Did the Development in European Warfare During the Sixteenth Century Amount to a ‘Military Revolution’?

Thomas More’s book, Utopia, was constructed to criticize aspects of European life during the 1500s. One issue that More evaluates is the subject of politics and war. War during this time was used to gain territory or increase the ruler’s power. The Utopians are a peaceful group of citizens that rarely have any altercations occurring upon their island. They have a strict daily schedule that provides a minute amount of time for leisure, resulting in a low rate of problems. So why does More bring up the issue of war, if the people of Utopia infrequently misbehave? More analyzes this issue to exemplify how war was implemented in Europe under the reign of King Henry VIII. In addition, more describes the Utopians’ preparations when they engage in war. More wrote Utopia to provide the citizens of Europe with a source of hope for a new outlook on life.

While it is difficult to evaluate Ranke’s use of sources owing to his lack of footnotes, he clearly focuses on a narrow genre of sources: political and military developments. Literature is hardly treated, and advances in economics, philosophy, and technology receive none whatsoever. Surely Ranke’s neglect of the Enlightenment and the rise of international trade limit the accuracy of his understanding of the 18th century. Ranke’s biases also prevent his history from attaining the ideal of objective analysis to which he subscribes. This is most glaring in his inexcusable shortchanging of Napoleon, the reaction to whom dominated European politics for a century. Ranke aims to show men shaping European political history, yet he only allots a few sentences to Napoleon, entirely ignoring how he accomplished his conquests. More importantly, his impact on law, economics, and even the political organization of Ranke’s own Germany, find zero space in Ranke’s essay.

There is a sense that modern weapons during the 20th century proved to be the most technological advancements and thus created competition in which sprawled into a new stage of warfare enlightenment. At the brink of the war and the salient of forces perhaps the most technological tool used had been the trenches. The pursuit of territorial conquest would halt at the trench lines inventing a new progression in how war is envisioned today. The disadvantages often outnumber the benefits of war, however, war managed to create a boosted in advanced warfare starting as early as the Franco-Prussian War. As the war progressed during 1914, items such as uniforms called for change. The sense of pride in nationality struck in numbers and not in bright colors. For the sake of duty and country was the most powerful drive including those who sought ground in the western lines.

Directions: The following question requires you to construct a coherent essay that integrates your interpretation of Documents A-I and your knowledge of the period referred to in the question. High scores will be earned only by essays that both cite key pieces of evidence from the documents and draw on outside knowledge of the period. Some of the documents have been edited, and wording and punctuation have been modernized.

To achieve this goal, I have organized my paper into four main sections. In the first section, I provide an account of what happened during the 17th century

In northern Europe after the Middle Ages, monarchies began to build the foundations of their countries that are still in affect today. During the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries these “New Monarchs” made many relevant changes in their nations. During the middle of the fifteenth century Europe was affected by war and rebellion, which weakened central governments. As the monarchies attempted to develop into centralized governments once again, feudalism’s influence was lessened. This “new” idea of centralization was reflected in the monarch’s actions. Rulers tried to implement peace and restore the idea that the monarchy represented law and order in the nation. These New Monarchs were able to build armies due to taxation, and

Between the years of 1914 to 1918, the whole of Europe was locked in arms, not only for pride but mostly for survival. The years of war brought devastation upon all societies. Men were massacred in droves, food stuff dwindled, and at times an end seemed non-existent. The foundation of the first Great War, one can muse, began as a nationalistic race between rival nations. By the onset of 1914, once the Archduke Frendinad had been assassinated in Saravejo, the march for war became not just a nationalistic opinion, but now a frenzy to fight. In battle, unlike previous wars, new weaponry caused drastic alterations in strategy. No longer will armies stand to face their rivals on the plains. Now the war will be fought in trenches, hidden

The 100 Years’ War was given a misleading name, as this conflict between England and France was not a war that lasted one hundred years, it was rather a series of related clashes that lasted just over a century. However, the fact that this conflict lasted more that one hundred years meant that many new tactics and weaponry came into play that changed the concepts of warfare forever. During this one hundred years, tactics changed from the system of feudal armies dominated by heavy Calvary, to the first attempt at some sort of ‘standing army’. The evolution in the types of tactics and weapons that nations used caused the battlefields of Europe to be covered in blood, as the more advanced the weapons, became, the more casualties amounted. The 100 Years’ War was the first time that strategy was used in order to command troops on the battlefield, and it was during this time that the fabrication of early martial handbooks also came into the battle. One of the more famous authors of one of these books was “the great Swabian practitioner and teacher, Johannes Liechtenauer” . Unfortunately, there are no French texts concerning martial handbooks that predate 1570, meaning that in order to look at tactics, sources from surrounding nations at the time have to suffice. Another thing that evolved extremely rapidly during the 100 years’ war, was the escalation of the types of weapons used during conflicts. Inasmuch there were 100 years of outright fighting, each side had a chance to

Wagner, J. (2006). Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. 1st ed. London: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp.20 - 22, 34 -

During the time period of 1789 to 1914, several changes began to occur within the European military. Leaders began changing their techniques on how they would approach battles, placement of their men, what kind of equipment they would utilize, along with their means of transportation, how would they communicate with others, along with several other changes. During this time period, the use of technology began to increase which had allowed for the battles to become easier for those using the new technology. There were three important changes that had occurred in the European military which included: transportation with the service of trains and railways, the newest weapons such as the breech-loading rifles, and communication by using telegraphs. With these three inventions, this had changed the outcome on wars and battles for the days to come.

Military strategy forever had been battles of attrition, men throwing themselves at each other until a winner was determined, this form of battle was replaced in Europe during the 16th and 17th century. The change in military strategy took place mostly in Europe, and the countries at the forefront of this were the Swedish empire and the Netherlands. The Swedes and Dutch changed many military strategies and practices which were in place for thousands of years and changed the standard for militaries. They helped to show the first realistic application of David versus Goliath, using smart tactics paired with a smaller army to destroy militaries of greater size. The two smallest nations in Europe took control and led the world in military innovations in the 16th and 17th century through competition and loss. The Swedes and Dutch managed to create fluid militaries which were able to overpower larger armies through deception and agility. The Swedish and Dutch nations during the 16th and 17th century gained military strength through the reformation of tactics, reorganization of the military, improvisation of weapons, and as a result changed the image and action of the military forever. The idea of a military revolution was first explored by a man named Michael Roberts in the 1950s. Roberts said that if the Swedish Empire and the Netherlands had not developed as they did, military strategy and organization would have not evolved for much later.

It was turbulent times for England during the 17th and 18th century. England was in an unquenchable thirst for more power. “During the 17th and 18th century, England was determined to subdue all lesser countries, especially Ireland” (Stevenson, 28). At the time, England was the dominating country, looking to expand their influence across the world. War broke out constantly as the conquest for more land continued. Moreover, war was constant with the three kingdoms, England, Ireland, and Scotland. Revolts in each kingdom also affected the country’s ability to participate in the war. As

“Napoleon practiced extreme centralization of authority. The Emperor was his own operations officer and made all decisions” (Rothenberg, 66-67). Clausewitz pronounced Napoleon as the ‘god of war’ and his tactical and operational successes, particularly between 1805-1807, are described as that of a military genius (Clausewitz, 583, 648). The command and control system he had in place was adequate when he was present, but “when his armies operated in widely separated theaters of war, or over an extended front, his attempts to maintain strategic control failed” (Rothenberg, 67). The strategic overreach of the Grand Army coupled with an increasing inability to trust his senior army and naval flag officers during decisive battles exploited the weakness of his system of centralized command and control. This manifested itself in 1812 when the Grand Army was fighting on two fronts at opposite ends of the continent, as evidenced by unsuccessful operational outcomes and significant battlefield

Throughout the ages of history, there were many wars that were fought. For every victory and defeat, what was it that really determined the outcome of the war? Which army leader had the better or worse battle plan? With the plan they had, did it increase their chances of victory? Were there key factors in an army leader’s plan that lead to their defeat? Or, was the best decision made to completely avoid war? For a lot of the wars that took place and the ones that were avoided many years ago, the mystery still remains unsolved on how and why certain army leaders were victorious or gained a certain advantage because of the choices they made. On the other hand, it is also unknown on how or why an army leader failed to a certain extent

In War in Human Civilization, Azar Gat asserted that, “Europe experienced a so-called military revolution,” in the 16th and 17th centuries as a result of social, technological, and economic factors. Likewise, historians Williamson Murray and MacGregor Knox affirmed that European militaries experienced revolution during the same period for a variety of other reasons, including the development of the military profession and the disbursement of regular pay. These authors recognized the extensive and lasting impact of the radical military, social, and economic transformations resultant to the rise of the nation state from approximately 1560 to 1700, culminating in a post-Westphalian Europe. The product of this military revolution, subsequently, was a shift from, “bellicose persons… [and] men acting in unison with plenty of brute ferocity but no effective control,” to a professionalized force, with the equivalent of a functioning institutional “central nervous system.” Fundamentally, the emergence of the modern state constituted a military revolution because it subordinated the act of warfare and the monopoly of violence to the newly formed state, enabled the establishment of the modern military institution where none existed previously, and instituted a process for integrating modern and emerging science with military matters. Consequently, the conclusion of feudalism and the emergence of modern states demonstrated a paradigm shift in both the conduct of governance and