Respond to one or both of the following questions:
1. After reading pages 22-24 in your book explain the following quote:
"Military economics dictated strategy."
2. What are some of the problems associated with utilizing mercenaries as your primary fighting force?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. This quote can be made trun on how the military reacts to diffrent situations. Such as going after an oil feild due to it's economic important, instead of going after a top priorty such as an important leader, or military intolation.
ReplyDeleteGood point John...excellent job connecting the question to contemporary conflicts.
ReplyDeleteHere's another perspective: how did armies sustain themselves far away from the homeland prior to the dawn of railroads and other means of expedient travel?
1. This quote means that countries would go to war to make money off of the places they conquered. "making war pay for war"
ReplyDelete2. Using mercenaries as a primary fighting force is expensive. Standing Armies were a lot cheaper because they were made up of people from the area.
The quote is saying that as long as country can keep conquering other countries it can supply itself which their material and keep advancing.
ReplyDeleteSome of the problems with mercenaries were not only the expense, but they were not dedicated to the country they were fighting for, so as long as they were being payed why risk there own lives.
1.The quote can also mean, the military can only do so much, with what it's given. Small countries with limited funds cannot sustain long wars with the big countries at the time like Spain and Austria, because back then, all you needed to win a war is more supplies. So small countries have to adapt a cost effective strategies like Standing Armies to have a chance to survive wars.
ReplyDeleteThe more money the country has, the more successful it will be in long terms.Also the farther you could go and survive.The problem with having mercenaries as your primary fighting force is that they could turn there backs on you in any moment.
ReplyDelete1.If an army needed money and supplies they would attack areas that contained valuable resources over strategic locations, so when they did have money and supplies they could attack those areas.
ReplyDelete2.Mercenaries are expensive and not as loyal as troops protecting their own country. Mercenaries are only in it for money, and they will only do what it takes to get payed, and wont necessarily risk their lives more then they need to.
During the military revolution, most armies were essentially on even footing technologically. The gaps weren't nearly as large as today's where e might be armed with tanks and helicopters, while the enemy has some AKs and RPGs. Military leaders were stuck in a sort of limbo because they wanted to use siege tactics with gunpowder cannons and guns. This led to long wars/battles of attrition, and whoever has the largest economy had already won, because they could simply outlast the enemy.
ReplyDeleteMercenaries were reasonable in the middle/dark ages because the king had enormous sums of money, and if the mercenaries lost, he hadn't lost his whole army and working force. When gunpowder came into play and long wars of attrition took hold, mercenaries were too expensive to fight long-term battles.
1.I think that the quote meant that when a country wanted to go to war, and didn't want to deal with the expenses of a long dragged out war, this country would take advantage of the supplies and resources that the enemy territory had, and use them to make "war pay for war."
ReplyDeletei think it means that the military had to around the economics....which they really didn't do seeing as they still used mercenaries, and the problem with this is that mercenaries were expensive, just another military bill...
ReplyDeletei think that this quote means that if a country needs money or supplies that it should then attack a country that does have money and resources then after they aquire the enemy resources then they can attack any other country
ReplyDelete