. But, his discussion of > Turkish military technology seems to be a bit off > base. It has been widely reported that the walls of > Constantinople were very thick but that the Ottomans > conquered the city at least partly because of the > superiority of their cannon, more powerful than anything > in Europe of the time. I can probably dig up a source, > if you insist, although I am sick today and not in a > very good mood. Barkley, The passage on the Ottomas which I cited from Parker does not question the power of their artillery but in fact says it was bigger, which was precisely their weakness as far as mobility was concerned. Do you want to minimize the importance of manoeuvre in warfare? > Of course the Ottomans also were long > besieging the city which was drastically weakened. > But do you deny this claim about Turkish cannons in > 1453? Seems to undermine the general credibility of > your great expert. > Barkley Rosser > -----Original Message----- > From: Ricardo Duchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 4:01 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:11501] Re: Military technology > > > >Rod, stick to your position, don't let Blaut's "expertise" on this > >matter discourage you. Read the essay, "Europe and the wider world, > >1500-1750: the military balance" by the foremost real expert on > >military technology, Geoffrey Parker, an essay which is collected in > >one of the books Blaut earlier cited as part of the scholarship > >which has challenged eurocentrism (!!), that is *The Political Economy > >of Merchant Empires*, ed by Tracy. This essay is a shortened version > >of his masterful book, *The Military Revolution. Military > >Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1880*. This book, and the > >article require close study, but here are a few passages from the > >article, which indicate that *military strength* is not simply a matter of > >technology but of organization, tactics, and strategy as well: > > > > > >On India: "Indian armies may have been huge, but they remained, > essentially, > >aggregations of individual heroic warriors....It is surprising to > >find that the Mughals, like other South asian rulers, never attempted > >to imitate European techniques of fortifications, with the bastions, > >ravelins and defences in depth that had proved highly effective both > >in Europe and overseas." > > > >On the Ottomans: "Handguns, field guns and siege guns were all > >rapidly imitated by the Turks after their appearance in the West; > >advanced siege techniques of both offense and defence were evident > >from the 1520s...the Turks were equal to all but the largest forces > >that the West could throw against them. And yet there were important > >respects in which the military revolution was imperfectly practiced > >by europe's most dangerous neighbour. First, and best known, was the > >Ottoman decision to build their artillery big, whereas the Western > >powers concentrated on increasing the mobility and numbers of their > >guns...." and so on it goes through meticulous research analysis. > > > >On China: "By 1500 the iron and bronze guns of Western manufacture - > >whether made by Turkish or Christian founders - proved to be both > >more powerful and more mobile than those of the east, so that when > >they were brought to the Orient in the 16th they attracted both > >attention and imitation [...] But firearms remained only a part of > >Chinese armies. "early modern China, however, had no need of Western > >examples in the art of defensive fortifications: its rulers had > >already been living with gunpowder for centuries...Thus, the scale of > >fortifications in east asia in effect rendered siege guns useless. > >That may be why indigenous heavy artillery never really developed > >there...in China, it was seldom used offensively except during > >1670s." > > > >A few errors of fact (we all make those): > > > >"'[Barkley] The technology diffused westwards.' And quickly! I see the > >Poms were loosing 'bombards' (cannon) at the French by the time of Crecy > >(ie by 1346)." > > > >Chinese were developing weapons that eventually became cannons long before > >the Europeans had cannons. According to Needham, true cannons appeared in > >China about a decade before they appeared in Europe. > > > >" I see also that 'the nation state' makes its entrance in France (probably > >when Joan's mob makes peace with the Burgundians at Arras in 1435), Spain > >(the union of Castile and Aragon in 1479 under a sovereign crown), and > >England in 1485 (the Tudors after Bosworth Field in 1485). These states > >had unprecedented economies of scale going for them when it came to > >taxation, unprecedented local threats (the other nation states) " > > > >If you call these "nation-states," then hyou have to allow a lot of Asian > >and African cases, e.g., among many others: Egypt, Songhay, Vijayanagar, > >Mataram, China... Nothing "unprecedented. Nothing. > > > >"...and the cutting-edge > >coordination/space-ruling technology of the day: printing (Gutenberg 1448 > >and Caxton 1476)," > > > >Technology "of the day" was probably far behind (e.g.) China. Printing with > >movable metal type was invented a century earlier in China or (more > >probably) Korea. > > > >"... combined with the rise of the humanistic school (weakening > >the stultifying scholasticism of the more orthodox types). Powerful stuff. > > > > > >"the humanistic school?" Humanism was pretty scarce in Europe in those days > >except amongf the rich and famous. Probably more of it in China, etc. > > > >Jim B > > > > > >
