Infantry were the first military forces in history. This warrior statuette demonstrates that military culture was an important part of historical societies, c.480 BC,Staatliche Antikensammlungen.
Professional historians normally focus on military affairs that had a major impact on the societies involved as well as the aftermath of conflicts, while amateur historians and hobbyists often take a larger interest in the details of battles, equipment, and uniforms in use.
The essential subjects of military history study are the causes of war, the social and cultural foundations,military doctrine on each side, the logistics, leadership, technology,strategy, andtactics used, and how these changed over time. On the other hand,just war theory explores the moral dimensions of warfare, and to better limit the destructive reality caused by war, seeks to establish a doctrine of military ethics.
As an applied field, military history has been studied at academies and service schools because themilitary command seeks to not repeat past mistakes, and improve upon its current performance by instilling an ability in commanders to perceive historical parallels during a battle, so as to capitalize on the lessons learned from the past. When certifying military history instructors[1] theCombat Studies Institute deemphasizes rote detail memorization and focuses on themes and context in relation to current and future conflict, using the motto "Past is Prologue."[2]
The discipline of military history is dynamic, changing with development as much of the subject area as the societies and organisations that make use of it.[3] The dynamic nature of the discipline of military history is largely due to the rapid change of military forces, and the art and science of managing them, as well as the frenetic pace oftechnological development that had taken place during the period known as theIndustrial Revolution, and more recently in thenuclear andinformation ages. An important recent concept is theRevolution in Military Affairs (RMA) which attempts to explain how warfare has been shaped by emerging technologies, such as gunpowder. It highlights the short outbursts of rapid change followed by periods of relative stability.
In terms of the history profession in major countries, military history is an orphan, despite its enormous popularity with the general public.William H. McNeill points out:
This branch of our discipline flourishes in an intellectual ghetto. The 144 books in question [published in 1968-78] fall into two distinct classes: works aimed at a popular readership, written by journalists and men of letters outside academic circles, and professional work nearly always produced within the military establishment.... The study of military history in universities remains seriously underdeveloped. Indeed, lack of interest in and disdain for military history probably constitute one of the strangest prejudices of the profession.[4][5]
In recent decades University level courses in military history remain popular; often they use films to humanize the combat experience. For example, Eugene P. A. Scleh, history professor at the University of Maine, has explored the advantages and problems of teaching a course of "Modern War and Its Images" entirely through films. Students said they found the documentaries more valuable than the dramas.[6] However, military historians are frustrated by their marginal status in major history departments.[7][8]
Academic historians concerned with military topics have their own scholarly organization,Society for Military History. Since 1937 it has publishedThe Journal of Military History. Its four issues a year include scholarly articles reviews of new books, and a bibliography of new publications and dissertations. The Society has 2300 members, holds an annual convention, and gives out prizes for the best scholarship.[9]
Historiography is the study of the history and method of the discipline of history or the study of a specialised topic. In this case, military history with an eye to gaining an accurate assessment of conflicts using all available sources. For this reason military history is periodised, creating overlaying boundaries of study and analysis in which descriptions of battles by leaders may be unreliable due to the inclination to minimize mention of failure and exaggerate success. Military historians use Historiographical analysis in an effort to allow an unbiased, contemporary view of records.[10]
One military historian, Jeremy Black, outlined problems 21st-century military historians face as an inheritance of their predecessors: Eurocentricity, a technological bias, a focus on leading military powers and dominant military systems, the separation of land from sea and recently air conflicts, the focus on state-to-state conflict, a lack of focus on political "tasking" in how forces are used.[11]
If these challenges were not sufficient for military historians, the limits of method are complicated by the lack of records, either destroyed or never recorded due to their value as amilitary secret. Scholars still do not know the exact nature ofGreek fire, for instance. Researching Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example, have presented unique challenges to historians due to records that were destroyed to protect classified military information, among other reasons. Historians use their knowledge of government regulation and military organization, and employing a targeted and systematic research strategy to piece together war histories.[12] Despite these limits, wars are some of the most studied and detailed periods of human history.
Military historians have oftencompared organization, tactical and strategic ideas, leadership, and national support of the militaries of different nations.[13]
In the early 1980s, historianJeffrey Kimball studied the influence of a historian's political position on current events on interpretive disagreement regarding the causes of 20th century wars. He surveyed the ideological preferences of 109 active diplomatic historians in the United States as well as 54 active military historians. He finds that their current political views are moderately correlated with their historiographical interpretations. A clear position on the left-right continuum regarding capitalism was apparent in most cases. All groups agreed with the proposition, "historically, Americans have tended to view questions of their national security in terms of such extremes as good vs. evil." Though the Socialists were split, the other groups agreed that "miscalculation and/or misunderstanding of the situation" had caused U.S. interventionism." Kimball reports that:
Of historians in the field of diplomatic history, 7% are Socialist, 19% are Other, 53% are Liberal, 11% are None and 10% Conservative. Of military historians, 0% are Socialist, 8% are Other, 35% are Liberal, 18% are None and 40% are Conservative.[14]
People interested in military history from all periods of time, and all subtopics, are increasingly turning to the Internet for many more resources than are typically available in nearby libraries. Since 1993, one of the most popular sites, with over 4000 members (subscriptions are free) has been H-WAR, sponsored by theH-Net network based at Michigan State University.[15] H-War has six coeditors, and an academic advisory board that sets policy. It sponsors daily moderated discussions of current topics, announcements of new publications and conferences, and reports on developments at conferences. The H-Net family of lists has sponsored and published over 46,000 scholarly book reviews, thousands of which deal with books in military history broadly conceived.[16] Wikipedia itself has a very wide coverage of military history,with over 180,000 articles. Its editors sponsorWikipedia:WikiProject Military history and encourage readers to join.[17]
Military museums specialize in military histories; they are often organized from a national point of view, where a museum in a particular country will have displays organized around conflicts in which that country has taken part. They typically take a broad view of warfare's role in the nation's history.[18] They typically include displays of weapons and other military equipment,uniforms, wartimepropaganda, and exhibits on civilian life during wartime, anddecorations, among others. A military museum may be dedicated to a particular or area, such as theImperial War Museum Duxford for military aircraft,Deutsches Panzermuseum for tanks, theLange Max Museum for theWestern Front (World War I), theInternational Spy Museum for espionage,The National World War I Museum forWorld War I, the "D-Day Paratroopers Historical Center" (Normandy) for WWII airborne, or more generalist, such as theCanadian War Museum or theMusée de l'Armée. For the Italian alpine wall one can find the most popular museum of bunkers in the small museumn8bunker at Olang / Kronplatz in the heard of the dolomites ofSouth Tyrol. The U.S. Army and the state National Guards operate 98 military history museums across the United States and three abroad.[19]
Curators debate how or whether the goal of providing diverse representations of war, in terms of positive and negative aspects of warfare. War is seldom presented as a good thing, but soldiers are heavily praised. David Lowenthal has observed that in today's museums, "nothing seems too horrendous to commemorate". Yet as Andrew Whitmarsh notes, "museums frequently portray a sanitised version of warfare."[20] The actual bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan became the focus of an angry national controversy with veterans attacking curators and historians when the Smithsonian Institution planned to put its fuselage on public display in 1995. Theuproar led to cancellation of the exhibit.[21]
The nature of warfarenever changes, only its superficial manifestations.Joshua andDavid,Hector andAchilles would recognize the combat that our soldiers and Marines have waged in the alleys of Somalia and Iraq. The uniforms evolve, bronze gives way to titanium, arrows may be replaced by laser-guided bombs, but the heart of the matter is still killing your enemies until any survivors surrender and do your will.
New weapons development can dramatically alter the face of war, the cost of warfare, the preparations, and the training of soldiers and leaders. A rule of thumb is that if your enemy has a potentially war winning weapon, you have to either match it or neutralize it.[26]
Chariots originated around 2000 BC. The chariot was an effective, fast weapon; while one man controlled the maneuvering of the chariot, a second bowman could shoot arrows at enemy soldiers. These became crucial to the maintenance of several governments, including theNew Egyptian Kingdom and theShang dynasty and the nation states of the early to middleZhou dynasty.[27][28]
Some of the military unit types and technologies which were developed in the ancient world are:[29]
For settled agrarian civilizations, the infantry became the core of military action. The infantry started as opposing armed groups of soldiers underneath commanders. TheGreeks and early Romans used rigid, heavily armedphalanxes. The Macedonians and Hellenistic states would adopt phalanx formations withsarissa pikemen. TheRomans would later adopt more flexiblemaniples from their neighbors which made them extremely successful in the field of battle. The kingdoms of theWarring States in East Asia also adopted infantry combat, a transition from chariot warfare from centuries earlier.[30]
Archers were a major component of many ancient armies, notably those of the Persians, Scythians, Egyptians, Nubians, Indians, Chinese, Koreans and Japanese.
Naval warfare was often crucial to military success. Early navies used sailing ships without cannons; often the goal was to ram the enemy ships and cause them to sink. There was human oar power, often using slaves, built up to ramming speed.Galleys were used in the3rd millennium BC by theCretans. The Greeks later advanced these ships.[35][36]
In 1210 BC, the first recorded naval battle was fought betweenSuppiluliuma II, king of theHittites, andCyprus, which was defeated. In theGreco-Persian Wars, the navy became of increasing importance.
Triremes were involved in more complicated sea-land operations.Themistocles helped to build up a stronger Greek navy, composed of 310 ships, and defeated the Persians at theBattle of Salamis, ending the Persian invasion of Greece.[37]
In theFirst Punic War, the war betweenCarthage and Rome started with an advantage to Carthage because of their naval experience. A Roman fleet was built in 261 BC, with the addition of thecorvus that allowed Roman soldiers to board enemy ships. The bridge would prove effective at theBattle of Mylae, resulting in a Roman victory.
TheVikings, in the 8th century AD, invented a ship propelled by oars with a dragon decorating the prow, hence called theDrakkar. The 12th century ADSong dynasty invented ships with watertight bulkhead compartments while the 2nd century BCHan dynasty invented rudders and sculled oars for their warships.
Fortifications are important in warfare. Earlyhill-forts were used to protect inhabitants in theIron Age. They were primitive forts surrounded by ditches filled with water. Forts were then built out of mud bricks, stones, wood, and other available materials. Romans used rectangular fortresses built out of wood and stone. As long as there have been fortifications, there have been contraptions to break in, dating back to the times ofRomans and earlier.Siege warfare is often necessary to capture forts.[38]
Bows andarrows were often used by combatants. Egyptians shot arrows from chariots effectively. Thecrossbow was developed around 500 BC in China, and was used heavily in theMiddle Ages.[39] The English/Welshlongbow from the 12th century also became important in the Middle Ages. It helped to give the English a large early advantage in theHundred Years' War, even though the English were eventually defeated. TheBattle of Crécy and theBattle of Agincourt are excellent examples of how to destroy an enemy using a longbow. It dominated battlefields for over a century.
Illustration of an "eruptor", a proto-cannon, capable of firing cast-iron bombs filled with gunpowder, from the 14th century Ming dynasty book HuolongjingA smallEnglish Civil War-era cannonA 155 mmM198 howitzer firing a shell
There is evidence forgunpowder evolving slowly from formulations byChinese alchemists as early as the 4th century, at first as experiments for life force and metal transmutation, and later experiments as pyrotechnics and incendiaries. By the 10th century, the developments in gunpowder led to many new weapons that were improved over time.[40] The Chinese used incendiary devices based on this in siege warfare against the Mongols starting in the mid 13th century. "Pots with wicks of flax or cotton were used, containing a combination of sulfur, saltpeter (potassium nitrate),aconitine, oil, resin, ground charcoal and wax."[41]Joseph Needham argued the Chinese were able to destroy buildings and walls using such devices. Such experimentation was not present in Western Europe, where the combination of saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal were used exclusively for explosives and as a propellant in firearms. What the Chinese often referred to as the "fire drug" arrived in Europe, fully fleshed out, as gunpowder.[42]
Cannons were first used in Europe in the early 14th century, and played a vital role in theHundred Years' War. The first cannons were simply welded metal bars in the form of a cylinder, and the first cannonballs were made of stone. By 1346, at the Battle of Crécy, the cannon had been used; at theBattle of Agincourt they would be used again.[43][44]
The first infantry firearms, fromfire lances tohand cannons, were held in one hand, while theexplosive charge was ignited by a lit match or hot coal held in the other hand. In the mid-15th century came thematchlock, allowing the gun to be aimed and fired while held steady with both hands, as used in thearquebus. Starting about 1500, clever but complicated firing mechanisms were invented to generate sparks to ignite the powder instead of a lit match, starting with thewheel lock,snaplock,snaphance, and finally theflintlock mechanism, which was simple and reliable, becoming standard with themusket by the early 17th century.
At the beginning of the 16th century, the first Europeanfire ships were used. Ships were filled with flammable materials, set on fire, and sent to enemy lines. This tactic was successfully used byFrancis Drake to scatter theSpanish Armada at the Battle ofGravelines,[45] and would later be used by the Chinese, Russians, Greeks, and several other countries in naval battles.
The first navigablesubmarine was built in 1624 byCornelius Drebbel, it could cruise at a depth of 15 feet (5 m). However, the first military submarine was constructed in 1885 byIsaac Peral.[46]
TheHowitzer, a type offield artillery, was developed in the 17th century to fire high trajectory explosive shells at targets that could not be reached by flat trajectory projectiles.
Organizational changes resulting in better training and intercommunication, made the conceptcombined arms possible, allowing the use of infantry, cavalry, andartillery in a coordinated way.[citation needed]
Bayonets also became of wide usage to infantry soldiers.Bayonet is named afterBayonne, France where it was first manufactured in the 16th century. It is used often in infantry charges to fight in hand-to-hand combat. GeneralJean Martinet introduced the bayonet to the French army. They were used heavily in theAmerican Civil War, and continued to be used in modern wars like theInvasion of Iraq.[48]
Balloons were first used in warfare at the end of the 18th century. It was first introduced in Paris of 1783; the first balloon traveled over 5 miles (8 km). Previously militaryscouts could only see from high points on the ground, or from the mast of a ship. Now they could be high in the sky, signalling to troops on the ground. This made it much more difficult for troop movements to go unobserved.[49]
At the end of the 18th century, iron-casedartillery rockets were successfully used militarily in India against the British byTipu Sultan of theKingdom of Mysore during theAnglo-Mysore Wars. Rockets were generally inaccurate at that time, thoughWilliam Hale, in 1844, was able to develop a better rocket. The new rocket no longer needed therocket stick, and had a higher accuracy.[50]
The fire lance, the predecessor of the gun, was invented in China between the tenth and eleventh centuries. The barrel was originally designed out of bamboo shoots, later with metal.Joseph Needham notes "all the long preparations and tentative experiments were made in China, and everything came to Islam and the West fully fledged, whether it was the fire lance or the explosive bomb, the rocket or the metal-barrel handgun and bombard."[42] By the 1320s, Europe had guns, but scholars state that the exact time and method of migration from China remains a mystery. Evidence of firearms is found in Iran and Central Asia in the late fourteenth century. It was not until roughly 1442 that guns were referenced in India. Reliable references to guns in Russia begin around 1382.[53]
An illustration of a "pot-shaped gun" found in the Holkham Hall Milemete manuscript dated to 1326 shows earliest advent of firearms in European history. The illustration shows an arrow, set in the pot-shaped gun pointed directly at a structure. Archaeological evidence of such "gun arrows" were discovered inEltz Castle, "dated by relation to a historical event (a feud with the Archbishop of Trier in 1331–36 leading to a siege), seem to confirm again that this was at least one of the types of guns like the Milemete used in these very early examples."[54]
According to Peter Fraser Purton, the best evidence of the earliest gun in Europe is the Loshult gun, dated to the fourteenth century. Discovered in 1861, the Loshult was made of bronze measured 11.8 inches in length. A replica of the Loshult was created, using similar gunpowder compounds with present-day materials, to determine the effectiveness of the weapon. The Gunpowder Research Group, who designed the recreation, found that at high elevations, the Loshult could fire as far as 1300 meters.[54] Though inaccurate, missing targets further than 200 meters, the Loshult could fire a range of projectiles such as arrows and shot.[42] It was determined that the Loshult could be effectively fired at ranks of soldiers and structures.
Written works from the Cabinet des Titres of the Imperial Library of Paris has found evidence of canons in France in 1338. The works illustrate canons being used on-board ships at the Rouen during that time. "...an iron Fire-arm, which was provided with forty-eight bolts, made of iron and freather; also one pound of saltpetre and half a pound of sulphur to make the powder propel arrows."[55]
Researchers have been unable to determine the sizes of these cannons and others, outside the artifacts recovered. SirHenry Brackenbury was able to surmise the approximate size of these cannons by comparing receipts for both the firearms and the corresponding amounts of gunpowder purchased. The receipts show a transaction for "25 Livres for 5 canons." Brackenbury was able to deduce, when comparing the costs of the cannons and the gunpowder apportioned, that they each iron cannon weighed approximately 25 lbs, while the brass cannons weighed roughly 22 lbs.[55]
Philip the Bold (1363–1404) is credited[by whom?] with creating the most effective artillery power in Europe in the late fourteenth century, effectively creating the Burgundian estate. Philip's development of a large artillery army made the small country a reputable force against larger empires such as England and France.[original research?][56][failed verification] Philip had achieved this by establishing a large scale artillery manufacturing economy in Burgundy.[42] Philip used his new cache of artillery to help the French capture an English-held fortress of Odruik. The artillery used to take Odruik used cannonballs measuring to about 450 pounds.[42]
Large artillery was a major contributing factor to the fall of Constantinople at the hands ofMehmed the Conqueror (1432–1481). Having resigned his position as ruler due to youth and inexperience in 1446, Mehmed moved to the Ottoman capital of Manisa.[57] After his father,Murad II died in 1451, Mehmed once again became Sultan. He turned his attention to claiming the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. Mehmed, like Philip, started mass-producing cannons by enticing craftsmen to his cause with money and freedom. For 55 days, Constantinople was bombarded with artillery fire, throwing cannonballs as large as 800 lbs at its walls. On 29 May 1453, Constantinople fell into Ottoman control.[42]
As guns and artillery became more advanced and prevalent, so too did the tactics by which they were implemented. According to Historian Michael Roberts "...a military revolution began with the broad adoption of firearms and artillery by late sixteenth-century European armies."[58] Infantry with firearms replaced cavalry. Empires adapted their strongholds to withstand artillery fire. Eventually drilling strategies and battlefield tactics were adapted for the evolution in firearms use.
In Japan, at the same time during the sixteenth-century, this military evolution was also taking hold. These changes included a universal adoption of firearms, tactical developments for effective use, logistical restructuring within the military itself, and "the emergence of centralized and political and institutional relationships indicative of the early modern order."[58]
Tactically, beginning withOda Nobunaga, the technique known as "volleying" or countermarch drills were implemented.[42] Volley fire is an organized implementation of firearms, where infantry are structured in ranks. The ranks will alternate between loading and firing positions, allowing more consistent rates of fire and preventing enemies from taking over a position while members reload.
TheBattle of Nagashino in 1575. Key to Oda success during the battle was the deployment of 10,000Ashigaru arquebusiers.
Historical evidence shows that Oda Nobunaga implemented his volley technique successfully in 1575, twenty years before evidence of such a technique is shown in Europe. The first indications of the countermarch technique in Europe was by Lord William Louis of Nassau (1538–1574) in the mid-1590s.[58][42]
Korea also seemed to be adapting the volley technique, earlier than even the Japanese. "Koreans seem to have employed some kind of volley principle with guns by 1447, when the Korean King Sejong the Great instructed his gunners to shoot their 'fire barrels' in squads of five, taking turns firing and loading."[42]
This was on display during whatKenneth Swope called the First Great East Asian War, when Japan was trying to take control and subjugate Korea.[59]Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–1598) made a failed invasion of Korea, which lasted six years, eventually pushed back by the Koreans with the aid of Ming China.[42] Japan, using overwhelming firepower, had many early victories on the Korean peninsulas. Though the Koreans had similar manpower, "the curtain of arrows thrown up by defenders was wiped out by [Japanese] gunfire."[58] After the Japanese were finally pushed back in 1598, sweeping military reforms took place in Korea, largely based on updating and implementing the volley technique with firearms.
It wasQi Jiguang, a Ming Chinese General that provided the original treatise, disseminated to Koreans, that aided in this venture. In these manuals, Qi "...gave detailed instructions in the use of small group tactics, psychological warfare, and other 'modern' techniques."[59] Qi emphasized repetitive drilling, dividing men into smaller groups, separating the strong from weak. Qi's ethos was one of synthesizing smaller groups, trained in various tactical formations, into larger companies, battalions and armies. By doing this they could "operate as eyes, hands, and feet..." aiding to overall unit cohesion.[59]
At the start of the World Wars, various nations had developed weapons that were a surprise to their adversaries, leading to a need to learn from this, and alter how to combat them.Flame throwers were first used in the First World War. The French were the first to introduce thearmored car in 1902. Then in 1918, the British produced the firstarmored troop carrier. Many earlytanks were proof of concept but impractical until further development. In World War I, the British and French held a crucial advantage due to their superiority in tanks; the Germans had only a few dozen A7V tanks, as well as 170 captured tanks. The British and French both had several hundred each. The French tanks included the 13 tonSchneider CA1, with a 75 mm gun, and the British had theMark IV andMark V tanks.[60]
On 17 December 1903, theWright Brothers performed the first controlled, powered, heavier-than-air flight; it went 39 meters (120 ft). In 1907, the firsthelicopter flew, but it was not practical for usage.Aviation became important in World War I, in which severalaces gained fame. In 1911 an aircraft took off from a warship for the first time. Landings on a cruiser were another matter. This led to the development of anaircraft carrier with a decent unobstructed flight deck.[61]
Chemical warfare exploded into the public consciousness in World War I but may have been used in earlier wars without as much human attention. The Germans used gas-filled shells at theBattle of Bolimov in January 1915. These were not lethal, however. In April 1915, the Germans developed a chlorine gas that was highly lethal, and used it to moderate effect at theSecond Battle of Ypres. Gas masks were invented in matter of weeks, and poison gas proved ineffective at winning battles. It was made illegal by all nations in the 1920s.[62]
World War II gave rise to even more technology. The worth of aircraft grew from mostly reconnaissance to strategic bombing and more. The worth of the aircraft carrier was proved in the battles between the United States and Japan like theBattle of Midway.Radar was independently invented by theAllies andAxis powers. It usedradio waves to detect objects.Molotov cocktails were invented by General Franco in the Spanish Civil War, directing the Nationalists to use them against Soviet tanks in the assault on Toledo. Theatomic bomb was developed by theManhattan Project anddropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, quickly and controversially ending World War II.[63]
During theCold War, the main powers engaged in aNuclear arms race[64] which comprised the making of atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, and more advanced nuclear bombs. In thespace race, both nations attempted to launch human beings into space, to the moon and send satellites. Other technological advances were centered on intelligence (like thespy satellite) and missiles (ballistic missiles,cruise missiles). Thenuclear submarine was invented in 1955. This meant submarines no longer needed to surface as often, and could run more quietly. They evolved into underwater missile platforms[65] and completed what became callednuclear triad.
Prehistoric warfare refers to war that occurred between societies withoutrecorded history. TheTollense valley battlefield is the oldest evidence of a large scale battle in Europe. More than 4,000 warriors fought in a battle on the site in the 13th century BC.[66]
TheStandard of Ur with depictions of war and peace, from theSumerian city-state ofUr, c. 2600 BC
Much of what we know ofancient history is the history of militaries: their conquests, their movements, and their technological innovations. There are many reasons for this. Kingdoms and empires, the central units of control in the ancient world, could only be maintained through military force. Due to limited agricultural ability, there were relatively few areas that could support large communities, therefore fighting was common.
TheUmma–Lagash war was one of the first wars in recorded history, fought between theSumerian city-states ofLagash andUmma. The border conflict over the fertileGuedena region lasted for several generations.[67]
Weapons andarmor, designed to be sturdy, tended to last longer than other artifacts, and thus a great deal of surviving artifacts recovered tend to fall in this category as they are more likely to survive. Weapons and armor were also mass-produced to a scale that makes them quite plentiful throughout history, and thus more likely to be found in archaeological digs.
Such items were also considered signs of prosperity or virtue, and thus were likely to be placed in tombs and monuments to prominent warriors. And writing, when it existed, was often used for kings to boast of military conquests or victories.
Writing, when used by the common man, also tended to record such events, as major battles and conquests constituted major events that many would have considered worthy of recording either in an epic such as theHomeric writings pertaining to the Trojan War, or even personal writings. Indeed, the earliest stories center on warfare, as war was both a common and dramatic aspect of life; the witnessing of a major battle involving many thousands of soldiers would be quite a spectacle, even today, and thus considered worthy both of being recorded in song and art, but also in realistic histories, as well as being a central element in a fictional work.
Siege engine inAssyrian relief of attack on an enemy town during the reign ofTiglath-Pileser III, 743–720 BC, from his palace atNimrud
Lastly, asnation states evolved and empires grew, the increased need for order and efficiency lead to an increase in the number of records and writings. Officials and armies would have good reason for keeping detailed records and accounts involving any and all things concerning a matter such as warfare that, in the words ofSun Tzu, was "a matter of vital importance to the state". For all these reasons, military history comprises a large part of ancient history.
In China, theShang dynasty andZhou dynasty had risen and collapsed. This led to aWarring States period, in which several states continued to fight with each other over territory. Philosopher-strategists such asConfucius andSun Tzu wrote various manuscripts on ancient warfare (as well as international diplomacy).
The Warring States era philosopherMozi (Micius) and hisMohist followers invented various siege weapons and siegecraft, including the Cloud Ladder (a four-wheeled, extendable ramp) to scale fortified walls during a siege of an enemy city. The warring states were first unified byQin Shi Huang after a series of military conquests, creating the first empire in China.
Hisempire was succeeded by theHan dynasty, which expanded into CentralAsia, Northern China/Manchuria, Southern China, and present day Korea and Vietnam. The Han came into conflict with settled people such as theWiman Joseon, and proto-Vietnamese Nanyue. They also came into conflict with theXiongnu (Huns),Yuezhi, and other steppe civilizations.
The Han defeated and drove the Xiongnus west, securing the city-states along the silk route that continued into theParthian Empire. After the decline of central imperial authority, the Han dynasty collapsed into an era of civil war and continuous warfare during theThree Kingdoms period in the 3rd century AD.
ThePeloponnesian War then erupted between the two Greek powers Athens and Sparta. Athens built a long wall to protect its inhabitants, but the wall helped to facilitate the spread of a plague that killed about 30,000 Athenians, includingPericles. After a disastrous campaign againstSyracuse, the Athenian navy was decisively defeated byLysander at theBattle of Aegospotami.
TheMacedonians, underneathPhilip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, invaded Persia and won several major victories, establishing Macedonia as a major power. However, following Alexander's death at an early age, the empire quickly fell apart.
Meanwhile, Rome was gaining power, following a rebellion against theEtruscans. During the threePunic Wars, the Romans defeated the neighboring power of Carthage. TheFirst Punic War centered onnaval warfare. TheSecond Punic War started withHannibal's invasion of Italy by crossing theAlps. He famously won the encirclement at theBattle of Cannae. However, afterScipio invaded Carthage, Hannibal was forced to follow and was defeated at theBattle of Zama, ending the role of Carthage as a power.
After defeating Carthage the Romans went on to become the Mediterranean's dominant power, successfully campaigning in Greece, (Aemilius Paulus decisive victory over Macedonia at theBattle of Pydna), in the Middle East (Lucius Licinius Lucullus,Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus), inGaul (Gaius Julius Caesar) and defeating severalGermanic tribes (Gaius Marius,Germanicus). While Roman armies suffered several major losses, their large population and ability (and will) to replace battlefield casualties, their training, organization, tactical and technical superiority enabled Rome to stay a predominant military force for several centuries, utilizing well trained and maneuverable armies to routinely overcome the much larger "tribal" armies of their foes (see Battles ofAquae Sextiae,Vercellae,Tigranocerta,Alesia).
In 54 BC, the Roman triumvirMarcus Licinius Crassus took the offensive against theParthian Empire in the east. In a decisive battle atCarrhae Romans were defeated and the goldenAquilae (legionary battle standards) were taken as trophies toCtesiphon. The battle was one of the worst defeats suffered by the Roman Republic in its entire history.
While successfully dealing with foreign opponents, Rome experienced numerous civil wars, notably the power struggles of Roman generals such as Marius andSulla during the end of the Republic. Caesar was also notable for his role in the civil war against the other member of the Triumvirate (Pompey) and against the Roman Senate.
The successors of Caesar—Octavian and Mark Anthony—also fought a civil war with Caesar's assassins (Senators Brutus, Cassius, etc.). Octavian and Mark Anthony eventually fought another civil war between themselves to determine the sole ruler of Rome. Octavian emerged victorious and Rome was turned into an empire with a huge standing army of professional soldiers.
By the time ofMarcus Aurelius, the Romans had expanded to the Atlantic Ocean in the west and toMesopotamia in the east and controlled Northern Africa and Central Europe up to theBlack Sea. However, Aurelius marked the end of theFive Good Emperors, and Rome quickly fell into decline.
TheHuns,Goths, and other barbaric groups invaded Rome, which continued to suffer frominflation and other internal strifes. Despite the attempts ofDiocletian,Constantine I, andTheodosius I, western Rome collapsed and was eventually conquered in 476. TheByzantine empire continued to prosper, however.
Whenstirrups came into use some time during theDark Ages militaries were forever changed. This invention coupled with technological, cultural, and social developments had forced a dramatic transformation in the character of warfare fromantiquity, changing military tactics and the role ofcavalry andartillery.
Similar patterns of warfare existed in other parts of the world. In China around the 5th century armies moved from massed infantry to cavalry based forces, copying thesteppenomads. The Middle East and North Africa used similar, if often more advanced, technologies than Europe.
In Japan, the Medieval warfare period is considered by many to have stretched into the 19th century. In Africa along theSahel andSudan states like theKingdom of Sennar andFulani Empire employed Medieval tactics and weapons well after they had been supplanted in Europe.
In theMedieval period,feudalism was firmly implanted, and there existed many landlords in Europe. Landlords often ownedcastles to protect their territory.
In China, theSui dynasty had risen and conquered the Chen dynasty of the south. They invaded Vietnam (northern Vietnam had been in Chinese control since the Han dynasty), fighting the troops ofChampa, who had cavalry mounted on elephants. After decades of economic turmoil and afailed invasion of Korea, the Sui collapsed and was followed by the Tang dynasty, who fought with variousTurkic groups, theTibetans ofLhasa, theTanguts, theKhitans, and collapsed due to political fragmentation of powerful regional military governors (jiedushi). The innovativeSong dynasty followed next, inventing new weapons of war that employed the use ofGreek Fire andgunpowder (see section below) against enemies such as theJurchens.
TheMongols underGenghis Khan,Ögedei Khan,Möngke Khan, andKublai Khan conquered most of Eurasia. They took over China, Persia, Turkestan, and Russia. After Kublai Khan took power and created theYuan dynasty, the divisions of the empire ceased to cooperate with each other, and the Mongol Empire was only nominally united.
In New Zealand, prior to European discovery, oral histories, legends andwhakapapa include many stories of battles and wars.Māori warriors were held in high esteem. One group ofPolynesians migrated to theChatham Islands, where they developed the largely pacifistMoriori culture. Their pacifism left the Moriori unable to defend themselves when the islands were invaded by mainland Māori in the 1830s.
They proceeded to massacre the Moriori and enslave the survivors.[70][71]Warrior culture also developed in the isolatedHawaiian Islands. During the 1780s and 1790s the chiefs and alii were constantly fighting for power. After a series of battles the Hawaiian Islands were united for the first time under a single ruler who would become known asKamehameha I.
This all brought an end to the dominance of armored cavalry on the battlefield. The simultaneous decline of the feudal system—and the absorption of the medieval city-states into larger states—allowed the creation of professional standing armies to replace thefeudal levies and mercenaries that had been the standard military component of the Middle Ages.
The period spanning between the 1648Peace of Westphalia and the 1789French Revolution is also known asKabinettskriege (Princes' warfare) as wars were mainly carried out by imperial or monarchics states, decided by cabinets and limited in scope and in their aims. They also involved quickly shifting alliances, and mainly used mercenaries.
Over the course of the 18th–19th centuries all military arms and services underwent significant developments that included a more mobilefield artillery, the transition from use of battalioninfantry drill inclose order to open order formations and the transfer of emphasis from the use ofbayonets to the rifle that replaced the musket, and virtual replacement of all types of cavalry with the universaldragoons, ormounted infantry.
The Military Revolution is a conceptual schema for explaining the transformation of European military strategy, tactics and technology in the early modern period.[72] The argument is that dramatic advances in technology, government finance, and public administration transformed and modernized European armies, tactics, and logistics. Since warfare was so central to the European state, the transformation had a major impact on modernizing government bureaucracies, taxation, and the national economy. The concept was introduced byMichael Roberts in the 1950s as he focused onSweden 1560–1660. Roberts emphasized the introduction of muskets that could not be aimed at small targets, but could be very effective when fired in volleys by three ranks of infantry soldiers, with one firing while the other two ranks reloaded. All three ranks march forward to demolish the enemy. The infantry now had the firepower that had been reserved to the artillery, and had mobility that could rapidly advance in the battlefield, which the artillery lacked. The infantry thereby surpassed the artillery in tactical maneuvering on the battlefield. Roberts linked these advances with larger historical consequences, arguing that innovations in tactics, drill and doctrine by the Dutch and Swedes 1560–1660 led to a need for more and better trained troops and thus for permanent forces (standing armies). Armies grew much larger and more expensive. 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. "Thus, argued Roberts, the modern art of war made possible—and necessary—the creation of the modern state".[73] In the 1990s the concept was modified and extended byGeoffrey Parker, who argued that developments in fortification and siege warfare caused the revolution. The concept of a military revolution based upon technology has given way to models based more on a slow evolution in which technology plays a minor role to organization, command and control, logistics and in general non-material improvements. The revolutionary nature of these changes was only visible after a long evolution that handed Europe a predominant place in warfare, a place that the industrial revolution would confirm.[74][75]
The concept of a military revolution in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has received a mixed reception among historians. Noted military historians Michael Duffy andJeremy Black have strongly criticised it as misleading, exaggerated and simplistic.[76]
As weapons—particularly small arms—became easier to use, countries began to abandon a complete reliance on professional soldiers in favor ofconscription. Technological advances became increasingly important; while the armies of the previous period had usually had similar weapons, the industrial age saw encounters such as theBattle of Sadowa, in which possession of a more advanced technology played a decisive role in the outcome.[77] Conscription was employed in industrial warfare to increase the number of military personnel that were available for combat. Conscription was notably used byNapoleon Bonaparte and the major parties during the two World Wars.
Since the 1940s, preparation for a major war has been based on technological arms races involving all sorts of new weapons systems, such as nuclear and biological, as well as computerized control systems, and the opening of new venues, such as seen in theSpace race involving the United States, the Soviet Union, and more recently, China.[81]
A distinctive feature since 1945 is the decline in number and casualties of interstate wars. Instead actual fighting has largely been a matter of civil wars and insurgencies.[82] The major exceptions were theIndo-Pakistani War of 1971, theIran–Iraq War 1980–1988, theGulf War of 1990–91, and theRusso-Ukrainian War.
^William H McNeill, "Modern European History" in Michael Kammen, ed.,The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States (1980) pp. 99–100
^Eugene P. A. Scleh, "Teaching History Through Film",Film & History (1973) 3#3 pp 12–16.
^John A. Lynn, "Rally Once Again: The Embattled Future of Academic Military History",Journal of Military History 61 (Oct. 1997), 777–89onlineArchived 2021-07-14 at theWayback Machine.
^Paul Kennedy,The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (Random House, 1987)
^Jeffrey Kimball, "The Influence of Ideology on Interpretive Disagreement: A Report on a Survey of Diplomatic, Military and Peace Historians on the Causes of 20th Century U. S. Wars",The History Teacher (May, 1984) 17#3 pp. 355–384in JSTORArchived 2016-12-25 at theWayback Machine
^Richard Jensen, "Military history on the electronic frontier: Wikipedia fights the War of 1812."The Journal of Military History 76.4 (2012): 523–556online[dead link].
^Stephen Wood, "Too serious a business to be left to military men""Museum International 38.1 (1986): 20–26.
^R. Cody Phillips,, "The Guide to US Army Museums" (Center for Military History, 2005)onlineArchived 2017-05-02 at theWayback Machine
^Andrew Whitmarsh, "'We Will Remember Them': Memory and Commemoration in War Museums."Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies (2001) vol 7 pp. 11–15.
^Otto Mayr, "The 'Enola Gay' Fiasco: History, Politics, and the Museum."Technology and culture 39.3 (1998): 462–473.onlineArchived 2018-12-17 at theWayback Machine
^Peters, Ralph.New Glory: Expanding America's Supremacy, 2005. p. 30
^Barton C. Hacker, "Military institutions, weapons, and social change: Toward a new history of military technology."Technology and Culture 35.4 (1994): 768–834.
^P.R.S. Moorey, "The emergence of the light, horse‐drawn chariot in the Near‐East c. 2000–1500 BC."World Archaeology 18.2 (1986): 196–215.
^Richard Ernest Dupuy, and Trevor Nevitt Dupuy,The encyclopedia of military history: from 3500 BC to the present (1970).
^Robin D.S. Yates, "New Light on Ancient Chinese Military Texts: Notes on Their Nature and Evolution, and the Development of Military Specialization in Warring States China."T'oung Pao (1988): 211–248.JSTOR4528419
^Leslie J. Worley,Hippeis: the cavalry of Ancient Greece (1994).
^Jeffrey Rop, "Reconsidering the Origin of the Scythed Chariot."Historia 62.2 (2013): 167–181.
^Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund (1998)."A History of India"(PDF). Routledge. p. 8.Archived(PDF) from the original on 23 June 2021. Retrieved8 April 2021.
^Brenda J. Buchanan, ed.,Gunpowder, explosives and the state: a technological history (Ashgate, 2006).
^Raphael, Kate (2009). "Mongol Siege Warfare on the Banks of the Euphrates and the Question of Gunpowder (1260–1312)".Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.19 (3):355–370.doi:10.1017/S1356186309009717.JSTOR27756073.S2CID162999079.
^abcdefghijAndrade, Tonio (2016).The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History. Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0691178141.
^Martin J. Brayley,Bayonets: An Illustrated History (2012)
^John Christopher,Balloons at War: Gasbags, Flying Bombs & Cold War Secrets (2004)
^HM Iftekhar Jaim, and Jasmine Jaim, "The Decisive Nature of the Indian War Rocket in the Anglo-Mysore Wars of the Eighteenth Century."Arms & Armour 8.2 (2011): 131–138.
^Robert Held,The Age of Firearms: a pictorial history. (Harper, 1957).
^Partington, J. R. (1999).A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 48–49, 54, 208, 217,222–223.ISBN0801859549.
^abPurton, Peter Fraser (2009).A History of the Late Medieval Siege, 1200–1500. Boydell & Brewer Ltd.ISBN978-1843834489.
^abBrackenbury, Henry (1865).Ancient Cannon in Europe. Woolwich: The Royal Artillery Institution.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
^abcSwope, Kenneth M. (2013).A Dragon's Head and a Serpent's Tail: Ming China and the First Great East Asian War. University of Oklahoma Press.ISBN978-0806185026.
^Patrick Wright,Tank: the progress of a monstrous war machine (Penguin, 2003).
^Norman Polmar,Aircraft carriers: a graphic history of carrier aviation and its influence on world events (1969).
^Kim Coleman,A history of chemical warfare (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
^Ryan Jenkins,World War 2: New Technologies (2014)
^Paul P. Craig and John A. Jungerman,The Nuclear Arms Race: Technology and Society (1990)
^Jeremy Black,The Cold War: A Military History (2015)
^Michael Duffy,The Military Revolution and the State, 1500–1800 (1980).
^Jeremy Black, "A Military Revolution? A 1660-1792 Perspective", in Clifford J. Rogers, ed.,The Military Revolution Debate: Readings on the Military Transformation of Early Modern Europe (1995), pp. 95–115.
^Jacob, F. & Visoni-Alonzo, G.,The Military Revolution in Early Modern Europe, a Revision, (2016)
^Geoffrey Parker, "The Military Revolution, 1560–1660 – A Myth?"Journal of Modern History 48#2 (1976) pp 195–214;onlineArchived 2018-12-15 at theWayback Machine
^Jeremy Black, "A Military Revolution? A 1660–1792 Perspective", pp. 95–115; and Michael Duffy,The Military Revolution and the State, 1500–1800 (1980).
^John France,Perilous Glory: The Rise of Western Military Power (2011) pp. 219–264 on 1815–1914.
^David A. Bell,The first total war: Napoleon's Europe and the birth of modern warfare (2008).
^John Bennett Walters, "General William T. Sherman and Total War."Journal of Southern history 14.4 (1948): 447–480.onlineArchived 2018-12-15 at theWayback Machine
^Mark E. Neely Jr, "Was the Civil War a Total War?."Civil War History 37.1 (1991): 5–28.
^Alex Roland, "Was the Nuclear Arms Race Deterministic?."Technology and Culture 51.2 (2010): 444–461.online
^Robert J. Bunker and Pamela Ligouri Bunker, "The modern state in epochal transition: The significance of irregular warfare, state deconstruction, and the rise of new warfighting entities beyond neo-medievalism."Small Wars & Insurgencies 27.2 (2016): 325–344.
Dupuy, R. Ernest and Trevor N. Dupuy.The Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 B.C. to the Present (1977), 1465 pp; comprehensive summary focused on wars and battles;online
Dyer, Gwynne.The Shortest History of War: From Hunter-Gatherers to Nuclear Superpowers – A Retelling for Our Times (2022).
Grossman, Mark.World military leaders: a biographical dictionary (Infobase Publishing, 2007).
Holmes, Richard, ed.The Oxford Companion to Military History (2001) 1071 pp; online at OUP
Jones, Archer,The Art of War in the Western World (2001)
Kohn, George C.Dictionary of Wars (3rd ed. 2006) 704 pp; very useful summary across world history
Karsten, Peter. ed.,Encyclopedia of War and American Society (3 vols., 2005).
Barnett, Correlli, Shelford Bidwell, Brian Bond, and John Terraine.Old Battles and New Defences: Can We Learn from Military History? (1986).online editionArchived 2009-11-23 at theWayback Machine
Bucholz, Arden. "Hans Delbruck and Modern Military History."The Historian vol 55#3 (1993) pp. 517+.
Chambers II, John Whiteclay. "The New Military History: Myth and Reality",Journal of Military History, 55 (July 1991), 395–406
Chambers, John Whiteclay. "‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ (1930): the antiwar film and the image of the First World War."Historical journal of film, radio and television 14.4 (1994): 377–411.
Charters, David A., Marc Milner, and J. Brent Wilson. eds.Military History and the Military Profession, (1992)
Gill, John H. "From Great Captains to Common Grognards: research opportunities in Napoleonic military history."War & Society 41.1 (2022): 6–84.doi:10.1080/07292473.2022.2021752
Grimsley, Mark. "Why Military History Sucks", Nov. 1996, War Historian.org, online atWhy Military History Sucks
Higham, John, ed.A Guide to the Sources of British Military History (2015) 654 pagesexcerpt
Hughes, Matthew, and W. Philpott, eds.Palgrave Advances in Modern Military History (2006)excerptArchived 2022-01-16 at theWayback Machine
Karsten, Peter. "The 'New' American Military History: A Map of the Territory, Explored and Unexplored",American Quarterly, 36 #3, (1984), 389–418in JSTORArchived 2019-04-26 at theWayback Machine
Kimball, Jeffrey. "The Influence of Ideology on Interpretive Disagreement: A Report on a Survey of Diplomatic, Military and Peace Historians on the Causes of 20th Century U. S. Wars",History Teacher 17#3 (1984) pp. 355–384doi:10.2307/493146onlineArchived 2021-11-10 at theWayback Machine
Kohn, Richard H. "The Social History of the American Soldier: A Review and Prospectus for Research",American Historical Review, 86 (June 1981), 553–67.in JSTORArchived 2019-04-26 at theWayback Machine
Lee, Wayne E. "Mind and Matter – Cultural Analysis in American Military History: A Look at the State of the Field",Journal of American History, 93 (March 2007), 1116–1142. Fulltext:History Cooperative andEbsco
Lynn, John A. "Rally Once Again: The Embattled Future of Academic Military History",Journal of Military History, 61 (Oct. 1997), 777–789.
Mearsheimer, John J.Liddell Hart and the Weight of History. (1988). 234 pp.
Messenger, Charles, ed.Reader's Guide to Military History (Routledge, 2001), 948 pp; detailed guide to the historiography of 500 topicsexcerpt and text searchArchived 2016-03-12 at theWayback Machine
Morillo, Stephen.What is Military History (2006)
Moyar, Mark. "The Current State of Military History",The Historical Journal (2007), 50: 225–240 online atCJO
Murray, Williamson and Richard Hart Sinnreich, eds.The Past as Prologue: The Importance of History to the Military Profession (2006).
Noe, Kenneth W., George C. Rable and Carol Reardon. "Battle Histories: Reflections on Civil War Military Studies"Civil War History 53#3 2007. pp. 229+.online edition[permanent dead link]
Porch, Douglas. "Writing History in the 'End of History' Era: Reflections on Historians and the GWOT"Journal of Military History 2006 70(4): 1065–1079. on war on terror, 2001–present
Reardon, Carol.Soldiers and Scholars: The U.S. Army and the Uses of Military History, 1865–1920. U. Press of Kansas 1990. 270 pp. ISBN978-0700604661.
Reid, Brian Holden. "American Military History: the Need for Comparative Analysis."Journal of American History 2007 93(4): 1154–1157.
Reid, Brian Holden, and Joseph G. Dawson III, eds., "Special Issue: The Vistas of American Military History, 1800–1898",American Nineteenth Century History, 7 (June 2006), 139–321.
Riseman, Noah. "The Rise of Indigenous Military History."History Compass (2014) 12#12 pp. 901–911. cover 20th century.doi:10.1111/hic3.12205.
Rogers, Clifford J. ed.The Military Revolution Debate: Readings On The Military Transformation Of Early Modern Europe (1995)
Sharman, Jason C. "Myths of military revolution: European expansion and Eurocentrism."European Journal of International Relations 24.3 (2018): 491513onlineArchived 2022-01-16 at theWayback Machine
Schleh, Eugene P. "Books About Film and War."Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies 8.1 (1978): 11–14.
Schleh, Eugene P. "All Quiet on the Western Front: A History Teacher's Reappraisal."Film & History 8.4 (1978): 66–69.
Spiller, Roger. "Military History and its Fictions."Journal of Military History 2006 70(4): 1081–1097. online
Winter, Jay, and Antoine Prost.The Great War in History Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the Present (Cambridge UP, 2005)excerptArchived 2021-08-04 at theWayback Machine
Wolters, Timothy S. "Harvey A. DeWeerd and the Dawn of Academic Military History in the United States."Journal of Military History (Jan 2021) 85#1 pp 95–133.
_(14767240352).jpg)
_Central_Palace_reign_of_Tiglath-pileser_III_British_Museum_-_2.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Arte_Romana_-_Photo_Paolo_Villa_FO232047_ombre_gimp_bis.jpg)
%2c_Bitwa_pod_Orsz%25C4%2585.jpg)
_-_Veldslag_(1640)_-_Sevilla_Bellas_Artes_22-03-2011_12-07-38.jpg)
.jpg)
