Military Revolution in Early Modern Period

which centralized monarchies and increased their authority and power. The crux of Roberts' argument is that there is a direct connection between the professionalism required for tactical changes and the rise of larger, more permanent state military forces. He posits that changes in tactics, strategy, and the scale of warfare are all revolutionary and can be traced back to the United Provinces in the late 16th century. These changes culminated in Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus's rule. Parker summed up Roberts' thesis as follows: "First came a 'revolution in tactics'; the replacement of the lance and pike by the arrow and musket..."

Europe experienced a significant increase in army size as a result of this development, coupled with the implementation of more intricate and ambitious tactics aimed at effectively utilizing these expanded forces...

Roberts' military revolution had a significant impact on society, as the expenses and destruction caused by war increased, and larger armies became more challenging to manage for both civilians and rulers [6]. This theory relied heavily on tactical changes pioneered by the Dutch army. Count Maurice of Nassau, who led the Dutch revolt against Spain, introduced shallower troop formations that allowed for more soldiers to fire at once with six rotating ranks of musketeers to maintain continuous fire. Gustavus Adolphus later improved this tactic with just six ranks required for constant fire, and he emphasized offensive attacks rather than the Dutch's defensive counter marches. The Swedish army demonstrated the effectiveness of this tactic at the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631, where they defeated the previously successful Imperial army under Tilly, even after their Saxon allies had fled.

Improved training and discipline, required for firing by rank,

led to an increase in officers and detailed training manuals. More complex manoeuvres necessitated a permanent force rather than hastily hired men during wartime, ensuring optimal training and discipline. The new manoeuvrable infantry firepower made larger armies more valuable than fortifications. However, this also increased the administrative and financial demands, leading to the institutionalisation of the army for control and cost management. Ultimately, this resulted in the decisive military success by Gustavus Adolphus leading the Swedish army, reversing the tide of victories held by the Austrian Habsburg Empire and allies in the Thirty Years War.

In order to achieve effective statecraft, the creation of large armies was seen as a long-term solution both for domestic stability and defense against other states. This tactic ultimately helped solidify absolute monarchies by empowering the sovereigns and weakening their subjects. Geoffrey Parker's research on Spain has contributed to the military revolution discussion by highlighting the country's progressiveness in its dominant army, which Roberts previously believed to be conservative. According to Parker, Spain's advancements were comparable to those of the Dutch and Swedes.

According to Parker's argument [7], the Spanish exhibited adaptability when it came to their infantry and cavalry tactics and training. Parker posits that the origins of the revolution can be traced back to the 15th century, a time when reform was deemed necessary due to the advent of gunpowder weapons which necessitated a shift in battlefield tactics and fortifications. The older, slender walls were no match for cannon balls, thus paving the way for stronger defenses and new castle designs which featured lower walls fortified with earth. As Parker puts it, "the improvements in artillery in the 15th century,

both qualitative and quantitative, eventually transformed fortress design..."

Various forms of firepower, such as archers, field artillery, and musketeers, caused a decline in cavalry during battles. This change also prompted the development of new tactical formations that were designed to optimize the use of firing weapons...

The Habsburgs' territories and neighboring countries including Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and France were the heartland of the military revolution. This period was characterized by noteworthy increases in army size, fortifications, and firearms.

"[8] Despite having a clear understanding of when the military revolution began, Parker is uncertain about its end. However, he agrees with Roberts that military advancements played a crucial role in influencing both states and societies. Additionally, he believes that these changes helped shift power from Asia to Europe. Nonetheless, Parker admits that major Asian powers were not defeated since they had their own unique military developments [9]. This may suggest that outside states need to develop and adapt their own successful tactics. It is possible that the most significant changes took place in the century following the commonly recognized period of the revolution.

Despite Roberts' thesis, change may have played a significant role in earlier centuries, and there may have been other aspects of military activity that were not explored. However, in the 1660-1720 period, as outlined by Jeremy Black, there were both qualitative and quantitative changes in battlefield tactics. These changes included the substitution of the pike with the newly developed bayonet, the introduction of pre-packed cartridges and the creation of the flintlock, which replaced the matchlock musket and improved both firepower and manoeuvrability.

Navies became key indicators of change in the years 1660-1720, as advancements in

line-ahead tactics transformed naval warfare. This development increased the importance of heavily gunned ships and the states that could maintain such a fleet, resulting in a decline of the relative importance of cavalry in most European armies. The English fleet adopted the Dutch pioneered formation and led the first European line-ahead attack in 1639 at the Downs. Additionally, there were significant developments in the size of navies during this time period.

In the late 17th century, advanced shipbuilding techniques resulted in the emergence of larger standing navies. Likewise, the time of the "military revolution" described by Roberts saw the development of larger standing armies.