| dc.description.abstract | The early modern era has often been interpreted by both historians and the general public as a transition period between the medieval and modern, when revolutionary changes occurred in almost every aspect of European society, including political mechanisms, technology and religious ideas. It is also widely believed that warfare both prompted and was deeply affected by these changes. By examining the development of the English and later British army, this study seeks to reconsider this narrative of change. Many historians consider that one of the main catalysts for these radical shifts in warfare, and consequently society and culture, was the introduction of new technologies, most notably infantry firepower. These innovations, they argue, brought revolutionary changes in not only military tactics and organisations, but also people’s sociocultural perception of warfare. This study calls this thesis into question. Early modern England is traditionally considered by many historians to have lagged behind this ‘military revolution’ until the late seventeenth century. However, a detailed examination of the development of military theories and battlefield experiences reveals a much more complicated picture. The history of the early modern English and later British army was neither a revolution nor a straightforward evolution prompted by technological innovations. It was, instead, a series of ad hoc adaptations with varying degrees of success. It was this flexibility and adaptability which frequently enabled the English and the British army to overcome the obstacles they faced. Likewise, the manner in which the military and literary classes perceived warfare was far from a simple evolution from the pre-modern mind to the modern one. Different interpretations and understandings of warfare coexisted throughout this period, and many of them appear distinctively pre-modern, even during the Enlightenment. Religion remained a significant force in understanding warfare. Technology, however, played a surprisingly minor role in these discourses, calling into question the grand narrative based on conventional understandings of ‘progress’ and ‘modernity’. | en_GB |
