War is a part of human experience and constitutes a large part of the history of the West. The first great work of Western literature, Homers Iliad, chronicles the decade-long Trojan War. The second great work of Western literature, Homers Odyssey, tells the story of how one of the Trojan Wars heroes, Odysseus, "the man of twists and turns," makes his way back to his home in Ithaca and how he must fight off his wifes suitors to reclaim his throne. Many of the great works of literature have war as their theme or one of their themes: War and Peace, for example. And history has proven that more often than not great ideas must be resolved on the field of battle. How then should teachers approach the subject of war?
War, like any other subject, should begin at the beginning. To throw down a newspaper with a glaring headline before a high school student and to ask whether our current actions in Iraq are justified is tantamount to asking what his parents political opinions are. The way our Founding Fathers were introduced to war, as to the idea of constitutional government, was through their study of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Eighteenth-century schoolmasters taught war through the classics not merely because of antiquarianism but because Western Europe and America have inherited many techniques and assumptions about war that were alive in their own day, indeed that are now being played out on the sands of Iraq.
Consider the following characteristics of Greek warfare outlined by the classicists Victor Davis Hanson and John Heath in their book Who Killed Homer? "1. Advanced technology: the unsurpassed excellence of both weapons and armor. 2. Superior discipline: the effective training and ready acceptance of command by soldiers themselves. 3. Ingenuity in response: an intellectual tradition, unfettered and uncensored by either government or religion, which sought constant improvement in the face of military challenge. 4. Creation of a broad, shared military observance among the majority of the population: the preference for citizen militias and civilian participation in military decision-making. 5. Choice of decisive engagement: the preference to meet the enemy head on and to resolve the fighting as quickly and decisively as possible. 6. Dominance of infantry. 7. A systematic application of capital, Cicerossinews of war,to warmaking. 8. A moral opposition to militarism: the ubiquity of literary, religious, political, and artistic pressure groups who demand justification and explication of war, and so often question and occasionally even arrest the unwise application of military force. There is a notion of dissent, which begins with the Greeks, that war is not the preferred course of events but the great tragedy of the human condition."
All of these characteristics are worth pausing over as they relate to current events in Iraq, but three (1, 5, 8) stand out. The U.S. is currently employing the most advanced technology, including satellite-guided missiles in the air and armored columns on the ground, to produce "shock and awe" in the enemy. The hope is thereby to win the war more quickly and decisively. Roughly twenty-seven hundred years ago, the Greeks developed their own means to shock and awe, the heavy infantry charge of armed citizens, or hoplites. For over three hundred years, none but a Greek force could stand up to other Greeks, as the Persians learned at Marathon and Plataea. Though the technology has changed dramatically, the reasons for todays version of shock and awe are much the same. When not fighting, according to Professor Hanson, the Greeks were farming. Preferring to be at home rather than abroad, they opted for a short, all-out, decisive engagement as opposed to a protracted war of Homeric lengths. Descendants of Odysseus need not spend twenty years away from home.
The democratic tradition of the Greeks also required leaders to justify entering into wars and to answer for the success or failure of a war. Often public opinion changed rapidly in response to events, as Pericles learned during the plague at Athens. Mr. Gallups precise polling methods had not been developed, but public opinion was one of the great forces military and political leaders had to take into account, as any reader of Thucydides can tell you. As a result, the Greeks waged war differently not only at the tactical level but also at the strategic and political levels. Apart from historians, I have met only one type of person who reads the works of Herodotus and Thucydides: thankfully, U.S. military officers.
Terrence Moore grew up and attended public schools in Texas. He studied history and political science at The University of Chicago and later earned a Ph.D. in history from The University of Edinburgh in Scotland. His dissertation is entitled "The Enlightened Curriculum: Liberal Education in Eighteenth-Century British Schools." Dr. Moore served as a Lieutenant in the U. S. Marine Corps and was an assistant professor of history at Ashland University in Ohio. He is now Principal of Ridgeview Classical Schools.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
american beleive that there Greek and roman ,this is why there alway saying how great the greeks and romans are but Ignore the Chinese, indians,middle eastern civilizations.Even when theres alot of evidence that rome is not the most powerful empire,and Phalanx formatation is good vs persian infantry but would be massacred by any chinese or steppe army.Like the phalanx that was easily defeated by the sythians
To me, "shock and awe" comes to mind more when thinking about the Celtic bands that participated in the Sack of Delphi and the Third Battle of Thermopylae. They used fear as a weapon, and terrified the Greek soldiers - to me, terror is the essence of "shock and awe".
american beleive that there Greek and roman ,this is why there alway saying how great the greeks and romans are but Ignore the Chinese, indians,middle eastern civilizations.Even when theres alot of evidence that rome is not the most powerful empire,and Phalanx formatation is good vs persian infantry but would be massacred by any chinese or steppe army.Like the phalanx that was easily defeated by the sythians
Romans didn't use phalanxes (at least not after the first sack of Rome). It was abandoned after the first sack of Rome, because it was found to be virtually useless against "barbarian" attacks. Roman legions were far more sophisticated than the phalanx.
To me, "shock and awe" comes to mind more when thinking about the Celtic bands that participated in the Sack of Delphi and the Third Battle of Thermopylae. They used fear as a weapon, and terrified the Greek soldiers - to me, terror is the essence of "shock and awe".
I think in the coalition with the Celts,people understimate Hellens a lot.
The city of Delphoi was never sacked.The sanctuary was defended succesfully by the 4.000 Hellens (Aitolians,Fokians,Magnites) of General Aleximahus.
Moreover,in the battle of Thermopylae there were 29.600 Hellens(11-12.000 Aitolians,10.500 Boiwtoi,3.500 Fokians,1.500 Athenians,700 Lokroi,400 Megareis and 1.000 mercenaries from Antiocus A ,King of Syria and from Antigonos Gonatas who ruled areas of Central and Southern Hellas) against 30.000-40.000 Celts(!).During the battle, all frontal Celtic attacks failed to break Hellenic defense,and Brennus had to sent some of his troops to Aitoleia in order to make Aitolians leave the battlefield.Then he had to do the same thing Persians did 200 years later.He sent troops from the footpath of Oitis in order to surround the Hellenic forces.They Hellens were saved by the Athenian fleet who was in the area.
During their invasion in Macedonia,the country was not it's best condition.After Kassandrus,Macedonia changed many kings until 284 B.C when it came under Lycimahus,who was also killed in the battle of kouropedion in Lydia ,in 281 B.C.Then Seleucus would be the new heir,but hell,he was murdered by Ptolemeus Kereuvos's puppets.So much about Macedonian stability ,huh?
So,in a few words Macedonia was weak during the time the Celtic invasion took place thanks to wars and to all these royal "changes".In fact ,the Celtic warriors did not fight against the full Macedonian army,but rather against a small part of it because Ptolemeus Keraunos understimated the Celtic danger.
In addition,in the area from where the Celts passed there was no strong Hellenic states with worthy military ,except Macedonia which,as already mentioned ,was then quite weak.The Celts never fought against Pelopponesians(Spartans etc) until Delphoi,still without Spartans,and they never sacked Southern Hellas(Pelopponesus,Attica), where all the major Hellenic states situated.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Phalanx formatation is good vs persian infantry but would be massacred by any chinese or steppe army
Why? [/QUOTE]
Phalanxes were not very good against fast moving cavalry, because the phalanx has vulnerable flanks (particularly the right flank, which is not protected by shields at all). Phalanxes fighting cavalry were generally slaughtered in the open, but could manage to defend themselves if they could find terrain which prevented flanking (like woods or hills). Further the harassing style of steppe groups, rather than heavy cavalry which charged, was ideally suited to disrupting phalanxes.
Celtic cavalry using somewhat similar tactics as steppe groups were used as mercenaries by various city states. Xenophon describes a group of them as virtually herding Theban phalanxes in the 4th century:
"Few though they were, they were scattered here and there. They charged towards the Thebans, threw their javelins, and then dashed away as the enemy moved towards them, often turning and throwing more javelins. While pursuing these tactics, they sometimes dismounted for a rest. But if anyone charged upon them while they were resting, they would easily leap onto their horses and retreat. If enemy warriors pursued them from the Theban army, these horsemen would then turn around and wrack them with their javelins. Thus they manipulated the entire Theban army, compelling to advance or fall back at their will."
I think in the coalition with the Celts,people understimate Hellens a lot.
I don't think so. The Greeks never managed to challenge Celtic power in any serious way, aside from a few small actions against minor tribes. They did manage to sometimes defend themselves, sometimes not, but they appear to have been on the defensive in general.
The city of Delphoi was never sacked.The sanctuary was defended succesfully
The sanctuary was defended, but the city itself was sacked, at least partially.
Moreover,in the battle of Thermopylae there were 29.600 Hellens ... against 30.000-40.000 Celts(!).
But these are actually pretty good odds for a defender, particularly in a mountain pass.
During their invasion in Macedonia,the country was not it's best condition.
The vanquished rarely are. Most states fall to foreign power during a period of weakness. What is most amazing, however, is that even at the height of Macedonian power, it conquered all the way to Egypt and India but couldn't extend its sway across the Danube, a short distance away. And it isn't that they didn't have the desire - Alexander mounted several forays over the Danube with the intent of pacifying the Celts permanently.
Well,Alexander and his father Phillip II actually didn't have the desire of going above Danube,because firstly there was nothing of great economical or geostrategical importance there at that time,and secondly because the Persian Empire in the long-term was a much more dangerous enemy than the Celtic tribes.The Celts where nothing more than some tribes sacking whatever they found in their way,while Persia was a very well organized Empire,controlling strategic economical centers,such as Egypt,having organized military and the most important:having enough money to interfere whenever they want into the Hellenic political scenery.That's why the Celtic kingdom of Thrace did not survived for more than 60 (!) years ,with the exception of the Celtic kingdom of Asia Minor which survived for almost 200 years,but still not too much to be a strategic danger.It was only a danger for the cities of Asia Minor.
Ancient Hellens in most of their wars with foreign enemies(with Persia,with Carthage in Sicily etc) were mainly defensive,with the exception of Troy.But this does not mean that they "watched the Celts and run for their lives".They were mainly aggressive against each other.That's why the countless internal conflicts.It was Alexander who came and freed Hellenic cities from the narrow geopolitical limits of Ancient Hellas.
Concerning Delphoi,it was the sanctuary it was important,not the city.
Ancient Hellens did not have to challenge Celtic power,because as already mentioned,Celtic power was soon faded away.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Alexander when he personally commanded his troops,and won with tactical brillance defeating the sythian horse archers with his cavalry.Before this a few phalanxes were powerless against the sythians and were massacred.
+Phalanxe formatation,or roman legion are the oppostite of Shock and awe tactic,there slow grinding tactics,Parthian cataphracts are a better example of shock and awe
Well,Alexander and his father Phillip IIactually didn't have the desire of going above Danube,because firstly there was nothing of great economical or geostrategical importance there at that time
Not exactly. Alexanders single raid on the Getae village apparently produced an "important loot" according to records of the time. Archaeological evidence shows that the Getae and Celts north of the Danube were materially wealthy and vigorous traders. And, there were strategically and economically important sites in these areas ... the metallurgical centre of the Norici, for instance. Some distance from Greece, but alot closer than Babylon. Noricum was first the staging ground for the Celtic invasions of Rome, and then was later used as the staging ground for Roman invasions in central and southeastern Europe. Norici "steel" weapons - noricus ensis - were the most prized in all Rome, and once under Roman domination, Noricum became one of the chief arsenals of the empire.
Ancient Hellens did not have to challenge Celtic power,because as already mentioned,Celtic power was soon faded away.
"Not exactly. Alexanders single raid on the Getae village apparently produced an "important loot" according to records of the time. Archaeological evidence shows that the Getae and Celts north of the Danube were materially wealthy and vigorous traders. And, there were strategically and economically important sites in these areas ... the metallurgical centre of the Norici, for instance. Some distance from Greece, but alot closer than Babylon. Noricum was first the staging ground for the Celtic invasions of Rome, and then was later used as the staging ground for Roman invasions in central and southeastern Europe. Norici "steel" weapons - noricus ensis - were the most prized in all Rome, and once under Roman domination, Noricum became one of the chief arsenals of the empire. "
Show me one city or area of that time,around 300 and 200 B.C. above Danube,which could compete Egypt,Middle East and Mesopotamia in the terms of geostrategic and economical importance.
"As did Greek power, around the same time ... "
Indeed,but after more than 1.000 years of existence,not just 60 or 200 .
Edited by Spartakus
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Show me one city or area of that time,around 300 and 200 B.C. above Danube,which could compete Egypt,Middle East and Mesopotamia in the terms of geostrategic and economical importance.
The Norici were around, and a metallurgical centre, during that period. Nothing to compete with Egypt, but certainly of far more relevance to Macedonia than the Iranian plateau or India. These areas were too far away and too difficult to control to be of any use to the Macedonians.
There were trade routes going from Greece all the way to Britain, a pan-European network. The only reason we don't credit the material and technological importance of Europe at that time is because of the prejudice of Greco-Roman writers, who were at cultural odds with it, and it is only their history that we have. However, the Romans, who built a far more economically powerful empire than the Greeks, obviously recognized (and profited from) the value of Europe.
[/quote]
Indeed,but after more than 1.000 years of existence,not just 60 or 200 .
Greece's golden age did not last 1000 years .... it was a small territory concerned with itself for the vast majority of that period. Likewise, Celtic culture in Europe is quite old - if you count the Urnfield and La Tene phases, a dominant and expanding power since 1200 BC, first clashing with Medittarean cultures between 400 and 250. If you take the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul as their "downfall" (even though they inhabit most of Europe), which is 191, you have .... 1000 years of continous expansion.
But back to the topic ... shock and awe is not merely defeating your enemy or being superior, and in any case, the Greeks did not invent victory or military superiority. It is the use of fear and terror as a weapon. Greco-Roman cultures are not really notable for this; it is more a feature of "barbaric" groups, who would, prior to battle, stamp the earth, howl, blow huge horns, slap their shields with their weapons and so on, and during their campaigns would inflict atrocities with the deliberate intention of causing armies to split up, to go protect their homes, long before the invaders even arrived (exactly what Shock and Awe in Iraq was intended to do).
India and Asia may were far away,but Persia was also there.It was a combination of reasons:the most important (again at that time,Europe gained importance only in the Roman era)economical and geostrategic centers+the destruction of a dangerous enemy.We must also add Alexander's wish to travel the world,and at that time Europe had nothing special.
Concerning the Hellenic golden age,yes it did not last 1.000 years.But this is not the point.The point is that the Ancient Hellenic civilization started to decline after more than 1.000 years of existance and internal conflicts,which is quite natural .On the other hand,the Celts did not manage to survive as long as that,because they simply had not develloped the same stable civilization and in the same level,like Hellas ,Persia and Egypt did,so they couldn't be sth more than just an impermanent danger,as it prooved to be.And i am not talking about the Celts of Germania or Gaul,i am talking about those tribes in the Balkans,since we are talking about Ancient Hellas.I do not think that a Celtic tribe in Gaul would be any kind of danger for Ancient Hellens.....
Concerning shock and wave,the perfect lines of a tight phallanx were surely creating certain feelings ,such as fear and awe.Secondly,Ancient Hellens were the ones who brought the "decisive battle" into military science.
Shock and awe IS about being superior and defeating your enemy,things which create fear and awe.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Concerning shock and wave,the perfect lines of a tight phallanx were surely creating certain feelings ,such as fear and awe.Secondly,Ancient Hellens were the ones who brought the "decisive battle" into military science.
Surely not. The Egyptians had decisive battles millenia before the Greeks even existed.
Shock and awe IS about being superior and defeating your enemy,things which create fear and awe.
If Shock and Awe is mere victory, then why not just call it by its proper name, victory?
Awe and fear aren't much use after the battle, at least not as a weapon in the battle itself. It's the use of awe and fear to affect the outcome of a battle. The perfect lines of phalanxes apparently did not inspire much fear in ancient peoples - the early Roman phalanxes were quite literally laughed right off the field of battle at the Battle of Allia.
Using the definition of "Shock and Awe" as I understand it, there might
be several examples of it, but a heavy infantry such as the Hellenic
phalanx doesn't exactly match it unless your're the horseman making the
suicide charge directly into the wall of spears. More likely,
it'd fit the ancient cavalry of the era which, when the ground was
clear of obstacles and an opportunity to flank a line of infantry was
presented, would break virtually any enemy unable to react swiftly
enough. More so, the ancient siege weapons that hurtled large
rocks and even incendiary projectiles (barrels of burning pitch,
nalptha, etc) fits the bill.
"There you go again!"
-- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s)
"Surely not. The Egyptians had decisive battles millenia before the Greeks even existed."
Dont' think so.
Awe and fear aren't much use after the battle, at least not as a weapon in the battle itself.
Awe and fear is built in battles.
The perfect lines of phalanxes apparently did not inspire much fear in ancient peoples - the early Roman phalanxes were quite literally laughed right off the field of battle at the Battle of Allia.
Not true.Again you are using Rome,but we are talking about Ancient Hellas.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Noone invented the Desisive battle lmao ,it just so happened to be that battles were important to win.Like the battle of Kadesh betwenn hittites and egytpians was a descive battle.
"Surely not. The Egyptians had decisive battles millenia before the Greeks even existed."
Dont' think so.
Battle of Megiddo, to name an example. It's not a millenia before the Greeks, the records are sparse, but it's pretty hard to imagine unifying all the independant nomes of Egypt without a single decisive victory.
Awe and fear is built in battles.
Well yes, but how did the Greeks invent it then? Are you saying now that the Greeks invented battle?
All battles involved "awe and fear" as do all victories. But only a few involve using awe and fear to make an enemy flee before battle is even engaged and use it in a deliberate way. Greeks surely did this a little, but they are not exceptional for it as "barbarian" peoples, or even cavalry forces, were. They didn't shake the ground by stamping, or howl and scream, or anything of the sort.
Not true.Again you are using Rome ,but we are talking about Ancient Hellas.
It is factual. Livy describes it quite explicitly, as do several other Roman historians. As soon as the cry went up from the Brennus' army, the Romans were routed in terror and fled the field, without much fighting being involved. I was using Rome, because they were using Greek style phalanxes at that time - I doubt it mattered whether the phalanxes were Greek or Roman, whether their "perfect lines" scared anyone or not. To barbaric peoples it probably looked silly, like clockwork dolls. That's the only account off the top of my head of a battle where phalanxes were involved, in which psychological factors were more important than tactical factors. The other reason I used it was to illustrate what the modern doctrine of "shock and awe" is about - it is most often described as rendering an enemy unwilling to resist (that is, unwilling to fight) through awesome displays of power - without actually engaging them much. A battle that doesn't happen because the enemy runs fleeing away and is scattered, is a perfect example. But the Greeks usually had to fight their way to their victories through very stiff resistance, and won by persistance.
Greeks were exceptional in war, but not due to "shock and awe", nor to much of technological edge - metallurgically, their technology was really nothing special at all (nor was the early Roman technology - they adopted most of it from Gauls, including the pilum, the oblong shield, the iron helmet with brim, the gladius, and chainmail). Greeks were exceptional in tactics and strategy, particularly in special maneuvers on the field. They were the masters of military maneuvering in their day, both on land and at sea. Most of the famous Greek victories are attributable to some advantage gained by innovative use of the forces they had, not superior forces. Take the battle of Marathon. The Persians are not shocked or awed, and they are superior to the Greek forces, at the beginning of the battle. The Greeks don't try to scare them; in fact, they try to convince them that they are scared by retreating their center. The Persians think they are weak and attack the rear of the retreating center, to fall into a pincer movement. It's a rather typical example of how the Greeks won victory against foreign opponents in many respects.
When i am saying that Ancient Hellens brought "decisive battle" into military science,i mean as military ideology.One battle,to achieve total victory and peace.
Hellenic style phallanxes?There are in fact different styles of Hellenic phallanxes:Thebetian(Ieros Lohos) ,Spartan,Macedonian .Moreover,Hellenic Phallanx was not a simple fighting formation.It was the mirage of the Ancient Hellenic society.And how many societes we had in Ancient Hellas?We had oligarchic Sparta,Democratic Athens,Royal Macedonia and cities with mixed govermental systems(Democratic and Oligarchic features).So,it is not so simple to say Hellenic Style phallanxes,because even inside the same style of Hellenic phallanx used by 2 different Ancient Hellenic armies, there are major differences because of the social differences.
In the Battle of Marathon,Hellens in terms of tactics and equipment were superior than the Persian army,which was only superior in numbers.
Awe and fear is built during the intitial march of the phallanx in very close lines and shock when all attacks to break it are useless.Imagine an Athenian young man to see a Spartan phallanx to come against it's lines.What do you think will his initial feelings be?Happiness?Of course not,awe and fear will be.Moreover,thanks to the phallanx formation,Ancient Hellens and Alexander reached India.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum