Preview

Differences Of War: Similarities Between Ancient And Modern Warfare

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
460 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Differences Of War: Similarities Between Ancient And Modern Warfare
The conflicts of men have been recorded ever since the dawn of mankind.
Comparing from the times of Alexander the Great, warfare has immensely evolved. For almost 10,000 years, combat technologies did not change until around 1000 AD. During this time, the Chinese had discovered the potential of gun powder and were using it for fireworks. A few hundred years later, Arab and Western European powers had started to develop fire-arms and cannons (powered by gunpowder) for combating the Mongolians in the East and Native Americans in the West. In addition with the advancements of aerospace technologies, warfare has changed more than ever.

Although the way Rome fought Carthage was different from how America invaded Iraq, there were still some similarities. One similarity between the early and modern soldiers is that they would both wear armor. During the times of Pericles and Julius Caesar, the average soldier would wear iron armor and a helmet to protect him from being pierced by a blade.
…show more content…
In this one-on-one duel, the Roman would be equipped with a spear and a sword for close range combat. Also the Roman would wear metal armor and carry a shield that covers his body. The Navy Seal would wear bullet proof clothes and hold a machine gun. To kill the Seal, the Roman would have to throw his spear which would probably miss and then pull out his sword. On the other hand, all the Seal has to do is pull the trigger to kill the Roman before he could even throw his spear. This is an example of how the modern war technologies have evolved. Another example would be that in the pre-gunpowder world, soldiers would take weeks to get to their destination on a horse. Today, at team of modern soldiers could jump into a helicopter and get to there destination within a few hours. There are so many more differences in how war technologies compare to those of 2,000 years

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    In this paper the overview, prelude, and battle of Lake Trasimene will be analyzed and discussed to understand the brilliance behind one of the greatest military tactical attacks in history. The Battle of Lake Trasimene was waged by one of the most charismatic, smart, and cunning generals of all time in Hannibal. Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar Barca of Carthage, was raised to eat, breath, and hate Rome from the beginning of his childhood. Livy states that, “From the day when he was proclaimed commander in chief, he seemed to regard Italy as his assigned field of action, and war with Rome as a duty imposed upon him.”(Livy 21.5, Line 1-3.) This inner rage that was instilled in him as a child is a driving force that can be seen throughout this battle as well as his remaining campaigns against the Romans.…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Spartacus Film Analysis

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages

    After watching the movie Spartacus (1960) and doing some research I found the movie to be both historical accurate and inaccurate. But I'm not going to nitpick the hole movie instead I would like to talk about some of the major details that are fairly well known; like how the Roman army fought in battle. The Roman army was know for its discipline, organization, and innovation in both weapons and tactics.…

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Though this would be the primary dominate force on the battlefield, Rome actually lost battles because they were primarily heavy infantry. Roman soldiers adopted fighting tactics of other forces and enemies to become the most elite force on the battle field. Starting out, soldiers fought like the Greek worriers known as hoplites. Hoplites were essentially an infantry man armed with a shield and spear, which were on reserve until called to battle. The tactics that were adopted from the Hoplites was a formation called the Phalanx. This formation consisted of soldiers lining up shoulder to shoulder with their weapon in one hand and shield in the opposite. Not only did this help with shields protecting one another, it made lines impenetrable for arrows, spears and enemy as long as they maintained a solid line side by side.2…

    • 1788 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Roman Empire DBQ

    • 200 Words
    • 1 Page

    To begin with, military weakness was a big factor in the fall of Rome. According to Document B, “...armor began to seem heavy since the soldiers rarely ever wore it.” This shows that the soldiers were very lethargic and couldn’t protect the empire effectively. They stopped doing their ground drills and never wore the breastplates. When war came to Rome they weren’t prepared to wear the armor, so instead they fought with…

    • 200 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Roman soldiers fought without armor because the armor became too heavy, for the men never…

    • 640 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Roman Body Armor

    • 3135 Words
    • 13 Pages

    The evolution of Roman armour was influenced by the needs and circumstances of the Roman Army. Armies of the first century A.D. were finally established within the…

    • 3135 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Roman soldier’s armor is either made out of metal or leather. They will carry around shields for protection and fight with swords or any other weapon a craftsman made for them. American soldiers are different, instead of metal and leather they would wear camouflage to blend in and instead of swords and shields they will carry guns and haul cannons with them.…

    • 272 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Warfare and technological advancements have been intertwined ever since innovation has been pointed in the direction of war. The biggest innovation that changed the landscape irrevocably, would be the introduction of gunpowder weapons in Europe. The adoption of gunpowder weapons in essence forced every country that wanted a chance in war, to adopt the same technology. Innovation in military technology is more adaptive than civilian innovation. A clear example can be seen with European inventors having a decisive edge over Incan, Aztec, and Asian foes, then the world following with Gunpowder weapons and century methods of war being suddenly outdated.…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The book called "Concerning Military Matters" states that the soldiers got lazy and negligence and because of this the soldiers did not want to wear there breast plates and helmets. Because of this the Roman Fighters were prone to more wounds because of the lack of protective equipment. "Concerning Military Matters" says " Thus, it happens that troops in battle, exposed to wounds because they have no armor, think about running but not fighting." This statement is saying that the soldiers were exposed to the battle wounds and were more ready to run but not even think about fighting or that they might get hurt. The military problems contributes to the fall of Rome by showing that the army was getting weaker and dying off faster due to poor choices made by the…

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Military theory spans centuries of conflict all across the world. As such, military theorists have written in a variety of military climates, varying from the absence of gun powder to the presence of nuclear weapons. However, some military theories are transcendent. Some elements of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz are eternally wise. While their similarities may become universal truths, their differences are equally worthy of study because, it is in the differences where choices are made. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz agreed that war is chaos, military action is a tool for diplomatic goals and, as such, the results of warfare are not final. Their differences lie in how they advocate for waging war. The style and preparations for war contrast. This is where…

    • 697 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Roman Legion and the Greek Phalanx were both battle formations that were similar in many ways, yet completely different in many other ways. Both formations were formed through strict organization of soldiers and commanding officers. Although both implemented strong organization, they organized their soldiers in a different manner. The Greek Phalanx was one big unit of heavily armored soldiers that were tightly packed and strapped with primarily long spears, shields and short stabbing swords. Due to the weaponry and formation they were incapable to move excessively or turn quickly. If they wished to change direction all spears had to be lifted and then the soldiers were capable to move, but only minimal as they were tightly packed. The Roman Legion on the other hand were both medially or heavily armored soldiers broken up into small groups called maniples and were much more mobile. The Roman Legion consisted of soldiers armed with throwing spears, shields and strong short swords. The Short stabbing sword is a key difference as it was used by the Romans as a primary, rather than the spear. This sword meant they were more mobile and independent on the battlefield. This independence allowed them to freely retreat, flank or attack an enemy. Analyzing these formations from a birds eye point of view also shows key differences. The Greek Phalanx from a birds eye point of view would look like evenly spaced bricks of men of about 16 with spears pointing out. The Roman Legion would range from small formations to larger formations wielding different long range or short ranged weapons, they would also be strategically stretched out to flank and also defend.…

    • 287 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Romans not only had good morals, for example having honor on the battle field, but also very good war tactics. The Carthaginian Empire had a very large and powerful navy while the Roman Empire had no experience fighting on the seas. Despite their inexperience, they quickly built ships and sailed off to meet Hannibal’s navy. Lacking knowledge of fighting on water, the Romans devised a strategy to turn sea fighting into land fighting. They used grappling hooks to bring the enemy’s ships to a stop and then crossed the gang plank onto the other ship using hand-to-hand combat. This idea turned the tides of the sea battles, and…

    • 668 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Ancient Greece, warfare was predominant war of life. Greeces terrain was very mountainous. Because of this there were many city states. There was constant war between these states for territorial expansion, revenge or sometimes just honor. In the early stages of the geek warfare, the Archaic period, training was disorganized and weapons were pretty bad. Although soldiers were paid, they were only paid enough to make them survive the day (enough for food, cloth, etc.). Soldiers didn't have any real uniforms and as soon as the war was over the went back to their farms instead of training more. By the 600 BC, the spartan military was a model for all city states to follow. The Spartans had a well trained, full time army that had organized uniforms. In response to this, many city states, like Athens,…

    • 652 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Frontline Digital Nation

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages

    1800s militaries were introduce too and fought with muffle rifles and one shot hand guns in which were probably a headache to deal with considering they could only fire their gun once and 2 step process to reload the guns, in the 1900s militaries fought with rockets, missiles, and nuclear bombs and today militaries have…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Western Civilization

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages

    A fighter is only as good as his weapon. Weapons are developed based on the threat of the enemy. The development of the helmet for instance, made the mace obsolete, then a sharpened axe was developed to defeat the helmet. The evolution of metals from bronze to iron was a huge leap in the art of war and still remains an important factor in modern weapons. Although the accuracy and reliability…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays