O exercito grego foi ao longo do tempo, diversificando, teve várias formas de se auto-disciplinar e de actuar. Os Hoplitas eram o groço de tropas helenicas e actuavam como um corpo coeso e bem treinado. Mas entre Atenienses e Espartanos, a história vai mais além. Espartanos guerreavam por terra, com homens apeados com o minimo de armamento, e com um treino severo. Enquanto que os Atenienses apostavam na sua armada de navios bem forte e respeitada. A guerra entre ambos foi uma outra história. Os gregos mantinham uma disciplia militar, que não era muito diferente de todos os outros povos, disciplina essa que á luz da época, era suficiente para fazer face ás adversidades.
O Exercito romano era uma maquina comandada para fins mais complexos- conquistar/administrar, e a sua disciplina era ainda mais intensa, era constituida por homens bem treinados para o que eram programados. Era um exercito guerrido, que pendia para um código de união inquebravel, e actuação cruel e sangrenta por excelencia. Falo de exército que em unisono respondiam em uma só vóz ás ordens que lhes eram facultadas, sem pensar ou questionar. Eram um corpo fortemente comandado como uma força unica- daí que o império se tivesse mantido. Não obstante, mesmo uma maquina de guerra excelente, sem um comando é como um grande corpo sem cerebro.
O Exército Muçulmano divergia desta forma unitária de actuar... actuavam em grupos, apesar de unidos, tinham uma norma de guerrilha destabilizadora do inimigo. os Mamelucos e os Sarracenos são exemplos disso. Chegar e atordoar o exército atacante era um código para atingir um fim precioso. Geralmente a cavalo ou a pé, com pouco armamanto, para não dificultar a deslocação, em pontos chave, actuavam sem ser anunciados, com uma arma usada antes pelos Lusitanos, muito eficaz nas emboscadas aos romanos ; " O grito de ataque ou de guerra" que era para descomandar os nervos do inimigo e pô-lo em estado se choque. As emboscadas e o acto de guerrilha desta condição sempre foi uma benece dos povos que procuravam defender o seu território, apanhar o inimigo em fragilidade atravéz do desconhecimento do terreno e das posições inimigas e arremeter-lhe pesadas e decisivas derrotas. O próprios visigodos o faziam.
No periodo medieval as coisas ficam desenhadas um pouco desta forma embora já com outros parametros. Procurava-se manter distante os inimigos, e aliviar tenções, fazendo razias (fussados) promovidas pelos poderes locais e/ou depois mais tarde centrais. Até que a conjuntura muda, havendo a necessidade de impôr posições e fronteiras de comando, e aqui um exercito bem treinado e disciplinado era vital, vindo depois a heraldica para identificação dos exercitos em campanha. Os castelos vão ser um ponto de apoio administrativo e senhorial de poder e as maquinas de engenho vão cobrir as acções de apelido, no cerco das cidades pelos exercitos dos reis.
In English
Through time, there were many differences in the Greek Army, because they had several ways of acting and getting self-disciplin.The Hoplitas were the majority of the Hellenic troops and used to act like a cohesive and well-trained group. But between Athenians and Spartans, the story goes further. The Spartans fought on land, with dismounted men with the least of armament and a severe training. While the Athenians counted with their fleet of ships very strong and respected. The war between them was another story. The Greeks keep a military disciplin, which was not very different from all other people, and that disciplin, in that time, was considered sufficient to face the adversities.
The Roman Army was a machine commanded to more complex purposes – to conquer/administrate, and their disciplin was even more intense, with their men well-trained to gain the objective. It was a fierce army, who had an unbreakable union code, and an excellent, cruel and bloody action. I’m talking about an army that, together, answered the orders without thinking or questioning. They were an extremely commanded group like a unique force, and that’s why they kept the Empire. Nevertheless, even an excellent war machine needs a command, or else it is like a big body without a brain.
The Muslim Army diverged of this unitary acting way – they acted in groups, although united, that had a guerrilla norm, which was very disturbing to the enemy. The Mamelukes and the Saracens are a good example of this. To arrive and to stun the the attacker army was a code to achieve a precious purpose. Usually on horse or at foot, with little armament in order to not disturb the journey, on right spots, they attacked without warning, with a weapon used by the Lusitanians before, and that was very efective on the ambushes to the Romans; “the attack or war scream” was to throw into confusion the nerves of the enemy and to put them in shock. The ambushes and guerrillas were always a benefit for people who tried to defend their territory, to catch the enemy fragile through the ignorance of the field and the enemys’ positions in order to chrge them heavy and decisive defeats. The own Visigoths did that.
On Medieval Epoch, things are this way, although with another parameters. The purpose was to keep the enemies away and to relief tensions by making trenches promoted by the local powers and/or later on, the central powers. This goes until the conjuncture changes, with the necessity of impose positions and frontiers of command; and here it was vital a well-trained and disciplined army, with the heraldry for the identification of the armies on field. The Castles worked as an executive and manorial support of power and the engine machines would cover up the surnames’ actions, on the siege of the cities by the Kings’ armies.
In English
Through time, there were many differences in the Greek Army, because they had several ways of acting and getting self-disciplin.The Hoplitas were the majority of the Hellenic troops and used to act like a cohesive and well-trained group. But between Athenians and Spartans, the story goes further. The Spartans fought on land, with dismounted men with the least of armament and a severe training. While the Athenians counted with their fleet of ships very strong and respected. The war between them was another story. The Greeks keep a military disciplin, which was not very different from all other people, and that disciplin, in that time, was considered sufficient to face the adversities.
The Roman Army was a machine commanded to more complex purposes – to conquer/administrate, and their disciplin was even more intense, with their men well-trained to gain the objective. It was a fierce army, who had an unbreakable union code, and an excellent, cruel and bloody action. I’m talking about an army that, together, answered the orders without thinking or questioning. They were an extremely commanded group like a unique force, and that’s why they kept the Empire. Nevertheless, even an excellent war machine needs a command, or else it is like a big body without a brain.
The Muslim Army diverged of this unitary acting way – they acted in groups, although united, that had a guerrilla norm, which was very disturbing to the enemy. The Mamelukes and the Saracens are a good example of this. To arrive and to stun the the attacker army was a code to achieve a precious purpose. Usually on horse or at foot, with little armament in order to not disturb the journey, on right spots, they attacked without warning, with a weapon used by the Lusitanians before, and that was very efective on the ambushes to the Romans; “the attack or war scream” was to throw into confusion the nerves of the enemy and to put them in shock. The ambushes and guerrillas were always a benefit for people who tried to defend their territory, to catch the enemy fragile through the ignorance of the field and the enemys’ positions in order to chrge them heavy and decisive defeats. The own Visigoths did that.
On Medieval Epoch, things are this way, although with another parameters. The purpose was to keep the enemies away and to relief tensions by making trenches promoted by the local powers and/or later on, the central powers. This goes until the conjuncture changes, with the necessity of impose positions and frontiers of command; and here it was vital a well-trained and disciplined army, with the heraldry for the identification of the armies on field. The Castles worked as an executive and manorial support of power and the engine machines would cover up the surnames’ actions, on the siege of the cities by the Kings’ armies.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário