The Battles of Philippi

Great men have lived on the face of the earth and left marks of their prowess and legacy that men of the present and even the future find it hard to emulate; a good example of such men is Alexander the Great. This paper seeks to explain further Alexander’s military genius and its positive impact on military impact over the past centuries. The paper also gives a well thought analysis why Alexander was so much successful in his wars and conquests. His big empire spread all the way from Gibraltar to the Punjab and in his leadership made Greek the lingua franca of his new World (Cary, M, 1932).

One of the leaders, Lucius Aemilius, saw that the ground was flat so he thought they should not engage with their enemy. However, the other leader, Marcus Terentius Varro, thought differently and thought they should advance. The solution to this problem was to let the leaders be in command on different days and since the next day was Marcus Terentius Varro's day to command, he ordered them to advance. In the battle Lucius Aemilius died in the thick of the fight and Marcus Terentius Varro fled. In the end the Carthaginians won because of their superiority in cavalry.

I chose the Civil War because I enjoy the history of the United States. I thought the Civil War be an interesting topic since it was a big part of slavery. The Civil War changed our history so I think that is why people find it such a popular part of history, and most likely the reason I enjoy learning history. A bonus was that I already knew three things about the Civil War era. Abraham Lincoln was also the first president who declared he was going to get rid of slavery. If the Union didn't win the war, I believe we would still have slavery. Also, that the Union and Confederate each had their own president.

“Herodotus of Halicarnassus here gives the results of his researches, so that the events of human history may not fade with time and the notable achievements both of Greeks and of foreigners may not lack their due fame; and, among other things, to show why these peoples came to make war on one another.” Herodotus is considered one of the founders of historiography. It had long been argued that Herodotus was important for his military histories of Ancient Greece, but although his works focused on military and war he put specific emphasis on detailed factors that related more to the cultural aspects of Greek history.

Many people know that Julius Caesar was betrayed and killed by many people who he had thought to be his friends. Some less common knowledge is that he did still have friends and others who stayed loyal to him. One man named Mark Antony was the most loyal of them all, even after Caesar’s death. When he found out Caesar had been killed, he began plotting to get on the traitor’s good sides and make it seem as if he had joined them so that he could convince the citizens to fight against them with him. He deceived the traitors and convinced them to let him speak at Caesar’s funeral, and in this speech he turned the citizens against them using very powerful rhetorical skills. After he had drove the traitors from the city, he took control of the city and led them to victory in a war against the conspirator’s armies. These are three telling examples that prove Antony’s skill and potential as a leader.

Mark Antony was one of Caesars greatest friends, that he could always count on even after he is brutally murdered. At his funeral he proves many points with just one speech. He get an uproar of anger and pride from the Roman people as he delivers his speech.

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 Trojan War is described as one of histories most legendary battles. This battle is told to have lasted ten years, resulting in the eventual collapse of Troy, under the siege of Greek forces. Modern knowledge of the Trojan War has survived mainly through the account given in Homer’s Illiad, and while having proved to be a rich source of inspiration for other writers, artists, and even filmmakers in recent history, much speculation still exists surrounding his account. I will analyze modern interpretations of the Trojan War and examine both speculation and support for Homer’s account. Concluding with sufficient evidence that has been collected surrounding this epic battle, proving Homer’s account of a massive battle between these two powerful city states to not be just a tale of myth and legend, but actual history.

The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.

The Civil War, consisting in large part of Caesar’s own account of the conflict between himself and Pompey, explores the origins of the war, the manner in which it was carried out, and most importantly the role of pivotal figures on both sides of the struggle. Prior to his records ending and supplementation by military officers, Caesar makes a case for his involvement in and perhaps triggering of the war, one which would transform the social and political landscape of the Roman empire as battles and campaigns were waged from Spain to Italy, Africa to Asia Minor. Caesar walks a fine line between historian, strategist and orator as he attempts to record historical events, martial decisions, and persuade an audience respectively. Despite his efforts to remain impartial, as evidenced by his admission that “the Pompeians were winning” at Dyrrachium, Caesar consistently presents himself as a charismatic and skilled general and leader, jeopardizing the integrity of the text as objective material and allowing it to be a propagandist account of sorts. Ultimately, Caesar uses anecdotal evidence, the presentation of his personal thoughts, and juxtaposition with his opposition to paint his side of the war in a positive and just light.

Compare and contrast Thucydides’ and Socrates’ analyses of the fate of Athenian democracy in war, of why the Athenians went to war, and of how and why they failed.

In Mary Beard’s book, The Roman Triumph, she explores one of the most interesting victory celebrations of the ancient world. Instead of having a small gathering, or even a raucous party, Romans brought what they had seized and carted it through the city. They even brought some people they had captured so that the crowd could know exactly who they triumphed against. This celebration gives historians a view into the Romans lifestyle. Roman triumphs also show what values were important to the Romans and where they found their significance. Using Mary Beard’s book I will demonstrate the nature of Roman triumphs by giving examples from Pompey’s triumph in 61BC, what these triumphs tell historians about the Roman world and why they are significant, and what they tell us about the values the Romans held dear.

In this critique of Julius Caesar’s book, The Gallic War, I will be discussing the purpose and accuracy (or in this case, inaccuracy) over his adventures and military campaign against the Gallic tribes. There is a constant debate between historians: The Myth of Certainty. History is all about interpretation and finding truth out of subjectivity. History can often be lost in time as the firsthand accounts will eventually fade out. Even if firsthand accounts remains intact, it is not completely objective. Every person has their own agenda and is biased in one shape or form, no matter how much they try not to be; Julius Caesar is not an exception. I will start this critique by stating the author’s main purpose for writing his book. Secondly I will attempt to decipher the accuracy and inconsistency of Julius Caesar’s account. Finally, I will express my opinion over his commentaries over the Gallic War.

Written by the Greek historian Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War is one that tells the story of the war (431-404 BC) which divided the Greek world between Athens and its allies and Lacedaemon. The Melian Dialogue presents two sides and two perspectives that of the Melians neutrality and that of the Athenians’ might. By Thucydides juxtaposing the Athenian’s position to that of the Melians, there is a clear conclusion of which side actions are tactically and morally acceptable. One would argue that the Athenians are immoral for violently plundering the Melian territory because they had the power to do so. However, given the circumstance of trying to defend their empire due to the imbalance of forces, the Athenian actions are not