According to John Grenier, colonists used unlimited and employed irregular tactics, or The First Way of War, which Grenier describes as a small war tradition that nonprofessional soldiers to pursue unlimited objectives, using irregular means to obtain it. These tactics included ruthless warfare that included targeting elders, women and children, burning and raiding towns, destroying food sources and supply and assassinating enemy leaders. The arrival of colonists to America, did not introduce the concept of lethality in warfare; instead it introduced new technologies that changed the balance of offense and defense, making open battle more lethal and successful. The English’s mission was to exterminate the natives, in order to establish their
In 1675, tensions between Native Americans and colonists residing in New England erupted into the brutal conflict that has come to be known as King Philip's War, the bloodiest battle in America history, in proportion to population it was also the deadliest war in American history. The English colonists wished to rid the country of the Indians in order to seize their land. They believed the Indians were savages and therefore were not worthy of equal rights.
Sir Arthur Currie was not a man raised to become a great general, he had to start from the beginning and work his way to the top. He served his country by fighting and leading battles that made Canada a great independent nation, making him a figure of inspiration to many Canadians. In the many battles of World War One, including Amiens, Passchendaele, Vimy Ridge, and others, Arthur Currie devised well prepared, flexible, unique, and intelligent war strategies that led Canadian troops to victory.
Is it true Americans are rightfully notorious for creating inaccurate paradigms of what really happened in historical events Americans are tied to? Has America ever censored historical events in order to protect Americans innocent democratic reputation? After reading, “The Best War Ever” by Michael C.C Adams, I have found the answers to these questions to be yes. Some of the myths that Adams addresses in his book include: 1. America was innocent in world war two and was an ever acting protagonist in the war; 2. World war two or any war for that matter can be, or is a “good war” and bring prosperity to America; 3. War world two brought unity to Americans.
It seemed that the more and more England tried to scare the people, the angrier they got. The tactics obviously didn't work, but instead pushed the colonists even further into. standing up against Britain. The British soldiers in America were told not to entice violence, and especially not to kill anybody. Accidents do happen, as well.
The Native Americans who purchased or used the muskets were very skilled in marksmanship than the colonists because the Native Americans were brought up hunting in their daily lives. The Native Americans wanted to obtain the firearms by trading with the French and Dutch traders by exchanging fur of beaver and other natural resources that the French and the Dutch wanted. The colonists saw the fighting of the Native Americans were different than the traditional open field battles. The colonists evolve in how to fight more effectively with the Indians when they experienced with some conflicts with certain Native Americans. The Native Americans does not use a “destructive” or “barbarian” tactics of using fire, torturing, and dominating their enemies as what the colonists know how to do by seeing how the Royal British Army did in their military history of imperial wars. The Native American warfare tactics are a natural development. In the upcoming years of 1965, the King Philip’s War was when the colonists saw how the Native Americans fought when their warfare changed into a “scorched Earth” tactics. Special fire arrows with rags, torches, sieges with flammable materials, and burning every house the Indians see are some tactics that the Native Americans did not acquire before. The Native American that are against the colonist were ambushing them by luring them in the forest using decoys. The colonists with allies of other Native Americans gave them abilities to avoid ambushes and to track down their enemies. The colonists are appreciated for learning some scouting skills and for the Native American allies to alert and defend their villages from the attacking Native Americans. The colonists who went to the forests to track down the enemies without the assistance of the Native American allies would be failed to find their enemies or
“ [They] spent most of the conquest and colonial periods reacting and responding to the European strangers and invaders” (99). Both sides were different in many ways; Their communication, transportation, culture, and the way they survived differentiate the Europeans from the Native Americans. They both acted as wisely as they could when this encounters began after the discovery. “[Tribes] worked mightily and often cleverly to maximize their political sovereignty, cultural autonomy, territorial integrity, power of self identification, and physical nobility” (100). The Europeans were stronger, had better technology, better weapons, and had plenty of experience fighting people like the Native Americans. They could have easily conquer them , but they had a problem of resources, reinforcements and survival. Native American were many but they lacked the knowledge and experience of war and evolution. Europeans were technologically evolved and were experienced at fighting wars, but they ...
In our life one day or another we will have to face the situation where we have to choose between pursuing a personal desire or choosing to be ‘normal’ by conforming. If pursuing a personal desire makes us happy then one shouldn’t conform just to get accepted to be like others when you have an opportunity to be happy and to achieve your lifetime goals. In “The Wars” by Timothy Findley, Robert Ross a protagonist who refuses to conform in the situation where his personal desire was close to being destroyed.
...onists fought for what they believed in: that a better life awaited them, or at least their children, in the wilderness of the New World. This is what kept them going, to contribute to a society that eventually gained its independence, flourished, and is now one of the most prosperous nations in the world. These English immigrants were not rich, nor were they destitute; they were average citizens of England, coming to the New World to shape a unique way of life for their family. Factors such as population, economics, disease, and climate not only impacted the colonists, but their actions resonate to this day as well. The seventeenth century is often known as the simplest of times in American history, but in reality, the effects of what these first colonists accomplished, by holding their ground against what must have seemed insurmountable odds, are astounding.
Their main goal was to gain power over their land. When the British colonists arrived at this land they brought many diseases and destroyed the lives of many Indians. This disease was called the Black Death. The Americans also mistreated the Indigenous not treating them equally. Stannard points out that the Americans wanted to defend themselves against the Indians and if the Indians tried to attack and fight them they were going to be ready to fight and attack them back. Stannard believes that the Americans want to defend and fight against the Indians. To demonstrate this point Stannard quotes Thomas Jefferson where Jefferson emphasizes these words “in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them” (Stannard 120). By killing and destroying the Indians the British, Europeans, and Americans would become successful obtaining the land that they are fighting for. In his book, David Stannard states that when Christopher Columbus arrived in the Caribbean he believes he performed enormous acts of genocide. In the prologue, Stannard states that “this was the beginning of “far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world” (Stannard
Many arguments were made against independence that “when this war is proclaimed, all supplies from foreign parts will be cut off,” leaving the Colonies subject to the will of the Canadians and “to the numerous tribes of savages,” who would, without hesitation, seek revenge on the colonists (Leonard, 2, 3). Another argument that seems to neither support nor oppose the prospect of independence is that “a love of Freedom is a predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole,” implying that such a thirst for freedom as is present in the colonies could lead to its ruin (Burke, 2). But, when news of the Boston Massacre spread throughout the colonies, although quite exaggerated, had the effect of pouring fuel onto an unlit fire of kindling and gunpowder. The Boston Massacre occurred March 5, 1770, when British soldiers fired into a crowd of people after a Whig protest of merchants selling English goods. But, the spark that ignited the war did not come until four years later, when the continental congress addressed parliament for a repeal of the Coercive Acts that was blatantly ignored. When it became clear that there was to be no repeal, the colonists began to prepare for their war for independence which
King Philip’s War (1675-76) is an event that has been largely ignored by the American public and popular historians. However, the almost two-year conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England stands as perhaps the most devastating war in this country’s history. One in ten soldiers on both sides were wounded or killed. At its height, hostilities threatened to push the recently arrived English colonists back to the coast. And, it took years for towns and urban centers to recover from the carnage and property damage.
TThe Title “First World War for Dummies” is self-explanatory that it is about World War 1. The author of the book, Sean Lang describes the war in detail of how this war differs from others, whether the war was worth it till describing the best places to visit to learn more about World War 1. The countries’ leaders (especially in Europe) desire to be “Great Power” of the world is the main reason why the war started. But, “the Sarajevo assassination in 1914, however, was the spark that finally set off the First World War.” Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Royal Highness of Austria, Hungary was assassinated by Colonel Dimitrijevic, also known as Apis to obtain power by obtaining a port on the Adriatic coast. Austria- Hungary asked German’s help
The Americans began the conflict with land offensives, attacking English territories in Canada and in the center of the continent of what is now the United States. It was a fiasco. The American militiamen, despite their greater numbers, were not organized to face even small English and Indian garrisons. The English retaliated smartly. Without troops for a land attack they opted for the defensive and the partnership with the indigenous tribes for them to thicken the resistance. At sea, however, they were more energetic. They have decreed a complete embargo of the United States maritime trade, ruining the American economy in a short time. Calculated and very well planned, the English sent a small garrison to land near the city of Washington and
The purpose of peace building is to create conditions for a stable and lasting peace and to prevent the recurrence of large-scale violence in a post-civil war environment. Roland Paris's thesis in At War's End is effectively his claim that the Institutionalization Before Liberalization (IBL) strategy is the only effective way to support a society coming out of civil war, so as to avoid the destabilizing effects of liberalization, and that certain conditions are critical to its success. These particular conditions, as summarized by Paris, include a large, and often invasive, international presence, a long term commitment with no fixed end date or rush to an exit strategy, and large amounts of resources. However, while these terms for long lasting peace appear to be sound, they have not always been successful , or implemented as such, and in fact have essentially been counterproductive in some cases. Paris's approach has not always and may not always produce long-term sustainable peace with functioning institutions of democracy and the economy, because of dilemmas inherent in the approach. Though it is observed that most stable and peaceful states are democracies with productive economies, implementing the IBL strategy requires fine tuning and specific adjustments for every post-civil war state on a case by case basis.
Which war is the first modern war? Was it the Napolianic wars, the Crimean War or the American Civil War? If you Google it, it would be between the Crimean War and the American Civil War. However each of these wars can be considered the first modern war based on different merits. These wars can share similarities between each other which can create confusion over the question what was the first modern war. Following the French Revolution the idea of the state was changed the boundaries and leaders soon began the rallying cry for people to fight for the nation. “The war of 1792 to 1814/15 thus became - first unilaterally by France and then by the belated and usually hesitant response of France’s victims - the first modern war, the first war between nations.” War at this time changed from limited aims to “potentially unlimited in both aims and methods for nations.” The Crimean War can also be considered the first modern war and it shares some similarities with the Civil War specifically looking at technology used during the war. This is understandable as they occurred relatively close together. The Crimean War ended in 1856 and the Civil War started in 1861. The Crimean War is considered the first modern war due to technology, transportation and media. What is one of the main reasons why the Crimean War is considered the first modern war because it could be argued it provided the “origins of the ‘moral interventionism’ practiced by our own liberal governments in the Balkans and the Middle East.” This war is also considered the first modern war due to the use of mass media. Due to the telegraph citizens in London were able to follow the war being fought in the Crimean and this helped shape the British “national consciousness”.