Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Industrial revolution and change in warfare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Industrial revolution and change in warfare
The advent of the revolution in the military affair in the period of 1450 and 1800 is believed to had been shaped by a number of reasons. All the reasons, that is to say, the invention of gunpowder, technology, trade, an increase in economy and different types of defensive fortifications are considered to have played an equal role in contributing the revolution in the military affair. However, some historians interpret the military revolution differently and have distinguished opinions towards the revolution from each other representing objections and disagreements. For example, Clifford J. Rogers points out that RMA-Revolution in Military Affair is simply a revolutionary change in how war is fought – a change that can be recognised by …show more content…
Well-built fortifications specifically designed for territories in warfare gave big opportunities to protect countries from attackers. Trace italienne was one of the most important fortifications, in Italy from 1450 to 1520, which had created massive struggles and difficulties to enemies to conquer a town or a city that eventually resulted in attacker countries having the ability to discover new strategies such as an increase in an army size so as to vanquish the towns or cities. A growth in army size showed much more strength than ever before. This provided the need to demolish any well-built towns or cities which consequently spread worldwide. Dutch prince Frederick Henry’s intention to besiege the town of ‘s Hertogenbosch could be a brilliant example of a change in the military affair of which expanded the size of his army exponentially; from 30,000 in 1620 to 58,000 in 1627, and to 128,877 in 1629 so as to defeat the town built in italienne position. Another evidence for the increase in army size can been seen by the inflation of the armies in various countries such as the army belonging to the Spanish Monarch (from 20,000 to 300,000), in Dutch Republic from 20,000 to 110,000, in England from 25,000 to 87,000 in Sweden from 15,000 to 100,000 and in Russia from 35,000 to 170,000 between 1470s and 1700s. Subsequently, the rapid significant increase …show more content…
The rapid advancement of multiple technologies in Europe and in various states led to the invention of gunpowder which was a fuel to drive the further big military changes. Gunpowder artillery is one of them which brought the ability to demolish castles and fortified towns as they no longer gave the protection from attackers. As gunpowder artillery goes spread the military tactics of countries had seen drastic modifications as the use of this weapon gave more opportunities to win a battle. The technology was not limited with only this gunpowder artillery but also led to the invention of the flintlock which was a far better substitute weapon to the matchlock. This weapon brought big changes in military and warfare in Europe like gunpowder artillery. For example, the European fusiliers had learned the skill and tactic to deal with heavy cavalry through the utilization of the flintlock which brought an end to the existence of the pikemen. Also, this led to an increase in the use of firepower and manoeuvrability as well as a decline in the importance of cavalry. As a result of expanding the drill amongst troops by the transformation from matchlock to the flintlocks there emerged an increased number of the best trained and most-drilled troops who were distinctively better other armies. For example, at the battle of
1) The chapter 9, The Military Ascendancy, Mills discusses the increased presence of military personnel in high political positions. However, is this not what our country was founded on? Don’t we have a history of installing military personnel in almost all positions within our government? Only 12 of America’s 43 presidents have not served in the military, even congress has a larger percentage of veterans, compared to our population. Our history as a nation is built on military diplomacy, not professional diplomats. Have we not always used the “buddy-system” to leverage careers in politics? Why is this so surprising to Mills?
Moreover, he concurs with Roberts principles that attain to a replacement of weapons, army sizes, tactics and the implication of warfare on society. However in Parker’s book, The Military Revolution he contributes three revised principles towards Roberts conclusion. First, Parker argues that the innovations of gunpowder weapons forced European states to innovate their fortifications, thereby changing warfare from being fought on land to sieges and being fought for decisive purposes. Second, he asserts that warfare in the early modern period prompted European states to monopolize on the supply effort to recruit soldiers and feed their new armies. Parker’s third principle indicated that naval power; size of fleets, design of ship's, gun weapons and tactics played a pivotal role in the military revolution that allowed Europeans to conquer “35” percent of the world during the early modern
Lucia Raatma’s “The Battles of Lexington and Concord” is important because it describes why the battles were fought and their effects. The American Revolution as a whole was fought to “give colonies freedom from British rule” (Raatma 4) due to unfair taxation from King III of England (Raatma 8). This shows that the driving force of the revolution was the dissatisfaction of the colonists concerning the treatment they received from the king. As a result, the colonists had had enough of the unfairness and tyranny and decided to take matters into their own hands. Several acts of protests, such as the Boston Tea Party, made the British king “furious” (Raatma 10). As a response to these protests, the king sent more soldiers and made stricter laws, which only made colonists even more upset. The back and forth tension between the colonists and the British government was the reason why the Battle of Lexington and Concord occurred, and in turn, why the American Revolution began. The American Revolution caught attention from the entire world, giving the nickname to the first shot fired the “shot heard ‘round the world” (Raatma 5). The 13 colonies who were weak economically and militarily, were taking on Great Britain, a world power with a strong military, a situation which naturally other countries wanted to see. The firing of the first shot at Lexington marked the beginning of a revolution that other countries, such as France and Haiti, would soon attempt to mimic. There were several factors that contributed to the beginning of the revolution, which are significant around the world.
Gordon Wood’s Radicalism of the American Revolution is a book that extensively covers the origin and ideas preceding the American Revolution. Wood’s account of the Revolution goes beyond the history and timeline of the war and offers a new encompassing look inside the social ideology and economic forces of the war. Wood explains in his book that America went through a two-stage progression to break away from the Monarchical rule of the English. He believes the pioneering revolutionaries were rooted in the belief of an American Republic. However, it was the radical acceptance of democracy that was the final step toward independence. The transformation between becoming a Republic, to ultimately becoming a democracy, is where Wood’s evaluation of the revolution differs from other historians. He contributes such a transformation to the social and economic factors that faced the colonists. While Gordon Wood creates a persuasive argument in his book, he does however neglect to consider other contributing factors of the revolution. It is these neglected factors that provide opportunity for criticism of his book.
Gordon S. Wood, in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, discusses what it means to be truly revolutionary. In this work, Wood shares his thoughts on the Revolutionary War and whether or not it was a movement radical enough to be considered an honest revolution. Wood discusses the reasoning behind the views of those in favor of the war being considered radical, as well as the views of those who believe the American Revolution to be unfortunately misnamed. He claims that “the Revolution was the most radical and most far- reaching event in American history.” Wood’s work is a valuable source for those studying the revolution because it redefines what it means to be radical, but the piece is also limited by the lack of primary information
By understanding these, one can come up with a working definition of revolution and the similarities between the two conflicts, which span over 150 years between the two. To understand both conflicts, one must first understand that revolution is not a single event. It is instead a process. The goal of revolution is the redistribution of wealth and economic power. In both cases the battles waged in both wars were waged for these reasons and in both cases the seeds for these revolutions had been planted long before the conflicts themselves.
The American Revolution and the Civil War have numerous similarities and differences even though they occurred almost 100 years apart. The American Revolution was a political upheaval during 1760’s and 1770’s, while the Civil War was a fight between a divided nation during the 1860’s regarding the subject of slavery. As Southerners held slaves captive and forced them to work against their will, the Colonists were held captive and forced to pay ridiculous taxes put in place by Britain. Similarities and differences from both the American Revolution and the Civil War can be seen through the cause of both wars, specific battles from each war, and the results of each war.
Michael Barone wrote the book Our First Revolution, which details how the Glorious Revolution was essentially the stepping stone for the American Revolution and the creation of the United States. The author argues that the removal of James II and the agreement that followed to give William and Mary a joint monarchy was the blueprint for the American Revolution. Furthermore, the book details the events leading to the Revolution of 1688, it compares Britain in the political and religious aspect to the rest of the European countries in the late 1600’s, the issues taking place in Britain that essentially led to the removal of James, but most importantly, it describes the immense influence it had in America almost a century later.
Up until the collapse of the Bronze Age, warfare was ruled by a chariot elite, who used their mobile platforms to better their enemies, either as battle taxis or as mobile archery platforms.2 These tactics were effective and utilized the weapons of their time effectively. However, it was around the time of the Bronze Age collapse that the slashing sword came into popularity. This weapon gave infantry an advantage over their restricted opponents, who could only stab with their pointed weapons. Coupled with the javelins ability to cripple horses and stop chariots, this new sword enabled less experienced warriors to fight more effectively.2 A swarm of infantry equipped with these weapons could therefore defeat a typical Bronze Age army of soldiers and chariots with relative
At the time of the American Revolution, no one could have predicted how successful the thirteen colonies would become. Not only did the colonies defeat anarchy, unite, and grow into the United States known today, but something more was achieved. Those early states created a free country filled with many cultures and peoples, brought together by a shared love for freedom. It was a new concept, yet it was mostly welcomed. The American Revolution changed American society economically, but was even more greatly altered politically and socially, as can be seen through numerous documents from those times.
On Revolution, a book Hannah Arendt published in 1963, after Eichmann’s trial. The book didn’t gain a lot of popularity at first due to the remarkable Eichmann in Jerusalem notability. On Revolution is a work of dichotomies. Arendt compared and differentiated between the French and the American Revolution. How one was successful and how the other was less successful according to her perspectives. To begin with, Arendt defines revolution as a new beginning, a novelty, an irresistible force, something that is unprecedented that cannot be controlled. She also stressed further more on this point that a revolution should have the ability to create something new that would result in more space of freedom. Arendt does not favor the liberal view of freedom, as it is the case in the American model: “pursuit of happiness”. Freedom, according to Arendt, is the freedom of participating in the political life, being an active member in politics instead of being partially active during the elections only. Arendt observed these revolutions and wanted to know what they signify. On Revolution is a narrative of the French and the American revolutions. The book received criticism and Arendt’s historical account came under-attack by historians and experts from the both side. The fact that she referred to the American Revolution as a revolution instead of calling it the war of independence stunned many. Hence not only her views and claims were problematic to some but also the title. In this paper, I’m going to argue and point out the differences between the French Revolution and the American Revolution in line with Arendt’s theory of revolution.
A great revolutionary once said, “The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.” The revolutionary in this quote, Che Guevara, epitomizes the notion that revolutions are not a random occurrence but rather a continuous push for a fundamental change. In the framework of revolutions that have occurred in the world, most notably those that have occurred in Britain, America, France, and Haiti; one realizes that the elements of competition and mass mobilization are intrinsic to understanding the successes of each revolutionary movement. Yet, the catalysts and societal implications for each of these revolutions provides different venues of implementation that separates it from others.
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a revolution is a “usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one.” The American Revolution resulted in “independence for thirteen of the British colonies in North America” (Foner and Garraty, 1991a). Acts such as the sugar act, the stamp act, and the tea act passed by British Parliament resulted in the “political, economic, cultural, and geographical” cataclysm that came to be known as the American Revolution because it angered the colonists, thus, resulting in rebellion and a need to separate the two governments (Yanak and Cornelison, 1993a).
1789 marked a historic year in the struggles against slavery in the French colony of Saint-Domingue. The French Revolution played an important part in influencing the Haitian Revolution of 1791; it gave way to the Haitian Revolution which consisted of many other separate revolutions that occurred at the same time. Saint-Domingue, now known as Haiti, had the most wealth in terms of crops that could be excavated by black slaves. Toussaint l’Overture was a former black slave who was forced to pick up these crops; little did he know he was the person who sparked the Haitian Revolution. Toussaint, the leader of the Revolution, was the first person to strike. He took on a white planter who was controlling slaves, on August 21, 1791. Many people during this time period wondered how and why this revolution took place, Michel-Rolph Trouillot even stated that it was unthinkable. In his book, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, Trouillot argues that the Haitian Revolution was and remains unimaginable today; the ideas of race and slavery are challenged, along with the ostracism of Haiti.
Gunpowder’s effect on the world can be exemplified through the grand changes in weapons. This can be shown through the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 by the English navy. In this sea battle, the Spanish Armada outnumbered the English navy immensely turning the odds against the English. However, the Spanish Armada still used old boarding tactics while the English used advanced weaponry. In the end, “the English used their superior firepower to whittle away the Spanish forces” (Schlager). The English navy's victory over the Spanish Armada illustrates the effects of the invention of gunpowder. With the successful usage of advanced gunpowder based weapons, the English navy crushed the opposition even when the Spanish Armada clearly had the upper hand. The defeat of the Spanish Armada shows that weapons based on gunpowder allowed countries with smaller armies to have a higher chance in winning their fights. The gunpowder weapons proved to be a tactical advant...