Food for Thought

Week 2: Thursday, January 29

As you read the passages concerning the military revolution, you may want to keep in mind the following discussion of tactics during the 17th century

Much of the debate surrounding the military revolution surrounds the development of new tactics to accommodate the combination of pike and shot. According to some historians, the emergence of these new tactics led to far-reaching changes in the state and society. We will read about some of these developments in more detail later, but I would like to provide a short introduction to some of the issues raised in the readings for today.

In several places, you will see historians discuss the tercio, an early formation developed by the Spanish and adapted in the Habsburg territories in the 16th century that sought to maximize the effectivenss of pike and shot. The tercio consisted of about 1500 pikemen and arquebusiers (or musketeers) arranged in a large square. The general idea was that the pikemen would protect the musketeers from enemy infantry or cavalry as they reloaded. At the same time, the musketeers could blast holes in enemy pike units, opening up opportunities for the friendly pikemen in the tercio to exploit. Depending on the situation, either the pikemen or the musketeers stood on the outer rim of the formation. In short, the tercio sought to combine the shock and momentum of the pike square with the firepower of the musketeer. Over time, as shot became more important, the number of arquebusiers and musketeers increased relative to pikemen. In 1570, a typical tercio had about two arquebusiers or musketeers for every five pikemen. By 1600, there were roughly three musketeers for every pikeman.

You will also read about Maurice of Nassau (in the Netherlands), and his attempt to develop an infantry formation that dispensed with the pike and sought to maximize firepower. In the 1590s, during the Dutch Revolt (1568-1648) against Spanish overlordship, Maurice experimented with a variety of tactics. By adopting a shallow, linear formation only ten musketeers deep, Maurice hoped to keep up continuous fire that would prevent any unit from approaching. After firing, the front rank would step back to the last rank and begin reloading. The second rank would step forward, deliver fire, and retreat to the last rank to begin reloading. In like fashion, each rank would fire, step back, and reload until the first rank was ready to open fire again. In particular, Michael Roberts has much to say about Maurice of Nassau's innovations and their relationship to the military revolution.

Most historians, including Roberts, believe Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden during the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), best integrated the changes associated with the military revolution. Gustavus Adolphus created a sophisticated bureaucracy and administration that was capable of conscripting, equipping, supplying, and disciplining (sort of) an effective army capable of employing the new complex tactics on the battlefield. Swedish infantry adopted Maurice of Nassau's linear formations to maximize firepower. Gustavus Adolphus' light, mobile artillery, aimed to blow holes in enemy formations for the infantry and heavy cavalry to exploit weaknesses in the enemy's lines. In the Swedish armies of the period, many historians see the developments of the military revolution brought to perfection on the battlefield.

For today's discussion, you will be responsible for reading only one of the articles. Look below to see which article you are responsible for. Each article will have its own specific food for thought questions. Keep the other three articles for reference. Section A refers to the 10:00 AM class while Section B refers to the 2:30 PM class.

Michael Roberts, "The Military Revolution, 1560-1660" (Section A: Bonaventure to Florence; Section B: Allwarden to DiConza)

1) According to Roberts, what were the military developments that led to a military revolution?

2) List the most important consequences of Roberts' military revolution.

Geoffrey Parker, "The 'Military Revolution, 1560-1660'—A Myth?" (Section A: Greaney to Joseph; Section B: Ebbeling to Johnson)

1) What does Parker say are the four crucial elements of Roberts' military revolution?

2) Which of these changes does Parker believe actually took place?

3) Does Parker believe a military revolution took place? Why?

Clifford Rogers, "The Military Revolution of the Hundred Years War" (Section A: June to Maloney; Section B: Landri to Morong)

1) Rogers breaks down the military revolution into four separate revolutions. What are these four separate revolutions?

2) What does Rogers means when he talks about "punctuated equilibrium"?

Jeremy Black, "A Military Revolution? A 1660-1792 Perspective" (Section A: Mansfield to Snell; Section B: Muzamil to Ziino)

1) In what way does Black disagree with Roberts' chronology or timing of events? When does Black think a military revolution took place?

2) What are the most important elements of the military revolution that Black emphasizes?

Other questions to think about:

1) Do you agree with the author? Do the developments he describes constitute a revolution?