Total War of Greece and Rome
The Assyrian and Persian armies—like those of the ancient empires of
India and China—were basically professional forces. The Greek
city-states, on the other hand, relied on a civilian militia. The
backbone of the Greek army was the armoured spearman, massed in a
phalanx or squares eight to ten ranks deep. As time went on, the Greek
armies became more professional. This was particularly true of the
light infantry, which had originally been composed of the poorer
classes. Philip II of Macedonia, who conquered Greece in the 4th
century BC, deepened the phalanx to 16 men and developed
artillery—mobile machines that catapulted missiles at the enemy.
Philip's son, Alexander the Great, used the army created by his father
to conquer the Persian Empire.
The Romans, like the Greeks, initially relied on a citizen-soldiery,
but in the course of the Punic Wars (3rd and 2nd century BC), the
Roman army became a professional force. Drill and discipline were the
keystones of Roman military power. After the 2nd century AD the
Romans began to rely increasingly on mercenaries. This reduced their
military effectiveness.
The Middle Ages
After the break-up of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD,
military organization fell into a decline. Western Europeans attempted
to deal with the persistent raids of the Vikings by creating a feudal
system in which the aristocracy performed mandatory military service
in return for its privileges. The mounted knight, who owed allegiance
to one noble rather than to a national state, dominated medieval
warfare. Fighting out of a spirit of adventure or for spoils, the
Ch...
... middle of paper ...
...
millions became possible. The railways, telegraph, electricity, the
diesel engine and numerous other mechanical and electrical inventions
helped to make killing even more efficient. Industrialisation helped
nations to keep millions of men on the front – clothed, fed healthy,
day or night, armed with deadly weapons for long periods. . Each side
suffered enormous casualties in vain efforts to breach the other's
defences; new weapons such as the airplane and the tank were
introduced, and sea warfare was revolutionized by the submarine.
What the total war meant was also that victory did not come in a
single battle. It required a long term plans.
From then on wars were not something that a citizen watched from the
sidelines. He or she were all totally involved in many ways,
physically, emotionally and economically.
Factories in Europe mass produced the materials that were needed for war; they produced guns, tanks ,airplanes ,automobiles ,ammunition and replacement parts needed for the war effort. Industrialisation helped the war effort tremendously, by producing the goods that were needed for the war. Without Industrialization, the weapons for the war wouldn’t be easily accessible. The soldiers were getting many supplies that they needed from factories.
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...
Advancements in technology and science contributed to one of the most gory and bloodiest wars in the annals of human existence. These new technological advancements revolutionized how people regarded war. War was no longer where the opposite forces fought in a coordinated battle. War evolved into a game of cunning strategy where the side with the bigger, more powerful, and smarter toys played better. This led to a fierce competition where each side tried to create the smarter machines and better weapons, leading to deadly mass killing weapons in the process.
Historians generally refer to WWI as the first 'total war'. It was the first conflict in which modern industrialized societies mobilized their complete economic, technological and psychological resources in order to wage war. Unlike earlier wars, which involved relatively small numbers of soldiers on the battlefield, it affected many aspects of the lives of civilian populations and demanded enormous sacrifices and support from them. Mobilization of the home front was crucial to achieving military victory. Some of the main aspects of Total War include conscription of men into the armed services, increased government control of the economy and daily lives of citizens and subsequent loss of personal liberty. Control of the labor force, physical safety and security of civilian populations threatene...
Throughout the Ancient Greek world, there have been many wars and standoffs. However, there has been only one which changed the course of Greek history forever; the Peloponnesian War. Caused by the growing tension between Athens and Sparta, it came and left, leaving only destruction in its wake. The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War caused the downfall of Greece, and the end of the Classical Age.
Xerxes was a man of power. The Great King of Persia, his empire encompassed the majority of the known world. On his invasion of Greece in the spring of 480BCE, he reportedly commanded a horde of over two million men. Even the Greek oracle at Delphi encouraged prudence in face of such an overwhelming force (7.140). Thus the question arises of why such an army failed to compel Greece into submission. I will explore this with focus on the key battles and the important factors, most notably the timing of the attack, the quality of his expeditionary force and Xerxes’ personal faults.
In Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, Pericles commends the ergon of Athenian heroes, which has placed them in the realm of logos, while directing the Athenians to follow these ideals of logos. The maintenance and continued success of Athens' political establishment relies on the prevalence of polis, rationality and discourse over family, emotion and reckless action. However, the indiscriminate turns of fate and fortune, often place logos in opposition with the base, primal nature of ergon. Both Thucydides and Sophocles recognize that when logos conflicts with the unexpected ergon, the preservation of rationality and unanimity among the citizens of the polis depend on the leadership of a single honest leader. In the History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides presents Pericles as a man of logos, whom Athens needs to achieve its full potential as an empire and later to rescue her from disaster. Likewise, Sophocles presents Theseus, in Oedipus Colonus, as the perfect successor of Pericles, who returns Athens to its former glory before the end of the war. In these two examples, we see that the dominance of logos over ergon within a polis lies in the ability and logos of the city’s current leader.
The Civil War in the eyes of most people is not glorious, but rather one of the worst crimes you could possibly commit when the state is all-important. Only under the most extreme circumstances should one be allowed to (in the eyes of the people that is) begin a Civil War with just cause. Caesar took this into consideration, but too many things were going wrong in Rome for him not to begin the war.
Dating back to 449 B.C., Sparta and Athens always had an alliance, but as time grew that balance slowly began to fall as one felt threatened by another. Before any sight of unsteadiness the Spartans and Athenians had a bound partnership. Beginning after their domination of the Persian war, the two states slowly became aware of one another’s growing power. More time went by, and the Spartans began to grow conscious of the other states, feeling wary and paranoid around them (Fox, 170). No state was particularly to blame for the strain on their peace treaty, nor for the war, it came as the two states developed. Eventually the two states had clashed enough and declared war. Although the Spartans gave the Athenians a chance to back down and temporarily stall war, the two states would never be equal, their allies resented one another far too much. The growing urge for power was bound to take over sooner or later. Finally, after 7 years of uneasy tension, Sparta could wait no longer and declared war against Athens (Fox, 167). Although the Athenians and Spartans lived together in peace for so long, they existed in a fragile balance that was bound to eventually lead to war.
On this planet there is only the one sure way to ensure peace, government. Luckily throughout history there have been big societies that helped countries establish governments of their own. One of the biggest and well shaped government is the democracy of the United States of America. The U.S. had two societies in particular to look to for guidance, and those two were ancient Greece and ancient Rome.
In this essay, I am going to anaylise the Peloponnesian War. I will look at what appears to have caused the war, how it developed, and what the outcome of it was. As Thucydides is virtually the only surviving primary source of this event, I will also discuss the man and his method.
Many countries in the western world experienced the industrial revolution. This revolution brought many jobs, opportunities, as well as technology to feed a world war. Technology evened both sides of the war. With the upbringing of heavy artillery such as machine guns, poison gas, land mines, planes able to drop precise bombs, and submarines able to attack from under the water, lessened the hand-to-hand combat time. The war was said to be the Great War, the "war to end all wars.
To have a clear picture of Carthage, Rome and the motivations of their great rivalry, we must establish that it was a struggle for power, economic, conquest and dominion over the near Italy cities and close to the Northern territories of Africa, where both sides deployed their best men and abilities for war until there was a winner and a loser after fighting the Punic wars which most relevant details and characteristics are explained below.
There are times in history that something will happen and it will defy all logic. It was one of those times when a few Greek city/states joined together and defeated the invasion force of the massive Persian Empire. The Greeks were able to win the Greco-Persian War because of their naval victories over the Persians, a few key strategic victories on land, as well as the cause for which they were fighting. The naval victories were the most important contribution to the overall success against the Persians. The Persian fleet was protecting the land forces from being outflanked and after they were defeated the longer had that protection. While the Greeks had very few overall victories in battle they did have some strategic victories. The Battle of Thermopylae is an example of a strategic success for the Greeks. The morale of the Persian army was extremely affected by the stout resistance put up by King Leonidas and his fellow Spartans. The Greeks fought so hard against overwhelming odds because of what they were fighting for. They were fighting for their country and their freedom. They fought so hard because they did not want to let down the man next to them in the formation. Several things contributed to the Greeks success against the Persian invasion that happened during the Second Greco-Persian War.
Beginning in 492 B.C., a series of wars erupted, appropriately entitled the Persian Wars, which lasted around thirteen years. Because of the constant battles between the Persians, led by Xerxes, and Greece, both civilization started growing weaker and weaker. When the wars ended, the Greeks were successful at defeating the Persians. However, being in a weakened state caused the Greek city- states (mainly Athens against Sparta) to fight amongst themselves in order to have more influence over the rest of the city-states. This type of war was termed the Peloponnesian War and continued from 431B.C. to 404 B.C. (History of Greece:The Golden Age of Greece) and