Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Easy on the roman military
Roman army superiority
Roman army tactics and modern warfare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Tacitus’ Germania, the author reveals different aspects of the Germanic tribes of that time. Tacitus underlines religion, politics, and warfare in his passages. He goes into detail about climate, geography, social structure, the different customs of the Germanic people, and the tribes that make up Germany. Warfare being described to be one of the most important characteristics of the Germanic people, it was the most respectable effort that people of Germany could display. In Tacitus’ Germania the reader can capture an image of how Germany is presented in terms of its bordering territories and its geographical details. According to Tacitus, Rhaetia and Pannonia and the rivers Rhine and Danube separate Germany (Tacitus, Germania, 1). The …show more content…
They show tremendous courage for their tribes, with only being satisfied to demolish the warriors that they face, and protect the ones of their own. When they are not involved in warfare the warriors are lazy and do not show any interest in anything as they leave all the caretaking of their home and fields to the women and the weak (15). As weaponry was made of iron, many warriors only carried spears for the reasons that iron was scarce and they only used a minute amount of metal (6). Spears were easy to maneuver and they could be used for combat fighting up close and from a distance (6). In wars the Germans would try and instill fear into their opponents’ hearts. Barritus was a chant that was used to distract the other army and create panic (3). They would also cover their mouths with their shields to enact a murmur to make their voices sound more distinct (3). The warriors were not intrigued with wearing armor because they had the utmost confidence when going into battle. And as they used their horses to be a strength in battle. The warriors ride them into battle, charging the opposing army in a straight line while keeping balanced and stern (6). The Germans were known for their infantry being supreme. Never did they retreat or cowardly run from the field of battle (6.) They were strong and the bravest of men. Valour was of many importance to the Germans in the field of battle. When battles were …show more content…
They keep quiet not seeking out war but always being ready with weapons in their hands (35). The have respect for the villages around them, they do not steal or create drama but they live in peace. In a sense that they do not think out of aggression (35). The Suebi actually constitute more than half of Germany and are made up of many different tribes with different names (38). Almost like their own nation with special characteristics. With their style being of hair being make-up being composed, it is only meant to sway their enemy in battle. There are many different tribes of the Suebi but the oldest of them are the Semnones (39). Alongside the rive Elbe, the Marcomanni and Quadi have great power and with bravery they were able to drive out the Boii (42). They had kings that were intertwined with Rome and they were in need of assistance when it came to an army rather than financial (42). The behind of the Marcommani and Quadi, lives the Cotini and Osi where they actually did not speak a lick of German and were not considered German
The purpose of this speech for the class is to gain better knowledge of one of the most tragic and devastating battles of World War II, the Battle of the Bulge.
Throughout the battle, you see numerous Army Values and Warrior Ethos being used. “I will never leave a fallen comrade”, was the etho used the most, to reach the separated platoon. The battle also shows that not all tactical orders are effective, but as a leader you must never second guess yourself.
In this essay I will explain the battle between Germany and Britain, discuss how important winning this battle was, what Britain had that the Germans did not have, and what could have happened if Britain would have lost. It is known cleverly as “the Battle of Britain”.
Hagen W (2012). ‘German History in Modern Times: Four Lives of the Nation’. Published by Cambridge University Press (13 Feb 2012)
The First World War witnessed an appalling number of casualties. Due partly to this fact, some historians, developed the perception that commanders on both sides depended on only one disastrous approach to breaking the stalemate. These historians attributed the loss of life to the reliance on soldiers charging across no-man’s land only to be mowed down by enemy machineguns. The accuracy of this, however, is fallacious because both the German’s and Allies developed and used a variety of tactics during the war. The main reason for battlefield success and eventual victory by the Allies came from the transformation of battlefield tactics; nevertheless, moral played a major role by greatly affecting the development of new tactics and the final outcome of the war.
war went on, was that of encouraging at least some degree L&LL. At the same time they stoically maintained a toecap-to-toecap confrontation with the German Army whilst periodically energetically pursuing the High Command’s policy of continuous offensive action. This meant that when the German High Command in 1918 finally felt obliged by external factors to take the great gamble of their last great offensive on the Western Front, the German Army suffered increasingly unsustainable levels of attrition to their armies. Secondly, by thus steadfastly holding the Germans and their allies at bay in the trenches, the trench fighters enabled the twin pressures of the Allied land and sea blockade, and the failure of German State’s domestic production, to squeeze the fighting heart out the German nation and its autocratic rulers.
Treitschke, Heinrich. “History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century and Historical and Political Writings.” The Human Record. By Alfred J. Andrea and James H. Overfield. Vol. 2. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2011. 2 vols. 292-295.
Resnick p. 15. However, these events infuriated Hitler who refused to believe that the Germans had been defeated fairly on the battlefield.... ... middle of paper ... ...
One of the most fundamental of these practices was that they never left their dead behind and instead ensured that even when they retreated, they took the bodies of their dead comrades with them. In addition, the German tribes tended to be led by individuals who had been selected by their communities for their valor and leadership skills. As a result, it was essential that all those who followed the leader, especially in the battlefield, ensure that they continued fighting while he fought and protect him. This was primarily because it was believed if the leader fell in battle, it was dishonorable for the followers as it showed that they had not fought as hard and that they had failed him. In matters concerning battle, it was essential nobody attempted to flee and leave his comrades behind and it was instead expected that they continue fighting side by side until the end.
Still, the number of casualties calls for a much greater understanding for the Battle of Verdun and those who fought in it. Lieutenant Georges Gaudy described what he witnessed when his regiment returned from their fighting near the Fort Douaumont in May and the description of his regiment is disturbing in every sense of the word. Lieutenant Gaudy writes that although his men had stone-cold expressions on their faces, “they wept in silence, like women” (188). Horne’s intimate portrayal of the soldiers who experienced the horrors of Verdun first-hand raises the question as to why the French continued to defend and why the German’s continued to attack because by the late spring, the gap between the level of anguish on each side was becoming increasingly narrow and soon that gap would not even be distinguishable. As for the motivations for both armies, prestige and morale played a large role in the sustained endurance and this can be linked back to the ideals of nationalism. In the first three months, the French had lost important fortresses surrounding Verdun, namely Malancourt on March 31st, Haucourt on April 5th, and then Bethincourt on April 8th (165). With these early defeats, it is thought provoking as to why the French continued to fight.
Germania is not an unbiased study or presentation of Germanic ethnic groups, but rather Tacitus’ attempt to exploit Germanic “noble” culture to sustain his own outrage at Rome’s lack of moral rectitude. At the beginning of Germania, Tacitus wrote in true ethnographic fashion, describing the climate and geography of Germany and its effects on the Germanic populations. He also discusses their military strategy in battle in detail, as Romans perceived these Germans as a grave threat to their security. But later in the text, detached observation of these Germanic populations gives way to unnecessary praise and adulation. It’s pretty obvious, from reading the latter part of the text, that Tacitus’ main interest was critiquing Roman culture instead of advancing knowledge about early Germanic
Fulbrook, Mary. A Concise History of Germany. 2nd ed. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
German-Austria must return to the great German mother country, and not because of any economic considerations. No, and again no: even if such a union were unimportant from an economic point of view; yes, even if it were harmful, it must nevertheless take place. One blood demands one Reich. Never will the German nation possess the moral right to engage in colonial politics until, at least, it embraces its own sons within a single state. Only when the Reich borders include the very last German, but can no longer guarantee his daily bread, will the moral right to acquire foreign soil arise from the distress of our own people. Their sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow. And so this little city on the border seems to me the symbol of a great mission. And in another respect as well, it looms as an admonition to the present day. More than a hundred years ago, this insignificant place had the distinction of being immortalized in the annals at least of German history, for it was the scene of a tragic catastrophe which gripped the entire German nation. At the time of our fatherland's deepest humiliation, Johannes Palm of Nuremberg, burgher, bookseller, uncompromising nationalist and French hater, died there for the Germany which he loved so passionately even in her misfortune. He had stubbornly refused to denounce his accomplices who were in fact his superiors. In thus he resembled Leo Schlageter. And like him, he was denounced to the French by a representative of his government An Augsburg police chief won this unenviable fame, thus furnishing an example for our modern German officials in Herr Severing's Reich.
"They are of rugged stock, but not rough or ill mannered, fierce but not malicious, and they have a great store of strength and natural character"(Joseph Görres). As articulated by Joseph Görres the people of Germany are a kind and powerful race. A state whose people live this description daily are the Bavarian people of western Germany. For the Bavarian people a rich cultural heritage is an obligation as there is scarcely another people that cherishes and actively lives its culture like the Bavarians. This is reflected in everything from their devoted care of the arts to the traditional fostering of local customs. As a result the Bavarian culture is known for its traditions, fine foods, and inhabitants.
Through literature and art, romantics expressed the idea of Germany as “an organic folk community wrapped in a cloak of tradition”. They strived to create a homogenous identity for all Germans.... ... middle of paper ... ...180-213.