This isn't a question, it's an incomplete sentence... That said, it is hard to say that Roman tactics are explicitly better than Greek ones, just are different. They were both infantry heavy armies that relied on orderly ranks of troops, but there were significant changes made by the Romans.
The Greeks relied heavily on the phalanx formation including the hoplites. These units were slow moving, hard hitting powerhouses that emphasized lots of soldiers in a small area, meaning they could outnumber troops on the front line who spread themselves out more thinly.
The Romans did away with the phalanx formation, allowing their infantry to move more quickly than more traditional Hellenic formations. At the same time, Roman units were more concentrated than many northern armies which often did not keep their troops in orderly ranks, giving them the same advantage over them the Greeks had. They were able to maintain their fighting capabilities when crunched into these tight formations by using the Gladius Hispaniesis, a sword which was thrust at the enemy instead of swung, allowing Roman soldiers to fight shoulder to shoulder. Roman foot soldiers also carried a few Pila, or javelins to throw into the enemy ranks before charging in order to injure and demoralize. All of this adds up to a mobile, but still well protected and powerful military unit, well trained and able to execute complex tactical maneuvers at the general's command.
The Totonac people were sympathetic to Hernán Cortés's plans because they had long suffered under the oppressive rule of the Aztecs, who demanded tribute and labor from them. They saw an opportunity to ally with the Spanish as a means to free themselves from Aztec domination. Additionally, the Totonacs were impressed by the military technology and tactics of the Spanish, which they believed could help them gain independence and improve their situation. This alliance ultimately played a significant role in Cortés's conquest of the Aztec Empire.
A battle between the Incas and the Aztec Empire would likely involve distinct tactics and strategies reflective of their respective cultures. The Incas, with their strong emphasis on organization and logistical support, might utilize their advanced road systems to mobilize troops quickly, employing a combination of infantry and archers. The Aztecs, known for their warrior culture and use of obsidian weaponry, would probably rely on aggressive tactics and their elite Eagle and Jaguar warriors, aiming for swift, decisive strikes. Ultimately, the outcome would depend on factors such as terrain, resources, and leadership.
When the Celts were invaded, their reactions varied based on the context and the invading forces. Many tribes resisted fiercely, employing guerrilla tactics and engaging in direct combat to defend their territory and way of life. However, some Celts opted for negotiation or alliance, seeking to secure favorable terms or to integrate with the invaders. Ultimately, the responses were shaped by the specific circumstances and the strength of the invading forces.
. . . superior tactics and armour .
King Arthur's advantages in battle included his legendary sword Excalibur, which symbolized his right to rule and enhanced his prowess. He was also known for his strategic acumen, often employing tactics that outsmarted larger forces. Additionally, his loyal knights of the Round Table provided him with a formidable and cohesive fighting force, united by chivalry and a shared sense of purpose. These elements combined made Arthur a formidable leader in the legendary battles of his time.
He left the tactics to his admirals and generals.
As President, he was Commander-in-Chief, but he had no experience in military command. He taught himself military strategy and tactics from the Library of Congress to be able to converse with his generals.
This question is aqward since he did not do alot with the military exept for deciding where to attack. Many of his generals had diffrent tactics. Some where head on balls to the wall, and others were more secretive and were hard to find. That is what i have gotten from studying military tactics but it might be wrong so double check.
well besides from their RUBBISH tactics they did nothing
Arthur L. Wagner has written: 'Organization and tactics' -- subject(s): Military art and science, Tactics 'Questions in organization and tactics' -- subject(s): Military art and science, Tactics 'The service of security and information' -- subject(s): Tactics, Military reconnaissance, Military art and science, Guard duty, Military intelligence
He was a student at the French Military Academy where he received instruction in Military History, Military Science, Mathematics. Gunnery, Logistic's, Tactics, the social graces and Military Discipline.
Military tactics are defined as strategies of organizing the army, ways of using the weapons in the best possible course and to optimize the use of military units in order to be successful in a battle. Military tactics also involve maintenance of equipment and daily training of military units.
You have to train them with military tactics
Benito Mussolini employed various tactics of mass violence, most notably through the use of state-sponsored terror and suppression of dissent. His regime utilized paramilitary groups like the Blackshirts to intimidate political opponents and suppress protests. Additionally, Mussolini's government engaged in violent repression during the invasion of Ethiopia, employing brutal military tactics against civilians. This combination of intimidation, military aggression, and suppression of opposition exemplified his approach to maintaining power.
The employment and ordered arrangement of forces is called tactics. In the military tactics are used by various military units to achieve an objective.
Arthur Lockwood Wagner has written: 'The service of security and information' -- subject(s): Military reconnaissance, Tactics 'Organization and tactics' -- subject(s): Military art and science, Tactics
using catapults.