How to Define the Relevance of Ancient Warfare

This article defines the relevance of ancient warfare.

Difficulty: Challenging

Instructions

1. By the study of ancient warfare one could build a textbook matrix of how far warfare has come and how warfare should be waged in the future to ensure success. Warfare in the beginning was very simplistic. The importance of life was not lost on the groups of this time period. This fact was a major reason that casualties were kept to a minimum, as these same groups sought to fully maximize each member of their groups especially their top producers. The participants of ancient warfare left a solid foundation for others to use in the continued development of how war would be waged in the future. The way ancient warfare was waged said a lot about the character and tenacity of soldiers of this time period. Modern military leaders could learn much by studying this time period. The level of fitness and courage displayed by ancient soldiers is a hard act to follow. The blueprint left by ancient warfare soldiers has the potential to save many lives in the future.

2. Primitive warfare had various limitations concerning scope and length of battle.There was no focused, clear, concise stratagems planned by organized military strategist in primitive warfare. A lot of primitive warfare was waged by instinctive responses of a community or society towards its' problems. A lack of numerous food producers had a large effect on the acceptable casualty rate of a particular society. This fact also had a large effect on the length of a military campaign of a particular society. Economics was not often the basis for war because of the lack of wealth among most primitive groups. Most groups fought for the honor and reputation of their particular group. They also fought to gain wives to ensure the future extension of their group. Primitive groups were also known to fight for food and revenge.

3. Even in ancient times, primitive groups used guerilla style tactics in war.Primitive groups rarely attacked fortified positions . They also used ambushes to wage attacks by the use of projectile weapons. The lack of military organization kept primitive groups from realizing true military successs.

4. The age of the Phalanx consisted of soldiers superior in conditioning ,
   character and discipline. Even though slavery was a part of Greek society, the army gained its' members from the citizens of Greek society. Soldiers paid for their own weapons and armor. The strength and
   motivating factors of the phalanx was self-preservation, commitment
   and volunteerism. The success of the phalangeal line depended heavily
   on the endurance, discipline and commitment of the soldiers. Because
   reserves were not in existence before the fifth century B.C., in a battle between phalangite armies, neither side could expect outside assistance.Once the opposing formations engaged each other, they were locked in battle until one side broke ranks or decided to flee the battle. The Spartans were the first to conciously use outflanking maneuvers in the fourth century B.C., when they noticed the tendency of phalanx soldiers to slide to their right to avoid the vulnerability of their unshielded right side. Phalangeal warfare could not be efficiently adjusted to pursuit formations because of its' akwardness and immobility. This limited the level of casualties. Phalangeal warfare was waged by the strongest and bravest of men.

5. The make-up of the Persian army was indicative of the cosmopolitan status of Persian society. The army was comprised of men of many nationalities. The calvary as well as the infantry used the bow as its most essential weapon. The members of the calvary wore body armor and wielded axes. The Persian army considered missile fire and speed combined with competent use of its infantry,as tantamount to a successful military campaign against its enemies. The infantry
   consisted of regular professional troops. The calvary and infantry was made up from the Medes, Elamites, Bactrians, and the Sakai.

6. In the war between Persia and Greece, terrain and heavy infantry fighting decided the outcome. The battle of Marathon was the first decisive engagement of the Persian expedition. Greece won the battle by the use of its heavy infantry and its superior close combat fighting skills. In a battle at Plataea, the allied Greek phalanx used a mountain spur to protect its flanks from a Persian calvary assault. The
   Spartan troops withstood a prolonged missile attack by Persian forces and eventually forced the Persians into retreat in the main battle. The Greek forces were able to choose the battleground in their victories against the Persians.

7. Warfare has evolved over the early centuries. Wars were waged by primitive groups as well as highly organized, sophisticated societies. The upper class as well as the lower and middle class fought in wars in the early periods. Wars went from simplistic ambushes to more complicated formations and the use of close combat fighting troops. These wars opened up previously unaccessible avenues of trade and commerce. Some of the early period wars provided a model for the future assessment of true military leadership. Early period warfighters possessed honorable attributes like courage and dependability which aided them in the military engagements. These attributes became more useful as warfare evolved. The soldier of this time period left a
   very solid foundation for future soldiers to build on.