영작은 계속 된다

There is a major difference between the British army and Zulu army. Because of their economic status Zulu army was a militia force although they had a strong warrior culture . In the movie the leader of Zulu mentioned a harvest, implying that while the Zulu were soldiers, they were also hunter-gatherers and farmers. These warriors were great in individual melee combat but they responded poorly to leadership in a tactical environment.
In contrast, the british red coat was the highly trained and organized standing army. As I saw in the movie, leaders could lead them with elaborate tactics with small groups or large groups. Highly industralized society made it available because soldiers didn't have to worry about harvest, hunting, gathering.


It is obvious that in the war standing army can perform better than moblized army or militia. But the red coat lost. Zulu army used simple and straightforward tatics to beat British army. They used their mass to suppress British infantries and maneuvered to encircle them. I think this is one of few ways milita force can defeat highly organized standing army. The guerilla warfare is included in those few ways. The problem is that, it couldn't be used every major battles.

 

앞부분은 조금 고쳤는데 루디님이 지적해주신 건 아직 다 못 고쳤다능...ㅠㅠ

 

굽신굽신

레드 코드가 패배했다와 줄루가 간단한 전략 썼다는 사이에 연결해줄 말이 필요
대충 the reason is~~~로 연결하던가 하면 될듯?
마지막줄에 couldn't be used "in" major battles.

I think this is 라는 표현도 좀
I think that is one of few ways~~로 하는게 이쁘지 않을까여
That과 be동사 생략이 되나.. 제대로 된 영어문법 공부 안한지가 쫌 되서 걍 느낌상으로