I put up some posts/threads at times and I'm so sad and embarrassed it is not replied to or even viewed!!!

How do u feel when ur post is not viewed or replied to? For me it's very embarrassing and painful. I just feel it's an effort in futility and it really makes me look like a fool sometimes, as if the thread is not even relevant at all

What about you? How do u feel?

I feel really bad. Can you give me a link to the post in question?

There are a lot of posts that people don't reply to, especially those posts that have zero replies. I have some myself.

I feel people have preference for certian topics _{which is ok though} , but I also feel we owe ourselves an obligation on this forum to try as much as possible to help those who are in dire need of some answers to their questions. Agreed, some topics may be outrightly dumb in nature but we culd, at the least, encourage that person and make a better individual of him, _{just my opinion} and make him feel happy too (or at least, know his/her mistakes). It's really sad when you need some answers and none is forth coming. It's really depressing atimes.

Let's try and be our brother's keeper. Thanks

I aslo feel as the moderator, if a topic is repeated, try ur best to let that person know it has been posted before so the person can refer to the earlier post. It'll help too.

I feel ur pain. But i've nev been in ur shoes.

when i make threads, i subscribe to them. if no replies or views, i just stay and pray other threads come and over shadow that one thereby sending it to page 2 that people hardly open.

@ poster perharps the post was not worth replying
maybe it was posted in the wrong section.
maybe whatever,dont know sha,never been there.
though i guess it hurts.

how do u reply to this


sphinx_g
Posts: 26

Offline

The Concept Of War
« on: Today at 02:16:59 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 THE CONCEPT OF MILITARY EDUCATION
The history of a military academy such as the Nigeria Defence Academy (NDA) is rooted in the history of structured military education and as the latter is rooted in the history and nature of armed conflict, an overview of the history of armed conflict is indispensable to this project. A brief outline of the earliest origins of war and the circumstances which have prompted statesmen and leaders throughout history to wage war will be attempted here.
Warfare is as old as man. The earliest primates fought over fruits and berries, and possibly over women. Undoubtedly, those clashes were less sophisticated than a bar room brawl and the outcome were often as inconclusive as that.
As the human population grew, communities grew, and began to hunt for resources in numbers. Large hunting parties would go after meat and fruits for the tribe while the women and children camped near sources of fresh water. This is probably the stage where large scale fighting between humans first started. Tribes fought over the proceeds of hunts and particularly productive fruit trees.
At this point in human history, warfare was nothing more than a mass brawl which in contemporary military terms is known as a melee. The weapons used were only as sophisticated as stones and clubs. This changed rapidly though.
Beginning in Mesopotamia, states produced sufficient agricultural surplus that full-time ruling elites and military commanders could emerge. While the bulk of military forces were still farmers, the society could support having them campaigning rather than working the land for a portion of each year. Thus, organized armies developed for the first time. These new armies could help states grow in size and became increasingly centralized, and the first empire, that of the Sumerians, formed in Mesopotamia1.
As human communities grew increasingly sophisticated, the reasons for conflict accordingly expanded. Economic reasons were chief of these. Trading disputes and acts of criminal competition often drove clans to wage war against each other. Another reason was personal aggrandizement. Military leaders who led their communities to victory in war could expect generous office and awesome power. The legendary founder of Babylon Nimrod was famed as a hunter, leader, warrior and pioneer. He led his people to victory over neighbouring tribes and then established the city of Babylon. Needless to say, he was the ruler of that city.
As wars became more frequent, the need for devoted military organization arose. Initially, the earliest organised states like Egypt, Assyria, and Mesopotamia had no standing armies other than the personal bodyguard of the ruler. These troops were the only trained weapon bearers in antiquity; they were also entrusted with the task of mobilizing and disciplining civilians and slaves mustered to arms in time of war.
Organized battles emerged around the year 6000 BC. The first archaeological record, though disputed, of a prehistoric battle is about seven thousand years old, and it is located on the Nile in Egypt, in an area known as Cemetery 117. A large number of bodies, many with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, indicate that they may have been the casualties of a battle2.
However by 3000 BC, the Egyptians had begun to organize a standing military force within her borders. This was the precursor to expansionist wars against such states as the Mitanni, the Hittites; and larger confrontations with the Mesopotamians and the Assyrians.
At that time however, warfare was still proto-primitive. No armor was used during the 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BC. War was crude, in tactics and weapons. Ancient strategy focused broadly on the twin goals of convincing the enemy that continued war was more costly than submitting, and of making the most gain from war as possible3.
Forcing the enemy to submit generally consisted of defeating their army in the field. Once the enemy force was routed, the threat of siege, civilian deaths, and the like often forced the enemy to the bargaining table. However, this goal could be accomplished by other means. Burning enemy fields would force the choice of surrendering or fighting a pitched battle. Waiting an enemy out until their army had to disband due to the beginning of the harvest season or running out of payment for mercenaries presented an enemy with a similar choice.
The first weapons of war were the fist, clubs, spiked clubs, crude spears and stones. These were not to change for another 1000 years. Early armies in Egypt and China followed a pattern of using massed infantry armed with bows and spears 1500-1000 BC. This was to change rapidly too.
From 1000BC, as states grew in size and the implications of war expanded, military planners began to develop tactics and weapons which would increase the likelihood of victory. Chariot mounted bow men emerged, followed by advanced tactics.
The first dateable recorded sea battle occurred about 1210 BC: Suppiluliuma II, king of the Hittites, defeated a fleet from Cyprus, and burned their ships at sea4
In the Far East, the Chinese under the Chou dynasty 1122 -1121 had begun to develop a well organized and powerful military. Concepts of military planning were introduced to Chinese society during the Warring States period; during this time Sun Tzu penned the world’s oldest military treatise - The art of war.
The first account of siege warfare dates back to the Protodynastic Period of Egypt. The major advance in weapons technology and warfare began around 1600 BC when the Egyptians fought and finally defeated the Hyksos people who had made themselves lords of Lower Egypt. It was during this period the horse and chariot were introduced into Egypt. Other new technologies included the sickle sword, body armour and improved bronze casting.
In the 4th century BC, the Macedonians under Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great successfully integrated horse-borne warriors and the traditional Greek infantry, creating a military force of unmatched power.5
It was in this era that a serious attempt was made to inculcate matters of military studies in the education of the young. Greek philosophers like Herodotus began to make records of battles within the memory of living persons. From his pioneering work, traveling tutors began to teach the sons of the nobility of warfare and the considerations that surround it.
Empires have come and gone, wars have been waged endlessly, history has been written and re written several times. From all his battles, man learnt only one important thing; the business of war is serious business. In the words of Sun Tzu,
The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected6.
Which is why statesmen since the time of the Greeks have devoted time and resources to train the future generals and statesmen in those arts that are essential to the strategic balance of state power. In time, societies came to realize that 300 men armed with clubs and spikes fighting a force of aggregate size and arms could not assure any victory for either side. The need for winning strategies and or weaponry soon arose. Part of the strategy of antique warfare included having a larger and better trained population to sustain long periods of internecine conflict. This necessarily included the need to train upcoming generations in the skills of battle (as distinct from war). Hence originated military education. The earliest report of organized military instruction dates back to the Egyptian civilization where the pharaoh conscripted slaves into his army and forced them to receive military instruction.
By 500 BC, the strategic concept of war had made great advances. Military philosophers like Sun Tzu and Chanakya were redefining the way generals thought. Sun Tzu wrote that:
"Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances." 7
He is thought of as the father of military philosophy.
By the 10th century BC, organized military instruction was developed extensively by the Greek state of Sparta. In antiquity Sparta was a Dorian Greek military state, originally centred in Laconia. The Spartans trained their citizens from birth to become warriors. This process involved both physical and leadership command training. As a city-state devoted to military training, Sparta possessed the most formidable army in the Greek world, and after achieving notable victories over the Athenian and Persian Empires, regarded itself as the natural protector of Greece. The Spartans fought in a tight formation called the phalanx. They used longer spears than had been seen before and wore more armour than others. When confronted with the massed infantry tactics of the Persians in the Persian Wars, the Spartans emerged victorious despite far smaller numbers.8
The impressive military standing that Sparta achieved inspired later states to give heed formal training for their armed forces. The Romans began training legionnaires in the skills of war. Romans of noble blood also received instruction in fighting skills and military command. In this regard, the tutors relied on examples drawn from Greek military history.
However, most forms of military instruction available before the 15th century BC placed higher emphasis on tactics of battle rather than the overall strategy of war. Strategy and tactics are closely related. Both deal with distance, time and force but strategy is large scale while tactics are small scale. Originally strategy was understood to govern the prelude to a battle while tactics controlled its execution. As Clausewitz stated, a successful military strategy may be a means to an end, but it is not an end in itself.9 There are numerous examples in history where victory on the battlefield has not translated into long term peace, security or tranquillity.
In a rapidly changing world, the need was felt for capable persons trained in the requirements of leading not only armies but entire nations. Conventional military training was highly deficient in this regard.
The father of modern strategic study, Carl von Clausewitz, defined military strategy as "the employment of battles to gain the end of war." Hence, he gave the pre-eminence to a triumvirate of "arts" or "sciences" that govern the conduct of warfare; the others being tactics, the execution of plans and manoeuvring of forces in battle, and logistics, the maintenance of an army.
By the 15th century, European leaders had recognized the need for training of military personnel to conduct organized warfare. As French statesman Georges Clemenceau said, "War is too important a business to be left to soldiers."
In the 18th century military strategy was subjected to serious study. In the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), Frederick the Great improvised a "strategy of exhaustion" to hold off his opponents and conserve his Prussian forces. Assailed from all sides by France, Austria, Russia and Sweden, Frederick exploited his central position which enabled him to move his army along interior lines and concentrate against one opponent at a time. Unable to achieve victory, he was able to stave off defeat until a diplomatic solution was reached. Frederick's "victory" led to great significance being placed on "geometric strategy" which emphasized lines of manoeuvre, awareness of terrain and possession of critical strong points.
Political leaders therefore sought institutions capable of training not only field generals but thinkers and leaders of nations. This led to the establishment of modern military universities.
The RMA Sandhurst was formed in 1947, from a merger of the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich (which trained officers for the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers from 1741 to 1939) and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. Following the ending of National Service in the UK, the RMAS became the sole establishment for initial officer training in the British Army as the Mons Officer Training School in Aldershot was closed.
The Royal Military College opened its doors in 1802; coincidentally the same year as Saint Cyr and West Point. Amongst the current Military Academies only the Dutch Military Academy is older
The Koninklijke Militaire Academie (KMA) is the Royal Military Academy of the Netherlands. It is located in the castle of Breda. The KMA takes care of the education and training of the officers of the Dutch airforce (KLu) and the Dutch army (KL). It has done so since the early 1800s. The training of the officers of the navy and marines is mainly done by the Koninklijk Instituut voor de Marine (KIM) in Den Helder.

1.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF NIGERIAN MILITARY
The Nigerian military began as a detachment of the British colonial regiment. With the conquest of Lagos in 1861, the British administrator of Lagos, Captain J. Glover RN raised in 1862 a force of 100 men known as the Lagos constabulary11.
After the royal Niger Company was granted a charter which enabled it to establish its government over the delta and the valleys of the Niger and Benue, it raised the royal Niger constabulary. This force grew from 150 men in 1886 to 1000 men at the end of 1889.
The title of constabulary as applied to these forces belied the fact that they were essentially military forces trained along military lines, officered by military officers, equipped with artillery and used to fight colonial wars12. An important step in the development of a modern army was taken in 1897 when the British government needed a more effective military force to counter French incursions in parts of northern Nigeria already claimed by Britain. Consequently col. F.D. Lugard was sent wit a team of officers to raise two battalions which they did in the same year. By December 1898, 1 battalion had 907 other ranks while 2nd battalion had 800 other ranks13.
By 1900, the total number of men in the Nigerian army had risen to 415314.
With the amalgamation of northern and southern Nigeria in 1914, the reorganisation of the military in Nigeria became necessary. All the army battalions in the two parts of the country were amalgamated and designated the Nigerian regiment with Nos 1 and 2 battalions stationed in the north while 3 and 4 battalions were stationed in the south15.
It is noteworthy that up till the eve of independence, the Nigerian army was still designated the Royal Nigerian Regiment of the West African frontier force. At independence, there were 228 British officers and 80 British NCO’s in the regiment which was commanded by a British general until 196516.
The history of the NN is traceable to the activities of the royal Niger Company which established a small navy to protect its interests in the Niger area. It established the first colonial naval force in the hinterland in 1886 with its HQ first at Asaba and later at Lokoja while Akassa to the south remained an important navy station and a repair base17.
Some of the company’s vessels like the Empire and Liberty were armed with 21/2 pounder guns in addition to their complements of small arms and machine guns. When the charter of the RNC was abrogated in 1900, the British government took over the ships and paid compensation for all the war materials from the company. By 1914 however, most of the vessels which formed part of the RNC naval arm were already out of commission. That same year, the Nigerian marine department was formed and it took part in military action against the Germans in Cameroon. However the department was not assigned any combat roles and performed only auxiliary functions like dredging and ferry service18.
The British government did not feel the need to provide a fully functional navy for the colony especially bearing in mind that the royal navy could always fulfil any of the duties which such force would be required to do. In 1956, the Nigerian marine department gave way to the Nigerian naval service which was charged with the naval defence of Nigeria within its territorial waters as well as related functions.
By Independence Day in 1960, the Nigerian military had two arms; an army and the Nigerian naval service. Both services were heavily dependent on Britain for weapons and officers. By January 1960, there were 228 British officers to 48 Nigerian combat officers.
However in 1965, the last British commander of the Nigerian army Major general Welby-Everard left the country and was replaced by Major General Ironsi. By 1966, there were no remaining foreigners in the Nigerian military19.
The last military service to be established for Nigeria is the Airforce which was established in 1964.



THE MILITARY TODAY
Presently, the Nigerian military is comprised of about 85,000 officers and men in the three services.
The army is structures as follows: 1st mechanised division Kaduna is allocated the north-west sector, the 2nd mechanised division based in Ibadan controls the south-west sector, the 3rd armoured division Jos is assigned the north-east sector while 82nd mechanised division Enugu controls the south-east sector.
The navy is structured as follows: Eastern naval command with HQ at Calabar, Western Naval command with HQ at Lagos, and the Naval training command with HQ in Port Harcourt.
The air force is divided into three commands: the tactical air command based at Makurdi, the training command and the support command.


The full article can be viewed at www.effikoland.com/blogs

credit to Igwe Uchenna. University of Abuja


someone actually opened 3 threads 4 this (2 in the same section and one in another section), why i dont know, what he wants i dont know, the only reply this person should get is insults which 4 me is worse than u ignoring it.

@Don1DeMaco

That is the longest s**t i've seen.

lol 

@topic,
its not that hard. . .just move to read other topics or create related topics.

Just checking to know my post have been replied to.

its also about luck
sometimes u are lucky that the people your posts are intended for get to see it, before it vanishes from public glare. other times, you are not

but of recent, there are have been lots of repeated posts

pissed off.

Dual Core:

when i make threads, i subscribe to them. if no replies or views, i just stay and pray other threads come and over shadow that one thereby sending it to page 2 that people hardly open   .

true talk.  . Anyway, I do feel bad & like. . . oops! did I get it wrong somewhere?!

@top_kin
sure you're happy now, cos you're receiving more replies to this post  

Definitly!!!

It depends on what's been asked.Some threads are created for discussion while others are just posted to voice one's opinion about an issue.Its no big deal if no one replies your post,although it might hurt it doesn't make you a fool.Because the world revolves,you might not be in the best place at the best time.Get it?

@Kaestro
you're very right. It truly doesn't make one a fool.

keep bumping it until you get a reply/answer, or use an interesting title

if you want people to 'rush' your thread just make it about sex. It will get to 30 pages in one day. or start a thread about virginity. now thats a favorite with the guys!

dont realli feel one way or the other cause i dont go back to check sometimes i v noticed the trend on here
its either if you r part of a clique then they ll reply your threads no matter how stupid or senseless just to show they run things on here and show solidarity to each other
and also your threads are more likely to be replied if its either masculine or feminine bashing or has anything to do with sex or relationships, so if ur threads dont get replied,its not cause it dont make sense or smthing so dont beat urself up about it,just post who you feel like and move on

lucabrasi:

don't realli feel one way or the other cause i don't go back to check sometimes i v noticed the trend on here
its either if you r part of a clique then they ll reply your threads no matter how stupid or senseless just to show they run things on here and show solidarity to each other
and also your threads are more likely to be replied if its either masculine or feminine bashing or has anything to do with sex or relationships, so if your threads don't get replied,its not cause it don't make sense or smthing so don't beat yourself up about it,just post who you feel like and move on

agree. Can U name some cliques.

lucabrasi:

don't realli feel one way or the other cause i don't go back to check sometimes i v noticed the trend on here
its either if you r part of a clique then they ll reply your threads no matter how stupid or senseless just to show they run things on here and show solidarity to each other
and also your threads are more likely to be replied if its either masculine or feminine bashing or has anything to do with sex or relationships, so if your threads don't get replied,its not cause it don't make sense or smthing so don't beat yourself up about it,just post who you feel like and move on

GBAM! close thread.

SeanT21:

agree. Can You name some cliques.

i realli dont want to get involved in a verbal war with any cliques,just go through,the romance,sexuality,politics and what not and u ll see the cliques

I feel like shutinq down Nairaland so we all can go home & rest  @poster. . . _{haba No reply after 365days.}

@Topic

Open a new Id and reply yourself that's what I do when mine isn't replied

crazykid:

@Topic

Open a new Id and reply yourself that's what I do when mine isn't replied

hmmmh. I see. . . .

embarrased but i keep posting