Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How did medieval warfare weapons change between 1066-1500
Changes in medieval warfare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Macedonians under Philip II and Alexander made such significant advancements in the way they waged warfare that it is considered a military revolution. They were able to change their tactics, technology, political organization, and even change the balance of power in the world. In order to see how they changed the practice of war, we must look at battles from before Philip II, specifically battles from the Peloponnesian War, and we must also look at battles that occurred after Philip II, such as the Battle of Issus, Granicus, and Tyre. When we compare the battles that occurred before the Macedonian military revolution with those that occurred after we will see a change in the decisiveness of these battles, a change in the role of some military units, and a change in technology used to capture cities. In the battles before the Macedonian military revolution we see that most of the battles did not end decisively. This can be seen all …show more content…
We see this in the Battle of Issus, where Alexander faces off with Darius III, and light infantry takes on a significant tactical role. In previous battles we see the light infantry important at the beginning but after that they become incredibly insignificant. At the Battle of Issus, they are a significant factor throughout the battle because he uses them to hold back the Persians. While the light infantry was significant, it was Alexander’s cavalry charge that is the definitive aspect once again. Alexander uses his cavalry very effectively, allowing him to flank the Persian’s left side. When Alexander’s flanking maneuver proved effective he went after Darius who was in the center, as was the Persian tradition. With Alexander bearing down on him, Darius fled, leaving his army to fall to pieces behind him. This battle is a prime example of how he fought the majority of his battles with the
Researching the primary sources for the subject of "light infantry" an investigator would find a puzzling fact; there are little or no references to the subject of inquiry. Ancient historians Thucydides, Xenophon, Herodotus, do not refer to "light infantry" troops, instead they use term peltast. It appears that the term peltast signifies a "light armored warrior" for the ancient historians. The term itself comes from pelta or pelte - a small shield that inhabitants of Thrace ...
Speaking of the revolution in Corcyra, which occurred after the Athenian decision to spare Mytilene but before its destruction of Melos, Thucydides wrote, “In peace and prosperity states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants and so proves a rough master that brings most men’s characters to a level with their fortunes” (III.82.2). This was precisely the change Athens underwent, and the cause of its eventual demise. Works Cited Thucydides. The Landmark of Thucydides.
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.
The Greek and Roman empires were so successful for many reasons. But one of the main reasons was their military powers. Many people think that the military is brutal and has alot of big guns, but its deeper than that. They require advanced weapons, superior strategy, and finally they need leaders to come up with these things. The Greeks came up with these, and then the Romans built upon the Greeks knowledge and fine combed it.
Sparta was a key city state which was located on the Peloponnesian Peninsula in southern Greek, which today is referred to as Laconia. Sparta is historically known for their strong military training, warfare tactics, and numerous victories. This city state included full citizens known as the Spartans, the helots, and the Perioeci. The men of Sparta had a main obligation to become strong warriors, fight with their brothers, and protect against any invasions or attacks. The helots where owned by city state of Sparta. They came from Messenia and were forced into slavery after being invaded by the Spartans in c.735. The helot’s responsibilities included farming, being of help if needed during battles, used as nurses, and for any other task that need to be accomplished. Unlike many traditional slaves, the Messenia’s were given certain leeway. They had
Alexander’s first battle came when he was only sixteen. Philip, his father had gone away on a campaign and left Macedonia u...
It was a series of consequential events, spurred on by democratic failure, not one key turning point, that resulted in the decisive defeat of the Athenians by the Peloponnesians, with the aid of Persia. Because of democratic fickleness, with or without Pericles the Athenians were doomed for defeat, and therefore the death of Pericles was not the key turning point, rather it was only a factor which determined the length of the Peloponnesian War.
...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 Thermopylae as an example of the power of a patriotic army defending native soil. The performance of the defenders at the battle of Thermopylae is also used as an example of the advantages of training, equipment, and good use of terrain as force multipliers and has become a symbol of courage against overwhelming odds.The fame of Thermopylae is thus principally derived, not from its effect on the outcome of the war, but for the inspirational example it set. Thermopylae is famous because of the heroism of the doomed rearguard, who, despite facing certain death, remained at the pass. Ever since, the events of Thermopylae have been the source of effusive praise from many sources; e.g. "...the fairest sister-victories which the Sun has ever seen, yet they would never dare to compare their combined glory with the glorious defeat of King Leonidas and his men.
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.
In the years following the Persian Wars in 479 B.C., Athens had come out on top being the most dominantly powerful of any Greek city with a navy that had superior strength that increased day by day. The Athenians “ruled with heavy-handed, even brutal force as well as with reason” (Kagan 2). This was due largely to the fact that Athens had a stable and effective government, which only increased their advantage in proving themselv...
The Peloponnesian War is the conflict between the pelopoponesians league led by Sparta and the Delian league, led by Athens. Much of our knowledge on the causes and events of the Peloponnesian War, depends on the Athenian Thucydides 460-400 BC, writer of the History of the Peloponessian War. He servd as an Athenian commander in Northern Greece during the early years of the war until the assembly exiled him as he lost an outpost to the enemy. During this exile, he was able to interview witnesses on both sides of the conflicted. Unlike Heredotus he concentrated on contemporary history and presented his account of the war in an annalistic framework that only occasionally diverts from chronological order. In his account, he discuses the precursors to the war, including the 30 years truce and revolutions, such as the stasis in Corcyra. When looking at wars, the primary focus is normally the fighting itself, such as what we see for World War II. However, it is important to look at the anatomy of war, meaning what effect the war has on the people who are experiencing it first hand, and the consquences that the conflict has on the rest of the world. Therefore in this essay I shall discuss, drawing directly from Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, how the civilians reacted to the war, their involvement and socio economic factors. Furthermore, the first section of my essay shall focus on the direct effect of war on the people, regarding the plague, and violence and hopelessness that was experienced. Then I shall go on to discuss more general effects of the war and how it affected the Greek world, discussing the social and economic losses that occurred such as the cost of the war in attica, the coup d’etat that occurred in gove...
...s of the war itself, there are a number of crucial points which set the course of the tide, and I have tried to illustrate those which I consider to be most important and influential. In any case, it seems that if Athens would have continued with the policy of Pericles, she might not have been so weakened by the destruction of her superior naval forces, which, it seems, can largely be accounted for by Alcibiades and his supporters.
Philip II spend the earliest years of his reign working to expand Macedonia’s control over surrounding regions by securing the Paionians and Thracian border and dominating regions such as Amphipolis, the Illyrians and the Pydna. These conquests would have been an important part of Philip’s legitimizing of his rule, and it would have been equally as important for him to maintain these new territories. Since Philip had expanded further south, this placed his domain closer to the Hellenistic city-states. Therefore the numerous Social and Sacred wars created an instability that could threaten his territory. In particular The Third Sacred War could have been a threat to this, yet it also acted as an ideal opportunity for Philip to gain control within Greece and attempt creating Pan-Hellenic
Equifinality proposes that multiple paths can lead to the same outcomes (Nassar, 2007). There were many strategies that Alexander could have chosen as the battle plan to defeat Darius and his massive troops. In this battle, communication created an effective and efficient strategy for the success that Alexander the Great’s army had against the Persians led by Darius. When you have a disadvantage to overcome, you must have communication as the top form of weaponry. Alexander was at a disadvantage in the size of his army by 4 to 1 (Nassar, 2007). However, he used the minimal number of resources to his advantage by making sure that he could execute the communicated plan more clearly and with precision. This was something that the larger army