Talk:Military Revolution

Military history: Historiography / Early Modern C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

==Table of army sizes is incomprehensible. There are three columns but no headings to say what the columns show. Is it different dates? And if so what are they?

Expansion of this article

This article needs to be expanded. It barely touches on the ideas of today's scholarship reguarding the military revoltuion. The inclusion and discussion of the theories of Michael Roberts, Clifford Rogers, and Geoffrey Parker would improve the quality of this article. Askelly 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm going to add a reference, Parker's book "The Military Revolution", hoping that it will point someone in the right direction.

Also, tbh, "During the Thirty Years War, it took time for the military leaders to realize that the art of warfare had changed dramatically in just a couple hundred years and older medieval tactics were obsolete when fighting with muskets." makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I may be tempted to work on this myself, perhaps using Parker's book and some of my notes on lectures on this subjects. But this is not exactly my favourite topic and I don't seem to have much time, so if someone else wants to, please have a go at it. ;) Skeptic77 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that this article does not really touch on any challenges to the notion of a military revolution. After all the view that a 'revolution' occured is not widely accepted (look at the work of Jeremy Black for instance).

I have deleted the old article and I have written a completely new article on the subject, including the more relevant bibliography.

Aryaman13 —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the title be changed to reflect the time of the military revolution, since there arguably have been several such revolutions?

A general question as a side note: I wrote an extensive comment on the talk page for "SOF Mafia", an article that was suggested for speedy deletion. In that comment, I did address conceptual revolutions both with SOF and the "maneuvrists" (which includes John Boyd, the network-centric transformation people, etc.) Are there articles where these (not totally unrelated, and partially cotemporaneous) should go?Howard C. Berkowitz 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

I have added a template pointing out the article's grammatical errors (e.g., run-on sentences), style issues (occasionally close to "peacock" usage, as in writing out "id est"), use of undefined technical terms, and the possibility of original research. This last concern applies mainly to the two "discussion" sections, in which e.g. an editor categorizes types of sources and introduces the term "Overall Army." But it could also be applied to the manner in which opinions are offered up of the alleged state of the military revolution thesis. The whole piece is too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article.

I'll jump in as time permits, but there's work for many hands. -- Rob C. alias Alarob

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class is not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, at least one of the 3 sidebar pictures need to be referenced, specifically the top one showing 3 squadrons. It would greatly help researchers, like myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.202.136 (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution in war technique

Revolution in war technique 2409:4060:E82:A22B:EE61:C0D7:5766:35FB (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section 'Linear tactics'

Completely incomprehensible. The section seems to consist largely of some editor's learned and sophisticated elaborations, corrections and even rebuttal of some sort of 'standard view' about a 'revolution' pertaining to linear tactics apparently developed largely by one Roberts, but in his zeal the editor also seems to have deleted any and all explanations of Roberts' thesis, so we don't even understand what he is objecting to. Finally, we are left with no clear picture of what 'revolution' did, in fact, take place, if any. Besides, the description is non-neutral, since it explicitly presents Roberts as wrong and the rebuttal of his thesis is correct, and it's possibly original research, too, if these are the editor's own competent objections. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the thesis being rebutted here is something like what can be gleaned from a section still extant in the article Tercio:

The first real challenge to the dominance of the Spanish tercios on the open battlefield came at the Battle of Nieuwpoort (1600). The victor of Nieuwpoort, the Dutch stadtholder Maurice, Prince of Orange, believed he could improve on the tercio by combining its methods with the organisation of the Roman legion. These shallower linear formations brought a greater proportion of available guns to bear on the enemy simultaneously. The result was that the tercio squares at Nieuwpoort were badly damaged by the weight of Dutch firepower. Yet the Spanish army very nearly succeeded in spite of internal dissensions that had compromised its regular command. The Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) in the Low Countries continued to be characterized by sieges of cities and forts, while field battles were of secondary importance. Maurice's reforms did not lead to a revolution in warfare, but he had created an army that could meet the tercios' battle formations on an even basis and that pointed the way to future developments. During the Thirty Years War (1618–1648) tercio style battle formations of the Holy Roman Empire suffered major defeats at the hands of more linear formations created and led by the Swedish soldier-king Gustavus Adolphus. However, the tried-and-true tactics and professionalism of the Spanish tercios played a decisive role in defeating the Swedish army at the Battle of Nördlingen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.21.225 (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also here, from Line infantry:

Line infantry was the type of infantry that composed the basis of European land armies from the late 17th century to the mid-19th century. Maurice of Nassau and Gustavus Adolphus are generally regarded as its pioneers, while Turenne and Montecuccoli are closely associated with the post-1648 development of linear infantry tactics.^[1]

Presumably the knowledgeable editor hasn't got his hands on that article yet, so one can still understand what the standard view is.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Guthrie, William (2003). The Later Thirty Years War: From the Battle of Wittstock to the Treaty of Westphalia (Contributions in Military Studies). Praeger. p. 239. ISBN 978-0313324086.

[1] Guthrie, William (2003). The Later Thirty Years War: From the Battle of Wittstock to the Treaty of Westphalia (Contributions in Military Studies). Praeger. p. 239. ISBN 978-0313324086.

[1]