A brief history of warfare

Since the beginnings of organized warfare 6,000 years ago the strategies and tactics for land battles
have remained the same. Although technology has made the battlefield a deadlier place the basic ideas
of land tactics have not changed much. When studying military science it is important to understand
the difference between strategy and tactics. Tactics is the small picture. It involves the use of military
forces on the battlefield to achieve your objectives. Usually they are specific to a particular battle.
Strategy is the big picture. It involves applying all the resources at your command for a larger goal. For
example; Picketts charge at Gettysburg was a tactic used by Robert E. Lee. His invasion of the North
was part of a strategy to take the war out of Virginia.
There are four basic styles of warfare for combat; guerrilla, mass and maneuver, attrition, and siege.
Guerrillas attack and withdraw, wearing down a stronger opponent (Geronimo used this strategy as do
the Iraqi insurgents today). Many generals have used the mass and maneuver style (where a large group
of troops is used to move around the battlefield and destroy an enemy). Alexander the Great did it with
his phalanx, while Caesar used legions. Today the U.S. military uses this strategy with tanks, Humvees,
and helicopters. Attrition can lead to victory when an army greatly outnumbers its opponent. This
strategy has the goal of destroying the enemy's army by killing or disabling all of their soldiers. It
usually requires that you have more soldiers than your enemy. It was used by Ulysses Grant in the
Civil War (successfully) and by the US army in Vietnam. (unsuccessfully) A siege is used to starve an
enemy out of a stronghold, and has been used throughout history by most armies.
In war the objective has always been to defeat the enemy but there are many things that can help an
army achieve that goal. The choice of tactics can be the most critical decision in battle. With the right
tactics a smaller army can defeat a larger one. The key to victory is to assemble your strength at the
right place and time to so that you have superiority when you need it. As Confederate general Nathan
Bedford Forresst said Get there first with the most! This can often involve utilizing the terrain of the
battlefield, weakening one part of your line to make another stronger, and knowing when to commit
your reserves. A technological edge in either firepower or mobility can also prove decisive and allow
smaller forces to overcome superior numbers. If this is done well you will be pitting your strength
against the enemys weakness the most important principle in the art of war.
Military thinking really started in Ancient Egypt around 2000 B.C. Military commanders began to think
in terms of lines of battle, wings, centers, flanking movements, and frontal attacks. The Egyptian
commanders thus established strategy and tactics as a part of military thinking.
Some of the basics that Egyptians and others pioneered were the importance
of morale and discipline to winning a battle, the need to
protect the flanks of your army, and the importance of
surprise.
About 400 BC., the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu wrote his
famous book, The Art of War, one of the most influential
military books ever written. His work outlined the
foundation of war strategy and tactics, and from
that time on, influenced warfare
throughout history. One of his

ideas is that an army should never go into battle without knowing what its objectives for victory are.
This advice is not always followed but is especially important today. Some critics contend that the U.S.
army in Iraq has suffered because after the fall of Saddam Hussein it was not given clear objectives.
While Sun Tzu was writing in China the Greeks were developing a war method based on the
"phalanx," a tightly packed square of armed soldiers. The phalanx would meet the enemy on an open
field, and both sides would move forward until they clashed. The phalanx was not very mobile and had
little firepower, but it was effective, especially when fighting on an open field against a disorganized
enemy. Unfortunately, these battles were slow and deadly. The side with the most soldiers usually won,
and when equally matched sides battled, the results were costly and inconclusive. The idea behind the
phalanx was to maintain maximum strength at the front line, filling vacancies as men fell or became
tired.
In 371 B .C., Epaminondas of Thebes improved the phalanx at the Battle of Leuctra .
He became aware that during a battle, a phalanx would drift to the right because each
soldier would use the shield of the soldier on his right for protection. To counteract
this, he regrouped the phalanx into an oblique line, with the left wing advanced and a
heavy concentration of troops there to crush the enemy's right. Epaminondas was one
of the first men in history to apply economy of force using a reinforced wing. This
innovation crushed Sparta and established the Theban phalanx as the best military
formation of the period.

A
A

Philip of Macedonia (who ruled between 359-336 B. C. ) was influenced by

Epaminondas and was the next to improve the phalanx. His phalanx could be used
like a pivot, forming a wedge offensively, or a hollow square with a center of archers
defensively. Philip united Greece and showed the weakness of the Polis as a military
organization.

When Alexander the Great succeeded his father, he further improved the phalanx.
Instead of using the normal straight battle front, he had his phalanx advance in the shape of a V facing
the enemy. This created a dent in the enemy line and pinned down the infantry. He would also use his
cavalry to break apart his enemies lines. He used this tactic against the Persians when he defeated
armies twice the size of his own. The phalanx was dominant for centuries, but as with any technique, a
way was eventually found to defeat it the legion.

The Romans developed the legion, which became a major part of military
organization. To make the legion more flexible than the phalanx, and to
conserve the men's endurance, they divided it into three parts: a fighting line, a
support line, and a reserve. It was also divided into groups of 100 men called
centuries which were commanded by a centurion. This, combined with the
short swords the legionnaires carried, enabled them to break apart the ranks of
their opponents. The legion could quickly adapt to changing terrain and rapidly
change its formation . In battle Roman generals use the legions mobility to send
Roman soldiers in between the rows of a phalanx where they could cause havoc
with their short swords.

Fighting Line
Support Line

Reserve

The legion had another important advantage over the phalanx; it took into account the men's endurance,
which is important for hand-to-hand combat. In the phalanx, only the first 4 or 5 ranks were actually
fighting, but all the men were in the "fighting line." Many men in the rear lines were in close contact
with danger, and became exhausted physically and emotionally. The legion eliminated this problem by
keeping two-thirds of its men outside the danger zone, thus it always had fresh troops to use.
To guard against a surprise attack on the legion, the Romans made entrenched camps at the end of each
day's march. This increased security, and the soldiers were always rested, well fed, and ready to fight.
But it also reduced marching time by about three hours a day, and reduced mobility.
The Romans often fought against
barbarians. These barbarians had a less
sophisticated strategy, believing that
strength increased in proportion to
soldiers. They threw all their men into the
initial assault, and had no reserves when
they grew tired. This meant that they were
dead meat if the first attack was
unsuccessful.
Hannibal, a brilliant Carthaginian
leader, lived around 200 BC. During the
Second Punic War he fought 14 major
battles against the Romans in 17 years,
losing only 3. He believed that the
mission of an army was to destroy the
field forces of its enemy. Hannibal's most famous battle was the Battle of Cannae in 216 B. C., where
he vanquished the enemy by having his center troops back off, then had the left and right flanks wrap
around the approaching enemy
The Asian invention of stirrups (by or before the 2nd century BC) revolutionized mounted warfare
by making chariots obsolete. The stirrup allowed a soldier to easily remain on his horse while
fighting. The Battle of Adrianapole (AD 378), in which Huns, Alans, Goths, and Spartans annihilated
the Romans, demonstrated the superiority of cavalry to infantry forces.
After the breakup of the Roman Empire in the 5th century AD, military organization fell into a
decline. Europe lay open to invasionby Avars and Bulgars from the east, the Vikings from the

north, and Muslim armies from the south. At the same time, the armies of the Eastern Roman
(Byzantine) Empire had considerable success in adopting the fast-moving, hard-hitting tactics of
their enemies. One of the major innovations of Byzantine warfare was the horse-archer, a
cavalryman able to shoot arrows to either side while riding at full speed.
Western Europeans attempted to deal with the constant raids of the Vikings by creating a feudal
system in which the nobility performed mandatory military service in return for its privileges. The
mounted knight, who owed allegiance to one noble rather than to a country, dominated medieval
warfare. With their imposing suits or armor and long lances a charge of mounted knights could easily
scatter an enemy army. The Europeans also lead several Crusades to free the Holy Land (modern day
Israel) from Muslim control. Armored knights dominated European warfare for about 500 years and
were the tanks of the middle ages.

Medieval Weapons

200 years after the fall of Rome, in 625 AD, the prophet Mohammed started the religion of Islam on
the Arabian peninsula; his followers were called Muslims. The Muslims faced persecution and
resistance, but by the time Mohammed died in 632, the Islamic faith was well established. His
successors launched a series of lightning wars that were successful even though they used no newweapons or tactics. They were tough desert fighters, lightly armed and very mobile. Their main
strength was their religious fervor and high morale. By 711, all of the modern Arab world had fallen
to Islam. Charles Martel, king of the Franks (a Germanic tribe that occupied present-day Germany
and France) adopted a crude version of the Roman system and managed to halt the invading Muslims
at the Battle of Tours in 732. This kept Europe from becoming part of the Arab world.
The most significant military events during the Middle Ages did not come
from Europe but from Asia. With a semi-mobile circle of wagons acting as
a base of operations, the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in 1190
spearheaded Mongolian advances from the Gobi Desert into the heart of
Europe. Their conquests, accomplished with relatively small armies but
with innovative military skill, relied on a basic formation of 10,000
mounted warriors, the touman. Sixty percent of this force was lightly
protected; 40 percent was armored. Special weapons included hurled
missiles, fire, and explosives. Communication was by signal flags and
Genghis Khan
drumbeats. .The Mongolian hordes lived off the country, and their tactical
deployment relied on surprise attacksthrusts at the enemy's flank and rear that preceded heavy
cavalry assaults. Using their superior mobility and discipline the Mongol hordes annihilated every

enemy they faced. Employing a ruthlessness not seen until the 20th century the Mongols carved out one
of the largest empires the world has ever seen
In 1415 the age of the armored knight came to an end at the Battle of Agincourt., the English king,
Henry V, although outnumbered 4 to 1, was able to use his ranks of archers to slaughter the French
knights at a great distance. It was also around this time that countries like England and France began
to become more organized and kings began to form their own armies. The English longbow, the pike
employed by large groups of infantry, and the introduction of gunpowder all revolutionized warfare.
The introduction of gunpowder in the 1300s changed the nature of warfare. Castle or City Walls were
no longer able to keep out an enemy. It also eliminated the need for expensive armor and enabled
anybody with a gun to become a soldier. The increased the cost of war dramatically. Gunpowder also
gave Europeans a large technological advantage over the rest of the world. Over the next 400 years
Europeans would continue to develop guns and artillery.
At the end of the 18th century the wars of the French Revolution produced another revolution in
warfare. Revolutionary France mobilized huge armies by universal conscription (forced military
service) and won victories by sheer numbers. Napoleon Bonaparte molded this force into a powerful
army. He organized the French army into corpsself-contained, fast-moving, and hard-hitting
formations, each consisting of two or three divisions of 6,000 to 9,000 men with its own cavalry and
artillery. Each corps was, in effect, a miniature army capable of pinning down vastly superior forces
until other corps would come up and engage the enemy on the flank. Trained as an artilleryman,
Napoleon utilized massed cannons and deployed them with a skill never before seen. Boldness, the
trademark of the Napoleonic tactics, influenced warfare for a century. Most generals during the Civil
war were trained in Napoleonic tactics.
The American Civil War (1861-1865) saw many great innovations in warfare. This was the first war
where truly modern weapons were used. (the rifled musket, the repeating rifle, and exploding artillery
shells to name a few.) Such weapons made the frontal assault ineffective. It also saw the beginning of
total war. This type of war says that anything that helps the enemy to fight must be destroyed. This
meant that farms, cities, factories and just about anything else is fair game. When General Sherman
marched through Georgia he practiced this type of warfare.

Robert E. Lee

The Civil War also allowed Confederate general Robert

E. Lee to show his tactical and strategic brilliance. Only
the superior resources and troop strength of the Union
overcame the masterly strategy of Lee. His campaigns
have been studied in military schools as models of
strategy and tactics. He was able to anticipate the actions
of his opponents and to understand their weaknesses.
His greatest contribution to military practice was his use
of field fortifications as aids to maneuvering. He
recognized that a small body of soldiers, protected by
entrenchments, can hold an enemy force of many times
their number, while the main body outflanks the enemy
or attacks a smaller force elsewhere. By using this idea

Lee was years ahead of his time; the tactic was not fully understood or generally adopted until the
mid 20th century.
Ulysses Grant was not as good a tactician as Lee but understood the rules of modern warfare. By using
superior numbers and the methods of total warfare he fought a war of attrition and was able to wear Lee
down even though he lost far more troops.
The 20th Century In 1914 WW I showed even more dramatically the horrors that modern technology
could bring to war. The machine gun, tanks, and the airplane were just three changes that this war
brought. Unprotected frontal assaults resulted in millions of deaths. The armies soon took refuge in
hundreds of miles of trenches to avoid the slaughter. This war settled into a stalemate with very little
movement over a four year period.
The bloodbath of the War to end all wars resulted in
dramatic changes in tactics and World War II (193945) marked a return to the war of movement. Frontal
assaults were abandoned and unprotected infantry were
no longer sent to the slaughter. The Germans won
initial success by using massed tanks in coordination
with airplanes and infantry to quickly overwhelm their
enemies. This tactic was called a blitzkrieg or lightning
war. This tactic is what the United States used in 2003
during the invasion of Iraq. World War II was also the
first war in which control of the air became a critical
US B17 Bomber from WW II
factor in achieving victory. Airplanes were decisive
because they enabled a country to attack far behind enemy lines. They also provided close support for
the armies on the front lines.
In the Pacific, the war was fought over a wide expanse of ocean, amphibious operations played an
important role. Naval aviation and the aircraft carrier became the major weapons of the war at sea, and
battles such as Midway were fought without the opposing fleets drawing within sight of each other.
Modern Warfare Since 1945 the development of powerful nuclear explosive devices capable of
destroying targets ranging in size from large cities to entire battlefields has changed the nature of
modern warfare. The possible employment of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield has made it
extremely hazardous to mass conventional air, sea, or land forces in any one locale. For example,
aircraft carriers, large formations of heavy bombers, or concentrations of armored units could all be
destroyed by a single nuclear explosion. Even more vulnerable are civilian populations and economic
centers that could be devastated by nuclear warheads launched from a distance of several thousand
kilometers via intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). As a result, total warfare between nations
equipped with nuclear weapons has become unacceptable as a sane option.
The Vietnam War (1954-1973) showed the limits of modern technology. Facing an enemy that used
guerilla tactics and hid in difficult terrain, the United States was worn down by a technologically
inferior enemy. This conflict showed that morale and the will to win are still critical factors in warfare.

Recent Conflicts In recent years the U.S. has focused on developing high tech weapons to enhance the
power of our armed forces. In the Gulf War (1991), Afghanistan (2002-Present), and Iraq (2003Present) we have used a variety of advanced weapons to defeat larger armies. These weapons include
laser guided bombs, unmanned predator drones, satellite photography, and advanced communications
between different parts of our army. All that technology does not, however, insure victory. At the end
of the day there is still a need for boots on the ground to control territory. Our experiences in Iraq and
Afghanistan have shown that there are still limits to how much technology can do.