2865 Shares

How has wars in the ancient world influenced modern day wars?

How has wars in the ancient world influenced modern day wars? Topic: War and conflict essays
May 26, 2019 / By Essie
Question: What are some similarities and differences between ancient wars and modern wars? There causes, war tactics, technology, strategies, anything? Anything will help. Thank you! It is for an essay I am doing. It has to be 6 to 8 pages and I can't find alot of information on the internet. Just need a few ideas. I'm mostly concerned with the Greek or Roman military and the current U.S. military. Thanks so much for this info its helping alot.
Best Answer

Best Answers: How has wars in the ancient world influenced modern day wars?

Claretta Claretta | 9 days ago
Ancient wars were very different than modern mechanized warfare. When the most potent weapon on the battlefield was the long bow or spear, far fewer people died in deciding a major battle. The number of soldiers on each side was smaller and battles could go on all day with a few tens to a couple of hundred killed -- on both sides. Beginning with the cross bow, which largely negated the body armor of the day, body counts began climbing and more and more soldiers had to be brought to each battle because of the losses. Seiges of heavily fortified cities or castles became more common as one side tried to defeat the potent weapon by hiding behind "impregnable" stone walls. Then came the major engines of war: the seige tower and the trebuchet (a form of catapult). These were designed to defeat the walls of stone. In some ways they were precursers to the modern tank, a heavily armored movable gun platform that entirely outclasses personal arms. Mechanized warfare, as practiced by Western societies, has peaked, so far, in the nuclear warhead-tipped ICBM, InterContinental Ballistic Missile, that can be thrown around the world without any specific exposure of the people setting it on its way. Chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction figure in this scenario as well. One of the most obvious results of jet fighter/bombers, ICBMs, and nuclear missile submarines is the changing ratios of soldiers to civilians killed. Nuclear missiles, while theoretically aimed at each other, would probably also be used in an all out conflict on population centers. More and more civilians are killed in modern wars, as compared to soldier deaths. ADDED: This Answer does not reach all the way back to tribal warfare, where not just defeat but assimilation of the enemy was intended (Kill all the males and make those women ours).
👍 246 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? How has wars in the ancient world influenced modern day wars? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: War and conflict essays


Claretta Originally Answered: How did soldiers from the british emprires help with the world wars?
easy. they, being the empire, were required to send troops on englands behalf during both wars seeing as how they were at the time in the commonwealth of the british. the commonwealth troops performed brilliantly in several campaigns of both wars. the commonwealth troops fought in several key battles in ww1 including the marne, ypres, the somme, gallipoli, the middle east, passchendaele, vimy ridge, and amiens. needless to say they were desperately needed to stop the axis forces in the west. in ww2, the same rule applied. all commonwealth nations were to send as many troops as possible to help the mother country, england. once again the commonwealth troops performed exceptionally well. they, the troops, became an integral part of the allied power. without the canadian troops, d-day may have turned out differently, not to mention north africa, sicily, italy, and the pacific theater as well. not only did they supply troops, ships, tanks, pilots, and aircraft, the fact that most of these countries were strategically located in areas that needed to be held so that a counteroffensive could be launched, such as australia and new zealand. we, the americans, used australia as a base for operations in the south pacific, and new zealand as an area of rest for our troops druing the war. also troops from these nations helped tremendously in our fight in new guinea, and in the burma/india theater as well. hope this helps

Basmath Basmath
Entirely fair to say he fiddled while the world burned, at least from a populist standpoint: Libya has probably less than a day for any effective force to be decisive in supporting a battle for freedom; Bahrain is exploding and risks the ingress of extremism; Syria is beginning to boil; and there are reports of troubles in Saudi Arabia as well. This is an immense crisis which affects the energy security of the world and stability of one of the primary trade routes. If the US wants to be seen as the spent force, the feeble power which did not act till it was too late, then Obama should continue to sit on his hands pondering the pros and cons as long as he likes. Meanwhile, the rest of the world can try and cobble together a solution. We'll probably fail too, but at least we tried. And for those who wonder why the US has been unsuccessful in achieving peace in the Middle East, a reminder: the Arab world attacked Israel the day after the British surrendered the Mandate in Palestine. What's that, 1948? A problem never solved, 3million people still displaced (last I heard) and a constant source of rebellion and extremism. And US support for Israel has been constant and substantial. One cannot seek to act as an honest broker, or leader, if one is so compromised by association.
👍 100 | 👎 3

Adelicia Adelicia
All wars bring death to military and civilian populations. In modern warfare, the idea is not to kill the civilian population, unlike in ancient days of killing them all off or hauling them off into slavery. Modern warfare still has to fight against those who use civilians as shields. Whereas at one time military thought that to kill off the army completely was ok and today they have learned that one battle field injury requires many people to care for the wounded. It is possible to cripple the opposing army without killing all of them.
👍 92 | 👎 -3

Teague Teague
there both fighting for what they belive in, diffrences are technology old and new technology. some of there tatitics are diffrent like they way they fight like in 1400's or somthing both sides lined up and each side would take a turn for the front soldiers would shoot at the enemy side and the otherside front soldiers would have to stay still and whoever's dead the people behind them move up.
👍 84 | 👎 -9

Phallu Phallu
Kubla Khan's war strategies are still being taught thousands of years after his death. Not too many geniuses go into the field of military.
👍 76 | 👎 -15

Phallu Originally Answered: Sioux Wars - Little Crow's, Red Cloud's and The Great Sioux Wars?
Little Crow tried to avoid war as he new it would lead to defeat, but his warrior and people had enough and demand war. In the wars after mass, the souix warriors were tried as 'war criminals' , 38 were executed and another 326 imprisoned. In the Red Cloud's War of 1865-68, the Sioux in Montana led by Red Cloud took up arms and rose up against the white man. In the early 1860's, gold ores were discovered on Sioux properties, protected by a treaty, and white miners rushed in on a gold rush. They took over Sioux land after killing the owners. Red Cloud's band of poorly armed Sioux warriors were no match for the US military. After a series of bloody battles, the Indian army was decimated but they fought on. Finally, a new treaty was signed with Red Cloud creating the Great Sioux Reservation - which was off limit to the white miners at least on paper. The Great Sioux War of 1876-77 began when white miners rushed in the Black Hills of Dakota, sacred to the Sioux Indians, to dig for gold. The Sioux warriors led by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse defeated the US cavalry led by General Custer at the battle of Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876. However, this Indian victory was followed by one defeat after another, and by 1877, the Sioux army was no more. The Indians were evicted from the Black Hills of Dakota - another treaty was broken. The white settlers backed up by the US army relied on scorched-earth tactics. Whole villages and tribes - old people, women. new-born babies and children - were mercilessly killed under the motto, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." The US government paid scalp hunters so many dollars per Indian - of any age - killed. Buffaloes - the main food source of the Indians - were wiped out by the military in order to starve out the Indians. It is estimated that over ten million buffaloes roamed the Great Plains before 1840, but by 1885, the buffalo was virtually exterminated. There were only 200 or so buffalo remained when the Great Buffo Hunt was over. The Indian treaties gave the Native Indians home lands - "reservations" - off limits to the white settlers. The Indians were initially allowed to hunt for food outside their reservations but the white settlers objected to the 'wild Injuns' leaving the reservation to steal and rape white women. Eventually, the Indians were forbidden to leave the reservation - thus, another treaty term was broken. The Indians became welfare recipients and helpless prisoners in their own "land of the free". The Great Sioux war: The Government could not stop white settlers from settling on the Sioux lands, at the same time of course they were going to protect them; The indians by that point were determined to not let the treaty of 1868 be violated. It came to Washington on how to deal with the problem, and So grant decided, through Sherman to force the indian removal, once again. As Sherman put it "The Sioux must be made to know that when the government commands they must obey" What did the settlers gain or lose in each? The settlers were the once really pushing the issue, they were moving west settling on lands that were already aggreed by treaties with Washington as the Sioux's Lands. Then when indians attacked settlers violating their lands, the Settlers insisted on Government protection. Washington and any local commanders usually succombed to their demands and this is what would trigger and re-trigger the wars. Settlers if they lived won their lands, got to prospect so gold..ect. What the lost was of course, was in the gamble, they may have been attacked by indians, possibly losong their Homes, crops, animals, and their lives; but obviously as a general rule they became the winners. What did the Sioux gain or lose in each? Overall the Sioux were the Mass losers, they lost their lives defending their lands, Lost their Lands, in their efforts to make peace they got stuck with one treaty after another that sometimes got violated the same day they were signed. In the end they ended up losing their freedoms, their right to hunt, their way of life, so evaded to Canada, or some continued to resist, finally realizing their was no treaty that would ever be recognized. Winners: I guess their Dignity to fight for their freedom , to make the effort to find peace repeatedly. : And maybe a little satisfaction on the instinces that they defeated the army; though it always came back at the cost of another massacre of them. The first source is a book and covers vast amounts of information , battles, leaders, and you can read it all online free. (Though you can't copy and paste.) Second source some good info is contained in the paragraghs, skim down alittle off the top, as it is really an essay dealing in current day about us making treaties. Third source another google book.

If you have your own answer to the question war and conflict essays, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.