Why Was The Roman Army So Successful? The Roman Army conquered an empire and stretched it all around the Mediterranean Sea, this firstly proves that it was a very successful army. The roman army has a lot of elements to make it a fantastic and successful, for example: recruitment; tactics; organization; equipment and training. First, the Roman army’s recruitment is important. The Roman army will only hire the people who want to be a soldier or to fight with people because the volunteers want to fight, but the people who were forced to join the army will not like to fight or help the army a lot so they can make the whole army beaten up by the opponents.
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.
Another reason America had an advantage over Britain was that the English citizens were tired of war. The war had begun to turn into years and citizens were getting tired of paying taxes and just the war in general. In my opinion one of the biggest advantages the colonists had was how great a leader George Washington was. American soldiers were outnumbered and not as well trained as the English soldiers, but because of Washington’s brilliance and strategy it helped the colonists prevail over Britain. On the other hand Britain also had many advantages over the Americans.
The loss of support in the Tsar meant that more people sought to join the opposing groups, making them continuously more popular. Opposing groups such as the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks supported the act of a revolution which significantly increased the chances of such an occurrence. Nonetheless, some of the groups did not want revolution. The Octoberists for example were contented once the Tsar brought out the October manifesto. This effectively weakened the success of a revolution because of the lack of organization and co-operation.
At that time it was viewed as a regular law passed by legislation, although most of them had different sources of income. Fees and income seems to play a huge part of Roman society. It is explained how John Lydus a lawyer, increased his chances of advancement when reforms carried out by himself increased fees and lowered income. As most employees had different sources of income, they decided to quit leaving vacant positions open. Although this could have been just ironic that the reform that he enacted just advanced him in his career, I view it as a plan that he devised so he could have a higher income.
How did the roman’s control Their empire? At its height, the Roman Empire spread from Iran in the East to Spain in the West and Egypt in the South to Scotland in the North. Ruling a huge empire meant they needed many ways of staying In control which included: the Army, the Government, Non-Romans, Buildings, Trade and Communication. Army; The Roman army had a massive part in controlling the empire by having the best weapons and armour. Also they were well trained and had excellent tactics such as the Testudo (‘tortoise shell’) .
However, as the war went on, the king’s money dwindled away, and Parliament raised taxes, therefore they had more money than the king. London was probably the most important place in the whole battle, without this, the parliamentarians probably wouldn’t have won. London had a large population and they mostly supported parliament. It was also an extremely wealthy place compared to the areas that the king owned (Wales, Cornwall and Northern England). London kept the parliamentarians supplied with soldiers and weapons for the entire war, and if the king took control of it, Parliament would certainly have lost.
This can be argued was to do with this battle because Valen lost two thirds of his army. It also showed that the Roman legions were no match for the heavy cavalry which many empires started to recruit. This then led to the Middle Ages and knights. The weakness of the Roman legionaries was showed again in 410 in the sacking of Rome. This was seen as another step towards the fall of the Roman Empire because this defeat was inevitable after the defeat
How far do you agree that the Bolsheviks won the civil war of 1918-1921 because they controlled more people and had access to more weapons? I believe that the Bolsheviks winning the civil war, was not totally to do with their access to more weapons and had more people on side. Of course this is quite a big factor to why they did win the war, but there also other factors such Trotsky’s leadership of the red army and the territory that they had control over and also similarly the great tactics they used to win their battles. The Bolsheviks did control much more people and did have bigger access to more weapons than the white army. This is a massive key factor to why the Bolsheviks had won the war because without the people that they controlled they would of not of been able to make all the weapons and the most essential things that they needed to win the war against the whites.
If a military expert or the president is questioned, he might think wars are good because they can boast about military efficiency. People go to war to prove a point or to fight for one’s country. In the war for independence, the colonists fought for freedom from Great Britain. There were many people who died or were injured, but they all risked their lives for an ideal, the essence of freedom. However, there are others who go to war for greed and power.