on line dating inmates - Xxx saxxy com

Before the 1700’s, wars were fought in the classical sense: seemingly infinite battalions marched in parallel columns in the fog of cannon shots, musket balls, and gunpowder smoke.

Command became quicker, easier, and more responsive”[1].

In a matter of years the mode of warfare changed completely, generals had to rethink doctrine and soldiers had to rework tactics.

The advancement of weapons changes how wars are fought, but leadership, training, moral, and most importantly, political strategy dictate how wars are won.

First, a empirical perspective of wars must be considered.

King Charles XII of Sweden had the most modern and well equipped army in all of Europe.

These glaring discrepancies help illustrate the factors to which Robert K.Nonetheless, it is evident that this advancement did not help predict the outcome of any battle; it only revised how the battle would be fought.As George Raudzens, a professor of history at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, states in his paper, “[advances in weapons] brought huge changes in the nature and methods of war, but little advantage to innovators since their competitors quickly imitated each new weapon….Massie attributes Russian victory in the face of technological inferiority: leadership and training [1].Tzar Peter’s risky decision to lure the enemy into the cold winter of Russia and sever their supply lines reflects dominance in strategy over strength, brains over brawn.The early 1700’s rested on the bridge between two technologically different stages of war.

Comments are closed.