reading 7 - week 4 (myths of military revolution) Flashcards
'’military revolution/superiority’’ thesis
- thesis that recurring great power wars drove military innovation and state-building in Western Europe,
- spread gunpowder based weapons
which gave these states a competitive advantage that they used to dominate non-European polities.
this thesis is a bedrock of much historically oriented social science, in IR this narrative remains the presumed foundation of why the world is this way
*this article critiques this thesis + argues that this thesis is dominant in IR to explain European dominance
Western expansion prior to the industrial revolution is best explained by:
- European’s ability to garner local support and allies (inserting themselves into pre-existing rivalries, using and being used by non-Western actors)
- their deference to powerful non-Western polities (European recognition of own inferiority vis a vis Asian empires led to deference and subordination)
about the idea that Europeans won victories abroad using the same style of war they practiced at home
- military innovations said to be decisive in Europe were almost entirely absent elsewhere before the industrial revolution
- early modern European expansion was largely carried out by tiny forces of adventurers and chartered companies, using local tactics, usually not possessing any significant technological advantage over their opponents
Eurocentric bias in IR
- geographic focus of historical articles
- particularly obvious in quantitative work
- if we look at areas outside of Europe, we use Western paradigms and concepts
- e.g. at the same time as Europeans were expanding into Asia, Asians were conquering far more substantial swaths of Europe (Ottoman expansion into Eastern and Central Europe)
nuances in IR to the military superiority thesis
- some scholars bring sophistication and nuances to the thesis (which is often overlooked): Tilly focuses on military, but in later explanations also emphasises different paths to success, enduring diversity, importance of capital and coercion + Spruyt also identifies areas of disagreement with the thesis
- Marxist accounts: see the military revolution thesis as constituting the dominant paradigm serving as legitimation of mainstream IR of the modern states-system
!still: these scholars are highly Eurocentric
- Anievas and Nisancioglu: theory of uneven and combined development (not Eurocentric)
theory of uneven and combined development
Anievas and Nisanciogly
- extensive consideration of the Mongols, Ottomans, and Mugals + actors in the Americas, Africa and South-East Asia
Rise of the West = result of European experience of feudalism, which created a distinct dev. path in the West (unevenness)+ geopolitical competition within Europe and between European and non-European powers (combination)
!military evolution thesis is incorporated into this account:
- idea of Europe as a uniquely competitive military environment, which forced Eu. states to quickly adopt military innovations (whilst Asian empires are said to have less competition)
- Europeans are said to have used their military innovations, giving them a comparative advantage in means of violence and fiscal and organizational capacities
origins of the military revolution thesis
…. and his 4 components
(historian) Michael Roberts 1955 -> 1560-1650 military revolution in Europe that demarcated medieval society from the modern world
four components of his thesis:
- tactics (Maurice of Nassau’s use of linear battle formations (inspired by Romans) + Swedish King Adolphus’ use of light field artillery and cavalry charges)
*both required better trained soldiers - strategy: coalitions’ use of multiple armies to achieve larger strategic aims
- army size: rapidly increasing (due to new tactics,strategy and circumstances Thirty Years War)
- socio-political effects: large armies led to administrative and fiscal strains -> new agencies + more autonomy to the monarch + used of organized violence by non-state actors declined + need for a lot more money (-> in the long term to fiscal innovations and creation of the modern sovereign state)
Parker - the military revolution and the rise of the west
technology rather than tactics the prime mover:
rise of cannons -> new style of fortification -> required money and large forces to garrison or attack -> need for greater revenue and administrative capacity -> rise of the modern sovereign states (feudal lords and non-state actors could not afford to keep up with advances)
*he takes the thesis outside of Europe: he uses it to explain the rise of the West: military revolution + especially naval aspects (gun-armed ocean-going sailing ships early 1500s) = expensive-intensive -> Westphalian states
ultimately, intra-European military competition resulted in European dominance over the rest of the world
(McNeill)
success of disciplined, drilled, professional infantry armies from the later medieval period was the most iportant military innovation
non-Western actors mastered the use of modern artillery sufficiently to dominate local rulers, but not ‘‘gunpowered empires’’
most important common elements Roberts, Parker and McNeill
- dev. modern state was primarily a result of the need to service increasingly large, complex and expensive armies
*thus indirectly a result of military competition in Europe - even if Eastern powers could emulate some aspects of the military revolution, they couldn’t keep up with the west because their political system did not conform the model of the sovereign state
- the same military advances in Europe are said to explain European victories in the rest of the world
the irrelevance of the military revolution for European expansion
key military and political institutional changes of the military revolution in Europe weren’t replicated in the first two-and-a-half centuries of European expansion:
- European forces across the ocean were tiny
- modern European expansion was mostly done by groups of adventurers (not sovereign states)
e.g. Dutch East India Company - Europeans were often forced to adapt to local circumstances (not one form of warfighting, not the form used in Europe)
(Restall’s myth of the king’s army)
only a small minority of conquistadores (armed Spanish entrepreneurs) had received military training
+ there were no officers and no formal chain of command
how where technological and tactical advantages rarely decisive in European expansion?
- aka falsification military revolution thesis (although the author does not say this
- in the East technological gap between Europe and local forces was often quite slight or non-existent (non-Europeans could easily obtain weapons through trade or with deffection of renegades)
- exposure to Old World diseases helped to bring about political collapse in the Americas
- European/Spanish infantry often fought with swords and armor rather than with their guns
- South Asia: Parket and others stress Europeans could withold there because of their trace italienne fortresses, but these required large forces, which weren’t available
- no use of the new/revolution tactics: Europeans adopted to the fighting style of their opponents and allies (small, covert fighting)
- both Europeans and local forces hybridized in learning from the other
- what works in western Europe isn’t what works everywhere: Europeans horses and pack animals died from disease in Africa + volley fire doesn’t work optimal in forests
explaining early modern European expansion: Local allies and indigenous support
- Europeans’ lack of numbers -> local allies were decisive for European efforts to establish and defend their presence overseas
- Spanish expansion: heavy military and logistical dependence of Amerindians was a constant and fundamental feature
- Kamen: Spanish succes because: conqueror always worked with native peoples that opposed the ruling empire)
- Portuguese presence depended upon exploiting local feuds to cultivate sympathetic rulers in order to establish early bases from which they could extend their influence
- Dutch East India Company also relied on local allies + was sucked into a series of civil wars on Java
- English East India Company in South Asia also depended on local support: formed alliances among the successor polities Mughal Empire + majority of troops were recruited locally + local logistical support was ritical
!these relationships benefited both sides
how does this article explain early modern European expansion?
- local support and the cultivation of indigenous allies
- judicious posture of European subservience when faced by far more powerful Asian empires (when Europeans took on Asian great powers, they lost) (Eu. maritime orientation -> perceived as generally unthreatening to land-oriented local polities)
