The Military Revolution Myth
0.0(0)
Studied by 2 people
Learn
Practice Test
Spaced Repetition
Match
FlashcardsCard Sorting
1/13
Earn XP
Description and Tags
Study Analytics
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
|---|
No study sessions yet.
14 Terms
1
New cards
The argument of the military revolution thesis
* Recurring great power wars drove military innovation & state building in western Europe
\
* Which subsequently gave these states a competitive advantage that they used to dominate non-european politics
\
* Alternative explanation for GD
\
* Which subsequently gave these states a competitive advantage that they used to dominate non-european politics
\
* Alternative explanation for GD
2
New cards
What is histography
the study of the writing of history
3
New cards
Origins of this argument
The military revolution: Michael Roberts
* claim: intense competition/warfare between western European powers over 1550-1650 triggered a crucial military revolution in Europe
* “the European military revolution stands like a great divide medieval society from the modern world” → Roberts
\
How it led to rise of the west: Geoffrey parker, the military innovation and the rise of the west
* claim: intense competition/warfare between western European powers over 1550-1650 triggered a crucial military revolution in Europe
* “the European military revolution stands like a great divide medieval society from the modern world” → Roberts
\
How it led to rise of the west: Geoffrey parker, the military innovation and the rise of the west
4
New cards
4 key components of the European military revolution
\
Tactics
* standing in a line and shooting all at the same time \[linear battle formation\]
\
Strategy
* permanent standings armies with better training
\
Army size
* massive expansion of the army especially during the 30yrs war
\
Socio-political effects of this development
* taxation system, resources are needed
* War made the state and the state made the war
\
Inter-dynastic marriages
\
Tactics
* standing in a line and shooting all at the same time \[linear battle formation\]
\
Strategy
* permanent standings armies with better training
\
Army size
* massive expansion of the army especially during the 30yrs war
\
Socio-political effects of this development
* taxation system, resources are needed
* War made the state and the state made the war
\
Inter-dynastic marriages
\
5
New cards
The European military revolution enable the rise of the west
Claim
* European military revolution explains not only the rise of a modern sovereign state but also the rise of the west
* European military revolution explains not only the rise of a modern sovereign state but also the rise of the west
6
New cards
Key components of the Euro military revolution & the enabling of the rise of the west
* Development of the modern state based on the need to service large armies
\
* Result of unmatched military competition in western Europe
\
* Eastern powers couldn’t keep up because the political system was not a sovereign state
\
* Military advances in Europe explain European victories elsewhere
\
= Europeans has won thanks to MR:
* Large armies
\
* Controlled by states
\
* That employed the same tactics and tech developed in Europe against eastern enemies
\
→ parker, the argument for why the west dominated eastern empires
\
* Result of unmatched military competition in western Europe
\
* Eastern powers couldn’t keep up because the political system was not a sovereign state
\
* Military advances in Europe explain European victories elsewhere
\
= Europeans has won thanks to MR:
* Large armies
\
* Controlled by states
\
* That employed the same tactics and tech developed in Europe against eastern enemies
\
→ parker, the argument for why the west dominated eastern empires
7
New cards
Why the conventional narrative now seem wrong
Large armies
* actually, European forces across the oceans were tiny
\
bottom line: minuscule forces operating on shoestring budgets at distances precluding any substantive logistical support
\
Meant to be controlled by states
* Amsterdam → Indonesia, the letter takes up to a year
\
* the process of EM European expansion was spearheaded by groups of adventurers or chartered companies
\
* British east India & VOC are:
1. hybrid public-private entities vs state armies
2. most important agents of early modern European expansion
3. not under the direct control of the state, hired their own mercenaries & privateers
* bottom line: expansion primarily driven by non-state armed private and hybrid actors. In the east, no English or dutch armies till the late 1700s \[ state army, paid by state taxes and directed by state officials\]
\
Employed the same tactics and tech developed in European great power wards
* tactically Europeans were more often than not forced to adapt to local circumstances
\
* no single dominant/superior form of warfighting in the EM period
\
* Americas: demographic catastrophe created by old world diseases
\
* Asia & Africa: local rulers combined their own tactics with easily acquirable western weapons; European regularly lost
\
* In both cases Europeans adopted the strategies of their enemies and vice versa
\
* bottom line\[shaman\]: European expansion in the EM period had little to do with tech superiority
* actually, European forces across the oceans were tiny
\
bottom line: minuscule forces operating on shoestring budgets at distances precluding any substantive logistical support
\
Meant to be controlled by states
* Amsterdam → Indonesia, the letter takes up to a year
\
* the process of EM European expansion was spearheaded by groups of adventurers or chartered companies
\
* British east India & VOC are:
1. hybrid public-private entities vs state armies
2. most important agents of early modern European expansion
3. not under the direct control of the state, hired their own mercenaries & privateers
* bottom line: expansion primarily driven by non-state armed private and hybrid actors. In the east, no English or dutch armies till the late 1700s \[ state army, paid by state taxes and directed by state officials\]
\
Employed the same tactics and tech developed in European great power wards
* tactically Europeans were more often than not forced to adapt to local circumstances
\
* no single dominant/superior form of warfighting in the EM period
\
* Americas: demographic catastrophe created by old world diseases
\
* Asia & Africa: local rulers combined their own tactics with easily acquirable western weapons; European regularly lost
\
* In both cases Europeans adopted the strategies of their enemies and vice versa
\
* bottom line\[shaman\]: European expansion in the EM period had little to do with tech superiority
8
New cards
2 core ingredients of European successes
* Cultivation of indigenous elite
\
* the judicious posture of European subservience
\
* the judicious posture of European subservience
9
New cards
Cultivation of indigenous elite → Insinuation
* Insinuation: embedded themselves into existing conflicts and alliance
\
* divide and rule tactics
\
* side with a side and give them alliances → benefiting military support & get money
\
* rely on local rulers for military strength + credit/financing
\
* the approach served the interests of both sides: local rulers played off rival European powers against each other
\
* divide and rule tactics
\
* side with a side and give them alliances → benefiting military support & get money
\
* rely on local rulers for military strength + credit/financing
\
* the approach served the interests of both sides: local rulers played off rival European powers against each other
10
New cards
The judicious posture of European subservience → deference
* Deference: agree on a position of humility
\
* European ports/trading ports were seen as symbols of local rulers’ power/prestige
\
* Europeans obliged to acknowledge inferior status \[subservience\]
\
* Reflected the hard fact of European military weakness
\
→ strategy facilitated by European maritime orientation: perceived as unthreatening \[more interested in sea routes
\
Armies in Europe: 1550-1650, 150,000 soldiers for a big power
\
Chinese conscript army in 1300s > 1.2 million soldiers
\
Mughal army 1595: 384000 cavalry and 4.6
\
* European ports/trading ports were seen as symbols of local rulers’ power/prestige
\
* Europeans obliged to acknowledge inferior status \[subservience\]
\
* Reflected the hard fact of European military weakness
\
→ strategy facilitated by European maritime orientation: perceived as unthreatening \[more interested in sea routes
\
Armies in Europe: 1550-1650, 150,000 soldiers for a big power
\
Chinese conscript army in 1300s > 1.2 million soldiers
\
Mughal army 1595: 384000 cavalry and 4.6
11
New cards
Cases of military confrontation
* The pattern of rare confrontations on land: European defeat
\
* some tactical victories at seas but minor importance for Asian rulers \[one-way European dependence on Asian markets\]
\
* some tactical victories at seas but minor importance for Asian rulers \[one-way European dependence on Asian markets\]
12
New cards
Ottoman conquering Europe
* Ottomans anomaly for MR thesis: engaged in sustained high-intensity warfare with key European power trough period vs intra-European warfare
* within Europe, ottomans as a superpower of the early modern era: generally ahead militarily
* within Europe, ottomans as a superpower of the early modern era: generally ahead militarily
13
New cards
3 key findings
* European and local powers wanted different things
\
* both sides accepted the idea of territorially non-exclusive forms of organising authority
\
* for the first 3 centuries, Europeans played by local rules
\
* both sides accepted the idea of territorially non-exclusive forms of organising authority
\
* for the first 3 centuries, Europeans played by local rules
14
New cards
Why it matters for now
Must remember the novelty of the current order of the universal states system really is from the 1960s onwards
\
Must lay rest the myth of 5 centuries of western dominance
* the resurgence of china and India today is not the end of the long era of western primacy
\
* 1500-1800: Asian powers are dominant
\
* post western world might simply return to the norm in modern history
\
Must lay rest the myth of 5 centuries of western dominance
* the resurgence of china and India today is not the end of the long era of western primacy
\
* 1500-1800: Asian powers are dominant
\
* post western world might simply return to the norm in modern history
Note 
Flashcards (43)