Link Lifetime based Border Node (LLBN) Protocol

Link Lifetime based Border Node (LLBN) Protocol Link Lifetime based Border Node (LLBN) Protocol for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks Sanjay Batish, Manisha Chahal, Sanjeev Sofat, Amardeep Singh Abstract Vehicular ad hoc network (VANET) attracts rising attentions of researchers for safety related and other communication applications. These networks have many challenging characteristics such as high mobility, fast changing topology and limitation of bandwidth. Under these problems, we proposed LLBN (link lifetime based border node protocol). Keywords VANETs, Routing Protocol, Position based Routing, GPSR 1. Introduction Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) is emerging as an immense technology in wireless network that enable communication among vehicles. This network consist of vehicles, computer controlled devices, road side infrastructures, radio transceivers and internet connection. It attracts significant researchers, industry and government towards road safety, traffic control management and entertainment applications. Due to limitation of bandwidth spectrum, United State Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allocated 75MHz of bandwidth spectrum in 5.9 GHz band. Vehicles can communicate at a data rate of 6-27 Mbps up to a range of 1000m. VANET is a part of mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). Many of existing routing protocols for MANETs are not suitable for VANET. Position based (geographic or location based) routings protocols are most suitable for VANET environment due to extremely dynamic topology and repeatedly disconnected network. In these types of routing protocols, forwarding decision is based on location of destination and location of nodes one-hop neighbors called as position based greedy forwarding routing. Border node based protocols, for example Border-node based most forward with in radius (BMFR) follow greedy forwarding by considering concept of border node. Border node concept is used to reduce the hop count between sender node and destination node, that lead to conservation of bandwidth. Nodes lie on transmission range of a particular node are called as border node. This idea of border node suffer from link failure due to unrestricted road patterns and dynamic topology. In this paper, we proposed a link lifetime based border node protocol (LLBP) to perk up existing unicast location based routing protocols. If b-mfr results several border nodes projected at same point towards destination, then check for most stable path by considering link life span. 2. Related Work 2.1. Border Node Based Routing (BBR) Protocol M. Zhang and Richard S. Wolff have proposed BBR to minimize total no for nodes involved in routing process. Here, every node maintain three tables: Neighbor Table, Border Node Selection Table and the Forward Table. It works in two phase, first one is neighbor discovering like in all other position based protocols and next phase is border node selection process. 2.2. Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) protocol B. Karp and H.T. Kung have discovered GPSR position based protocol for vehicular network. In greedy mode each node forwards packets to next hop that is constantly nearer to destination, until the packet reaches its final destination. GPSR recovers from a local maximum using perimeter mode. It uses an algorithm of planer graph traversal to find a way out of the local maximum region. 2.3. Border-node based most forward with in radius (BMFR) Ram Shringar Raw, D K Lobiyal have proposed this protocol by making use of border node. One-hop neighbor selection method is same as other position based protocols but here border node consider as a next-hop node for forwarding packet from source to destination. Under border node selection process, select the one which is maximum projected towards the destination. In this protocol, problem of confliction( as shown in figure 1) between two or more border nodes may occur. Figure 1. Problem in BMFR 2.4. Movement-Based Routing Algorithm (MORA) F. Granelli and G. Boato have applied this algorithm on GPSR. It considers approach of movements of vehicles along with the position of vehicles. Firstly sender node flooded the network with route request message . Destination node send route reply message with a specific metric. After that sender transmit data according to method used in GPSR protocol. 2.5. Movement Prediction-Based Routing (MOPR) Protocol H. Menouar and F. Filali proposed MOPR protocol to improve the MORA. This protocol also consider speed of vehicle along with direction and position of vehicle. Vehicle, which is expected to go out the communication range in a short period time will not be selected as a next hop for data forwarding if some better node is available. 3. Link Lifetime based Border Node Routing To increase the performance of BMFR protocol, we have applied link lifetime on BMFR. As already discussed, BMFR decrease number of hop counts through which data packets travel, but a problem arises when more than two border node towards destination projected at same point. We believe that considering only the bandwidth is not enough in unicast routing. The vehicle movement and link failure should be taken into account. A border node which goes outside the radio transceiver range should not be selected as a next hop. We propose our LLBN concept applied to BMFR ( as shown in Figure 2,3). . Figure 2. Link life time calculation Figure 3. LLBN Protocol 4. Proposed Algorithm Case a: Send packet to most projected border node towards destination Notations NS: source node ND: destination node NRf: recent forwarding node Set: recent forwarding node neighbors SetS: set of selected node NextN: selected next node Rmax: maximum communication range LC: link constancy LLT[p, q]: link(p, q) life time 1. NCf = NS 2. if ( ND lies within Rmax(NRf) ) then send data to ND else go to step 3 3. Compute Euclidian distance of all nodes in Set from NRf 4. for all Ai ∈Set, i = 1 to n if (distance of Ai from NRf == Rmax) then SetS = SetS ∠ª Ai else interior nodes 5. Calculate projection(P) of Ai on line joining NS and ND 6. Choose next neighbor node (Nnext) having highest projection if (Nnext == 1) then // only one maximum // projected node send data to Nnext else if (Nnext ≠¥ 1) then // two or more maximum // projected nodes go to step 7 Case b: Confliction between two or more border nodes occurs (Xp0, Yp0): initial position of node p in X and Y coordinates (Xq0, Yq0): initial position of node q in X and Y coordinates Vp: speed of p vehicle Vq: speed of q vehicle t0: initial time t1: time after movement of nodes t = t1 t0 Din = initial link distance Dmov = link distance after movement Λ = constant routing route validity time D2mov = ( ( Xp0 + VXpt) (Xq0 + VXqt) )2 + ( ( Yp0 + VYpt) (Yq0 + VYqt) )2 D2mov = P t2 + Q t + R P = VXp VXq Q = R = Solve P t2 + Q t + R R2max = 0 LC[p, q] = LLT[p, q] / Λ find link having maximum LC[p,q] Conclusion References [1] Hamid Menouar, Massimiliano Lenardi and Fethi Filali Movement Prediction-based Routing (MOPR) Concept for Position-based Routing in Vehicular Networks, IEEE 66th Vehicular Technology Conference, Baltimore, MD, October 2007. [2] F. Granelli, G. Boato, and D. Kliazovich, MORA: a Movement-Based Routing Algorithm for Vehicle Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE Workshop AutoNet, San Francisco, U.S.A., December 2006. [3] Brad Karp and H. T. Kung, â€Å"GPSR: Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks,† ACM 6th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, Boston, MA, August 2000. [4] Mingliu Zhang and Richard S. Wolff Border Node Based Routing Protocol for VANETs in Sparse and Rural Areas, IEEE GLOCOMW, November 2007. [5] Ram Shringar Raw, D K Lobiyal B-MFR Routing Protocol for Vehicular Ad hoc Networks International Conference on Networking and Information Technology 2010.

Multilateralism and Small Developing States Essay -- The Political Eco

Multilateralism serves to be both a blessing and a curse, when placed amongst small island developing states in the global system. The statement without a shadow of a doubt stands true that multilateralism can simultaneously advance and undermine the interest of small island developing states in the global system. Small island developing states lack the power, wealth and influence to exert any political clout in the global political arena at the individual state level and as such, often times than none, their interest are overlooked and ignored. A we take a critical look at multilateralism, the very definition of the word according to (Keohane,1990;731) defined multilateralism as â€Å"the practice of coordinating national policies in groups of three or more states.† By this very definition, we can see the contradictions that lies within, when looking at this through a Caribbean lens. Multilateralism, where Caribbean states are involved in binding agreements, can be argued to be a contradiction on the basis of the contending international relations theories of Realism and Idealism. The first theoretical perspective to be undertaken will be the Realist perspective on states in the global political arena. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states clearly that â€Å"Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation.(Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2011; 4) states that, â€Å" the main actors on the world stage are states, which are legally sovereign actors. Sovereignty means that there is no actor above the state that can compel it to act in specific ways,. Other acrors, such a... ... 61 (4): 853–876. †¢ Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and. Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977) †¢ Keohane, Robert O. â€Å"Multilateralism: An Agenda for Research.† International Journal, 45 (Autumn 1990). †¢ McGinnis, John O. â€Å"The Political Economy of Global Multilateralism.† Chicago Journal of International Law, Fall2000, 6. †¢ Strange, Susan. (1997). â€Å"Territory, State, Authority and Economy: a new realist ontology of global political economy.† In The New Realism. Edited by Robert, W. Cox (New York: The United Nations University Press, pp 3-19). †¢ Spangler, Brad. "Integrative or Interest-Based Bargaining." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 .

Global Warming and the Kyoto Protocol Essay -- Environmental, Environm

Global Warming and the Kyoto Protocol Environmental issues are becoming a growing concern for the world as well as for the world's leaders. Pollution, littering and the burning of fossil fuels are all problems that have drastically affected humans over the past few years. Impure drinking water, radiation, less ecological diversity and cancer are a few of such harms that the world has experienced. However, one of the most prominent concerns is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect, a natural occurrence, is turning deadly with the introduction of humans and carbon emissions and is slowly heating up the world. In future years this could cause catastrophic consequences. Rising global temperatures threatens the very existence of the world's population, making global warming an issue that has no territorial boundaries, every country is contributing to the problem and will inevitably suffer the consequences. As this is a global problem the interest of many world leaders was brought fourth. Eventually they came together to address this dilemma and come up with a solution to it. What officials are currently at odds with is how to implement the protocol that was reached in Kyoto Japan in 1997. This protocol made by world leaders is one of the first world wide efforts to try and resolve current environmental problems. The ratification of which, would have a huge beneficial impact on generations to come. The Third Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP3) was held in Kyoto, Japan from the first to the tenth of December 1997. The conference had more than 2,500 participants, 3,000 Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) and 4,000 press representatives in attendance. Discussions l... ...sultations. Despite world efforts Bush still claimed that the protocol is "fatally flawed," and bad for the economy. The European Union has been highly active in the efforts to get the protocol ratified and in working order. British environmentalist Michael Meacher said, "It's a beautiful day for the environment. It's a huge leap to have achieved a result on this very complex international negotiation." Up to this date 30 countries have ratified the pact. This very complex world issue is something which desperately needed, and got, attention. The future of the world and the existence of all living things are at stake. The Kyoto Protocol is on attempt to create a more environmentally sound world. There are flaws and the U.S. remains unchanging it its decision not to ratify it but a step has been taken and without a first step nothing will ever get very far.

Compare and Contrast Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Essay examples --

Compare and Contrast Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Human beings have always been curious about the meaning and purpose of life. Religions try to answer the curiosity people have about there being a higher source, typically identifying this greater domination as God. Some beliefs teach that there is only one G-d this is defined as a monotheistic religion. Some examples of monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Although each sect has a different perspective on teachings and beliefs they have one common thread; the belief in a singular deity. Each religion has a different perspective but most important is where the religions generated from. Major religions started in various parts of the world. Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the same birthplace the Middle East. Jerusalem is not only the home to Judaism but Christian and Muslim Religions as well. Equally important is the expansion of religions. For example Judaism and Christianity are also practiced in Europe, North America, Russia and elsewhere. Islam can be found in Europe, Central Asia, North and West Africa and elsewhere. (30-41) Diverse religions spread throughout the countries allowing for the expansion of followers. The Birthplace of the religions is just as significant to the different sects; which, the religions are composed of. Each religion has different branches where each sect varies on beliefs. For instance, Judaism is broke into three major branches Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. This are consider the sects of today. One major argument between the groups is the interpretation and validation of the Torah. "The argument is rather the torah was written by G-d and given to mosses completely intact. The Second argument is the ... ... he was sent to earth to save human beings from sin and death. The teaching's of Jesus center around love. The way to salvation is do good works. Also too have faith in G-d and the Christ's resurrection. Last but not least is Islam. The basic beliefs of Islam are summed up in this statement of Faith. "I believe in Allah, his angels, his books and prophets and the Day of judgment". The Angel Gabriel brought Allah's message to Muhammad They believe the purpose of life is to submit to G-d, and obtain paradise after death. They way to achieve salvation is to follow the Qur'an, and Five Pillars of Islam. Although many religions have different sects; which, may share different ideas just like in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is evident that these religions believe in one god. The teaching and traditions of each religion make each religion unique in its own way.

M-16 :: essays research papers

The development of the M16 rifle began with the research conducted at John Hopkins University in September of 1955. Research was conducted to question infantrymen, who fought in Korea, about their battle experiences as they pertain to firing their weapon. It was found that 95% of their firing was within 300 yards. Also, there were just as many lethal hits from un-aimed shoots as from aimed ones (it so happens that most of the interviewed were soldiers of the US Army, which may explain the inaccuracy). This information led the military to the conclusion that a .22 caliber rifle capable of selective fire would be most conducive to current battle tactics. The small caliber provides more control, and selective fire would enable a soldier to better control their RPM. With this information the military went to Eugene Stoner, a Marine Corps Veteran who started to design rifles after being decommissioned, and asked him if he was interested in designing a weapon based on their research. This was one of the better decisions that Uncle Sam made; get a Marine to make a rifle that even Army boys can shoot. The requirements for the new weapon were that it had to weight less than 6 pounds loaded, it had to be a .22 caliber, it had to be selective fire capable and it had to be able to penetrate a steel helmet out to 500 meters. The rifle the military was using up to that date, the M14, was a heavy, .308 caliber, selective fire capable rifle. The benefits of a large caliber like the .308 NATO, which are longer range and greater penetration, were no,longer needed for close combat. The rifle has actually some major disadvantages (other than the fact that it weighed about as much as a bicycle). Due to its large caliber, when fired in full-automatic mode, the rifle recoils so much, that only the first one or two bullets hit the target. Secondly, the large caliber means that the ammunition itself is quite heavy and large compared to an M16 round. This proved to be very heavy for the individual carrying the weapon. Its large size and heavy weight make it difficult for soldiers to use during combat situations. The M-14 isn’t all bad, though, it could literally blow somone’s head off, if you could hit him. It was very popular among soldiers due to its great reliability, It could be compared to an old t ruck; loud, powerful, but damn hard to live with.

A Study of Warfare in Europe Between 1300 and 1500 Essay

Since the introduction of gunpowder into Europe, it has gone on to dominate warfare into the twentieth century. With the development of the first European guns in the fourteenth century, armies were given use of a weapon which was to radically alter most of the ways of making war which had been established during the Middle Ages, and changes began to be seen within only a few years. It is, however, questionable whether the nature of these early changes constituted a revolution in the methods of war, and even more so whether guns had by 1500 made a great deal of impact on the character of war as it had existed in 1300. In assessing whether a revolution had taken place (or at least whether one was in the process of happening) by 1500, it is necessary to examine three areas: the effectiveness of guns during the period; the extent of their use in conflicts; and finally the changes which resulted from the employment of the new weapons in war. The first reliable sources which assert the existence of guns appeared in the 1320s, and from the late 1330s the number of references to them rose dramatically. The early guns were of large calibre and used almost exclusively for sieges, although as early as Crà ©cy in 1346, the English â€Å"fired off some cannons which they had brought to the battle to frighten the Genoese.† Guns were made in one of two ways. Firstly, there were cast metal guns, usually of bronze, which were made at the foundry. These were usually the better weapons because they were made of a single piece of metal and therefore were less likely to burst apart on firing. The second method was arranging wrought iron strips into tubes which were then bound together with iron hoops in much the same way as barrels were made. The advantage of these guns was that iron was a much cheaper metal than bronze (but could not be cast), but being made of many pieces faults were more likely to develop, causing either the release of explosive pressure through the sides of the barrel and therefore a reduction in the power of the shot, or even the complete bursting of the gun. This structural weakness was compounded by the inclusion of a detachable breech (such guns were far easier to build) which often detached itself on the discharging of the weapon. Despite their lack of quality, however, iron guns were the more numerous due to their comparative cheapness, although smaller guns tended to be made chiefly from bronze both because of the difficulties of constructing small guns from iron  strips, and because they required less metal than the great bombards. The sizes and types multiplied from their modest beginnings until there were guns ranging in size and type from great bombards used for reducing entire cities, to handguns used as anti-personnel weapons. The early role played by artillery was in sieges, where its effectiveness was soon widely appreciated. â€Å"Broadly speaking, the use of guns meant that sieges could be brought to a conclusion much more quickly.† Cannons, with the ability to throw stones with great force over a flatter trajectory and with more accuracy than the old siege engines, could bring an end to a siege in a few weeks where previously it might have taken several months. In 1437, the castle of Castelnau-de-Cernà ¨s was â€Å"broken down during the said siege by cannon and engines, and a great part of the walls of the same thrown to the ground, so that it was in no way defensible against the king’s enemies.† On occasion, the mere presence of bombards could be enough to induce swift surrender, cities preferring capitulation to large-scale destruction by cannon fire. As artillery was added to armies in increasing amounts during the 1400s, wars became far more fast-moving affairs. The French employed artillery on a large scale in reducing the English fortresses in Normandy and Gascony, while huge, cumbersome bombards were used to good effect by the Spanish in the Reconquista. Such was the effectiveness of artillery by 1500 that Machiavelli could declare that â€Å"No wall exists, however thick, that artillery cannot destroy in a few days.† The successes which the early guns had in siege warfare led to the bombard being a vital part of any country’s armoury. The use of the counterweight trà ©buchet, which had been in existence in Roman times, failed to decline until the 1380s and was still listed as an active weapon in some French arms inventories until the 1460s. This shows the gradual nature of the introduction of gunpowder artillery (perhaps caused by shortages of materials for the cannons or unwillingness to invest in them when a prince already owned trà ©buchets), but there was little doubt that guns were becoming by far the better siege weapons. Their importance gave rise to a kind of ‘arms race’ in France in particular, with cities in the contested areas of the Hundred Years War assigning the acquisition of guns a high  priority. Charles the Bold’s army included a substantial artillery element in his war with the Swiss (although he was perhaps not a good enough general to make effective use of it), while in 1494, Charles VIII invaded Italy with â€Å"†¦an army of 18,000 men and a horse-drawn siege-train of at least forty guns. Even contemporaries realised that this marked a new departure in warfare: in 1498 the Venetian Senate declared that ‘the wars of the present time are influenced more by the force of bombards and artillery than by men at arms’.† Despite their undoubted worth, however, artillery did have a number of disadvantages at this time. Perhaps the main one of these is the chronic difficulty of moving the heavy guns, especially over land. Philip the Good of Burgundy experienced such problems in his war with Ghent in 1452-3: â€Å"Such was the weight of a great bombard which he borrowed from the town of Mons that all the bridges between Mons and Lille had to be strengthened with iron supports for its passage. During the journey, the gun fell into a ditch, and took two days to be extricated by men using lifting equipment specially constructed for the purpose.† Transport was easier by river, but clearly this limited the movement of the artillery. It is partly because of these transport problems that artillery (with the exception of handguns) was used little during open field battles. Particularly when manoeuvring was of critical importance to an army, the last thing a commander would want would be to have to wait for the artillery, which would be slower than the rest of his force, and be unlikely to be able to move away from roads. Due to a lack of enthusiasm for such a cumbersome battlefield weapon, field artillery developed little in the early days of gunpowder, and the large cannons which were used on battlefields tended to be immobile siege guns which had been hastily adapted. Not only did the lack of mobility of cannons cause problems for armies on the march, but it also restricted their usefulness on the battlefield itself. The absence of effective gun carriages meant that artillery tended to be fixed rather than able to be aimed, the guns being mounted on wooden frames or simply positioned on mounds of earth. Their slow rate of fire (not only because of the time taken to load them, but because it took time for the  guns to cool down between shots) and their limited range at this time was another weakness, which led to them being easily overrun. Soldiers could wait at the limit of the guns’ range until the first salvo had been fired, then charge, reaching them well before the next shots could be fired, and disable the guns. The weaknesses of artillery on the battlefield were such that, â€Å"Even during the second half of the fifteenth century cannons were only used occasionally in pitched battles.† Handguns were of more use on the battlefield, having none of the transport problems of the heavy artillery and having a great deal in common with the crossbow, a weapon of proven worth. Like the crossbow, the handgun was a specialised anti-personnel weapon, and was ideal for firing at large exposed masses of soldiers where it could inflict considerable damage. The advantages which handguns had over crossbows was their superior hitting power, (of which Pope Pius II remarked, â€Å"No armour can withstand the blow of this torment, and even oaks are penetrated by it,†) and their relative cheapness due to the simplicity of their construction. As their accuracy improved and the numbers of trained marksmen increased, they came to supersede the crossbows in European armies, but by 1500 this process was by no means complete, the two weapons frequently working side-by-side in battles. While the slow rate of fire of handguns meant they could not stand independently in battle and needed the support of troops armed with close-combat weapons, they became an accepted auxiliary weapon in many armies. Despite the increased use of gunpowder weapons in battle, they were by no means always successful. Superiority in artillery was no guarantee of victory, as Charles the Bold discovered at Grandson and Morat in 1476. At Agincourt, the French gunners were pushed to one side by their own men at arms and played no significant role in the course of the battle. There are, however, examples of the successes of guns in battle, hinting at the success they were to achieve in the future. The Battle of Castillon in 1453 showed the devastating effects of crossfire: â€Å"Talbot imprudently attacked the [French] camp which led to the intervention of the French battery commanded by Giraud de Samian, a highly respected cannoneer. ‘He grievously injured  them because with each shot five or six fell dead to the ground’.† With the increased use of guns, deaths and injuries caused by them came to be recorded in greater number: â€Å"In 1442, John Payntour, an English esquire, was killed by a culverin shot at La Rà ©ole. Four years previously, Don Pedro, brother of the king of Castile, had been decapitated by a gunshot during the siege of the castle of Capuana at Naples†¦In April 1422, one Michael Bouyer, esquire, was languishing in prison at Meaux, ‘gravely ill and mutilated in one of his legs by a cannon shot, in such a way that he cannot aid himself’†¦It was becoming obvious that the gun could not only batter down fortifications, but could kill, and kill selectively from afar.† It is clear that by 1500, guns had come to be an everyday part of European armies. While the use of firearms on the battlefield tended to be limited to handguns, these were gradually replacing the older bows as the main auxiliary shot weapon. Cannons had made a huge impact on the conduct of siege warfare, bringing sieges to an end comparatively swiftly, and becoming indispensable in great armies. Although there were bound to be initial troubles with what was after all a relatively new weapon, notable successes were being recorded, especially in sieges, and the gun was definitely here to stay. To constitute a revolution, though, the growing use of such weapons would have to have changed not only the methods of making war, but also the outcome and the character of conflicts. What, then, were the consequences of the increased use of gunpowder? One of the largest series of changes happened in the area where the new guns were at their most effective, that of siege warfare. The advantages which a defending army could gain by hiding within fortifications had been understood for a long time. During the ‘High Middle Ages’, the war zones of Western Europe had become studded with castles and forts, and wars came to be characterised not by swift manoeuvre and open field battles, but more through long, drawn-out sieges. The failure of an attacking army to take a castle was likely to cause it a great deal of problems. If bypassed by an army, a defending garrison could retake control of the surrounding countryside from its secure central base and conduct raids on the enemy’s army and supplies (especially as fortifications tended to be located at  communications centres). Failure to take a large number of castles could result in their garrisons uniting to form an army capable of defeating the enemy force in the open field. In short, territory could not be conquered without gaining control of the fortifications within it. The effect of the introduction of effective siege guns with the capability of breaching the walls of castles was to bring the advantage in siege warfare away from defence and more towards the attacking force. With guns able to bring about the capitulation of fortresses within a few weeks or even a few days, there was a diminishing prospect of the defending country being able to organise an army in time to relieve the besieged. It would seem that the introduction of cannons had, for a time at least, called into question the efficacy of defence by small, dispersed garrisons defending fortifications. Had the use of siege guns not produced a defensive reaction, it seems possible that the castle could have been made redundant and defensive armies driven to do battle in the open field on equal terms with their adversaries. Attacking innovation, however, did produce defensive reaction, which in turn provoked counter-reaction from besiegers, and this greatly altered the nature of siege warfare during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Guns, of course, were not exclusively weapons of attack. Defensive firearms were an early experiment which had some effect in maintaining some sort of defensability of fortifications in two ways. Firstly, by firing at the besieging army from the castle walls, defensive marksmen and cannoneers could take advantage of the short range of early guns by making it very hard to position bombards close enough to the walls to cause damage. By refusing to give the besieging army the freedom to position guns wherever they liked, the defenders could in this way keep the enemy at ‘arms length’. The second way in which guns could be used to defend fortifications was not to defend the walls from destruction by cannon fire, but to provide crossfire against enemy troops when the time came for them to attempt to storm the castle, a function which crossbows were able to perform, but were of inferior effectiveness and more expensive than handguns. This use of defensive firearms caused changes in the way in which attackers  approached sieges. Guns being fired into the besiegers’ camp necessitated the greater use of cover, in particular for the bombards which were placed nearest to the castle walls for much of the siege. To this end, trenches were dug and wooden shields or hoardings were constructed to protect the soldiers and their guns. Trenches provided some degree of effective protection against most weapons, while the hoardings gave protection to the guns, which usually had to be positioned in more exposed locations in order that they could target the walls before them, against everything but powerful firearms. â€Å"Jean de Bueil could advocate the siting of a besieger’s camp before a beleaguered fortress on the model of the fortified entrenchments dug at Maulà ©on, Guissen, Cherbourg, Dax, and Castillon fifteen years before. Trenches, he wrote, were to be dug from one part of the siege to another, covered by hoardings. Ease of contact and movement between the units of the encircling forces could thus be ensured.† Further success could be gained by the besieging forces by employing not only large bombards to break down the walls, but also smaller guns to pick off individual defending troops. This would not only prevent defensive gunners from having the luxury of completely free shots at their enemies, but would limit the effectiveness of attempts to repair breaches in the walls. The use of guns in both attack and defence produced perhaps the biggest changes in siege warfare in the form of changes to the fortifications themselves. The castles which existed before the widespread use of cannons were ill-suited to withstand the accurate and powerful impact of cannonballs. Trebuchà ©ts had been of more use in lobbing stones over the walls to cause damage inside castles than in actually causing breaches, and so the walls were built tall and flat so as to be better able to resist being scaled by soldiers. Such walls provided a large target for cannon fire, and their flatness meant that the full force of the shot was directed straight into them. Rather than rebuild entire castles, lords were often forced through reasons of cost to opt for the next-best solution of adaptation. Scarping the walls with banks of earth or masonry was tried in an attempt both to thicken the walls, and to turn the blows of cannons into more glancing shots, with the added bonus that sloping walls meant that siege ladders became ineffective. While it was a sound theory to avoid  square-on impacts from cannonballs, scarping was of limited value, and where this was an adaptation to an older castle, in many cases it weakened the walls by placing extra weight on them. Gunports were a further adaptation to fortifications which occurred as a result of the introduction of guns. These were holes put in the walls of the castles, often where arrow slits had been, to allow small guns to be fired from a position of relative safety. They were frequently positioned in the towers or gatehouses of castles to provide flanking fire along the walls where it was anticipated any attacking soldiers would have to stop before being able to push on into the castle. This modification was quite cheap and easy to put in place, and was used across Europe. One method of improving the efficacy of defensive fire both against attacking troops and forces sitting back and besieging was the greater use of defensive outworks built of earth or masonry. Not only could this ‘forward defensive’ strategy force enemy guns further back from the castle proper, but it also provided a further opportunity to enfilade soldiers as they advanced. Boulevards or artillery towers could be built in ditches forward of the walls with a clear line of fire along the trench. As the enemy soldiers advanced, they would have to spend time negotiating the ditch during which the fire from the outworks could take its toll. â€Å"At Dax, Guissen and Cadillac, in 1449 and 1451, the French encountered heavy resistance from such outer works constructed by the defenders.† The ultimate defence against besiegers armed with guns, though, was the fortification based on the angled bastion. It was this defence which was coming increasingly into use by 1500 which decisively swung the balance of power back in favour of the defenders. The bastion was essentially a gun platform for siting heavy guns which needed the freedom to be turned and fired against the enemy camp wherever it was in relation to the castle, a freedom which could not be obtained firing through gunports. These towers were thrust forward of the walls to keep the enemy back and were built the same height as the rest of the castle (unlike traditional towers), perhaps to facilitate the movement of guns around the walls, or perhaps because of the high cost of taller towers. The entire structure was squat, making it a smaller target and allowing the guns at the top of the walls to maintain fire at targets close to the foot of the fortification, and scarped to produce more glancing blows from cannonballs. This last objective was also achieved by projecting the bastions at a different angle to the rest of the wall, so that in effect only the wall would receive square-on blows. It could be said that round castles and round towers would present no flat surfaces to be hit squarely, but to build such fortifications would make flanking fire along the walls at best difficult. Round bastions were built, but left dead ground where guns could not reach, while entire castles built on a circular model would need many projecting towers to provide fire along the walls. With the angled bastion, fire could be given along the entire base of the tower from guns positioned in the walls, while fire along the walls could be provided from gunports in alcoves in the bastion. It seemed for a while that the destructive power of cannons would lead to a decisive shift towards the attackers in siege warfare which would perhaps bring an end to the dominant role of fortifications in warfare. However, defensive tactics adapted to the situation in a number of ways, ensuring the survival of the castle and the siege. It can be said, though, that although the nature of warfare overall was not changed, the nature of sieges changed significantly as a result of the use by both attackers and defenders of gunpowder weapons, and because a new type of castle had been born. If guns provided a temporary revolution in the balance of sieges, then the bastion was equally as revolutionary in restoring the old balance. â€Å"By resisting the new artillery and providing platforms for heavy guns [the bastion] revolutionised the defensive-offensive pattern of warfare.† While cannons produced many changes in the conduct of sieges, changes of similar magnitude cannot be seen in open field warfare. Cannons, lacking effective carriages to allow them to keep pace with their armies and to manoeuvre on the battlefield, were little used until the late fifteenth century. Handguns, despite coming to be as accepted a weapon as the crossbow, failed to produce any noteworthy changes. Possessing greater hitting power than the crossbow, but similar weaknesses, including slow rate  of fire, they were unable to establish themselves as anything more than an auxiliary weapon. While the Swiss were to use handguns in their successful pike square formations, their role could be (and often was) performed equally well by crossbowmen, and European armies continued to be based on knightly cavalry and close-combat infantry. The handgun of the fifteenth century was simply another auxiliary shot weapon, and, â€Å"The arquebus, or match-lock musket, did not finally oust the crossbow from French armies until 1567.† Nonetheless, the importance of guns increased during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries until they became an essential part of major wars. One of the results of this was to make war a much more large-scale thing in terms of money, and to put serious warfare (involving conquest and therefore sieges) out of reach of the pockets of anybody but princes. Artillery was very expensive. â€Å"It was one thing, in accordance with ancient ways, to expect a man at arms to come to the host equipped with his own horses and armour, but no one, in the new conditions of war, expected a master of artillery to provide his own cannon.† On a national level, the introduction of guns further widened the gap in military potential between rich and poor countries, underlining the superiority of countries like France over countries like the Italian states. It can be asked to what extent gunpowder weapons revolutionised notions of chivalry and whether the attitudes of people altered as a result of their experiences of the new guns. There is a good deal of late mediaeval literature which shows that many people despised them. They were an indiscriminate weapon which had no respect for social status, meaning that princes could now be killed from afar by peasants and artisans. This went against the traditional chivalric notion of individual combat among equals. Guns were also seen as cowardly, because of the belief that the gunner, hiding behind the smoke from his gun, did not put himself in mortal danger by firing, yet could still take the lives of others. Many saw guns as being instruments of the devil, with the noise and fire created being seen as having come from Hell itself. A popular attitude during the early days of guns in Europe is shown by Cervantes when he wrote, blessed be those happy  ages that were strangers to the dreadful fury of these devilish instruments of artillery, whose inventor I am satisfied is now in Hell, receiving the reward of his cursed invention, which is cause that very often a cowardly base hand takes away the life of the bravest gentleman; and that in the midst of that vigour and resolution which animates and inflames the bold, a chance bullet (shot perhaps by one who fled, and was frightened by the very flash the mischievous piece gave, when it went off) coming nobody knows how, or from where, in a moment puts a period to the brave designs and the life of one that deserved to have survived many years†¦ It is unlikely, however, that this attitude was held by the majority of people at the time. Shot weapons were nothing new, and had been in existence and used on a large scale for many years. There was little difference between a knight being killed by an arquebus or by a longbow. The large-scale use of guns by most European armies demonstrates that while there might have been some degree of chauvinism against firearms, princes were still quite prepared to use them, and indeed the church positively encouraged their use at a time when the Turkish threat to Christendom was increasing. There is little evidence that captured gunners were treated any differently to any other captured commoners (and by 1500 it was by no means guaranteed that gunners would not in fact be noble), and overall, society had little difficulty in accepting the place of artillery in modern warfare. Guns were ‘domesticated’ and given names, taking on characters of their own, and, â€Å"By the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the early modern era, gunpowder weaponry had simply become a feature of everyday life. Guns had become so conventional that they began to be used in celebrations, in fashion, and in crime. Ultimately, guns even became virility symbols.† This growing acceptance represents in part a change in attitudes brought about by the realisation that guns were of considerable use, but mainly it is a result of the rather superficial nature of chivalry at that time. There was a tendency for people only to behave according to the rules of chivalry when either it suited them to or when they could afford to. Princes, when faced with an adversary armed with artillery could not afford to confine themselves to criticising such ‘bad sportsmanship’ but had to respond in kind, an option which they were more than willing to take. In assessing whether gunpowder’s introduction caused revolutionary changes in Europe before 1500, it is necessary not only to examine the specific changes which arose, but moreover to assess whether warfare in 1300 had significantly changed in character by 1500 as a result of the use of guns. The answer to this has to be a definite no. The armies of 1500 made extensive use of guns, but these had not revolutionised the makeup of armed forces. The dominance of cavalry had persisted throughout the two centuries, and its only serious challenge had come in the late fifteenth century with the pike square, which by no means relied on guns. While the use of cannons had transformed the methods used in conducting sieges, only temporarily had there been the prospect of altering the nature of war away from the innumerable fortress battles which characterised the period. Gunpowder weapons had failed to bring an end to the siege as an important aspect of war, and could only act as a supplem entary weapon on the battlefield. Overall, despite the numerous changes which the increasing use of guns had caused, it is possible to agree with J. R. Hale’s assertion: â€Å"Gunpowder, in short, revolutionised the conduct but not the outcome of wars.†

History Quiz †Western Civilization to Middle Ages Essay

Introduction HIS100 History of Western Civilization to Middle Ages Lesson 5 Quiz This assignment is worth a total of 60 points. Please make sure you have answered all questions prior to submitting. Once you click the submit button, you will not be able to return to this section. Question 1 of 60 What type of columns does the Parthenon have? | Alsacian| | Ionic| | Corinthian| | Doric| Question 2 of 60 In 490 B.C.E. the Athenians defeated the Persians at the Battle of | Plataea.| | Miltiades.| | Marathon.| | Miletus.| Question 3 of 60 Which of the following was NOT true of the 490 B.C.E. Athenian victory over the Persians? | It convinced the Greeks of their cultural superiority over barbarians.| | It ended Persian hopes of successfully invading Greece.| | It established the superiority of the hoplite and phalanx.| | It promoted the democratic reforms of Cleisthenes.| Question 4 of 60 Members of Darius I’s elite guard were known as the â€Å"immortals† because their numbers always remained at 10,000 | True| | False| Question 5 of 60 After Darius I died, his son _____ took over. | Leonidas| | Darius II| | Themistocles| | Xerxes| Question 6 of 60 He was the Spartan king responsible for defending the pass at Thermopylae during the second Persian invasion. | Miliades| | Xerxes| | Leonidas| | Themistocles| Question 7 of 60 Which of the following BEST describes the military history of the Persian Wars? | Greek unity was crucial in the military success over Persia.| | Sparta was solely responsible for the Greek victory.| | Spartan land forces and Athenian sea forces were superior to the much larger Persian armies and navies.| | Darius’ army was defeated by a plague, not by the Greeks.| Question 8 of 60 When the Athenian and Attica population reached its height at 350,000, less than 60,000 were citizens | True| | False| Question 9 of 60 Approximately what proportion of the population of Athens and surrounding Attica were slaves? | One-third| | One-fourth| | One-half| | Three-fifths| Question 10 of 60 He was the great historian of the Persian Wars. | Sophocles| | Thucydides| | Herodotus| | Aeschylus| Question 11 of 60 Which of the following MOST accurately describes the role of women in fifth century B.C.E. Athens? | They had full equality with Athenian males.| | They led public lives and controlled the household economy.| | They were dominated in the household yet played active roles in politics.| | They were excluded from public life and had limited power in the home.| Question 12 of 60 In fifth century Athens, most of the leaders came from the | ranks of the ostracized.| | aristocracy.| | rural population of farmers.| | ranks of the metics.| Question 13 of 60 Because Athenian political offices changed frequently and were filled by lot, leadership was often provided by | ekklesia.| | boule.| | consorteria.| | demagogues.| Question 14 of 60 Athenian democracy reached its peak under the leadership of | Herodotus.| | Pericles.| | Solon.| | Draco.| Question 15 of 60 Pericles did all of the following to achieve political influence EXCEPT | speak effectively in public.| | rely on the support of the aristocracy who tended to dominate political office.| | serve as general for the Athenian ekklesia.| | sponsor public works projects that employed the poor.| Question 16 of 60 Initially, Athens defeated Sparta but lost a fleet in this region, leading to open rebellion by Megara and Sparta. | Italy| | Persia| | Crete| | Egypt| Question 17 of 60 Pericles redirected foreign policy from | anti-Persian to anti-Spartan.| | aggressive imperialism to neutrality.| | neutrality to aggressive anti-imperialism.| | pro-Persian to pro-Spartan.| Question 18 of 60 The Peloponnesian War was PRIMARILY fought between | Athens and Persia.| | Athens and Sparta.| | Corinth and Athens.| | Sparta and Persia.| Question 19 of 60 Even though Persia lost the Persian wars, it ultimately gained some influence in Greek affairs by allying with _______ in the Peloponnesian Wars. | Athens| | Sparta| | Corinth| | Syracuse| Question 20 of 60 This Athenian politician offered an alliance with Persia in return for replacing the Athenian democracy with an oligarchy. | Lysander| | Alcibiades| | Pericles| | Themistocles| Question 21 of 60 This controversial Athenian philosopher searched for moral self-enlightenment by questioning all who claimed to possess wisdom. | Aristotle| | Plato| | Socrates| | Sophocles| Question 22 of 60 He wrote the first true history in his book of â€Å"inquiries† discussing the conflicts between the Greeks and Persians. | Herodotus| | Socrates| | Sophocles| | Thucydides| Question 23 of 60 He is known as â€Å"the father of history.† | Aristotle| | Thucydides| | Socrates| | Herodotus| Question 24 of 60 He wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War. | Herodotus| | Thucydides| | Socrates| | Dionysus| Question 25 of 60 He could be called the first political scientist. | Herodotus| | Plato| | Thucydides| | Darius| Question 26 of 60 All of the following were Athenian playwrights EXCEPT | Aeschylus.| | Aristophanes.| | Thucydides.| | Euripides.| Question 27 of 60 He wrote Antigone. | Aristophanes| | Aeschylus| | Euripides| | Sophocles| Question 28 of 60 He wrote Lysistrata. | Aristophanes| | Aeschylus| | Euripides| | Sophocles| Question 29 of 60 The style achieved by the Athenian sculptor Phidias can BEST be described as | seeking naturalism and realism in the idealized human figure.| | abandoning the human form in favor of geometric symbolism.| | abandoning idealism in favor of accurate portraiture.| | restoring the Egyptian tradition of kouros.| Question 30 of 60 The greatest architectural and sculptural compositions of antiquity were the temples on the acropolis in Athens | True| | False| Question 31 of 60 Every surface of the Parthenon has a slight curve | True| | False| Question 32 of 60 After victory in the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans | continued to attack Persia.| | immediately retreated to their homes.| | provoked opposition throughout the Greek world.| | emerged as popular leaders of the Greek world.| Question 33 of 60 He was Plato’s teacher. | Sophocles| | Aristophanes| | Aristotle| | Socrates| Question 34 of 60 Which best describes Plato’s political views? | He was satisfied with the government as it existed in Athens during his life.| | He suggested a balance between democracy and oligarchy.| | He advocated creation of a government ruled by a philosopher.| | He demanded an increased democratization of the constitution.| Question 35 of 60 Plato’s philosophy emphasized | an ideal world of eternal forms.| | the experience of pleasure.| | the existence of atomic particles.| | research based on observations in the material world.| Question 36 of 60 Which of the following BEST describes Aristotle’s philosophy? | Man can know nothing.| | One should submit to fate and one’s role in it.| | Systematic observation yields valid general theories.| | He had little faith in moderate views.| Question 37 of 60 The kingdom that moved into the power vacuum created when Athens, Sparta, and Thebes fought each other was | Egypt.| | Messenia.| | Persia.| | Macedonia.| Question 38 of 60 He murdered his way to the throne of Macedonia. | Alexander| | Philip I| | Philip II| | Philip III| Question 39 of 60 Philip II formed this in 338 B.C.E., uniting the Greek city-states after his victory at Chaeronea. | The Peloponnesian League| | The League of Corinth| | The Macedonian League| | The Delian League| Question 40 of 60 Alexander carefully unraveled the Gordium knot, thus becoming master of all Europe | True| | False| Question 41 of 60 Alexander’s conquests took him as far east as modern | Iran.| | Burma.| | China.| | India.| Question 42 of 60 Alexander’s main political objective was to | merge local and Greek peoples and traditions to create a lasting empire.| | punish the Persians for invading Greece.| | take as much treasure as possible back to Macedonia.| | maintain separation between Greek and local populations.| Question 43 of 60 Alexander the Great died at the ripe old age of 62 | True| | False| Question 44 of 60 During Hellenistic ties, the language of the empire was | Farsi.| | Koine.| | Ptolematic.| | Hellenic.| Question 45 of 60 Until the second century B.C.E., Greeks indentified themselves by their city of origin | True| | False| Question 46 of 60 In Egypt, some of the Ptolemys adopted the Egyptian tradition of royal marriages between brothers and sisters | True| | False| Question 47 of 60 In the Hellenistic cities, women | often fought in war.| | were restricted in both public and private life.| | enjoyed fewer liberties than their Greek counterparts.| | assumed a greater role in public life and property ownership.| Question 48 of 60 This city was famous for the greatest library of the ancient world. | Alexandria| | Athens| | Corinth| | Memphis| Question 49 of 60 He was the acknowledged master of the short, witty epigram. | Menander| | Antiochus| | Callimachus| | Theocritus| Question 50 of 60 Which of the following was NOT a Hellenistic writer? | Menander| | Antiochus| | Callimachus| | Theocritus| Question 51 of 60 Which of the following schools of philosophy was NOT prevalent during the Hellenistic period? | Stoicism| | Epicureanism| | Cynicism| | Existentialism| Question 52 of 60 He established the cynic tradition. | Antisthenes| | Socrates| | Zeno| | Diogenes| Question 53 of 60 He was the founder of stoicism. | Antisthenes| | Socrates| | Zeno| | Diogenes| Question 54 of 60 They believed that true happiness consists in freely accepting one’s role. | Stoics| | Epicureans| | Cynics| | Existentialists| Question 55 of 60 He wrote Elements, the fundamental textbook on geometry. | Aeschylus| | Archimedes| | Euclid| | Pythagoras| Question 56 of 60 He calculated the approximate value of pi. | Aeschylus| | Archimedes| | Euclid| | Pythagoras| Question 57 of 60 Some of the technological inventions of the Hellenistic world were water pumps, the screw, a copy machine, a water clock, and the odometer | True| | False| Question 58 of 60 Who was the leader of Athens during its â€Å"Golden Age†? | Pericles| | Solon| | Aeschylus| | Socrates| Question 59 of 60 He is known as the â€Å"father of medicine.† | Pythagoras| | Hippocrates| | Homer| | Hesiod| Question 60 of 60 He wrote The Republic. | Homer| | Plato| | Socrates| | Sophocles| Perception is licensed to Rio Salado CollegeCopyright  © 2013 Rio Salado College. All Rights Reserved. Bottom of Form