Technological Influence On War Essay, Research Paper
Technological Influence on Warfare
“Armies that could reach further, hit harder, and get there faster usually won, while the range-restricted, less well-armed, and slower armies lost. For this reason, a vast amount of human creative effort has been poured into extending the range, increasing the fire power, and accelerating the speed of weapons and of armies.”
– Toffler1
As nations and empires strive to further their power in the world, they are often confronted by opposition. When competing powers desire the same territory or when one attempts to gain control of an occupied land, conflict is rarely avoided. In instances where predicaments cannot be solved without force, the side with the greater military power is typically victorious. Hence, when a nation or any other entity acts in ways to expand their control, militaristic power is pushed to its limits. The military of a nation is constantly changing. As new technology is developed, it in turn is incorporated into the military. From the advances from sticks and stones to automatic weapons and even to nuclear bombs, warfare is perpetually adapting to changes in technology. In the Early Modern period of Europe, warfare changed drastically. Technological advances in artillery and armory spurred the need for new forms of fortification. With the introduction of a more mobile cannon and other weaponry defenses of cites and armies were forced to change, forever changing the tactics used in warfare.
The development of gunpowder occurred in china around 950 A.D..2 However, there is no evidence that the combination of purified sulfur, powdered charcoal, and crystalline saltpetre was used by the Chinese in war. Shortly after gunpowder s creation, this innovation soon made its way to the nations in Europe. Efforts were made to utilize gunpowder in European warfare as soon as its explosive power was recognized. But not until 1326 was it understood that when a projectile object and gunpowder were confined inside a tube the resulting force caused the projectile to expedite and reek havoc. This is evident in a recovered drawing by Walter de Milemete3 from 1326 where as a vase shaped vessel with a large arrow is protruding from them stem, with a soldier applying fire to the touch hole of this weapon, is pointed in the direction of the gate of a castle. 4
Early cannons were made entirely of iron and fired hard stones. Therefore large amounts of gunpowder had to be used in extremely large tubes in order for the early cannons to be effective. This prevented the cannon from being a mobile weapon. To account for the recoil, the cannon had to be heavily braised. Whenever the cannon s position was to be changed it was first lifted on to a cart, then the gunner could return to his platform and reload the cannon with a stone ball. In 1494 the French made a ground breaking adaptation of the cannon. The iron firing tube was replaced by a bronze-cast tube drastically reducing the cannon s size. The proportions of the bronze-cast tube were painstakingly calculated to absorb the jolt from the discharge.5 Because the cannons were now more efficient the stone balls were replaced by dense iron balls. With a heavier projectile the cannons were now able to deliver three times the destructive force with only half of its original size.
Now that cannons were stronger and more compact they could be used in various other ways. In fact, handheld cannons were developed for individual use. Prior to the bronze-casting hand held cannons delivered little force. Now individuals could carry handguns that inflicted more damage than the traditional crossbow. By the end of the fifteenth century spring loaded levers were adapted into cannons, and they could be fired with the touch of a single finger.
Before the cannons were redefined, European fortifications did not necessitate cannon defenses. A castle s main defense was the height of the surrounding wall. The higher the castle s wall the more difficult it was to attack. Catapults did little damage by striking petty blows with projectiles. The only way in which to bring down the wall was to take out its base through mining efforts. But mining was slow and tedious, plus it was easily prevented by moats. Charles VIII was the first to deploy the second generation cannons after acquiring forty of them from France.6 Charles VIII marched down through Italy conquering all that stood in his path. Upon reaching the Neapolitan fortress of San Giovanni, the cannons true power was shone when a fortress able to withstand years of traditional warfare fell in a matter of days.7 It was evident that new forms of fortification had to be developed.
Old castle walls were instantly reinforced. Often times they were reinforced by mounds of earth or timber logs stacked against each other. However, these improvisations were only a quick fix. Since High walls were hurt the most by cannons, thick low walls bean to be built. These walls were built with angular bastions around them. simultaneously preventing intruders and providing an additional firing level. Because of the lack of height the fortifications were harder targets to hit from sea. Theses new forts were built with numerous levels so that numerous guns of different stature could be fired at once.8
Warfare in Europe had been brought to a new level. Empires were facing a new style of war in almost every aspect. The armour for soldiers had also become more sophisticated. Henry VIII produced armour designed by Lozenz Helmschmied.9 It incorporated a large number of reinforced squares connected together. This allowed for the soldiers to wear as little or as much armour as was deemed necessary. Armour was created to cover every inch of a soldiers body from large foot plates to reinforced breast plates.
As time progressed handguns became smaller and smaller yet more and more powerful. A wheel-lock action in handguns was developed. Gun powder was placed in a covered pan that was automatically knocked open. The wind could no longer blow away the gun powder and the gunpowder would not spill if the gun was placed in a holster.10 Thus making them much easier to manage on horseback. In the second half of the sixteenth century a curved barreled gun was deployed. Known as the caliver, it was a light handgun that could easily be fired. The musket was also introduced in this time period. It was a gun capable of firing anything from a small ball of lead to steel arrows.
In the seventeenth century full body armour had not changed much since the previous century. Soldiers, however, no longer wanted to wear armour. Firearms such as a musket firing one twelfth of a pound of lead could pierce even the strongest armour. Soldiers were more mobile without the armour so they rarely wore it. Each faction of the army was individually armed and dressed. Variances in weaponry allowed for military maneuvers like never before. Walls of archers could be spread to the side, cannons were mounted in strategic positions. Hoards of infantry were covered by a line of cavalry. Each soldier was armed with multiple weapons of their choice and had the option of full body armor. Now castles were designed in new elaborate schemes to defend against any invasion.11 European warfare was a far cry from the hired mercenaries of the fourteenth century.
As long as technology continues to advance, weaponry will do the same. The devastation brought about by new forms of artillery during the early modern period in Europe left empires in ruins. Thousands of lives were taken. Technology did not cease to advance after 1600, it continues to advance to this day. We currently have the power to destroy entire countries with one bomb, or unleash a virus to wipe out whole continents. At some point a line must be drawn on technological advances in warfare. If not we will destroy man kind as we know it. But the same motives exist now as they did then, land, money, and power. Until there is no more desire to expand one s control, we will continue to create devastating weaponry. Even if it means the end of civilization as we know it. Either we find a solution to our petty differences, or we will destroy each other. Which one will happen? Only time will tell.
Works Cited
Toffler, Alvin and Heidi, War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of 21st Century New York: Warner Books, 1995
This was an irrelevant book for warfare in the early modern period. However, it contains information about more current topics.
Cambridge, The New Cambridge Modern History: IV The Decline of Spain and the Thirty Years War, The University Press, 1970
This book was jam packed with all sorts of information. All volumes of Cambridge have useful facts on all SPERM factors
Norman and Pottinger, English Weapons and Warfare 449-1660 , U.S.A. : Thomas Y. Crowell company, 1966
The title says it all. If you need to know about armies, artillery, fortifications, tactics, armour…. It s all here.
Montross, Lynn, War Through the Ages, New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1944
This book did not go into the specifics enough. But it is a good book for background information on any war.
Keegan, John, A History of Warfare New York: Random House, Inc.,1993
A History of Warfare covers a wide time span. The book is broken up into chapters in a unique way. A lot of the Authors own opinion.