Paxton 1 Keith Paxton Brother Dixon English 252 12 February 2011 The Adaptation of Battle Tactics throughout History

Throughout history, civilizations have borrowed ideas that work well from previous civilizations, and they have modified those ideas that did not work well. Ranging from government to architecture, civilizations have used the techniques of other civilizations. This practice of borrowing from the past has even crept into the militaryspecifically the way in which battles are fought. From the first civilization, to the Ancient Greeks, and all the way up to our present time, the techniques of battle have constantly evolved. Before discussing the development of battle tactics throughout history, it is important to define what is meant by the words tactic and strategy. These two words are often used synonymously but are two different words in definition. According to the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, a strategy is a detailed plan for achieving success in situations such as war, politics, business, industry or sport, or the skill of planning for such situations. On the other hand, a tactic is a planned way of doing something and tactics means the arrangement and use of soldiers and equipment in war. Simply stated, based on the above definitions, strategy is planning the war whereas tactics refers to the application of the strategy through the movement of troops in a single battle. William Balck, quoting Archduke Charles, says this about tactics: Tactics should execute the conceptions of strategy; where the two come in conflict, where strategical considerations are opposed to tactical interests, the strategical considerations should, as a rule, take precedence. Tactics must occupy a subordinate place and attempt to neutralize existing

Paxton 2 disadvantages by skillful dispositions. (Balck 6) With this understanding, strategy and tactics, when used in battle, should work to together with, agree with, and compliment each other. From the above information, we can see that, when it comes to battle, both strategy and tactics are important. According to the Molossian Naval Academy, some of the most important strategic and tactical principles of war are the objective, the offensive, surprise, security, unity of command, economy of force, mass, and maneuver. (molosssia.org) Throughout history, military commanders have agreed upon these eight principles, and they have found them to be the most important principles of war with regards to strategy and tactics. These principles are inter-reliant to each other. If you were to disregard one of the principles, you diminish the value of the others. Using mainly the battle of Antioch as the model for these principles, I will demonstrate how civilizations have adapted these principles throughout time. The first principle, the objective, is vital to any battle. The objective could also be called the reason or cause for the battle, thus these words will be used interchangeably. From the very first battle in history, down to our present time, in every battle that has ever been fought, the commanders of each army have had an objective. One of the earliest of the recorded battles in history is the battle of Marathon in the year 490 BC. In this battle, like every other battle, both sides have an objective, or reason, for fighting. To the Persians the purpose was to crush the Greek states in retaliation for their support of their Ionian cousins who had revolted against Persian rule. (EyewitnesstoHistory) To the Athenians it was to defend their territory from the Persians. The Persians had approximately 20,000 men compared to the mere 10,000-hoplite warriors of the Greeks. Compared to the number of Persians the Athenians were greatly outnumbered, but compared to the cause of the Persians they were very strong. The Athenians, though small in number, defeated the Persians and completed their objective for that battle, which objective was to

Paxton 3 defend their territory. The Athenian defeat of the Persians resulted in the death of 6,400 Persians and only 192 Greeks. These numbers show one thing that seems to be a trend throughout history the side with the better cause usually wins the battle that is being fought. The battle of Cannae is another example of both armies having an objective. Similar to the battle of Marathon, one side the Cannae had the objective of defending their city while the other side had the objective of destroying those defenders. The battle of Cannae happened in 216 BC and was between Carthage, led by Hannibal, and Rome. However, this time the result of the battle of Cannae did not demonstrate that the Carthigians were the ones who had the better cause. Though the result of the battle of Cannae was a terrible sight, the Romans still had the better cause. According to Polybius out of six thousand horses, only seventy escaped with Caius Terentius to Venusia, and about three hundred of the allied cavalry escaped to various towns in the neighborhood. Of the infantry, ten thousand were taken prisoners in fair fight, but these were not actually engaged in the battle. Of those who were actually engaged in the battle, perhaps only about three thousand escaped to the towns of the surrounding district; all the rest, to the number of seventy thousand, died nobly. (Halsall, Polybius) On the other side, Polybius says, there fell four thousand Celts, fifteen hundred Iberians and Libyans, and about two hundred horses. (Halsall, Polybius) The Romans suffered the worse casualties (48,200 killed) in history. As was stated before, the Romans had a good objective (defend their city), but Hannibal still defeated them. Hannibals defeat of the Romans does necessarily mean that Hannibals objective (to destroy the Romans) was a better cause, but what it does show is that there are exceptions to the stated trend that the army with the better objective always wins. As we can see in the battle of Cannae this was not the case. The Romans had the better objective, but Hannibal still won because the Romans

Paxton 4 were weak in other areas, like surprise, and Hannibal was strong in those areas that the Romans were weak, thus Hannibal won the battle. The battle of Antioch had similar objectives to both previous mentioned battles. The siege of Antioch happened in the year 1097 AD. The battle was the Muslim Turks against the Christian Crusaders. The goal of the Turks was to defend their cities, whereas the goal of the Crusaders was to take back the city from the Turks. The fight was brutal on both sides, but in the end, the Crusaders won the battle. Some may say that their religion led the Crusaders to victory, while other may say that the reason for their victory was that they had a better army. Both reasons may be true, but when you narrow it all down to the core the reason why the crusaders won the battle it is because they had a better objective in mindwhich was to take back the city that was once Christian. This battle goes to show once more that the objective of both sides does affect the outcome of the battle. The objective of the battle is indeed a leading determinant in the success of an army, but objective is not the only thing that determines the outcome of a battle. The offense plays a major role in determining whether the objective is made or not. In the battle of Marathon the offensive of the Athenians, with the help of a good cause (freedom), is what allowed the Athenians to defend their city and fight of the Persians. The Athenians had excellent speed, which made it possible for them to reach the Persians before the Persians could destroy the city. In the battle of Cannae, the offense of the Romans was weak, whereas the offense of Hannibal and his men were strong, thus allowing Hannibal to defeat the Romans in the deadliest battle. Just like the battles of Marathon and Cannae, the battle of Antioch was also won because of the offense of the Crusaders. The Crusaders were fighting for a cause that created a lot of zeal throughout the army, and this zeal

Paxton 5 translated into a stronger offense then that of the Turksconsequently allowing the Crusaders to recapture the city of Antioch. The element of surprise is key to any battle. If the enemy does not know your plans, there is greater chance that you can defeat them, especially if you can catch them off guard. In the Battle of Marathon, the Persians thought they had the upper hand on the Greeks by approaching Athens by the sea, but the Athenians spotted them. Miltiades writes this about the battle of Marathon, The Persians accordingly sailed round Selenium. But the Athenians, with all possible speed, marched away to the defense of their city, and succeeded in reaching Athens before the appearance of the barbarians... (EyeWitnesstoHistory) In a matter of speaking, the Athenians surprised the Persians with their speed. Despite being small in numbers, the Athenians were able to fight off the Persians, whose element of surprise had been discovered by the Athenians. In the battle of Cannae, Hannibal used the element of surprise. According to Polybius, the city of Cannae was already in ruins from the year before, but the city was still important to the Roman army. Hannibal defeated the Romans by surprising them. As a strategy, the Roman army had left some of their men back, to attack the Carthaginians camp, judging Hannibal to be one not to care for his people. Polybius says this about the reason why Rome left some men in their camp: Lucius Aemilius left ten thousand infantry in his camp that, in case Hannibal should disregard the safety of his own camp, and take his whole army onto the field, they might seize the opportunity, while the battle was going on, of forcing their way in and capturing the enemy's baggage; or if, on the other hand, Hannibal should, in view of this contingency, leave a guard in his camp, the number of the enemy in the field might thereby be diminished. (Halsall, Polybius) The result was that Hannibal slaughtered the Romans and took the 10,000 men captive. The strength of Hannibals army surely surprised the Romans. In the battle of Antioch, the element of surprise was used, as the Turks fled

Paxton 6 to their tents where their men lay. The Turks ran in fear of the Crusaders and the Crusaders followed them and attacked the tents where the men of the Turks were, hence causing the Turks to flee. Using the element of surprise and with their faith as their cause, the Crusaders were able to fight off the Turks and force them to retreat. Security and cooperation (unity of command) both go hand in hand with each other. If the men of an army cannot cooperate with each other, the security of the army could be compromised. In the battle of Marathon, the Athenians were united in one causeto defend their city and their freedom. The Athenians were concerned about the safety of their city and they were willing to fight for it. Although the Persians were also united in one cause, the Athenians had a better cause. This better cause allowed the Athenians to be united so much that they were able to defeat the Persians. In the battle of Cannae, both forces were unified, but Hannibals army was more unified. The Romans were scattered because of fear, for they had already fought many battles with them. In the end, Hannibals army was more united and thus resulted in a costly battle to the Romans. In the Battle of Antioch, the Crusaders were united in one cause as well as the Turks, but the Crusaders had much more power. The Turks became scattered when fear took over, consequently causing a loss on their part. Because of fear and disunity, the Turks ran away, and the Crusaders won the battle. The ability to use forces effectively (economy of force) depends on how unified the troops are. In the battle of Marathon, the Athenians were so unified in their cause that they were able to drive off the Persians. This unification also allowed the Athenians to use their forces in such an effective way, so that they could quickly fight off the Persians. However, in the battle of Cannae, because they were not as unified as Hannibal and his men, the Romans were not able to fight off Hannibal. Even thought their cause was better, this lack of unity proved to be very costly to the

Paxton 7 Romans. The Crusaders in the battle of Antioch are a different story. The Crusaders were unified in the fight for Christianity, which unity allowed the Crusaders to use their men in a way that the Turks became overwhelmed and fled. The Turks were not ready for the Crusaders attack methods; and since they lacked of preparedness, the Turks fledleaving the Crusaders victorious. Lastly, the mass and maneuver of forces in an army all depends on how unified the forces are and how they are able to use the element of surprise along with their offense maneuvers. The mass of the forces does not always mean that they can maneuver in a sufficient manner. For example in the battle Marathon, the Persians were greater in number compared to the Athenians, but the Athenians were able to maneuver their troops in a far more efficient manner than the Persians could. The ability of the Athenians to maneuver their troops can be mostly attributed to the great unity of the Athenian forces. The battle of Cannae shows the complete opposite of the battle of Marathon as regards to maneuverability. Hannibals army was larger than the army of the Romans was, and he was able to maneuver his army in such an effective way that he slaughtered many of the Romans. The Romans were quite large as well, but they lacked the ability to maneuver and thus cost their army thousands of men. The reason for their lack of maneuverability was their lack of unity. In a likewise manner, the Crusaders in the battle of Antioch were able to maneuver their army so that they were able to defeat the Turks. The Turks were so afraid of the Crusaders that they fled. The Crusaders were so unified in their cause that they followed the Turks and defeated them. These same principles that governed battles in the past also govern our battles today. In every battle, these principles are the key to the success of the army. As we can see, troops that lack any one of these principles are destined to lose the battle. All of these principles discussedthe objective, the offensive, surprise, security, unity of command, economy of force, mass, and

Paxton 8 maneuverwork together so that they determine whether or not the nation wins or loses the battle. An army must be strong in all principles in order to secure victory in a battleotherwise the other side has an advantage because of the missing principle.

Works Cited

Paxton 9 "The Battle of Marathon, 490 BC," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2006). 9 February 2011. Balck, William. Tactics: Volume 1 Introduction and Formal Tactics of Infantry. Trans. Walter Krueger. Fort Leavenworth: Kansas, U.S. Cavalry Association, 1911. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/tactic. 9 February 2011. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/strategy 9 February 2011. De Re Militari, www.deremilitari.org/2009/09/the-battle-for-antioch-in-the-first-crusade-1097-98according-to-peter-tudebode/. 9 February 2011. Halsall, Paul, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-cannae.html (1998). 9 February 2011. John Lazenby "Cannae, battle of" The Oxford Companion to Military History. Ed. Richard Holmes. Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Brigham Young University (BYU - Idaho). 9 February 2011 www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t139.e227 Molossia Naval Academy, Military Strategy and Tactics, www.molossia.org/milacademy/strategy.html. 9 February 2011