The Military Revolution Debate: Readings On The Military Transformation Of Early Modern Europe (History and Warfare)

This book is a collection of essays centered on, as the title declares, the "military revolution" debate, which emerged some decades after Michael Robert's 1955 lecture at Queen's University, Belfast. According to Rogers, the goal of the book is to make the principle texts of the debate accessible for scholars and students alike. Secondly, the collection contains new essays by Thomas Arnold, Jeremy Black, John Guilmartin, I.A.A. Thompson, which attempt to fill chronological and thematic gaps in the literature. Lastly, the book attempts to introduce the scholarship surrounding this debate to a wider readership in an effort to stimulate new analysis and literature that will enrich the debate - all of which, Rogers achieves with great success, as this collection will appeal to seasoned military historians and buffs alike. Also included in the collection are previously published essays by John A. Lynn, Simon Adams, Colin Jones, David A. Parrott, the text of Michael Robert's original article, and closes with an essay by Geoffrey Parker, perhaps the main protagonist of the debate, addressing criticisms and assertions forwarded in the collection's other essays. At the core of Michael Robert's argument is that innovations in infantry tactics by the Swiss, and later, to a greater extent, Dutch armies between 1560 and 1660 revolutionized infantry warfare. This revolution comes through the development and institution of drilling, formalized training doctrine, which included weapons training and physical fitness. Thus, the first vestiges of the professional, standing armies emerged in this period. Roberts points to the massive scale of combat during the Thirty Years War and the megalomania of rulers such as Louis XIV as the catalyst for colossal armies of the early modern era. Geoffrey Parker, some decades later, challenged Robert's assertions, arguing that more fundamental changes occurring in the fifteenth century in the form of improvements in fortifications otherwise known as the trace italienne. These fortresses of Italian design - at least initially - featured thick, sloped walls what could withstand cannon fire in a way that medieval fortifications could not. As a consequence, siege warfare came dominate armed conflict during the period, and necessitated increases in the sizes of armies, bureaucratic sophistication, and money both the man the fortifications and besiege them. Thus, for Parker, technological advances prompted revolutionary change. The remainder of the essays challenge specific elements of the Military Revolution theory, particularly Parker's variant. Clifford Rogers contends that tactical shifts toward infantry warfare and advances in artillery are evident in the later decades of the Hundred Years War, earlier than Roberts and Parker have acknowledged. Jeremy Black, conversely, asserts that the established timeframe for the Military Revolution, arguing that real formative changes occurred between 1660 and 1720, after Robert's periodization, linking it to the ancien régime. John Lynn also qualifies Parker's assertion that the rise of the trace italienne prompted rapid expansion of early modern armies, pointing out that economic and demographic development made this expansion possible while the ambitions of the dynasty and diplomatic proceedings were meaningful catalysts for its growth. Examining the influence of the trace italienne from another perspective, Thomas Arnold's essay contends that advances in fortifications did not lead to the extinction of smaller kingdoms as Parker and others have insinuated, but instead often assured their continued existence in the face of imperial aggression as in the case of Italian city-states, at least those who possessed enough manpower to construct and man them. David Parrott and Simon Adams present political and logistical considerations and limitations they contend had a greater effect on army sizes during the Thirty Years War. Parrott argues that the "explains the disparity between the size of armies overall and of the forces involved on a specific battlefield." Parrott adds, "The limitations of the supply system severely restricted the number of troops who could be concentrated in one particular theatre" (244). In other words, the increase in army sizes, while true enough, failed to revolutionize warfare due to logistical limitations. Adams', while appearing to agree with Parrott's assessment of logistical and administrative limitations, asserts that it was the Thirty Years War that increased army sizes, not a military revolution, in that political considerations necessitated a return to offensive warfare. The concluding chapter is Geoffrey Parker's response to critiques leveled at his variant of the military revolution. Parker addresses the conceptual, chronological, technological, and geographical criticisms, wavering little on his original analysis, concluding, "Only military resilience and technological innovation - especially the capital ship, infantry firepower and the artillery fortress: the three vital components of the Military Revolution of the sixteenth century - allowed the West to make the most of its smaller resources in order to resist and, eventually, to expand to global dominance" (356).

A very note resting collection of writing debating the “Dawn of Modern Warfare ( as it was called at West Point). The authors provide differing views on whether there was a military revolution in the middle of the second millennium AD, and if so when did it happen, why, and what did it consist of. I would say the only weakness of the book is—as all the viewpoints are provided by career academics, they miss out the evolution of the tactical level organisation of weaponry, as they overly focused on the macro level. But still a great book.

I got this book for an application essay to graduate school. Instead of just reading the pertinent sections, I ended up reading the whole thing. A great read for history buffs as well as those interested in military affairs.

Very pleased.

Great book

This book is a collection of essays and articles on the Military Revolution in early modern Europe. Eleven prominent historians contributed to the collection with original works or reprints of earlier articles. Taken together the anthology is not the sum total of the debate, but an excellent compilation of the several positions that military historians have taken and defended with regard to this topic. The editor, Clifford J. Rodgers is now a contract professor at the United States Military Academy. When this book was created Rodgers was an Olin Fellow at Yale University. The book, according to Rodgers, was inspired by events during a conference at the 1991 meeting of the American Military Institute in Durham, North Carolina. During that conference Rodgers, Geoffrey Parker, John Guilmartin and John Lynn gave short presentations on the topic after which the discussion was opened to the audiance. The spirited debate and discourse that followed served as the catalyst for this book. The Military Revolution was first put forward by Michael Roberts in the 1950s. Twenty years passed before Geoffrey Parker took a poke at the thesis. The fundamental idea here is that there are (or have been) times when something, be it technology, doctrine, social changes or economic changes, changed and caused one military to surpass all others such that the others had to adapt, adopt, or perish. That's a "Military Revolution" in a nutshell, and these historians argue (admittedly over, and over, and over...) as to what the periods that should be considered "revolutionary" actually were. Informed and scholarly, this book is worth the cost from an intellectual standpoint.

"The Military Revolution Debate" is the magnus opus on the revolution in military affairs representative of early modern Europe. Editor and author Clifford Rogers presents a series of compelling articles designed to revisit one of the classic debate topics among military historians and contemporary theorists. The art and practice of warfare changed significantly during the period addressed by Rogers and others, a revolution in military affairs unlike any in previous history and only rivaled by the events of the past quarter-century.This masterpiece is a necessary addition to anyone seriously researching the revolution/evolution of military affairs in the western world. The changes that occurred in early modern Europe and discussed at length by the various authors had an unimaginable ifluence on the wars of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries and will continue to shape events far into this millenium.Rogers has collected the most serious and noteworthy essays by the foremost authorities on the subject. Readers will not be disappointed with this exceptional book.

An excellent book for academic studies on the military revolution, it provides many different arguments all in this one book. Perfect for a historiography essay.

L'opera costituisce una ripresa e revisione dei momenti che più hanno caratterizzato il sorgimento e l'evoluzione della categoria storiografica di Rivoluzione Militare. Il dibattito attorno a questa proposta storiografica è, assieme a quello sulla Revolution in Military Affairs, il più profondo e articolato e questo libro curato da Clifford Rogers risulta fondamentale perché ripercorre le tappe di questo dibattito a partire da Michael Roberts fino a trattare di case studies in Età Moderna.