Roberts first proposed the concept of a military revolution in 1955. Noted military historians Michael Duffy and Jeremy Black strongly criticized the theory and have described it as misleading, exaggerated, and simplistic. The concept of a military revolution during this time has received a mixed reception among historians. Parker's argument has been criticized by Cambridge University political scientist Jason Sharman. Parker also argues that the military revolution in Europe gave European powers a distinct advantage, making it possible for the relatively small European powers to conquer the Americas, as well as large parts of Africa and Asia. In the 1990s the concept was modified and extended by Geoffrey Parker, who argued that developments in fortification and siege warfare caused the revolution.
"Thus, argued Roberts, the modern art of war made possible-and necessary-the creation of the modern state". These changes in turn had major political consequences in the level of administrative support and the supply of money, men and provisions, producing new financial demands and the creation of new governmental institutions. Armies grew much larger and more expensive. Roberts linked military technology with larger historical consequences, arguing that innovations in tactics, drill and doctrine by the Dutch and Swedes (1560–1660), which maximized the utility of firearms, led to a need for more trained troops and thus for permanent forces ( standing armies). The theory was introduced by Michael Roberts in the 1950s as he focused on Sweden (1560–1660) searching for major changes in the European way of war caused by the introduction of portable firearms. The Military Revolution is the theory that a series of radical changes in military strategy and tactics during the 16th and 17th centuries resulted in major lasting changes in governments and society. Theory on gunpowder weapons and governments
0 kommentar(er)
