13177fHU
Seminar
SoSe 18: The Military Revolution Debate and the Eurasian Theatre: Comparisons & Connections
Barend Noordam
Comments
Of the many revolutions that have a claimed a sonderweg for early modern Europe, the Military Revolution-thesis has proven one of the more well-known, but also hotly contested ones. The original these was advanced by Michael Roberts in the fifties, who saw in the late medieval trend towards standing armies and infantry dominance of the battlefield the beginnings of later European global military dominance. Geoffrey Parker then appropriated the these and emphasized both the unique impact of gunpowder weapons on European warfare and the advantages it gave them in establishing colonies far from their motherlands. Moreover, the these gave military history a new leash of life in the humanities, because it highlighted the importance of military developments for processes of state formation. Whilst the extent and nature of the military revolution has already for a long time been debated amongst (mainly) western historians, recently scholars belonging to the area studies, especially East Asia, have started adding their insights and criticisms, backed up by extensive knowledge of non-European sources.
In this seminar, we will investigate the present state of the debate by looking at recent research from both the “traditional” historians and the area specialists’ response. The seminar will not offer a balanced approach to the entire global dimensions of the debate, but will instead look at the Eurasian theatre. First of all, we will discuss to what extent the post-Mongolian space could be considered an integrated whole in terms of military developments – especially in relation to the spread of gunpowder technology – before moving on the dawn of early modernity. Different regions and different polities will be explored, from large land empires to smaller maritime city states. The debate will be critically examined from many angles: What was the impact of the military revolution and how did it vary in different circumstances? Can we meaningfully speak of a “response” to Europe, or should we rather see non-European developments as autonomous phenomena? To what extent does the one-way street of the diffusion-model, that only considers European military influence on others, still hold? Would other models based on, for example, circulation, cultural transfer and appropriation, and reciprocal entanglements, be more valid? What was the link between warfare and state formation in each of these cases, and to what extent did they differ from each other? And last but not least, when we talk about Europe and Asia in relation to the military revolution, which Europe and which Asia do historians refer to and how does this affect their analysis? close
In this seminar, we will investigate the present state of the debate by looking at recent research from both the “traditional” historians and the area specialists’ response. The seminar will not offer a balanced approach to the entire global dimensions of the debate, but will instead look at the Eurasian theatre. First of all, we will discuss to what extent the post-Mongolian space could be considered an integrated whole in terms of military developments – especially in relation to the spread of gunpowder technology – before moving on the dawn of early modernity. Different regions and different polities will be explored, from large land empires to smaller maritime city states. The debate will be critically examined from many angles: What was the impact of the military revolution and how did it vary in different circumstances? Can we meaningfully speak of a “response” to Europe, or should we rather see non-European developments as autonomous phenomena? To what extent does the one-way street of the diffusion-model, that only considers European military influence on others, still hold? Would other models based on, for example, circulation, cultural transfer and appropriation, and reciprocal entanglements, be more valid? What was the link between warfare and state formation in each of these cases, and to what extent did they differ from each other? And last but not least, when we talk about Europe and Asia in relation to the military revolution, which Europe and which Asia do historians refer to and how does this affect their analysis? close
14 Class schedule
Regular appointments
Fri, 2018-04-20 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-04-27 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-05-04 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-05-11 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-05-18 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-05-25 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-06-01 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-06-08 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-06-15 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-06-22 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-06-29 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-07-06 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-07-13 10:00 - 12:00
Fri, 2018-07-20 10:00 - 12:00