Gunpowder gradually breaks into Europe from the late 13th century through Muslims and Byzantines , connectors of Europe with the Far East, where its formula was discovered around the 9th century. Like any evolutionary process, the adaptation of gunpowder to warfare in the West followed a path of gradual progress. However, such progress, compared to the various previous advances and changes in warfare, will be sudden and radical. With the development of firearms, Western warfare will undergo a transformation in decades that ancient and medieval warfare has not experienced in centuries. But not only in the field of warfare, the emergence of these weapons directly or indirectly disrupted the entire social, political, economic and cultural panorama of the time, so we could consider this phenomenon as an authentic revolution .
Initially, the use of firearms [1] was focused on siege warfare, occupying a place of equality, and even inferiority, compared to the old weapons of siege Although the first notion about these weapons comes from China in the 12th century, their manufacture in Europe dates back to the middle of the 14th century . Its initial use in the polio field was limited to intimidation and destruction of soft targets, given its lack of force and range. But with its progressive improvement (innovations in the manufacture of gunpowder and metallurgy, the change from stone to metal projectiles, etc.), since the mid-15th century, firearms were taking a greater role , becoming obsolete trebuchets and catapults. The key element in future conflicts will be the cannon, decisive in famous sieges such as those of Constantinople (1453) [2] or Malta (1565).
The direct consequence was the development of a new type of fortress capable of withstanding the impacts of this powerful artillery. At first it was decided to reinforce the traditional medieval fortresses, installing embrasures, to respond with artillery fire, and thickening the walls. But its ineffectiveness led to the starry fortress model devised by Alberti prevailed throughout Europe. In addition to their shape, intended to avoid direct hits and offer flanking fire, these fortresses were characterized by their strong, low, and thick walls.
But its construction was excessively expensive, which affected convincingly to the state economy. In turn, its extensive resistance capacity meant that the sieges lasted for months and years [3]. This meant an excessive increase in the cost of war, which directly affected the population with excessive tax burdens that would become longer and more acute as the model of siege warfare was imposed on that of pitched battles. That is why we find ourselves since the end of the 16th century with heavy bankruptcies and permanent state debts caused both by the war itself and by its prevention. Furthermore, the units required to assault a fortress radically exceeded those of medieval armies . During the siege of Metz in 1552, to give an example, 55,000 men were employed to storm the square. The recruitment of massive armies, their complex logistics, as well as the construction of the new artillery fortresses, could only be carried out at the request of the central power, which meant a reinforcement of the State to the detriment of noble power.
On the other hand, the recruitment of infantry from civilians created unrest in the population. This, together with the need for large armies, made the recourse to professional soldiers indispensable. . While the mercenary contract was common since the Middle Ages, in modern warfare it will become a defining element. At the end of the 17th century, the use of mercenaries gradually gave rise to compulsory military service, which would consolidate the professional national armies [4] already in the 18th century. The magnitude of the new armies meant that their composition was made up mostly of infantry , since the recruitment of this was much cheaper than that of the cavalry; the sum required for a single knight could equip a good number of foot soldiers.
In this sense, a fundamental fact that promoted the rise of the infantry was the spread of manual firearms [5], inexpensive and easy to use. These made possible the military promotion of the most humble sectors of society, whose members had easy access to the new weapons as well as being quickly instructed in the new style of combat. This was opposed to the long experience required of medieval knights. The immediate consequence was the “plebeianization” of the army. Now, a peasant armed with an arquebus could defeat a noble knight armed to the nines on the battlefield. [6].
Modern warfare and the triumph of the infantry
After its medieval decline, the resurgence of infantry ended the prominence of noble heavy cavalry , which found its decline in the battle of Pavia. This meant a disorder in the popular conscience, since the protagonists of the battles will no longer be the nobles, but the people, who becoming more aware of themselves [7], as happened with the Greek hoplites in ancient times, will end up claiming an improvement of their social position against the traditional order, having its last consequences in the revolutions of the end of the 18th century . This would hardly have been possible without the renewal caused by firearms.
As for close combat, we must highlight the use of the pike. It was the Swiss who promoted it after showing its effectiveness in various conflicts since the fourteenth century, such as in the battle of Nancy in 1477 . Although its effectiveness was compromised by firearms, as demonstrated in the battle of Bicoca , it was known how to combine the virtues of both creating a symbiosis that would give rise to a new hybrid infantry where the spades, like the ancient sarisas Macedonians, provided a strong defense to the arquebuses. The most outstanding formation in this regard was the Tercio , developed by the Spanish since the second phase of the Italian wars, where the Great Captain already knew how to take advantage of this combination of firearms and bladed weapons . This formation proved unbeatable in the open field until the mid-17th century.
On the other hand, the increasing power of firearms made expensive and heavy medieval armor inoperative , which yielded to lighter protections. The same thing happened with the great swords, which gave way to fine and light white weapons such as rapiers. Sword fighting became more "fine" and precise, as opposed to bastard swords or zweihander , designed to cut, the new fight sought to damage the enemy by thrusting through the holes in the armor.
At the end of the Modern Age, the improvement of firearms progressively reduced the importance of bladed weapons. For this reason, since the end of the 17th century there has been a reduction in the number of pikes in formations. In this, the widespread use of the musket was very important. [8]. Like the arquebus, the musket was a muzzle-loading weapon, however it was more expensive, heavier [9] and more difficult to load, so at first it was intended for use only by the most vigorous and strenuous soldiers. educated. This explains why its use took time to spread. However, its greater power finally ended up displacing the use of the arquebus.
The increasing power of firearms is he adapted a new tactic that had been perfected since the 16th century. The counter march , whose invention is attributed to Mauricio de Nassau. The goal of this tactic was to achieve a continuous rate of fire . Based on Tactics of Eliano, which reproduced the maneuvers carried out by javelin throwers in antiquity, Mauricio reduced the sleeves to ten rows of fencers, so that when the first made the first salvo, they retreated backwards, allowing those who preceded them to fire. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden went even further. He reduced the ranks to six and increased the firepower by adding four light artillery pieces per regiment. The first three rows were arranged so that they could shoot at the same time; for this, the first one was positioned on her knees, the second bent over and the third standing up, while the rest recharged. The result; an unprecedented rate of fire [10]. The most important consequence in this sense was that the ranks of musketeers began to become shallower and longer, thus making better use of firepower and avoiding offering an easy target to the artillery, as was the case with square formations. This new tactic required more extensive training to maneuver and reload quickly, which led to more competent and disciplined soldiers.
For its part, in increasing the rate of fire, the invention of the flintlock was greatly important , emerged in different armies at the beginning of the 17th century, which improved the fuse and wheel systems for the ignition of gunpowder. However, it was not generalized until the end of this century, when it was applied to muskets, which, reducing their size, gave rise to the rifle.
Another key element was the bayonet , of whose different types the bucket bayonet prevailed, which, unlike its previous models, allowed it to be attached to the firearm without the need to plug the barrel. This fusion of the bladed weapon with the firearm meant that pikes became obsolete on the battlefield. However, from the last quarter of the 17th century siege operations were gradually abandoned , given that the high cost they involved caused several countries to fall into serious financial crises. Thus, pitched battles once again became important, where the use of the flintlock-operated rifle with a bayonet was spread massively, consolidating the linear formation that would characterize the battles of the 18th century [11].
Firearms also facilitated the conquest of America , although initially they did not have the determining role that is generally believed. Iron was more decisive than gunpowder given the superiority with which it provided European armor and bladed weapons over indigenous ones. The effectiveness of firearms in the first years of conquest was not very high and the territory, often jungle, was not favorable for their use. Its effectiveness was mostly psychological . For all these reasons, European crossbows and indigenous bows were generally more effective than firearms in American campaigns.
The revolution of the war at sea
For its part, maritime warfare also underwent an important evolution, although with a slower process than land warfare. The boats that were to house the new firearms were not designed for this purpose, as their robustness was not sufficient to support either the weight or the recoil force of the cannons . Given this, we witnessed at first the reinforcement of the galleys, which adapted the spur to house the artillery and increased their size and that of their oars, housing a greater number of crew members who endowed them with a great thrust force. The final result will be the appearance of the galleass , which could house twice as many pieces as the old galleys. As on land, in a first stage, attacks at sea focused on assaults on fortified positions. For this reason, the Mediterranean war also meant a great increase in prices, due to the quality of the ships and the greater magnitude of the fleets.
On the other hand, the replacing the leading role of the Mediterranean by the Atlantic was decisive. , which had been going on since the capture of Constantinople, when the Turks spurred the Europeans to exploit the commercial possibilities of the ocean. But in these waters the galleys were inoperative, so they began to manufacture larger and more robust boats, and with a great development of the sails –naos, caravels, galleons–, capable of making long journeys and housing the new artillery. The evolution of the Atlantic ships meant that at the end of the 17th century the ship of the line definitively replaced the galley as the main European warship. These new ships could house a greater number of cannons, in addition to better absorbing their recoil force and enemy impacts. For its construction, the truss method was changed for construction in frames and clamps, giving them a robustness that would lead, as on land, to a longer duration of naval battles . And, in turn, following the general trend, to an increase in the cost of the armed. Maritime warfare was remodeled giving way to broadside fire and thus, in line with the linear formations adopted by the infantry, to the new naval tactic of line arrangement, which allowed more effective use of the firepower of the cannons .
Conclusions
Making a final balance, we can accept that the overwhelming change experienced in warfare in modern centuries is essentially due to the irruption of firearms. Taking into account what is described in these lines, it is observed that the most direct changes were the resurgence of the infantry, the reinforcement of fortresses and ships, and the increase in the cost of war . This contributed both to the consolidation of modern States, the only ones capable of coping with said expenses, and to their crisis, given the continuous bankruptcies to which they were doomed. Faced with this strengthening of the central power and its loss of prominence on the battlefield, the old noble power was finally subdued.
All this will have its cultural, economic and social repercussion . The baroque pessimism in the face of endemic warfare, the technological, industrial and commercial development produced by the conflicts, the ruin resulting from its greater duration and destruction, the renewed protagonism of the common people, etc., are just some of the consequences that, evolving and affecting various fields, radically transformed Western civilization. This helps us understand how, compared to previous centuries, the evolution suffered by the West in just three centuries is radical and amazing, making the world of the fifteenth century unrecognizable with that of the eighteenth century.
Sadly, this reaffirms war as an essential engine of historical development . And although not everything was reduced to it, we must not ignore the conjuncture of transcendental milestones such as the discovery of the New World, the consequent globalization, commercial and demographic expansion, humanistic and scientific currents, religious conflicts, dynastic changes, etc. ., I would dare to say that before the expansion of firearms, except for the Neolithic Revolution [12] and the subsequent urban revolution, there was no phenomenon in history that so radically transformed human civilization; this will only be surpassed by the Industrial Revolution [13]. Given this, it would not be bold to say that the Age of Metals, specifically the Iron Age, really ended when the "Gunpowder Age" began. .
Bibliography
- PARKER, Geoffrey. War Story , Madrid:Akal, 2010.
- KEEGAN, John. The Mask of Command , Madrid:Turner Noema, 2015.
- RIBOT, Luis. “War and politics in the Europe of Louis XIV”, in The Modern Age (15th – 18th centuries) , Madrid:Marcial Pons History, 2017, pp. 640-649.
- RIBOT, Luis. “International relations”, in The Modern Age (15th – 18th centuries) , Madrid:Marcial Pons History, 2017, pp. 827-833.
- BONNEY, Richard. The Thirty Years War , Spain, Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2002.
- ALBI DE LA CUESTA, Julio. From Pavia to Rocroi . Madrid:Awake Ferro Editions, 2017.
- VV.AA., The Thirds (I). 16th century . Awake Ferro Modern History nº 5, Madrid:Awake Ferro Editions, 2014.
- VV.AA., The Tercios (II) 1600 – 1660 . Wake Up Ferro Modern History No. 7, Madrid:Wake Up Ferro Editions, 2015.
- VV.AA., The Thirds (VI) 1660 – 1704 . Wake Up Ferro Modern History nº 19, Madrid:Wake Up Ferro Editions, 2019.
- VV.AA., Gustavo Adolfo and the Thirty Years War . Wake Up Ferro Modern History No. 27, Madrid:Wake Up Ferro Editions, 2017.
- EMECEN, Feridun. “1453:the fall of Constantinople”, in VV.AA., The sites of Constantinople . Wake up Ferro Antigua and Medieval nº 4, Madrid:Wake up Ferro Ediciones, 2011, pp. 44 – 51.
- PICKLES, Tim. The heroic defense of Malta , Madrid:Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2011.
Notes
[1] Bombardas, falconets, ribadoquines, etc.
[2] The impregnable city on the Bosphorus withstood a large number of sieges throughout the Middle Ages; only gunpowder could subdue her. Its famous walls could not withstand the power of Mehmed II's giant cannons.
[3] Especially since the 17th century. For example the sites of Ostend (1601-1604) or Breda (1624-1625).
[4] The reforms carried out both in the Sweden of Gustavo Adolfo and in the France of Luis XIV were decisive in the implementation of compulsory military service. These armies, especially the French, adopted the uniform as a distinctive element against the heterogeneous mercenary clothing.
[5] Although manual ranged weapons (crossbows, bows, etc.) began to prevail in Europe since the Late Middle Ages, showing their effectiveness in battles such as Agincourt or Crecý , where the English longbows defeated the French heavy cavalry, the irruption of firearms made them progressively obsolete.
[6] This colloquial expression, synonymous with elegance, goes back to the Late Middle Ages in reference to “point blank weapons”, that is, steel weapons sharp and pointed burnished that the knights carried for war, duels and solemn moments.
[7] The riots that took place during the 16th and 17th centuries, in addition to their purely economic and disciplinary meaning, can be seen as an indication of this incipient social awareness of the infant. The soldiers, aware of their war worth, refused to fight until they had been paid, unleashing tremendously violent episodes on several occasions. Famous were the looting of Rome in 1527 and Antwerp in 1576.
[8] In use since the end of the 16th century. G. Parker claims that Duke Alba had already armed a number of men in Italy with muskets during the 1950s.
[9] Its weight required the use of a pitchfork to target it.
[10] The effectiveness of this new arrangement became apparent at the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631.
[11] At this point it is interesting to make a note about the transformation that military leadership undergoes throughout the Modern Age. If during the Middle Ages and Antiquity the leader positioned himself at the front to lead the battle alongside his soldiers, the development of firearms will cause him to relegate his position to the rear. This was originally due to siege warfare, as effective siege planning became more important than the assault itself. This made the command post the general's favorite place. In a second moment, already in the 18th century, the scope and effectiveness of the rifles will annul the importance of hand-to-hand combat, precisely where the figure of the leader breathed value into his soldiers. This, together with the importance that the order of battle acquired in resolving them, meant that the position of the general was definitively established at the command post, away from the fray. The theme of leadership is masterfully developed by John Keegan in his book The Mask of Command .
[12] Term coined by V. G. Childe and E. Cartaillhac.
[13] Term coined by Arnold Toynbee.