military revolution Flashcards
What’s the Military Revolution Thesis?
The recurring great power wars drove military innovation and state-building in Western Europe.
Consequently, Europeans had a comparative advantage that they used to dominate non-Europeans.
Which authors talk about the Military Revolution?
Parker & Roberts
Key claim of military revolution? (Roberts)
Intense competition and warfare in Western Europe over 1550 - 1650 triggered a crucial military revolution in Europe.
4 Components of the EU Military Revo.
Tactics
Strategy (permanent standing army)
Army size
Socio-political effects (forms of credits)
How did the Military Revolution enable the rise of the west?
The ability to wage war enabled them to create truly global empires in 1500-1750.
Development of the modern state is based on the need to service large armies
Result of unmatched military competition in Western Europe
Eastern powers couldn’t keep up cause they weren’t sovereign states
Military advances in Europe explain their victories
Shortly, Europeans won because they had… (3)
Large armies
Controlled by states
That employed tactics/ technology found in Europe.
What’s historiography?
Study of how we came to have particular historical narratives.
Who wrote “Empires of the Weak”?
sharman
How does Sharman oppose “large armies”?
European forces across the ocean were tiny
How does Sharman oppose “controlled by states”?
EM expansion due to groups of adventurers or chartered companies
VOC and EIC are hybrid public-private entities & not under the direct control of the state.
No monopoly on the use of force by the centralized states until the 1700s.
How does Sharman oppose “wars inside Europe were important”
Sharman says, No - Europeans were fighting the Ottomans (superpower of the modern era)
How does Sharman oppose “Tactics”
Because the conflicts are so different- they need to adapt to local circumstances.
No single dominant form of war-fighting
America’s: demographic catastrophe
Asia & Africa: local rulers combine their tactics w/ European arms.
Europeans regularly lost.
Both cases: adopted strategies of their enemies and vice versa
What underpins Parker’s assumptions in general?
He assumed wars inside Europe were the same outside of Europe
What are the 2 core ingredients of European successes according to Sharman?
Insinuation => cultivation of indigenous allies - make a space for themselves in the existing power struggles. Portugues sided with one local rule, Dutch with another.
Deference => posture of European subservience (accepting their status as inferior)
Cultivating local allies
Divide and rule tactics
Rely on local rulers for military strength and financing
Approach served the interests of both sides; local rulers played off rival European powers against each other.
