`` Weapons, Technology Determination And Ancient Warfare ``

He looks at the army and warfare in terms of men, technology, valour and victory (Hanson 68). He also discusses the west?s militarism tradition. A tradition supports mobilization of citizen soldiers and animating them with principles of collective endeavor. According to Victor Hanson, it is the west?s tradition that has helped them develop and maintain a strong military power. Hanson struggles to recreate nine ?landmark? episodes of combat through which the west gradually started their rise to the top. In this approach, three classical period episodes are depicted to show the situational onset of the rise of the west as Salamis, Cannae and Gaugamela. Hanson depicts these battles to have manifested particular western lethal military machinery. Moreover, the chronology is given a vivid progression when the author depicts that gradual spread of the western style war machinery through three additional battles as Tenochtitlan, Poitiers and Lepanto. The author eventually examined the gradual mechanism of battle spread from Europe into the west. The distinct military style of invincibility is further traced through Midway, Rorke?s Drift and Tet.

The pre-eminence of the Greek soldier proved decisive in the Battle of Marathon. Although only ‘citizen soldiers’, the Greek hoplites were far more disciplined than their Persian counterparts and also better protected, with their bronze-visored helmets, solid bronze breastplates, shields and javelins. The Persians on the contrary were generally lightly dressed, with wicker shields and bows and arrows and sometimes had body armour of scales sewn to leather vest. Herodotus states that the Persians were “deficient in armour, untrained and greatly inferior in skill”. This crucial element destabilized the Persian assault as they fell at the hands of a much more skillful, better equipped and tactically superior Greek army. With their unprecedented use of battle strategy and intimate knowledge of their surroundings, the Greeks were able to defeat their Persian enemy.

The strong and unconquerable army in both cultures ensured phenomenal military conquests and the protection of the state. In the Greek culture, the army is very important. For example, in Sparta from the age of seven boys leave their family and live in barracks with soldiers in order to prepare for the military life. In Macedonia, army is also very important. For instance, boys are trained to endure harsher things in order to be ready for war. The military techniques of the respective armies in those two cultures demonstrate that nothing is worth more than military success. In fact, the special technic used by Spartans (the phalanx), usually ensured their victory for example against Persians. Macedonia army also have a particular technique

The Hoplite Revolution was a middle class formed of farmers and artisans and they heavily relied on military and there to defend its citizens. The soldiers were citizens of Greece and most of their soldiers were forced to join the military. Despite the views, The Hoplite Revolution was influential because they it marked a turning point in the military evolution before, there was no organized formation, just heroic with spears,bows,slings, and chariots. Moreover, the Hoplites were created in 675 B.C. and the rise of the them occurred when metal became cheaper a lot cheaper in the bronze age, so then more hoplites were being enlisted and they promised them political rights and received military rights from the government. The Hoplite government was the first forms of democracy and made up those who fought. All Athenian hoplites were equals and the military was only strong when there was a weak democracy. Afterword, they had a new form of social organization.

Hoplites were created because of the tension between each polis. Hoplites are men armed with shields and spears who kept in tight formation in order to break the formation of the rival army.

The Middle Ages which was known to be a very violent era in our world consisted of multiple weapons. The weapons that were used in this era were determined by the social class that you belonged to. These classes consisted of the lower class which would be the foot soldiers and then the knights. The weapons these two classes had though differed from one another. What types of weapons did each class have and how would these weapons have looked back in the middle age time period?

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.

An important contributing factor to an army's success is armor for defense. An army can have skilled soldiers, but cannot be successful without the right armor. Roman and Greek armies wore similar types of armor. The Roman and Greek foot soldiers wore a square breastplate on their torso. While the Romans only wore one greave on their left leg, Greeks wore greaves on both legs. A greave was a sheet of metal worn to protect the legs (Horsepower: Harnessed…). Soldiers wear greaves even in current day. Recently, the greaves have been upgraded to protect the legs from ‘Improvised explosive devices,’ such as those in Iraq (Frost, Quad Guard). Roman soldiers wore a helmet that protected the neck, and came around to protect their face. The Greek’s helmets were more full and protective than the Roman helmets. Greek helmets covered their entire head and only left small

Set-up - Warfare is constantly changing, for the tools of war are always evolving, as do the societies that wage war. Between 1400 and 1918, western warfare went through four periods that saw such profound change that it can fairly be said that a "military revolution" occurred. According to historians MacGregor Knox and Williamson Murray, military revolutions "fundamentally change the framework of war" and "recast society and the state as well as military organizations." While all of the military revolutions studied in H100 were important in the evolution of warfare, one clearly stimulated greater change than the others.

The Battle of Thermopylae was one of the most significant battles in all off ancient history. It occurred in 480 BC between the invading Persian army, led by the self-proclaimed god-King Xerxes, and the Greek city-states, led by King Leonidas. Analysis of the battle of Thermopylae presents a classic case study highlighting how proper training; pre-battle planning and preparation; superior implementation of observation and fields of fire, avenues of approach, key terrain, obstacles, and cover and concealment (OAKOC); and cultural differences allowed a smaller military force to withstand a much larger opposing military force. This paper will apply the United States Army’s Four Steps of Battle Analysis to evaluate the key factors that

In the Archaic Age, Hoplites were men armed with Hoplon shields and a single spear, and fought in combat shoulder to shoulder in a formation called a phalanx. For this formation to be successful, for the weaker left side not to break, staying in line and working as a group was a necessity. Most of these men were ordinary citizens, mostly farmers and peasants, and therefore the protection of territories relied on their will, in contrast to the Bronze Age where the upper class did most of the fighting. This change gave more power to regular people, and the ideas of democracy and assembly began to spread, it gave rise to the creation of the Polis, city-state. The issues and opinions of the individual soldiers became the new focused, they took

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.

A hoplite was a spearman with other armor included, that fought as a group not as an individual (Goldsworthy 2000) p. 34., thus this adaptation could very well of been what assisted the Roman army in there many successful conquests later on in the republic timeframe.

The research question for this paper is as follows: To what extent were Attila the Hun’s military tactics effective? The importance of this question stems from the fact that Attila the Hun is one of the greatest military leaders of all time and his military tactics helped to contribute to the fall of the Roman Empire. The Hun’s military practices, important battles between the Huns and other militaries and their outcomes, and Attila’ s importance to their success are issues that will be covered. The paper will focus on Attila’s time as ruler, which stretched from 435-453 CE. It will also be focusing on the area of the Hunnic Empire and both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. The research will come from primary and secondary sources. It will answer the research question through the research of Attila the Hun’s military strategies and techniques and its effectiveness against opposing militaries.

In Mesolithic or the middle stone age, the tools that humans used are more of weapons like in Old Stone Age. Based on studies, during Mesolithic period humans discover that they can plant. So seeing a picture of tools back then explains that our generation may adapt the things of people in that period does. Tools in Mesolithic is an improvement of tools in Paleolithic.