The Military Revolution - amazonia.fiocruz.br

The Military Revolution is the theory that a series of radical changes in military strategy and tactics during the 16th and 17th centuries resulted in major lasting changes in governments and society. The theory was introduced by Michael Roberts in the s as he focused on Sweden — searching for major changes in the European way of war caused by introduction of portable firearms. Roberts linked military technology with larger historical consequences, arguing that innovations in tactics, drill and doctrine by the Dutch and Swedes —, which maximized the utility of firearms, led to a need for more trained troops and thus for permanent forces standing armies.

Armies grew much larger and more expensive. These changes in turn had major political consequences in the level of administrative support and the supply of money, men and provisions, producing new financial demands and the creation of new governmental institutions. In the s the concept was modified and extended by Geoffrey Parkerwho argued that developments in fortification and siege warfare caused the revolution. The concept of click military revolution during this time has received a mixed The Military Revolution among The Military Revolution.

Noted military historians Michael Duffy and Jeremy The Military Revolution strongly criticized the theory and have described it as misleading, exaggerated, and simplistic. Roberts first proposed the concept of a military revolution in On 21 January of that year he delivered a lecture before the Queen's University of Belfast ; later published as an article, The Military Revolution, —that has fueled debate in historical circles for five decades, in which the concept has been continually redefined and challenged. Though historians often challenge Roberts' theory, they usually agree with his basic proposal that European methods of warfare changed profoundly somewhere The Military Revolution or during the Early Modern Period.

Roberts placed his military revolution around — as the period in which linear tactics were developed to take advantage of the increasingly effective gunpowder weapons; [6] however, that chronology has been challenged by many scholars. Ayton and Price have remarked on the importance of the "Infantry Revolution" taking place in the early 14th century, [7] and David Eltis has pointed out that the real change to gunpowder weapons and the elaboration of a military doctrine according to that change took place in the early 16th century, not, as Roberts defended, in the late 16th century.

Navigation menu

Others have The Military Revolution a later period for the military change. Thus Jeremy Black thinks that the key time period was that of —, which saw an exponential growth in the size Revolktion European armies, [9] while Clifford J. Rogers has developed the idea of successive military revolutions at different periods, first an "infantry revolution" The Military Revolution the 14th century, secondly an "artillery revolution" in the 15th century, thirdly a "fortifications revolution" in the 16th, fourth a "fire weapons" revolution between andand finally a fifth revolution, the increase in size of European armies, between and Shallow formations are ideally suited for defensive deployments, but they are clumsy in offensive missions: the longer the frontage, the more difficult to maintain order and cohesion, or Mlitary perform any maneuver, especially wheeling.

Gustavus Adolphus understood well that far from being slow and ponderous, the assault columns like those used by Tilly were in fact faster and more flexible, and the Swedish King made use of them when required, like in the battle of Alte Veste see picture 3.

Armies did start to use thinner formations, but in a slow evolution, and subjected to tactical considerations.

The debate of line vs column was carried through the 18th Century up to Napoleonic times, with a temporary reverse to deep columns in the later campaigns of see more Napoleonic Wars. Ironically, depth reduction in cavalry formations was a more permanent change introduced by Gustavus Adolphus. In conjunction with less reliance on pistol fire it had the net The Military Revolution of favouring shock action over firepower, contrary to the tendency defended by Roberts. In this view, the difficulty of taking such fortifications resulted in a profound change in Militay strategy.

The Military Revolution, Parker argues, "military geography", in other words the existence or absence of the trace italienne in a given area, shaped military strategy in the early modern period, and lead to the creation of larger armies necessary to besiege the new Reovlution and to garrison them. In this way, Parker placed the birth of the Military Revolution in the early 16th century. He also gives it a new significance, not only was a factor in the growth of the State, it was also the main factor, together with the "Naval Revolution" to the rise of the West over other Civilizations.

Shop with confidence

This model has been criticised on several grounds. Jeremy Black pointed that it was the development of the State that allowed the growth in size of the armies, not the other way around, and found Parker guilty of "Technological Determinism".

Some Medieval specialists elaborated on the idea of an infantry revolution happening early in the 14th century, when in some relevant battles, like CourtraiBannockburn or Halmyrosheavy cavalry was routed by infantry; [19] however, it can be pointed out that in all those battles infantry was entrenched or positioned in rough terrain unsuited for cavalry, like in other battles of the 14th and 15th century in which cavalry was defeated. In fact infantry had been victorious in earlier times in similar situations, for instance at the battle of Legnano inbut in open ground infantry still had the worst, as shown for instance at the battle of Patay and the battle of Formigny in which the vaunted English longbowmen were easily run down; however, the experience of battles like Courtrai and Bannockburn meant that the myth of the invincible knight disappeared, which was in itself important for transforming medieval warfare.

More substance has the case for the "return of Heavy Infantry" as Carey has named it. While requiring drill and discipline, individual training requirements were much lower than those for archers or knights, and the switch from heavily armoured knight to footsoldier made possible the expansion in the size of armies from the late 15th The Military Revolution onwards as infantry The Military Revolution be trained more quickly and could be hired in great numbers.

Shop by category

But that change was slow. The full development, in the 15th century, of plate armour for both man and horse, combined with the use of the arret lance rest which could support a heavier lance, ensured that the heavy cavalryman remained a formidable warrior. Without cavalry, a 15th-century army was unlikely to achieve a decisive victory on The Military Revolution field of battle; battle might be decided by archers or pikemen, but a retreat could only be cut off effectively or followed-up by cavalry.

Another change that took place in the late 15th century was the improvement in siege artillery as to render old style fortifications very vulnerable. But the supremacy of tactical offence in siege warfare was not to last for very long.]