerful monarchies ever to be built and at the same time, reassured all the nobility and other wealthy groups of their political and social standings. He made it clear that he was the final decision maker yet he still needed the help of the nobility and other authorities.

The western way of war consists of five foundations that have shaped a significant amount of military cultures; the foundations are superior technology, discipline, a finance system, innovation, and military tradition. Perhaps people believe that discipline is not one of the most important foundations of the western way of war, since people tend to emphasize technology. However, discipline is the key to maximizing the other four foundations before and during conflict. Historian Geoffrey Parker agrees that technology can give a military advantage, but it is not sufficient without superior discipline. That is because discipline consists of the ability of armies to act within battle plans even when not supervised, obey orders, exercise loyalty, and restrain their fears when faced with danger. Discipline as a western way of war has influenced military cultures from the Roman Empire to today’s militaries. Discipline shaped military cultures by how they prepared for war, effectively giving them the ability to act during combat and expanding commander’s operational reach, thus aiding in conflicts throughout history and increasing the likelihood of defeating the adversary.

In his book The War of Art, Steven Pressfield talks about resistance. He defines resistance as self-sabotage of anything in the lines of creativity, art, music, spirituality, and more. Pressfield describes many characteristics of resistance in the first half of his book.

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 “Art of War” and “De Re Militari” two military treatises were written one continent and around five centuries apart by authors that came from two vastly different backgrounds and cultures. Both authors penned treatises intended to inform and educate commanders about war yet the underlying theme is not victory but to ensure the survivability of their soldiers in battle. Sun Tzu and Vegetius differ on their ideas of this specifically on the relationship the military holds between the governing body as well as relations with the civilian population. However, what they do come together on ideas of efficient battle that minimizes Soldier loss as much as possible.