[Grammar] When to omit indirect object

[mrmvp]

The teacher told me you have to omit the word "them" and "were" which are in red. Why I should omit them? Are they redundant or grammatically incorrect? and when to omit indirect object ?

One thousand soldiers were ready. After seven days, the king decided to march towards Persia and attack them during dawn. He had developed a terrific plan to conquer Persia. At the start of the battle, ten thousand scout cavalries had been ready on Persia's border, 50 thousand infantries were on the front lines,and the rest were on the back line.





Thank you.

 

[Tdol]

I would use attack at dawn. If we already know the name of the enemy, I don't see what is wrong with using them, but if this is the complete text, then I too would omit it. I would use there were 50,000 infantry on the front line(s).

 

[Lynxear]

I would eliminate "them" as well. It almost seems to me that "them" refers back to the one thousand soldiers. So I agree with Tdol that "attack at dawn" is better.

I don't like the last sentence at all.

"Ten thousand scout cavalries had been ready on Persia's border" is very confusing. Are they still ready? Where are the front and back lines, at the border?? How many does "the rest" refer to?

 

[mrmvp]

I would eliminate "them" as well. It almost seems to me that "them" refers back to the one thousand soldiers. So I agree with Tdol that "attack at dawn" is better.

I don't like the last sentence at all.

"Ten thousand scout cavalries had been ready on Persia's border" is very confusing. Are they still ready? Where are the front and back lines, at the border?? How many does "the rest" refer to?

Thank you.

I mentioned the details earlier in the story. Yes, they are on Persia's border. The rest refers to the army.