Is the Notion of an Early Modern Military Revolution Tenable?

Historians have often debated the true definition of American Revolution, whether the Revolution was a conservative movement led to maintain the power of those at the top of the hierarchy or a radical movement that set a process of transformation of society and brought a new type of democracy to the colonies. Professors Wood and Nash clarify the true purpose of the movement and its outcome in their writing’s. Professor Wood explains to readers that the American Revolution was a radical movement that transformed society and state in the colonies, while Nash sees the revolution as a conservative movement of alarmed white male leaders whom sought to contain the revolution. The American Revolution was a radical movement that brought a transformation

During the Middle Ages, or also known as the Medieval Ages, change was a major part of that period. Europe was watching war become much different. In the older times, a few thousands of troops were considered a large army. Nowadays, nobody has ever seen such size of an army with such variety in weapons including guns, munitions, and artillery that were all developed during that period. Besides, it was obvious that the face of warfare was changing by the end of the fifteenth century. Two of the most significant developments were the maintaining of a fair amount of troops on a permanent basis at the ready, and the rising need of gunpowder weapons and munitions. In essence The Middle

Thesis: I believe the American Revolution was actually revolutionary. The Revolutionary War did not cause an immediate change in America, but led to a long chain of actions, leading to America’s modern freedom.

1. Historians of the American Revolution have disagreed on whether to characterize the revolution as radical or Conservative. Compare and contrast the arguments of Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood and make and build an argument for which interpretation is most convincing.

Where once citizens were soldiers defending their lands, the army became filled with

Military technology, along with weaponry improved from medieval times. Instead of being used as a form of entertainment for the Queen, armor and weaponry began to be used

This allowed their soldiers to be more well equipped at all times versus the southern soldiers who were sporadically armed and whose basic necessities sometimes weren’t met.

In fact when President Lincoln announced he was raising a federal army of 75,000 men he quickly outnumbered it due to patriotic responses to the attack on Fort Sumter. When he asked Indiana for six regiments the governor promised Lincoln twelve, and the governor of Ohio, tasked to raise 13 regiments, stopped at 20 upsetting those who didn’t get to join. With the surge of volunteers on both sides of the war came shortages of many things, such as weapons and officers. This is because there were no European type “military families” where offspring are bound to join the army as officers and also because WestPoint the only military academy in the country had such a low amount of people in its graduating classes. These were some examples of how the

The Revolutionary War was considered to be the war that laid the stepping stones for modern day warfare. In the earliest times of human civilization the rules of war were to always remain honorable and ethical. Due to the newfound use of guns and with the the high stakes that the Revolutionary War entailed, it forced these set rules of warfare to be broken to achieve a desired outcome of success and leaving others to wonder if there any longer remained “true” rules of warfare.

We saw an awe inspiring river, wide and rapid that created a natural border for Conquest Point’s city state. In the middle of the unwalled town was a fortified stone bridge that enforced the border’s sovereignty. Any ambiguous invader would certainly turn back from the fort, unable to pillage the town or general area. Hastily fashioned rafts would be of little use in getting across the raging river, and few row boats were in view. The fort’s walls were thick and tall, if you managed to fight your way through the fortified gate house on the middle of the bridge you still had to deal with the fort. Given the importance of the location of the town, I believed well trained troops were assigned to the garrison. In fact, the town looked prosperous enough to have more than a

     Medieval tactics were essential for an attack or siege of a castle. Many tactics and strategies helped develop much-improved version of an attacking artifact, like weapons and sieging machinery. The knights of Medieval England which were the cavalry, improved as the years went by, but never actually had any tactics or strategies. The usual knight would just go out there and fight. The knights were the counter offensive against a small siege, but they were ineffective against a large siege of a castle. A siege was very essential for medieval warfare. Siege was like the most important part of an attack; that is if you’re attacking a castle.

Another part of why WWI was an industrial war, not just because of the new technological advancements, but because of the numbers in man power. Like mass production in industry, soldiers were mass made.

Not only was it imperative to have foresight and but the skilled standing army had to show loyalty to the Prince. So auxiliaries who might be hired to fight were strictly out of the question. They would have been there for themselves and were usually loyal to another crown.

The military revolution was a direct outcome of changes in the virtuosity of war between 1560 and 1660. The changes crucially influenced campaigning and combat in Europe during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The most influential alterations included transformation in weapons, growth in the army size, change in tactics and organization, and centralization of the states’ bureaucracies. There were many battles in the late 17th and early 18th centuries that were highly influenced by the implications of the military revolution, for example, the Battles of Hogue, Danube, and Blenheim. These altercations started a development for military superiority and increased proficiency that enabled Europe to dominate the world long after the Wars of the Spanish Succession. However, I would like to emphasize that those victories mentioned above were heavily influenced by the skills of the commanding individuals and their roles in the military organizational system rather than a full internalization of the revolution’s implications overall. The Duke of Marlborough is a great example of an individual overweighting the flaws of the late 17th century logistical systems to his advantage. By comparison, France’s failure to understand and implement the alterations eventually enabled the rise of Britain’s at the French expense.

Another change occurred, in that armies changed from being mercenary based to kingdoms establishing their own standing armies. As a result, professional soldiers emerged which only continued to elevate the common soldier’s status in society. This occurred for a few reasons. Before arquebuses, a state maintaining a standing army was incredibly dangerous and expensive to handle. A standing army under a commander was mechanically difficult to manage while standing bowmen, as stated before, required constant training to be effective. Granted, it was possible that a standing army could be stronger than a mercenary based army, but most countries did not want to take the continual drain on their resources. The French had developed a standing army merely out of necessity for themselves due to the Hundred Years War.