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
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
This reason for this report is to cover the Battle of Agincourt. The topics that will be discussed in this paper include: factors contributing to the Battle of Agincourt, the English forces, French forces, weapons and equipment, terrain (the effects it had on both armies), key battles prior to the Battle of Agincourt, the Battle of Agincourt, and the Battle of Agincourt in relation to selected principles of war.
The military since the Colonial Era has been an impetus for social reform in the United States. The Revolutionary War afforded Black Americans an opportunity to escape from the toils of slavery and fight for freedom. Some Black Americans even earned their freedom by fighting for the Colonists, but still the freedom they fought for wasn’t their own. However, the military was responsible for the freedom of many slaves and some of these freed slaves became legendary soldiers like Salem Poor. His performance in battle gave credibility for future arguments about blacks being allowed to serve.
In conclusion, the changes in the colonies were so significant that they seemed to create a completely different country. This was especially true with the ideas of an economic system, a common lifestyle, and religious diversity. The changes they made and became accustomed to, also began to change their political beliefs. This is what ultimately led to the war that people today are so accustomed to calling “the American Revolution”. According to John Addams, however, “The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people… years before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.”
During the late eighteenth century the colonies were in a fight for independence; a fight for a revolution from a government that had oppressed them, taxed them, and basically enslaved them. So why did the new government they were struggling to construct so closely resemble the government they detested to be under? Thirteen colonies all fighting against one common foe, however governing themselves would cause many obstacles within. The new government was being pieced together from the only political system they have even been a part of, a monarchy. As a result there was a severance between the people on how the government was to be run. Some felt it was too democratic while others opposed claiming it was not enough. Colonists really didn't have a choice in the matter. It was going to be a trial and error situation until they could agree how to govern the new world. Even with the Articles of Confederation established, many things were still unethical and people felt that the new government was no better then the government they condemned. In time the fight for independence would change many things however the "Revolution" of the new government was a slow process. Some aspects of Parliament remained leaving speculation to whether or not this was a revolution at all.
A revolution, by definition, is the overthrow of one government followed by replacement with another. The American Revolution against the British during 1775 to 1783 and the French Revolution pitting the French people against their own government during 1789 to 1799 were both very important political and social turnovers. This movement towards the establishment of a constitutional government influenced political thought throughout the world. By closely examining three of the main causes of these revolutions, it is clear that although the two revolutions have their differences, the basis of cause for the revolutions have, overall, much stronger similarities.
During the political upheaval in the Revolutionary era, writers would write mostly about the politics of the war. Although in past times people would mostly write about the troubles they faced during the time, the Revolutionary changed the way writers would persuade others. In the past most times, the authors would strictly use facts or strictly write to the select few but everything changed when the colonist faced a Revolutionary War.
...gredient of the modern army had been created. The most significant effect of gunpowder was that it required the resources of the nation-state to exploit. It took money, organization, and sustained effort to put into the field armies with cannons and harquebusiers. To meet these demands, princes learned to tax their people annually and efficiently (or, at least, more efficiently than before). In effect, the nation-state was always at war, or at least taxed its people as if that were so. This was due to the creation of standing armies, which had to be paid for continually. Princes took the control of armies out of the hands of their barons and put it in the hands of professionals paid by the royal fisc. City-states and small principalities lacked the ability to wage war at this level, and they began to surrender to the larger nation-states.
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.
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.
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.
From approximately the fifteenth century to the end of the eighteenth century, pre-modern Europe witnessed a profound transformation in the art of warfare, which included technological, tactical, strategic, and architectural transformations. However, the single most important military change of the pre-modern era took place with the implementation of gunpowder weaponry in European warfare. Gunpowder weaponry revolutionized naval and land warfare, and military technology and tactics. Additionally, the increased usage of gunpowder weaponry dramatically transformed the size and composition of European armies, and produced significant changes in the design of fortifications and the styles of battles that were fought.
Roberts proposed that the increase in the scale of war led to an increase in the authority of the state. States made their military monopolies absolute. One symptom of this Roberts provides is that states began supervising the supply of materials necessary to war. Roberts provides the example of the Spanish Netherlands state monopoly on gunpowder. The introduction of standing armies further increased the authority of the state. Monarchs began to take over recruitment, paying and controlling the armies. Roberts sees this as a significant development because once armies were royal, the way was open for them to eventually become national.
In the American Revolution, the American army had the home field advantage: they knew the territory. Knowledge of the battlefield isn't necessarily the key to winning or losing a war, but it certainly helps. In addition to that, the American army was spread across all thirteen colonies and the British army just didn't have the troops to cover that many square miles. The main reason that America won the American Revolution is the American spirit. As long as Americans maintained their will to fight and attempt to stay united, they would be a force to be reckoned with.
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...