I noticed it in forward onto Dawn and the fall of reach… and I’ve been wondering why?
Why not? The Roman Empire was one of the largest empires in history in no small part due to their effective army. There are no doubt lessons to be learned in terms of strategy on the large scale from the way its generals waged war and on a smaller scale in terms of tactics used by individuals, squads, and so on.
Because it’s cheesy. I would have brought up battle plans from the Germans back in WW1 and WW2, but the whole “wolf pack” thing is just easier for the writers I guess.
Even today, military leaders and tacticians reference and read Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”; a book from either 450-500 BC. No sense in trying to remake the wheel. If it’s worked before and is still applicable, use it.
> 2533274907965798;3:
> Because it’s cheesy. I would have brought up battle plans from the Germans back in WW1 and WW2, but the whole “wolf pack” thing is just easier for the writers I guess.
Why not learn about a whole gamut of military history? It’s not about being easy for the writers, it just makes sense.
> 2533274812652989;5:
> > 2533274907965798;3:
> > Because it’s cheesy. I would have brought up battle plans from the Germans back in WW1 and WW2, but the whole “wolf pack” thing is just easier for the writers I guess.
>
> Why not learn about a whole gamut of military history? It’s not about being easy for the writers, it just makes sense.
Also, you never know when something that once worked will work again.
Ex; Antonio Silva’s use of a reenforced square to defend against Covenant ground vehicles on Alpha Halo.
> 2533274812652989;2:
> Why not? The Roman Empire was one of the largest empires in history in no small part due to their effective army. There are no doubt lessons to be learned in terms of strategy on the large scale from the way its generals waged war and on a smaller scale in terms of tactics used by individuals, squads, and so on.
/thread
> 2533274857889745;4:
> Even today, military leaders and tacticians reference and read Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”; a book from either 450-500 BC. No sense in trying to remake the wheel. If it’s worked before and is still applicable, use it.
was about to say this
> 2533274907965798;3:
> Because it’s cheesy. I would have brought up battle plans from the Germans back in WW1 and WW2, but the whole “wolf pack” thing is just easier for the writers I guess.
This.
For the UNSC to analyze German war plans from WW1 and WW2 is today thought as politically incorrect since Germany is seen as a scapegoat for the ignition of both those wars.
Ironically, many MJOLNIR armor variants and various components thereof were made in Germany.
But leaving that aside… the Eastern Front and Pacific Front from WW2 would have a lot to offer in terms of strategic and naval warfare history, stuff that would offer a lot of important strategic insight to the UNSC.
> 2535460191583673;9:
> > 2533274907965798;3:
> > Because it’s cheesy. I would have brought up battle plans from the Germans back in WW1 and WW2, but the whole “wolf pack” thing is just easier for the writers I guess.
>
> This.
> For the UNSC to analyze German war plans from WW1 and WW2 is **today thought as politically incorrect since Germany is seen as a scapegoat for the ignition of both those wars.**Ironically, many MJOLNIR armor variants and various components thereof were made in Germany.
> But leaving that aside… the Eastern Front and Pacific Front from WW2 would have a lot to offer in terms of strategic and naval warfare history, stuff that would offer a lot of important strategic insight to the UNSC.
Not to anyone who pays attention in your average history class. The system of alliances popular throughout the pre-WWI period is commonly gone over and often cited as a major contributing factor to the outbreak of the war, though it’s hardly the only one. Same for WWII, -Yoink!-’s expansionary aims and rhetoric that cast the blame for Germany’s downfall in WWI on being stabbed in the back at home and how the reparations Germany had to bear are looked at, but so is the seeming unwillingness of the other powers to deal with him.
Either way, I’m sure it’s safe to say this kind of material, or the military parts of it, would be discussed at a UNSC military academy alongside stuff like the Romans.
> 2535460191583673;9:
> > 2533274907965798;3:
> > Because it’s cheesy. I would have brought up battle plans from the Germans back in WW1 and WW2, but the whole “wolf pack” thing is just easier for the writers I guess.
>
> This.
> For the UNSC to analyze German war plans from WW1 and WW2 is today thought as politically incorrect since Germany is seen as a scapegoat for the ignition of both those wars.
> **Ironically, many MJOLNIR armor variants and various components thereof were made in Germany.**But leaving that aside… the Eastern Front and Pacific Front from WW2 would have a lot to offer in terms of strategic and naval warfare history, stuff that would offer a lot of important strategic insight to the UNSC.
Not just that, but many NATO and Warsaw Pact nations adopted weapons from the germans, even before the first world war. The mauser-style bolt action rifles, the MP5 series, the Sturmgewehr (inspiration for the AK series), etc. Lest we forget their missile systems and fighter jets. The UNSC similarly would have to look to the former covenant empire for inspirations to evolve their battle tactics. I can imagine in the future cadets would learn in more detail about Sangheili tactics just like how marines in the 50’s would have been taught those of the germans.
> 2533274812652989;2:
> Why not? The Roman Empire was one of the largest empires in history in no small part due to their effective army. There are no doubt lessons to be learned in terms of strategy on the large scale from the way its generals waged war and on a smaller scale in terms of tactics used by individuals, squads, and so on.
Lessons, approaches, tactics, and strategy can still play a vital role in modern military learning. Just one example: military leaders/strategists are still enamored with the Battle of Cannae and the tactic of double-envelopment…utilizing an undersized/outmatched force to completely annihilate the enemy forces. Granted, it was the Romans who were on the losing end of this engagement, but it’s still a lesson they took to heart as they revamped their entire military structure and approach to waging land warfare.
Even looking at Roman military ingenuity pays a key role. Just think, when the first Punic War broke out, Rome had no navy, but needed to combat the navy of Carthage. Rome recognized its weakness and figured out a way to leverage its strengths to overcome its deficiency…creating a navy almost overnight (in relative terms) by reverse-engineering a captured Carthaginian ship, developing tactics on the fly to compensate for their lack of naval fighting experience, and then using every experience on how to further develop their new military arm.
Historical lesson can be quite relevant to modern (or even future) times.
Love that film) The teachers taught the cadets about Romans as they had one of the largest empire and were successful attackers in battle. They had a very effective army because of there tactics and strategies, they were one of the smartest empires.
I’m willing to bet they taught them many different military strategies. The Romans were probably the only ones mentioned to reinforce the Spartan reference.
> 2591580321307319;14:
> I’m willing to bet they taught them many different military strategies. The Romans were probably the only ones mentioned to reinforce the Spartan reference.
Sparta was a Greek City-state, not Roman. You can’t reinforce the legends of Spartan warriors by talking about the Romans.
> 2533274974046335;1:
> I noticed it in forward onto Dawn and the fall of reach… and I’ve been wondering why?
First its because they are Spartans to make it ironic, Second they had used tactics that could help the Spartans learn for future battles.
> 2535456627328485;16:
> > 2533274974046335;1:
> > I noticed it in forward onto Dawn and the fall of reach… and I’ve been wondering why?
>
> First its because they are Spartans to make it ironic, Second they had used tactics that could help the Spartans learn for future battles.
Romans weren’t Spartan.
> 2533274817408735;15:
> > 2591580321307319;14:
> > I’m willing to bet they taught them many different military strategies. The Romans were probably the only ones mentioned to reinforce the Spartan reference.
>
> Sparta was a Greek City-state, not Roman. You can’t reinforce the legends of Spartan warriors by talking about the Romans.
That just proves the fact that I didn’t pay attention during UNSC training. My bad.
Same reason cadets at the Air Force Academy are taught about the romans - it provides context and lessons from the past.
it is quite realistic to what would happen today, although the part about teaching Roman tactics, not so much.
If I remember correctly, In Fall of Reach, they talk about ancient Spartans, not Romans.