Both the Ancient Roman and Ancient Chinese cultures institutionalized a professional fighting force capable of dominating their respective eras. Each military’s mastery of the principles of objective, mass, and offensive enabled them to achieve staggering victories in many conflicts. Their use of the principles of war coupled with their unique approaches to the conduct of warfare highlights why each military culture has endured. Although some similarities between eastern and western warfare are evident, the differences are striking.
Roman culture was militaristic in nature, and centered on the warfare and organization of the legion. Hanson states that the Roman soldiers were the “world’s most deadly infantry precisely because of their mobility, superb equipment, singular discipline, and ingenious organization.” Their rigorous training coupled with their organization coalesced with a formation of about 4,000 highly trained and capable legionnaires maneuvering together offensively to achieve their objective of annihilating the opposing army. Imagining the sheer volume of javelins piercing the enemy with the almost immediate clash of heavy pointed shields and razor sharp short swords drives home the mass and lethality of the legion. In
…show more content…
The Roman concept of companies and platoons working together or independently on the battlefield is in current use as a worldwide standard. Furthermore, the Chinese utilized more than heavy infantry to conduct combat operations. They utilized light chariots accompanied with infantry to maneuver and defeat their opponents, and heavy chariots to aid in defensive operations. Consequently, both the Roman organization and the Chinese ability to utilize the strengths of multiple unit types is much more representative of a modern military than traits pulled from one specific military
Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.
Fall of Rome - the military's role. The Military's Role in the Beginning of the End of Rome The fall of Rome occurred over many centuries and was caused by several factors including military decay, barbarian invasions, and the failure of the government to respond to these problems. While these problems existed to a greater or lesser degree, since the end of the 2nd century, their effects were accelerated by the reforms of the emperors Constantine and Diocletian.
The Han and Roman domains depended on political establishments, ideological backings, and control of monetary resources for look after force. (247) Yet they varied in their utilization of common administration, the military, and philosophies to guarantee their subjects' assent. A non-military personnel official and a commandant for military undertakings shared the work of overseeing every commandery. These men bore monstrous obligations, far surpassing those of their partners in the Roman Empire. These authorities, similar to their Roman counterparts needed to keep up political steadiness and guarantee the productive accumulation of charges. (248) The Han and Roman Empires also shared their strong suite of large and powerful militaries.
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...
Rome could not have succeeded without the personal freedom and individuality granted to its citizens. This nurtured a creative and inventive mind, which would not be hindered by the limitations of oppressive monarchies. People lived for their own greater good more than the government, as in America. America and Rome both produced technologies that made their economies dominate over their neighbors, appreciating the value of their currencies. A strong sense of peace and order helped each country thrive, as the fear of trading and making money dissipated. The Roman military was the most advanced of its day. Soldiers were more equipped and armed than any other army, and the best methods of siege craft were employed in battle. The American military shares the sam...
The Art of War is a treatise written in Ancient China that discusses the most and least effective military strategies for successful warfare according to Sun Tzu, a military general whose existence is still debated to this day. While not every military commander in the history of warfare has read it, the strategies provided can be used as a way to assess said commanders and the effectiveness of their campaigns. In Sun Tzu 's own words, “The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat:--let such a one be dismissed!”1 This paper will discuss various iconic battles throughout history and how closely the leading commanders of each army followed the advice of Sun Tzu. Despite the fact that Sun Tzu lived hundreds of years before many of these battles took place, the
The Roman army was once well structured only because of their somewhat advanced armor but eventually the armor was of no use
The strength of the Roman military was the string that held the Roman Empire together for as long as it lasted. The military was made up of strictly disciplined men whom were ready and willing to serve their emperor.
Simkin, John. “ Military Tactics of the Roman Army.” spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk. Spartacus Educational, Sept. 1997- June 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.
this project I aim to show how two parts of the Roman army: a) its
"The Internet Classics Archive | The Art of War by Sun Tzu." The Internet Classics Archive | The Art of War by Sun Tzu. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2014. .
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...
The Greeks basic soldier was a foot soldier that was trained for close combat. The basic combat soldier in Rome was a horse rider and an expert bowman. This was also due in part to the increase in technology as well. The Grecian hoplite would also carry a spear that compared to the Roman pilum as a predecessor. The pilum was much longer and could be thrown a lot further.
During their time, the strategy the Roman’s employed was second to none. The success of their strategy started with the Roman’s separating their armies into smaller, more specific types. They used many different types of infantry throughout the years, but the main types they used were the velites, hastati, principes, triarii, and later the famous Legionaries were introduced (Roman Empire Wars). These infantry worked together on the battlefield to effectively eliminate the enemy and win the battle.
Samuel B. Griffith’s translation of “Sun Tzu: The Art of War” is an inside look at military practices of today. I did not find one technique that is not or would not be utilized in modern military maneuver, leadership, or training. The most astounding fact is that the Art of War was written well over two thousand years ago, even at the most conservative date. Although most of the techniques in this text are already in practice today, the value of “The Art of War” is a never-ending treasure chest of knowledge, and it deserves a place as a required reading for anyone seeking knowledge about war fighting or the history of war.