Geoffrey Parker’s book The Military Revolution argues that four military developments allowed the West (Europe) to become a hedgemonger. Parker builds on the arguments of Michael Roberts, who first coined the term “military revolution”. Roberts argued that this revolution was caused by an increasing prominence of firepower, a growth in army size, complex strategies to utilize large armies, and an increased impact of war on society between 1500-1800. Parker describes criticisms of Robert’s work, such as neglecting attention to naval developments, siege warfare, parallel and independent changes made in armies, and exaggerating the impact of some reforms. According to Parker, increased importance of firepower led to new tactics offensively and …show more content…
This increased importance of artillery led to the formation of the trace italienne, a fort with pointed extensions called bastions which made artillery fire challenging. As siege warfare developed, so did field warfare. In the words of Parker, “Tactics which relied on brute force.gave way to the use of firepower.It was in this context that the increased reliance on missiles that the attractions of the gun became obvious.” Armies also increased in size, leading to logistical economic challenges involving providing for soldiers. Along with these developments in the formation and tactics of siege and field warfare, the navy was becoming more prominent in the European military. The rivalry between Atlantic states created battle fleets that were numerous and designed to pursue objectives abroad. This allowed for European conquest of the New World. Parker also argues that the lack of walled cities in most of America besides the Aztec and Inca Empires facilitated initial conquest. Overall, the conquered peoples had become familiar with the innovations of this “revolution” far too
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?
Guy Sajer’s The Forgotten Soldier is a work notable not only for its vivid and uncompromising account of his experience as a member of the Wehrmacht in World War II, but also for its subtle and incisive commentary about the very nature of war itself. What is perhaps most intriguing about Sajer’s novel is his treatment of the supposedly “universal” virtues present within war such as professionalism, patriotism, camaraderie, and self-sacrifice. Sajer introduces a break between how war is thought about in the abstract and how it has actually been conducted historically.
Stewart R. W. (2005). American Military History (Vol. 1). The United States Army and the
Author Geoffrey Parker is a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Parker specializes in military history concerning the early modern period in Europe, along with interest in the military revolution of that period. Some of the other publicated works of Parker are; Military Revolution, 1560-1660 - A Myth?, The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567-1659 and Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century. However, Parker is widely recognized for his work on the military revolution during the early modern period. His work entitled The Military Revolution; Military innovation and the rise of the West. 1500-1800 is a historical narrative that sought to illuminate the principles
Ever since The Revolutionary War, The American Colonies against the The United Kingdom, people have changed the way they've fought. Using strategic plans of fighting and going against many rules of war. In the book The Rifle John Byam ,a character in book, fights in The Revolutionary War and uses his rifle that he had bought. John used and different way of fighting then the British, traditional way. This essay will cover why and what are the rules of war, old styles of fight wars (primarily the British way) and how new styles of fighting fighting in war started in the American Revolution to today and how John Byam, from The Rifle, used new ways of fighting and how his gun was perfect for him.
Newark, Timothy. Turning the Tide of War: 50 Battles That Changed the Course of Modern History. London: Hamlyn, 2001. 112-15. Print.
Murray, Wiliamson. "The Industrialization of War." In The Cambridge History of Warfare, edited by Geoffrey Parker, 227. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
In his book, My Fellow Soldiers, Andrew Carroll tells the story of World War I through the eyes of the American participants. He uses quotes, personal letters and diaries, from an array of characters, to depict a day in the life of a WWI warrior. Though, he narrows his focus on the untold story of General John J. Pershing, a US army leader. He uniquely talks about the General's vulnerable and emotional side. "Pershing was notoriously strong-willed, to the point of seeming cold, rigid, and humorless, almost more machine than man" (p.XVIII). Pershing is commonly recognized for his accomplishments during the war and remembered for his sternness. He was "…especially unforgiving when it came to matters of discipline" (p. XVIII). Nicknamed "Black Jack" due to his mercilessness towards his soldiers, in this book, Pershing is portrayed as a General with much determination and devotion to his troops, family, and close friends.
After 1871, the war atmosphere engendered by the secret alliances led to an armaments race among the powers. The race was particularly serious between 1900 and 1914, as the international situation became much worse than before. There was a significant rise in the army and naval estimates of the European powers in these years. All the Continental European powers had adopted the conscription system since 1870. Austria-Hungary had conscription since 1868 and Germany since 1870. Only Britain did not have conscription. After 1890, the deteriorating diplomatic relations among the powers accelerated their military expansion programme. Britain did not introduce conscription but had prepared her armed forces for both European expedition and for home defense. In general, all the powers increased their stocks of arms, produced more modern weapons of war and built more strategic railways. Britain and Germany were the chief rivals at sea. In the meantime, Britain produced her first Dreadnought. Dreadnoughts were large, fast and heavily armed battleships. They set a new standard in naval armaments and rendered all previous battleships obsolete. The naval race became intense. For centuries the powers of Europe had clashed over their competing interests around the globe. Du...
Introduction “Leaders have always been generalists”. Tomorrow’s leaders will, very likely, have begun life as specialists, but to mature as leaders they must sooner or later climb out of the trenches of specialization and rise above the boundaries that separate the various segments of society.” (Gardner, 1990, pg. 159). The. In a recent verbal bout with my History of the Military Art professor, I contended that the true might of a nation may be inversely proportional to the size of its military during peacetime.
Warfare was in a state of transition. Older commanders and generals in the French and British militaries were very cavalry and infantry focused. These commanders believed that cavalry, infantry, and artillery would assure victory in any circumstance, against any foe. They clung to the static tactics of the bygone World War I era. World War I had been fought primarily on French soil, and the military as well as the government never wanted that to happen again, therefore they wanted to reinforce their main border against any future German. Little did they know that only twenty two years later they would be bested by German forces in a way that would shock the world. This research will be analyzing many important assumptions, oversights,...
The Professor should have persuaded Peter and Susan to believe Lucy for three reasons: to fulfill the prophecy, it would be a good learning experience, it would teach the kids a lesson to know good from evil.
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...
As modern military historians debate on the founder of military strategy, two military theorists emerge in the period after the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic War: the Prussian Carl von Clausewitz and the Swiss Antoine-Henri Jomini. In modern military philosophy, the theoretical traditions established by each of these military theorist has significantly impacted our military thinking and their teaching has become essential in the education of modern military leaders. Clausewitz and Jomini have become required reading for today's military professional officer. Frequently, these military theorists are often presented as opposite each other in terms of military theory; however, these two individuals are mere contemporaries who approached the study of war from two separate positions and for different ambitions: one an attempt at a comprehensive analysis of war and the other a reduction of war to a set of prescriptive techniques for the conduct of war. In this great debate, military historians suggest a schism within the annals of military theory in the use of the terms “Clausewitzian” and “Jominian.” While these unfair characterizations served little purpose in this debate, this essay will demonstrate that Carl von Clausewitz deserves the title of Father of Modern Military Strategy.
Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 To 2000. London: Fontana Press, 1988.