The Battle Of Jericho By Joshua Huxley

Joshua 7:1-9 outlines the initial failed attack on Ai. One possible reading is to say that the omission of YHWH’s voice in the attack is the reason that they were defeated. While there is some truth that can be extracted from this, I think it’s more beneficial to note that the text attributes this failure to the poor military advice given to Joshua (Joshua 7:3). In addition, it is also helpful to note the lack of reason given for the Israelites needing to take on Ai. Unlike the two occurrences with Moses that I have already mentioned, Ai posed to no threat to the Israelites. Unlike Jericho, YHWH gave no command regarding whether Ai was to be attacked or not. Verses 6-10 show Joshua to fall down and inquire of the Lord (which is something I’m

In “War and Massacre” by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good.

Where Men Win Glory is an ironic euphemism for war. The title is ironic because there is nothing glorious about war or the way it ended Pat Tillman’s beautiful life. Jon Krakauer orchestrates this masterpiece with his diligently, articulated descriptions and with a timeline sewn together from the threads of two worlds. The author’s style can best be characterized by his challenging, precise diction and his ability to fluently intervene pertinent quotes and facts that further persuade the reader toward his cause. Throughout the book, the author’s tone harnesses resentment towards the militant hierarchy; for through its ingenuousness, deceit, and manipulation, the military uses Pat’s death as propaganda to bolster the war’s support.

To the United States, World War II is believed to be a good war, and why wouldn’t it be considered as such? During World War II, in addition to stopping mass genocide and stopping the spread of Nazism and Fascism, the United States beat Japan after their attack on Pearl Harbor. As a result, the U.S. was no longer in the Depression and the United States became a world power. However, in “The Best War Ever,” Michael C.C. Adams argues that as a result of Hollywood’s glamorization of the war, government propaganda/censorship, and the widespread of economic prosperity, Americans were kept in the dark about the truth regarding World War II resulting in the popular belief and myth that World War II was a good war.

You are galloping full speed at full speed like it is the last day of your life, you ride into the city of Yorktown fiercely, then your rider wants you to go faster, you are galloping faster than you have ever run, as fast as a speeding bullet. The wind is slapping your face as hard as a hammer, you finally run into the sea of smoke, muskets, and bayonets. The person riding you violently thrusts his mighty sword, and swiftly fires his French pistol. Cannonballs fly over you like soaring hawks destroying the fortifications that may have taken years to build, you are a proud horse in The American Revolutionary War, and you will never stop galloping for the Patriots even if it kills you.

John Keegan describes his book, The Face of Battle, as "a personal attempt to catch a glimpse of the face of battle." This personal aspect that Keegan mentions is essential to his book and is excellently articulated, driving home his point. Keegan, who taught at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst for over 25 years, begins by acknowledging his uneasiness with the fact that even though he taught British cadets military history, "I have not been in a battle; not near one, nor heard one from afar, nor seen the aftermath . . . And I grow increasingly convinced that I have very little idea of what a battle can be like." Keegan is clear to state his proposition that almost all military history has functioned simply as a “battle piece” description in which one can see all the larger moving aspects followed by the outcome. However, this sort of recounting fails to acknowledge the personal side of war, the experience of battle. What really ensues when a cavalry unit meets an infantry unit? What are the vital features in determining whether soldiers stand and fight or turn and run?

June 6, 1944, known infamously as D-Day, was the largest amphibious offensive in military history. The strategy and planning of the battle that turned the tide of World War II was an operation that took months of meticulous planning, worry and sacrifice. The Allies crossed the English Channel to the beaches of Normandy, France with more than 5,000 ships, 11,000 planes, and 50,000 vehicles carrying 150,000 service men and equipment that would change the world forever. Waiting for them was the Atlantic Wall with a German Army with more than fifty divisions at their disposal. Attempting to breach the concrete gun emplacements, anti-tank obstacles, mines, tripods and large weaponry would prove to be deadly, but ultimately a successful invasion.

In Tomorrow When the War Began, John Marsden uses many narrative features to make Ellie's World real for readers. Setting and themes are both vital to the plot, as well as the overall atmosphere of the story. The main themes in Tomorrow When the War Began are ambiguity, friendships, and personal growth. These themes both make the story relatable to readers, and forces them out of their comfort zone. The setting of the novel, at least for Australian readers, is incredibly familiar and real.

Due to the horror that was committed in Gibeah, the tribes of Israel gathered together at Mizpah (v. 1). A leader of each tribe was present, along with four hundred thousand armed men (v. 2). The leaders proceeded to ask how the deed happened, and the Levite regaled them with the story from the previous chapter (v. 3-6). The Israelites decided to fight against Gibeah by lot (v. 7-10). They were assembled together as one person against Gibeah (v. 11). They also sent messengers to the Benjamites asking them to deliver the perverted men to them for judgment (v. 12-13). The Benjamites replied by mobilizing their forces and preparing for battle (v. 14).

First, the Divided Kingdom. From studies, the Old Testament and other sources have it that not long after the reign of Saul, David, and Solomon the Kingdom of Israel was divided into two kingdoms. Despite warnings from many prophets, both kingdoms repeatedly turn from God. The Divided Kingdom, of the South and North, period follows the continuing story of Scripture in the books of 1 Kings (chapters 11-22) and 2 Kings. And this period is recounted in three acts: the division of the kingdom, the resulting northern kingdom (which takes “Israel”), and the resulting southern kingdom (which takes the name “Judah.”). Assyria and Babylon force the divided kingdoms into exile. Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed.

After reading Joshua 11, it becomes understandable that the Israelites were a group of people that were slowing gaining territory (although we didn’t get to the read the context, this is what the book portrays) with the help of the Lord, God. What made this possible was their commitment to stick with God’s ultimate say. Orders were handed down from God to Moses and from Moses to Joshua, who was the one that executed it. Nonetheless, only by reading Joshua 11 one can only contemplate mere assumptions on why the Israelites attacked the kingdoms of Hazar. Perhaps it was because these kingdoms failed to recognize the Lord as their God, but this is far from context as what really is important is the military accomplishments of Israel. Israel

Joshua, whose name means "God delivered", was the servant of Moses and was his successor when he died. He was Moses’ general, who led the troops in actual fighting while Aaron held up Moses' hands. Joshua, who actually led the Israelites into the promised land, was a military leader, a political leader, and a spiritual leader. He believed in doing whatever it takes. He was bold, courageous and was confident when he spoke on behalf of the Lord. When God gave Joshua orders, he did not try to defend the people or talk God out of His decisions, he was quick to obey. He gave the people the choice of which God would they serve. The Israelites chose to serve God, the one and only true living God, so Joshua made a covenant with the People. Joshua was

In Joshua 6:16, Joshua is quoted as saying, “Shout! For the Lord has given you the city!” And, when the Israelites cried out as one, when they made a mighty noise for God, the walls of Jericho crumbled and

And according to the Book of Joshua,the Bittle of Jericho is the first battle of the Israelites of their conquest in Canaan.Based from the 6:1-27 of Joshua, the walls of Jericho fell after Joshua's Israelite army marched around of the city blowing their trumpets and the walls of Jericho is

Assured of success, Joshua renewed his plans to conquer Ai. The enemy forces were lured into the open so that the thirty thousand men who had stationed beyond the city by night were able to attack Ai from the near and set it afire. The defenders were annihilated, their king was hanged and the site was reduced to rubble. When Israel makes its second attack, the people of Ai as well as the inhabitants of Bethel vacate their cities to pursue the enemy (Josh. 8: 17).