Technically Impressive or World Changing?
I saw a short video version of Machowicz’s list and then read with interest Mike’s comments. My initial reaction to Machowicz’s list is similar to Mike’s in that the military industrial complex is just too broad, it sweeps up every bit of technology, and any technology that is to be developed in the future, world changing or not. It also masks a change starting in the 19th Century of mass production that made arming and equipping large armies of conscripts possible. These mass armies made the horrible (and I would claim world changing) world wars possible. I would also note that Machowicz’s list was supposed to be “modern” weapons that changed the world; which would make Mark’s inclusion of the horse and longbow a case of comparing apples and oranges. Both lists suffer somewhat from combining the very specific (the AK-47) with the synoptic (the horse or the military industrial complex). There are also some “twofurs” (i.e. two for one items) such as the ICBM which incorporates nuclear weapons by reference. But mostly I wonder how many of the items on these lists really “changed the world.” Do weapons, such the ICBM, which were never used represent a “world changing” technology. The IRBM such as in the first Gulf War did not materially change the outcome. Most of the items on the list are technically impressive or ubiquitous on the modern battlefield. I’m not convinced that they all “changed the world.” Many of them changed military science or even an occasional local balance of power, but “changing the world” is pretty high standard. I like Mike’s list better because I think the longer scope of history gets closer to the “world changing” claim. Anyway, enough of this academic stuff; here is my list which will take the longer view and hopefully find a middle ground between the too specific and the synoptic………10) Sustained fire machine gun—I include this not only for dominating any situation where unarmored troops are employed, but also for its role in late colonial period in extending European domination of much of the World…..9) Nuclear weapons—If this list was a matter of sheer fire power I would put this first, but only two bombs have been used in anger. I have them on the list for their influence on 20th and 21st Century politics and diplomacy….8) Radio communications—I will gracefully accept any comments that radios are not weapons, but this key technology is what makes modern armies modern. An army cannot move or shoot without communicating…. 7) Steam propulsion for ships—More than armor, steam propulsion made modern navies masters of the oceans. UK naval power reached its zenith under a plume of smoke and later the USA became a world power because of its world spanning navy. Nuclear power is a variation on steam propulsion…..6) the Airplane—I can name a lot very good airplanes, but the real world changing event here was moving warfare into the skies and putting most of an enemy’ territory within reach of an air strike……5) Artillery—The King of Battle is little angry at being left off both Machowicz’s and Mike’s lists. I have included artillery for three distinct reasons, crushing masonry fortifications, which changed several power relationships in history; for dominating warfare at sea since the defeat of the Spanish Armada; and for being such lethal killing systems in the World wars……4) Rifled weapons—The accuracy and lethality of a wide variety of weapons increased when rifling was introduced. The Minie Ball dominated the battlefields of the American Civil War. The increased power of the Infantry arrived at about the same time as the mass conscript army also developed leading to a form of total war that really changed the World…….3) Gunpowder—Gunpowder and related propellants make items 4, 5, and 10 possible. Introduction of gunpowder weapons changed armies forever……2) Stirrups—I could not be as broad as Mike in naming the horse, so I chose the technology that made horse and rider more effective. Stirrups made shock action on horseback possible and lead to the domination of the armored knight on Medieval battlefield and the consequent feudal systems and the culture clash of the Crusades…..1) Steel for edged weapons and projectile points—Successful arms manufacture begins with steel. In Europe, Asia, and Africa steel weapons have dominated since their introduction about the 4th Century BC, and it was being claimed as an important advantage in Western colonizing through the 19th Century.
Report this comment
The importance of stirrups as a transforming innovation has been played down over recent years. It seems that saddle design, like the Roman four-horned type or built-up eastern varieties, provided enough of the support and flexibility needed to fight effectively with lance (one- or two-handed), sword, mace etc or bow. Stirrups were an improvement but not a world -changing one. And cavalry had its limitations – All down the centuries there is evidence that a body of infantry drawn up in close order and presenting a solid front of spears, pikes or bayonets could readily hold off a cavalry charge, as long as cohesion was maintained. I read somewhere that horses are just too intelligent to gallop in and impale themselves in such circumstances! Cavalry generally only worked as shock troops against broken formations.
Report this comment
William, I yield to your superior knowledge of warfare on horseback. Although the stirrups suggestion was meant to be a bit tounge in cheek. Mike was onto something-the domestication of the horse was a world changing event in both war and peace. Just look what happened when the Spanish showed up in the Americas with horses. The more I think about it, the idea that individual weapons meet the standard of "World Changing" is a bit bogus. It would be more appropriate to identify world changing events or organizations. For example, the Battle of Britain could be one of the world changing events. And the Hurricane and Spitfire were important weapons in that event, but so was radar and the fighter control system developed by fighter command. The Roman gladius was an important weapon, but an argument could be made that the Roman Legion was a more important development.
Report this comment
More or less as soon as I posted my initial blog a couple of the other bloggers came up to me and told me that the stirrup changed warfare - although I would have loved to see a man hobbling across a battlefield with his feet in stirrups and no horse to be seen... but I agree deankal, the more I have looked into this the more impossible the job seems. Maybe a post on world changing battles might be in the offing very soon!
Report this comment
I vote for Midway, but I expect the UK readers would go for the Battle of Britain.
Report this comment
For most of my life I was convinced the fall of Rome was brought about by stirrups, and it’s still a better explanation than decadence and hot baths! But, with the exception of the nuclear bomb and its means of delivery, I agree that no weapon or any other piece of military kit can meaningfully be described, on its own, as world-changing. There are always other factors: linking the gladius with the legionary system is a great example, and you could add tactics, leadership and generalship, and so on… The horse was one factor in the Spanish conquest of the New World. Other influential assets included steel armour and cutting weapons (against obsidian, wood and bone), firearms, and, coming in handy before long, European diseases! Then, this was a time-warped clash between two totally alien cultures (though it’s easy to forget that thousands of Indians fought on the Spanish side). However, the horse did go on to breed and multiply on the plains of North America and so, individually, had a huge impact on the world of the Native American. I agree, deankal, “events or organizations” have it over weapons here. As far as battles are concerned, I think the the key question is: would a different outcome have changed history, producing a world substantially different from the one we live in today? The battles for which the answer is yes are the really interesting ones – Good to know you feel a post coming on, Mike!
Report this comment
Well, we've got guns and steel, so what about germs? Certainly germs played a huge part in the domination of the Americas by Europe. And, if this began unintentionally, it certainly became a purposely used weapon in later times, at least in parts of the United States.
Report this comment