Rome and Greece were two of the most powerful and influential regions in the ancient world. Both regions had excellent armies and battle strategies; they also dominated most of the world at that point in history. Also, Rome and Greece had provided a multitude of different ideas to different cultures that affected how those cultures were formed. Even today the ideas, inventions, and strategies that the Romans and Greeks came up with are used in our modern day and will be used for many more years to come. This is the description of how modern warfare tactics have been influenced by the Romans and the Greeks.
The city of Rome, founded in a strategic location among a war-like people,(the Etruscans), needed to develop a military from the start. As Rome grew and needed to defend itself more, its military needs changed, it no longer needed a thousand men fighting, they needed a big army. As the military developed, so did the needs for better battle tactics, because of the increase of their number they could do more efficient strategies. The normal arrangement was to place the infantry in the centre and the cavalry on the wings. The function of the cavalry was to prevent the center from being outflanked and if the battle turned and the enemy started to retreat, the cavalry moved forward and cut them down; Horsemen were always a secondary force in ancient warfare, the main fighting being done by the infantry.
Another strategies included: The combat formation used by the Greeks and Romans was called the phalanx. This involved the soldiers standing side by side in lines. Just before contact with the enemy, the soldiers moved in close together so that each man's shield helped to protect the man on his left.The tortoise, or Testudo, which ...
... middle of paper ...
...c supplies as they moved eastward. The process was repeated later in the war by the retreating German forces, which burned or destroyed farms, buildings, weapons, and food to hurt the Soviet Union.
Roman battle tactics have been used for thousands of years as seen by the Scorched Earth Policy and how the cultures in the early modern age used the Testudo. Rome and Greece have influenced many countries with the battle tactics including Russia, or the Soviet Union at the time, when Stalin used the Scorched Earth Policy to keep the Germans from invading; and the Germans used that method too when they were retreating away from the Russians so that they could disable the Russians for a while. Rome has impacted our country and many others especially on the way our country founded our military and the Romans also gave us ideas on how to destroy our opponent efficiently.
From 500 AD to 500 B.C, during the classical era, Rome and Greece, developed and settled along the Mediterranean Sea. Within these 1000 years, both Rome and Greece went through multiple transitions of power and struggled to maintaining peace. America learned from Greece and Rome’s mistakes and evolved into a more successful version of the two civilizations. The two civilizations did not only teach United States, but they also influenced American culture and infrastructure. Although Greece contributed to many elements of modern day America, Rome had a larger influence on America through the use of democracy, economy, and advancement in culture.
Without the right ecosystem for horses, the ancient Greeks were forced to trade for horses, which were highly expensive. The ancient Greeks were then forced to come up with a way to counter the Persians’ use of cavalry, which they solved with the creation of the phalanx. A phalanx was a group of soldiers armed with 7- to 8-foot-long spears, short swords, and round shields that were able to interlock with other shields. The soldiers wore a helmet, breastplate, and usually greaves. A phalanx is made up of lines of men extending their spears towards the enemy's direction. If a soldier is killed, the soldier from behind is to take his place, and this continues until all of the soldiers are killed. Machiavelli wrote, “The injuries which the first rank suffered, depleted the last, and the first rank always remained complete; and thus the Phalanxes, because of their arrangement, were able rather to become depleted than broken, since the large (size of its) body made it more immobile.” Machiavelli greatly admired the phalanx and considered it to be a useful formation if used correctly. Eventually Phillip the II of Macedonia improved the phalanx by doubling the spear length and reducing the shield size, which greatly increased a phalanx’s mobility. The Greeks would line up their phalanxes, and when the Persian
Greeks and Romans are famous for the strategy's that they used. The Greeks main strategy was called the Phanlax. They basically have a rectangle of troops and each on...
Spartan culture is a great example of how a society’s infrastructure will directly affect both, its social structure and superstructure. It also serves as a warning that any society that becomes too rigid in its structure and too static in its values will not last long when confronted with more agile and adaptable cultures. This paper will explore why Sparta became the Hellenic army par excellence, how this worked to create a very specific social structure founded on martial values, and, finally, how that social structure would ultimately be the undoing of the culture.
Up until the collapse of the Bronze Age, warfare was ruled by a chariot elite, who used their mobile platforms to better their enemies, either as battle taxis or as mobile archery platforms.2 These tactics were effective and utilized the weapons of their time effectively. However, it was around the time of the Bronze Age collapse that the slashing sword came into popularity. This weapon gave infantry an advantage over their restricted opponents, who could only stab with their pointed weapons. Coupled with the javelins ability to cripple horses and stop chariots, this new sword enabled less experienced warriors to fight more effectively.2 A swarm of infantry equipped with these weapons could therefore defeat a typical Bronze Age army of soldiers and chariots with relative
Soldiers were forced to live like turtles, carrying their “homes” (tents and such) along with them in battle. Their equipment was also a hassle, but protected them well in battle. It consisted of mainly helmets and shields. They also carried personal equipment such as shoes, belts, over garments, etc. A soldier had to carry his weapons and artillery with him as well. He had spears, pilums, and pikes to be heaved at enemies. Pilums are spear like weapons that would be thrown at enemies in an attempt to pierce them through their shields. Gladiuses (swords) and Pugios (daggers) were the common hand held weapons. The Gladius was the perfect weapon for the legions because of their light weight and maneuverability. The Pugio was not only a weapon of war, but also had many common purposes.
Simkin, John. “ Military Tactics of the Roman Army.” spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk. Spartacus Educational, Sept. 1997- June 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.
There are many political, economic, sociological causes to the growth and expansion of the Roman republic and later the Roman Empire, but one major factor of expansion that the Romans are most famous for is there Army. There Army was famous for their harsh discipline amongst their own ranks and there mercifulness brutality amongst their enemies. According to our text Roman warfare was characterized by great ferocity and the Roman pursuit of victory was relentless. The Romans had a pragmatic view towards atrocity and massacre that viewed almost any act as justifiable if it eased the path of victory (Goldsworthy 2000) p. 24. The hoplite phalanx which originated by the Greeks and later adopted by the Roman army, demanded great discipline and adherence to orders in order for this group of soldiers...
To a soldier, war was not romantic nor an intellectual adventure: It was a job of work to which he brought a steady, stubborn, adaptable schooled application (Adcock 6). A grouping of men called Legions were the main force in the Roman Empire. In the Republican times the legions were given a serial number (I, II, III, etc.) each year they were recruited. The smallest unit in the legion was the century, made up of one hundred men. Legionaries used javelins to begin the battle at long range and disrupt enemy battle lines before charging forward to engage the enemy at close range with swords and shields. The normal strength of a Legion was four thousand infantry and two hundred calvary, which could be expanded to five thousand in an em...
In Greece, the Spartans were the most acclaimed army in all the land. With their advanced military tactics and weapons, the Spartans were no easy feat to overcome. However, one army may have given the Spartans a run for their money. This army is the Macedonian army. They were also known for their superior weaponry and strategy. By comparing the two armies, the Spartan regiment was the better of the two due to their rigorous training, “martyr-istic” mindset, and education in the art of war.
Rome has impacted modern times through so many ways. This immense empire has changed the way we do things nowadays from how they used to be long before today. Roman people used their intelligent minds to create unbelievable inventions that are still used today. Rome has revolutionized political and economic structures throughout the known world by the creation of roads, their architecture, the use of a senate, and many more.
The main difference between Greek and Roman warfare was the formations that they fought in. The Grecian armies all used the phalanx as a fighting formation while the Romans used the maniple. The phalanx was one mass formation that consisted of infantry eight deep. The maniple formation was actually a group of formations in a checkerboard pattern. Each maniple consisted of about 120 men and when employed in Italy, the Romans used thirty maniples. The maniple proved to be a better formation, because the phalanx left no room for maneuvering after engagement.
...rated the superiority of the Greek long spear and armor over the weapons of the Persians, as well as the superior tactics of Miltiades and the military training of the Greek hoplites. The choice of weapons, training of warriors, selection of battle site, and timing had all worked together to help the Athenians prove that size doesn’t always matter.
The Battle of Salamis is said to be one of the most important battles in all of history. It was a naval battle fought between the massive Persian army and smaller Greek army in the Bay of Salamis in 480 BCE. This battle was one of the many battles that were a part of the Greco-Persian war. This paper will explore the events leading up to the battle, the battle itself, including advantages and disadvantages both sides had on one and other, and finally will discuss the affects the result of this battle had on each side. Surprisingly, the much smaller Greek army defeated the Persians at the Battle of Salamis. How did this happen, one may ask? Although the Persians appeared to have the military advantage in this battle, particularly in terms of sheer size and numbers, the Greeks successfully defeated them with the help of their leaders, tactics, and many Persian blunders.
Because of the tranquil times, the civilization’s society had more time to focus on writing, math, astronomy, and artistic fields, as well as trade and metallurgy. Out of all the city-states of Greece, two excelled over all the rest, Sparta and Athens. Even though they were the most advanced and strong civilizations, they were bitter enemies. While Athens focused mainly on the people’s democracy and citizen rights, Sparta were ferocious and enslaved its original inhabitants, making them unable to leave and kept under a close eye to prevent insurgence (History of Greece:The Golden Age of Greece). Additionally, Sparta had strict and trained soldiers that underwent intense physical exercising and instruction.