Document 1, was written in the 13th century and is written from oral stories of the Mongols. It shows the amazing strategy of Chingis Khan and Jebe and how they were able to conquer the Cathayan people. Chingis Khan saw that the Cathayan people were very well armed and that he couldn’t attack them head on, so he therefore he devised a plan were he made it look as if his men were retreating and once the Cathayans went out to attack them he swarmed them with his army and was able to be victorious. Document 2 shows another remarkable way that the Mongols used their army and intellect to their advantage. Document 2, which was written by monks near Russia, shows us the Mongol movement into Ryazan.
Despite the strong forces pushed upon the red army, the experience of the white leaders and position of Lenin, the communists still managed to achieve a victory in the Russian Civil War. Two main reasons that led to their success were because they had control over more people and because they had access to more weapons. However, there were many other contributing factors leading to the Bolshevik victory questioning the importance of these specific two. Bolshevik control over highly populated parts of Russia lead to communist success in the Civil War. The Bolsheviks had a huge strategic advantage due to their geographical position within Russia, in that they had control over major cities such as Moscow and Petrograd, which had many people within them.
As well as all this, William had a store of the finest weapons in France. Leadership William was one of the bravest people of his time. When his army was having difficulties during the battle, he bravely led his army back up the hill to make another attack upon the English. Due to William's intelligence, he arranged his army in long rows, archers at the front to try and soften up the English's shield wall, foot-soldiers in the middle, and the cavalry at the back for a big attack.The retreating trick explained in the above paragraph also shows great leadership. Luck Luckily for William, the wind changed direction in his favour on his journey north to England.
War now does not allow any civillian casualites. Also now with the modern technology exaples like advanced radar, heat seeking missiles, more accurate bombing technology and more advanced aircraft, it is impossible to miss a target. Back in WW2 they bombed industrial areas because it was really hard to bomb a certain spot where the enemy army would be. I do not think it was acceptable back than because why kill millions of civillians when you can go directly to the source which was the military attacking? This is a really hard argument because if you attack the enemy army which is attacking you, you have to think about the deaths of your own men.
does intervene a genocide, it should take a military form. Also international organizations, like NATO, should also intervene to speed up the process of putting troops in the area needed so that peace and order could be achieved rapidly. The United States should take military action because it is the only way to forcefully stop a genocide. In Cambodia’s case, it could be seen that the Khmer Rouge kept on killing the Cambodians even though the Khmer Rouge was sometimes attacked by U.S. planes. When a political party carries out a genocide, an outside force is always needed to stop the genocide in its tracks.
I believe that if Zedong had commanded the Confederate troops during the American Civil War, Sherman would not have stood a chance. The Red Army didn’t have even close to comparable weapons at their command, in relation to the KMT army. This and the extremely huge numbers of troops that the Nationalists could put to field, meant that Mao Zedong had to rely on unconventional warfare. Zedong used the local peasants as spies, so that the movements of the KMT were always known to him. Knowing the enemies location allowed him to move his units around quickly and secretly, mostly at night.
Not only recruitment is can make Roman army successful, the tactics of the Roman army is also much more important. Second, the Roman army’s tactics is the second important of the Roman army. The Roman soldiers have knowledge and tactics to fight, so they can beat their opponents. The Roman army is really good at tactics too, they knew the basics of fighting then start the harder ones. The Roman soldiers knew how to use the equipment to fight them, they know how to form in to groups to defend or attack.
They did not need a wheel in order to succeed, Mann states on page 253 “the Americas lacked animals suitable for domestication” meaning that even if the Olmec had created a larger wheel, they would have no animals to help maneuver goods. One way the Olmec may have transferred larger items
How have castles developed Castles have developed a lot from 1066 (battle of Hastings) to the 16th century when the civil war became too overpowered for castles to defend. They have developed from motte and baileys to manor houses, in this essay we will be talking about those castles and developments in attacking and defending. Castles were first built after William the conquerors conquest at the battle of Hastings, he did it to protect his people from the still hostile English Saxons, and castles were built near large cities and on the borders of wales and Scotland for protection against invasions from either country. They were also built near major trading routes to protect from attack. A good example of a castle on a border is Goodrich castle as it is protecting England from a welsh invasion.
Breaking the promises would have shown the Native Americans that the settlers thought little of their intelligence, and also would instil a lack of trust in the settlers, as now every apparently solemn vow to not attack certain areas or to treat the Plains Indians better etc. could now never be taken as the absolute truth and the Native Americans would have spent time wondering what treaty was to be broken and when. The second factor I shall look at will be the US army and its leaders. Men like