From Stones to Nukes E-Book

Adolf Kellenberger

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 422

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Beschreibung

This volume offers a sophisticated exploration of the history of weapons and warfare in Europe and the Atlantic world, aimed at stimulating and inspiring those with an interest in this domain. It invites readers to revisit the foundational principles that underpinned the development of contem¬porary armaments and military practices until shortly before the turn of the millennium. In an era where global challenges have become inescapable, this book emphasizes the importance of reconnecting with our shared origins and understanding our unique paths. As our world undergoes rapid changes in politics, society, economics, and technology, this exploration of history sheds light on the dynamics of change, both in times of peace and war.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Prologue

Introduction

Origin

From Stone to Iron: The Beginnings of Armament

The Greeks (800–30 BC)

Roman Military Power (753 BC–476 AD)

Migration Period, Middle Ages (410–1500)

Renaissance and Reformation (1350–1600), the First Emergence of Firearms

Absolutism and Enlightenment (1600–1762)

Revolutions that Changed the World (1763–1870)

The Emergence of the Modern World (since 1870)

The 20th Century from Tsushima to Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The Path to the Present

Epilogue

Chronology of European-Atlantic Battles and Wars

List of References

Prologue

Nature denied humans the fangs of an ape, the paws of a lion, and the swiftness of a horse. Instead, it bestowed upon us the duality of intelligence. Throughout millennia, tools and weapons have undergone a remarkable evolution, progressing from simple stone splinters to intricately crafted flint objects. These artifacts stand as the earliest testimony to an unceasing journey of aggressive adaptation and development persisting even in modern times.

From stone-tipped spears or arrows to the nuclear weapons lurking deep in their silos today, it has been a long journey.

The weapon, originally serving the purposes of hunting and self-defense, has now developed a self-sustaining momentum that contradicts its initial purpose.

Introduction

The problems of our time have become global. No one can escape them anymore. Reconnecting with our fundamental commonalities and understanding our own path are becoming increasingly important. In our era, characterized by political, social, economic, and technological upheavals, change is occurring at an ever-accelerating pace, in times of peace as well as war. The pressure for increased performance in ever-shortening time intervals is evident in all areas. Alongside this pressure to perform, there are trends toward increasingly complex organizations, products, and systems. These processes, which also continuously shorten innovation time, have led to a high degree of specialization, linguistically expressed in the term “specialist.” We cannot stop this development, but the awareness of the essential, the whole, should be preserved. War and military history, indeed the entire defense establishment, on the contrary, constitute only a small part of our human existence. Not too small, for good or bad, is the contribution of European-Atlantic arms and warfare history.

This insight into the weaponry and war history of Europe and the Atlantic world is intended as both an attempt and encouragement for those interested in this field to recall the foundation upon which contemporary armaments and military affairs were based, up until just before the turn of the millennium. For understandable reasons, within the comprehensive scope of this work, its primary emphasis is on pivotal events essential to the overarching theme.

Origin

Humans have been inhabiting Earth for over five million years, a brief moment when compared to the age of our planet, estimated at approximately 4.6 billion years. The earliest traces of human-like beings have been discovered in Africa. During this time, the oceans and continents had more or less assumed their current forms.

The 170-million-year era of dinosaurs had long passed, and mammals had taken up the mantle. Ancestors of lions, elephants, and rhinoceroses were in existence, as were the small precursors of horses, wolves, cattle, pigs, and deer. Around this time, a particular ape-like species had already started walking upright, inhabiting open areas on the fringes of forests and subsisting on plants, fruits, and small animals. However, in contrast to other animals, these beings no longer broke down and processed their food with their natural tools, their teeth and claws, but rather with the edges of worked stones. In a way that is still not entirely comprehensible to us, these beings had begun to extricate themselves from the age-old, intricate struggle of survival and were pushing the boundaries of their physical capabilities through intellectual achievements.

Between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago, the descendants of these beings had populated almost all of the Earth’s continents. The first human, Homo erectus, who learned to control fire and spread beyond Africa, lived over 500,000 years ago. Over a period of more than 200,000 years, they migrated across the eastern shores of the Mediterranean into Europe and Asia, reaching as far as Java and Beijing. They were followed by the Neanderthals around 70,000 years ago, with remains of this human type found from southern France to northern China. Approximately from 50,000 to 12,000 years ago, the “Cro-Magnon” humans inhabited Europe, North Africa, and the Canary Islands. This era marked the beginning of the divergence into the major contemporary human races. The various climate zones where humans settled are one of the reasons for the emergence of the three major human races, which still exist today in numerous subgroups.

The expansion of humans across the Earth was largely completed around 30,000 years ago when North and South America were inhabited via the land bridge that once connected them, at the location where the Bering Strait now separates Asia from America. Around the same time, humans also migrated to Australia, which was easily accessible from Asia at that time. The indigenous people of Australia are believed to descend from an early form of Europeans who developed in isolation in Asia, similar to the Ainu of northern Japan and the Wedda of southern India.

Among the most widespread racial groups are Negroids, Mongoloids, and Caucasoids. The latter group includes not only Europeans but also the Hamites of North Africa, the Semites, and the peoples of the Middle East up to India. For millennia, Europeans were primarily focused on the Mediterranean. They constituted one race among many. The European worldview remained relatively small until just 500 years ago. North and South America, Australia, Oceania, sub-Saharan Africa, and the vast landmass of North Asia were either entirely unknown or largely unexplored to them.

Until that time, Europeans were not significantly ahead of other races. This changed only with the deliberate use of military technology in the field of firearms, the development of highly seaworthy square-rigged ships as part of the general promotion of maritime endeavors, the invention of the printing press, and the rise and spread of the European global economy. The latter aspect is often underestimated because, even though Europe’s economic power was insignificant in the late Middle Ages, it managed to establish itself as the center of a worldwide economic system, which gained clear contours by the end of the first colonial era, up to the American War of Independence. This upturn appears to have been favored precisely because of the political fragmentation of Europe. Europe in the late Middle Ages, on the eve of overseas expansion, was the first world-economy that was not a global empire like China or the former Roman Empire, but a conglomerate fragmented into sometimes very small political entities of city-states and territorial states. For this reason, European merchants did not fall under the control of an all-powerful bureaucracy primarily focused on economic considerations, and they could, in their decisions, mostly follow commercial, rather than political, considerations.

The economy in Europe never remained static, oriented towards the capital, as in China, for example, but there were always shifts and ruptures, leading one region to rise while another fell. Based on a historical view, in today’s world, Europeans dominate not only in Europe but also in America, Australia, and many other places on Earth. This was achieved in most cases not peacefully. Trade interests, aggressive tendencies, population pressure, and sometimes pure adventure-seeking opened up new territories for Europeans at the expense of the original inhabitants. In many cases, it was less often warlike violent force (as is commonly assumed) but rather diseases brought with them which led to the decimation of the indigenous population, notably on the South American continent.

The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century brought the European-Atlantic world to absolute dominance on this planet. The great colonial empires of this era have since disappeared. What remains is their material legacy in the realm of industrialized Western culture.

From Stone to Iron: The Beginnings of Armament

In their natural drive to keep their enemies at a distance, the earliest weapons of humans were likely wooden clubs and poles, as well as tossed rocks.

The gradual mastery of various methods of working with stone led to a wide range of applications for this abundant material. People learned to craft composite tools, such as axes or spears with stone blades or tips. However, during this time, one must not think of hunting as merely a “technical” process carried out with weapons. At the dawn of human history, skills like tracking provided hunters with a significant advantage over animals. Detecting and cornering prey were just as important as actually bringing it down. This primitive art is hardly practiced in its original form any more. Its masters in the present include the Bushmen of the Kalahari, the Aborigines of Australia, and the Inuit of the Arctic. The hunters of these cultures not only interpret the signs on the ground but can still empathize with the nature of the pursued wildlife.

The bow and arrow, a key invention, revolutionized hunting around 15,000 to 10,000 years ago. This ranged weapon allowed humans to target species that were previously able to escape through flight. The shift away from nature is evident as Stone Age hunters, lacking suitable ranged weapons, often induced panic in herds, driving them over cliffs. At the Rock of Solutré in France, over 100,000 wild horses’ remains were found at the base of a steep cliff. The layer of bones is spread across 3,800 square meters and is up to two meters thick.

The presence of long-range bows and the training of dogs for hunting undoubtedly played a part in changing the way of life. People no longer needed to dedicate as much time to hunting, allowing them to turn their attention to other tasks. The domestication and breeding of various animals, including horses, also contributed to this shift. Hunting was followed by livestock farming, in turn followed by agriculture. Copper and bronze gradually replaced stone over time. Nomadic tribes transformed into village communities, then into cities, and from there into city-states.

Primitive Technology

The people of ancient times fashioned their weapons by lithic reduction, i. e., by removing some parts by grinding, scraping, or chipping (knapping) a nucleus (flint cores) using a hammerstone. Beveled flint arrowheads were inserted into a slot at the front end of an arrow shaft, glued with resin, and secured with animal intestines or tendons.

As this evolution unfolded, weapon development also adapted to the new circumstances. Weapons began to diverge into hunting and warfare tools. Over time, population growth, prosperity, and the resulting disparities in wealth led to social injustices. Organized conflicts over property, borders, and trade routes erupted. The Sumerians were the first to assemble armies more than 5,000 years ago, living between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. The Sumerian infantry, equipped with spears and bows, leather helmets, and basic breastplates, already fought in tightly organized formations, protected by leather-covered shields. Another significant troop consisted of chariot formations, comprised of bulky four-wheeled carts pulled by donkeys, manned by a driver and a warrior armed with spears.

The fighters, who in the early days were probably just citizen militias, began to passively protect themselves with resilient clothing, such as breastplates, headgear, and shields. Improvements in bronze casting techniques led to the development of a true weapon of war, the long thrusting sword. With this weapon, which gave rise to a new style of combat known as swordsmanship, the transition from hunter to warrior began to take shape. During the Bronze Age, weapon technology advanced to a point where it could only be further refined in its basic principles through minor details for a long time to come.

While bronze was indeed strong and durable, the widespread use of the sword and the associated art of swordsmanship, as well as the broader adoption of other metallic equipment, were hindered by the fact that its alloying components remained scarce.

Copper is the oldest metallic chemical element in practical use. It is believed to have been used around 7,000 years ago. Besides noble metals, copper is the only metal that occurs in a pure metallic form, although rather rarely. Generally, metals are found bonded with sulfur, oxygen, or carbon. Specific smelting processes developed over time to extract the desired base metal, driving off other elements contained in the ore. In this context, copper, when alloyed by adding about 10% tin, forms classic bronze. This material, known for its distinctive brown-yellow hues, was used extensively in casting.

Armament in the Late Bronze Age

Central European armament of the Late Bronze Age (circa 12th century BC).

Greek armament of the Late Bronze Age (circa 15th century BC).

Bronze was widely used in ancient times due to its excellent suitability for casting, high corrosion resistance, and favorable strength properties. However, when it comes to versatility in metallic materials, iron has proven to be the most versatile. Iron weapons also became more affordable than bronze weapons. In terms of strength, they were vastly superior to copper-tin alloys. The remaining challenge was corrosion, which was managed through various techniques such as tinning, painting, polishing, and so on.

Initially, iron was used for valuable weapons and small jewelry. Around 1000 BC, post-Mycenaean Greece started making swords, spearheads, axes, hatchets, and chariot and horse harness parts from iron. In Western Europe, iron appeared in Hallstatt, Austria, around 900 BC and in Switzerland’s La Tène culture around 500 BC.

Iron was extracted from ores and charcoal in bloomeries. In a bloomery, ore and charcoal layers were added to a fire to form a pasty mass of iron and slag, called a bloom. This bloom was beaten with hammers into various objects. Bellows later increased airflow, leading to the development of the blast furnace. Only in the Middle Ages, with water-powered blowers, could temperatures be raised sufficiently to produce molten iron, marking the blast furnace’s true inception.

The molten iron, brittle and crude, was known as pig iron. It was transformed into steel through fire-refining; a charcoal fire operated with excess air, a process persisting into the 18th century.

In Switzerland’s early history, iron mines operated in the Vaud region and the Rhone Valley, later expanding throughout the Alpine region, particularly in the Bernese Oberland, Obwalden, Graubünden, and at Gonzen. The Jura region hosted small smelting huts until larger and more efficient furnaces emerged in the 15th century. Bassecourt, Matzendorf, and Klus became significant iron industry centers.

In the late 18th century, iron production advanced with the replacement of charcoal by black coal and coke. Abraham Darby, a British ironmaster and foundryman, produced usable coke in 1713 at Coalbrookdale. Improved refining, like the coal-operated puddling process in the early 19th century, converted pig iron into bar iron for rolling. Liquid steel was first melted in Europe in 1740 by Benjamin Huntsman in England and in 1806 by Johann Conrad Fischer in Schaffhausen, Switzerland.

The modern development in the steel industry only occurred after the inventions of the Englishmen Henry Bessemer and Sidney Gilchrist Thomas, who in 1855 and 1879 respectively, succeeded in converting liquid pig iron into steel. It was the first inexpensive industrial process for the mass production of steel by removing impurities from the iron by blowing air through the molten iron in converters.

With the introduction of the Siemens-Martin process by Wilhelm and Friedrich Siemens (1856) and Pierre Martin (1864), the necessary conditions for modern steel production were established in the second half of the 19th century. In the 20th century, the electric steel production process was introduced, allowing countries without coal resources to establish a steel industry.

Changes in the technology of weaponry throughout history were closely tied to innovations in iron and steel production. The evolution of these materials not only influenced the design and effectiveness of weapons but also played a pivotal role in shaping the strategies and tactics of warfare. This dynamic relationship between metallurgy and military technology underscores the profound impact of industrial advancements on the conduct of warfare.

The Greeks (800–30 BC)

The Greeks succeeded in developing an inner balance between the practical demeanor of the Nordic and the often exuberant vitality of Southern cultures. They developed a strength to which we owe the foundation of European culture.

Alongside intellectual and technological advancements, there were also developments in the field of warfare. Already in the 7th century BC, elite warriors in Greece would line up in formations typically eight ranks deep. In attack, they were supported by archers and slingers. In ancient Greek warfare, a solid mass infantry formation in the shape of a rectangular and composed of heavy infantry armed with spears, pikes, sarissas, or similar pole weapons, was called the phalanx. Battles between phalanxes required flat and open terrain, where it was possible to maintain formation during the advance, as the ranks in close order would keep the enemy from breaking through. If the closed ranks were weakened or if they were flanked, the battle was lost. The phalanx allowed its leader limited opportunities for control and influence before and during the battle. Utilization of terrain, mental toughness, discipline, and numerical strength at the decisive moment were the determining factors leading to victory.

Despite these obvious shortcomings, the Greeks emerged victorious in the Persian Wars (492–480 BC). Their leadership was also capable of taking the initiative on various theaters of war, both on land and at sea. Under the pressure of events, they created a significant and victorious naval force. The trireme, its most important type of warship, remained in the Mediterranean in various forms for centuries. However, unlike later in Roman naval combat, these rowed ships were primarily used to ram the enemy ship, crushing its planks.

The Battle of Leuctra

Epaminondas reinforced the left flank to 50 rows deep, at the expense of the right, and had rising terrain behind them. He ordered his right wing to advance slowly in an oblique phalanx order. His infantry vigorously engaged the Spartans right flank. The approach was supported by cavalry, attacking the enemy phalanx from the rear.

Shown left are the Thebans, Spartans on the right. The equipment of a hoplite included a round shield, a helmet, a breastplate, and greaves. Their weapons consisted of a sword and a long spear (doru).

Land warfare tactics continued to evolve. Heavily armed warriors (hoplites) received increased and organized support from auxiliary troops. Heavy war machines, which were particularly suitable for sieges, were also employed. But the basic nature of battles remained unchanged until 371 BC when The-ban general Epaminondas surprised his opponents with a new infantry tactic in the Battle of Leuctra.

Epaminondas’ concept is etched in military history as the first battle in which an echelon formation focused its attack on the enemy’s strong wing, marking the advent of the nucleus of annihilation as a military strategy. However, it would be incorrect to think that this success was solely due to theoretical considerations. The idea worked because it was put into practice. The cavalry also gained prominence. From now on, it contributed to the outcome of battles as on operational element. Hoplites, light infantry, and horsemen merged into an organic unit. The rigidity of the phalanx battle was alleviated. During the time of Alexander the Great, a phalanx was sixteen ranks deep. The first two carried the Greek hoplite spear, while the rest used a Macedonian spear called sarissa, a four to seven meters long pike. This arrangement allowed the hoplites in the rear ranks to effectively employ their weapons during the initial clash with the enemy.

Torsion siege engines were also carried in siege trains. In contrast to the previously used crossbow principle, torsion artillery could generate significantly more tension force with its bundles of sinews. This ancient artillery launched arrows or stones. The assembly of these emplaced weapons was time-consuming. Consequently, they could not be successfully employed in open-field battles.

The improvements in Greek military tactics after Alexander’s death during the subsequent Diadochi period were, for the most part, not substantial. It’s worth mentioning that the “tanks” of antiquity, the elephants, first used by the Persians, were now also found in Greek armies.

Among the Diadochi states a balance of power existed. Any warlike ambitions of individual princes and states were curbed by the immediate formation of alliances among the other Hellenistic kingdoms. The civilized East was thus closed to conquest and military adventures, while everything was still open in the “barbaric” West. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, was an individual who was not afraid of facing battle. Ambitious like Alexander, he possessed a well-trained military apparatus, lacking only one thing: the opportune moment to unleash his might. It wasn’t long before the call for aid reached him from Tarentum, the modern-day costal city Taranto in Southern Italy, which was a Greek colony of Magna Graecia. When the hellenized cultural center of Southern Italy felt threatened by “barbarian tribes,” Pyrrhus recognized that his awaited moment had finally arrived.

Roman Military Power (753 BC–476 AD)

When the Romans overcame ancient Greece, they absorbed the best of Greek culture and, after nearly 500 years, passed on this legacy to the Western world, enriched with Roman law, military expertise, and engineering.

An advance detachment of 3,000 Greek soldiers landed at Tarentum. While still in Epirus, Pyrrhus formed an alliance and recruited more soldiers from rulers who wanted to avoid a war with Epirus. In the spring of 280 BC Pyrrhus landed in Italy with 20,000 soldiers, 3,000 horsemen, 2,000 archers, 500 slingers, and 20 war elephants. While Pyrrhus was still waiting for his allies’ reinforcements, he changed his plans and decided to advance against the Roman troops, after he had heard the troops of the Roman Republic were approaching, engaged in plundering. Pyrrhus watched from his position near Heraclea as the Romans crossed the river Siris. Their displayed discipline impressed Pyrrhus; simultaneously, he realized the need to seize the initiative immediately.

Following Alexander the Great’s proven tactics, his phalanx was to hold the enemy while he personally led the assault with his 3,000 riders. However, the Roman foot soldier, the legionary, was something entirely new for Pyrrhus and his army. The Romans carried rectangular scutums, which they overlapped to provide an effective barrier in defense, light spears (javelin), and a short sword.

The largest military unit of the Roman army, the legion, was divided into three lines, each of these lines was subdivided into ten chief tactical units called maniples. Each of the latter consisted of two centuries, i.e., 100 men. The formations’ greater degree of mobility posed a challenge for Pyrrhus. The Roman cavalry, reinforced by allies, additionally caused significant problems, forcing Pyrrhus to order an attack with his phalanx.

The Battle of Heraclea became one of the bloodiest in ancient military history. The more flexible Roman formation shattered Pyrrhus’ phalanx. Legionaries thrusted into every gap, striking with their short swords after shaking the solid enemy battle lines with spear throws. Pyrrhus’ phalanx began to crumble, but it wasn’t until the war elephants were finally deployed against the cavalry of the Roman right wing that it started to disintegrate. The cavalry fled, disrupting the Roman formation as they retreated. Such chaos enabled Pyrrhus’ army to launch another successful attack. However, this victory was not yet a typical “Pyrrhic victory.”

In the long run, Roman discipline and tactics proved superior. Even in the three defeats against Pyrrhus with his elephants and massive forces armed with oversized pikes, the Romans displayed an unprecedented resilience that ultimately exacted a heavy toll on the Thessalian army.

The Roman-Greek conflict was primarily a battle of the pike against the spear. In the initial phase of combat, the Greek phalanx, typically 16 ranks, advanced with their long pikes at “charge”. The Roman maniples attacked in an open battle formation, usually 12 men deep. At a distance of 32 meters, they hurled lightweight javelins in large quantities. These spears either pierced through armor or brought shields to the ground. At medium range, heavier spears (pilum) were thrown, and the legionaries drew their swords, forming into a dense battle formation. The use of pila took its toll, disrupting the opposing phalanx through casualties and scattered shields. This was the crucial moment for the Romans to break through. Upon impact, legionaries deflected the thrusts of the long spears with their shields. In their aggressive approach, the legionaries exploited even the smallest gaps in the phalanx to penetrate. In one-on-one sword fights, Romans usually emerged victorious, as the Greeks were inexperienced swordsmen and carried smaller shields than the Romans.

Battle of Cannae, the Classic Envelopment Battle of Antiquity

In the foreground: the Romans; shaded blocks: infantry; patterned blocks: cavalry. 80,000 Romans believed they had the numerical advantage and a favorable position against 50,000 Carthaginians, who had their backs to the sea. Hannibal’s cleverly deployed troops encircled the Romans and defeated them.

After the withdrawal of the Greeks, Rome ruled over southern and central Italy, including Etruria and the Greek colonies without any restriction, albeit Tarentum resisted stubbornly until 272 BC. However, Rome didn’t become the great power it would later be overnight. This process took five centuries, during which the city itself was occupied twice by foreign armies.

After the battles against the ill-fated Pyrrhus, Roman armies could only be defeated if their opponents were vastly superior, if they relied on advanced tactics, or if the Romans deviated from their usual battle formation for some reason. The latter was the case in 216 BC at the Battle of Cannae against the Carthaginian commander Hannibal. Relying on their numerical supremacy, the Romans, under Terentius Varro, attacked using the old phalanx tactic.

Cannae, the first battle of annihilation, gained ominous significance in military history. Time and again, commanders attempted to replicate Hannibal’s feat and achieve decisive victories. Particularly in Germany’s recent military past, Cannae became the ultimate, desirable military objective. This occurred in 1870 at Sedan, in 1914 at Tannenberg, and in many major battles of World War II. What was overlooked is that Hannibal could win battles but not the war.

The focus on the grand, final decisive battle thus influenced strategic thinking. Until Cannae, the troops brought into battle (encounters) had been arranged in the structure of legions. However, in longer battles, the rear encounters were more of a relief for the front ones. Under Publius Cornelius Scipio, the rear encounters were employed for independent tasks. Only then did they take on a true encounter character.

The Battle of Zama on African soil in 202 BC, which ended with a Roman victory over Hannibal, erased the archenemy Carthage from history. Despite being economically weakened, Rome’s military power emerged strengthened from the Punic Wars. Camp tactics and technology were further developed. Roman legionaries carried their entrenching tools, their camp stakes, and so on, to be able to set up a fortified camp at any time. Disciplinary training was of utmost importance, and it was the foundation of Roman military prowess.

In the Punic Wars against Carthage, the Roman legionary wore a shirt-like sleeveless tunic. Over this, they fastened a leather cuirass, a type of body armor, reinforced with metal in the heart area. Occasionally, mail armor was worn. The military footwear consisted of heavy-soled sandal-boots with hobnailed soles. The openwork upper was laced up the center of the foot and onto the top of the ankle. A military coat served as protection against the cold and as a camp blanket. The head was shielded by a bronze-sheeted helmet, which was hung over the shoulder during marches. As passive, mobile protection, the legionary carried a slightly curved rectangular shield made of glued planks covered with calfskin.

After the Battle of Cannae, the legionary was equipped with a new sword in addition to a dagger. It replicated the Spanish short sword used by Carthaginian elite troops, which the Romans refined into one of the most perfected bladed weapons. The only reason that led to the extinction of this weapon after the decline of Roman military power was the high level of swordsmanship skill required for its use. The sword, called the gladius hispaniensis, had a blade length of about 60–70 cm, was wide and double-edged, often featuring a reinforced sharp point. The hilt of the sword was long and robust but lacked a crossguard. The blade was sheathed in a wooden scabbard covered with leather and hung from a shoulder strap that ran diagonally from the left shoulder to the right hip.

The spear had been replaced throughout the entire Roman army by the heavy javelin, known as a pilum. In its perfected form, the pilum consisted of a wooden shaft approximately 1.3 meters long, with an iron shank, about 7 mm in diameter and 60 cm long, with pyramidal head, and additional weight inserted up to half its length, fastened to the shaft with clamps. The total length of the well-balanced pilum was about 2 meters.

Roman “Artillery”

A catapult with a vertically swinging arm.

A ballista launched either heavy bolts or stones.

Although traditionally a land power, the Romans established a navy for themselves during the Punic Wars, introducing a new feature. Their galleys, with a continuous deck and an elevated fighting tower, were equipped with boarding bridges. This corvus, a long plank with a spike for hooking onto enemy ships, could be lowered from their own ship onto the enemy’s vessel. The Roman legionary, superior to the Carthaginian crew, would then board and capture the enemy ship in close combat. However, this invention could not be maintained for long because in bad weather, the weight of the corvus made the ships unstable. Galleys were lost due to the dimensions of the raised bridges and unbalance in heigh seas.

In Rome’s long military history, there were naturally ongoing reforms in the military, and continuous improvements were made in weaponry. Gaius Marius, a great reformer of the Roman military system, reorganized the legions, improved and standardized the equipment. Light throwing machines were now also carried in the army. This “artillery” was used in positional warfare, in camp defense, and occasionally in open-field battles by Caesar.

The pilum (throwing spear) was also further improved under Gaius Julius Caesar. It was shortened, and its shank was made of soft iron with a hardened tip. The softness could cause the shank to bend after impact and significantly hindered the shield-bearer’s mobility due to the sagging spear shaft. Additionally, the pilum was still thrown in at the enemy en masse to shake the opponent.

Structured in three encounters, the first one broke into the enemy after throwing the Pilum, the second replaced losses and relieved exhausted units. The breakthrough was achieved with the third encounter. Caesar was the first to withdraw reserves and to retain them until the decisive moment.

Roman Battle Formation

Two legions are illustrated facing their enemy in the background, with each legion divided into three encounters.

During the time of Gaius Julius Caesar, the Roman army had reached its peak in organization, equipment, and leadership, but shortly after, it began to decline. Social problems, general war fatigue, the gradual breakdown of the Roman economy, and the incorporation of foreign mercenaries into the army were early signs of this decline. It became evident during the construction of the Limes, a major border fortification. Rome had exhausted its dynamic offensive capabilities. Germanic invaders beyond the border no longer had to fear immediate counterattacks during their raids. It got to the point where commanders in the conflict against Jugurtha, King of Numidia (around 160 to 104 BC), were bribed and conducted a lengthy war with little enthusiasm. The decadence of the Roman Empire was also characterized by looting and begging, supplier fraud and speculative fraud, as well as fraudulent interest rates and grain usury.

The once fearsome Roman army was overcome by northern peoples. The dissolution of Rome coincided with the Migration Period. New peoples from everywhere emerged onto the stage of history. In 378 AD, the Goths defeated an Eastern Roman army. It was a victory of the cavalry over the infantry, which lost its significance. For the next thousand years, mounted warriors dominated the battlefield. In the west, the horseman of the Germanic migratory armies became an elite warrior, who saw great evolution, especially among the Franks.

Roman Legionary, circa 100 BC

He is armed with two javelins, a sword, and a dagger. A cuirass made of iron bands riveted together is strapped over a short tunic, under which mid-length pants were worn.

Migration Period, Middle Ages (410–1500)

In the uncertain times following the fall of Rome, the Germanic tribes, Celts, and Romans laid the foundations of Western culture. After the turmoil of the Migration Period, a new, primarily spiritual unity emerged among the peoples of western and central Europe. The unifying bond was the Roman Church under the leadership of the Pope. Its armies were the bishops, the all-pervading clergy, and later the Crusaders.

From now on, it became difficult to effectively protect oneself from the invasions of nomadic tribes that successively left their mark on Europe. The feudal system expanded, i.e., the granting of land and goods in exchange for service or labor. The overlord, along with his knights and mercenaries, became the natural protector of the local population. These feudal lords, in turn, were the henchmen of the counts and dukes. This development fragmented the European countries into small and even smaller units, just loosely connected to each other. Over time, the vassals conscripted for military service gradually gained a higher social status. Along with the nobles, they eventually formed the knightly class. With the knighthood, the Middle Ages introduced something new in the field of warfare: chivalry. This idealized image of the Christian warrior still influences us today. Pope Urban II’s call for the Crusade in 1095 likely had a decisive influence on this development. With his call for the Crusade, the Pope initiated a movement that no longer viewed killing as an absolute mortal sin for a Christian but rather as a duty under certain circumstances, to reclaim the holy land from Muslims and free the eastern churches. Worship and warfare were no longer irreconcilable; the warrior was no longer condemned to hell but seen as a Christian soldier (miles Christianus).

The Huns (Attila 441–453) and Tatars repeatedly invaded Europe in the early Middle Ages with wild, sweeping hordes from the East. Foot troops were too slow against these highly mobile conquerors. To effectively confront the mounted forces and later the Vikings who struck along the coasts of Europe, it needed its own cavalry. During the time of Charlemagne (747–814), European states were no longer capable of raising troops in the manner of the Roman. Over time, the population had become less martial. The circumstances inevitably led to the emergence of a distinct warrior class, which later culminated in knighthood.

Viking Swords

The majority of the blades were double-edged and approximately 80 cm long. The cross-shaped handles of these swords, with a short crossguard, had a heavy pommel at the end of the hilt to facilitate balancing the blade’s weight.

The Vikings (Old Norse: vikingr), also known as Northmen, Normans, and called Rus or Varangians in Eastern Europe, were present in various parts of Europe as pirates, merchants, conquerors, and founders of states. In the 8th century, they made their first incursions into Western Europe, threatening not only the British Isles but also western France. Over the course of the 9th and 10th centuries, they destroyed cities like Cologne, Bonn, Trier, and Paris. During their raids, they established settlements in England and temporarily settled in Ireland. Dublin became the capital of a Norwegian-influenced kingdom. However, they didn’t stay for long in the Hebrides, Orkney Islands, and Shetland Islands. It was further north where the Vikings could establish more enduring settlements. Their farthest expedition took them from Greenland to North America.

The Vikings were not only raiders and brutal murderers. Viking merchants created a long-distance trade network, expressly along Russian rivers like the Volga and Dnieper, which allowed them to reach the Black Sea and Caspian Sea.

The pinnacle of the era of Christian knighthood was marked by the Crusades, occurring between the late 11th and late 13th centuries. The immediate cause of the Crusades was the threat to Constantinople, the eastern bastion of Christianity, by the Seljuk Turks as the 11th century drew to a close. The first—undisciplined—expedition in 1095 ended in a disaster. In 1096, French, German, Norman, and Italian knights embarked on another crusade and captured Jerusalem after a 40-day siege. What followed was a terrible massacre of Muslims and Jews. The Christian spirit was soon lost in the waves of private feuds and personal greed, and the “liberated” lands were not placed under the authority of the Pope or the Emperor, but were divided into feudal states.

The Crusades also had an impact on trade and the construction of European castles. Their style underwent a fundamental change after the Crusaders returned from the Orient, where they had been overwhelmed by the massive and nearly impregnable fortresses of the Byzantine Empire. The simple stone keep, ramparts, and moats of earlier centuries now gave way to double rows of thick walls protected by tall, round towers.

Head Protection

Helmet of a Frankish prince from the 6th century.

Norman helmet from the 11th/12th century.

Visored bascinet from circa 1390.

Frederick Barbarossa’s court festival in 1184 can be seen as a further milestone in the development of the concept of knighthood. On this occasion, political greatness was splendidly displayed in a courtly setting. The entire society declared its commitment to knighthood, and the emperor’s court became a magnificent gathering place. With the expansion to new groups of people, the demands on the knight and his quality changed. His distinguishing marks, the horse and his armament remained, but he was now expected to have more refined manners and adhere to moral standards in addition. Knighthood had thus become an educational system.

During the 11th and 12th centuries, a largely identical form of protective gear was worn in Western Europe. It consisted of a knee-length chainmail shirt with three-quarter-length sleeves, made from interlocking iron rings. Their nasal helmet was a conical iron helmet with a nose-guard, a projecting bar covering the nose and thus protecting the center of the face. A large almond-shaped shield provided movable passive protection. Byrnies and mail armor began to be replaced by plate armor from the 12th century onwards. Additionally, from the second half of the twelfth century, loose-fitting surcoats were worn over the armor, which later featured rich heraldic decoration.

Mail shirts were continuously improved and soon extended to just below the knee (hauberk) and featured sleeves with elaborated mittens. Chainmail pants covered the legs, including the feet. Chainmail for horses became fashionable, along with intricately decorated horse rugs. In the 14th century, plate harness started to be worn increasingly.

The sword gained great, almost mystical significance during the era of knighthood. It was highly valued and often passed down from generation to generation. It became a symbol of justice and chivalry. The sword was a part of every medieval gear. It was not only used by the noble mounted knights but also an important secondary weapon for foot soldiers. But predominantly the knightly sword received a special appreciation from its wielder, culminating in the sword consecration and the accolade ceremony.

The early knightly sword can be easily traced back to the Vikings, who spread it throughout Europe during their raids. The handle and blade were the two main components of the sword, which essentially retained their functions throughout history. Special care was taken in crafting the blade. Quality was a primary concern, and the ornamentation applied played a significant role depending on the status and financial means of the owner.

Throughout its long history, the sword adapted to changing circumstances: During the time of the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties, it was primarily a slashing weapon. It had to be crafted so heavy that it could slap through the iron helmet and mail collar or a chainmail shirt. In the 11th and 12th centuries, improvements in swordsmanship techniques led to an extension of the crossguard to better catch the opponent’s blow. Over time, swords with broader blades for slashing and those with more elegant thrusting blades came into use. In the 15th century, the uniformity of sword silhouettes was lost. The knightly sword now reached its aesthetically and technically perfected form, differing significantly in lissomeness, length, and elegance from blades of foot soldiers. As part of the development of increasingly heavy armor, the heavy hand-and-a-half sword emerged in the second half of the 15th century, and from it, the Zweihänder (two-handed sword) for pushing away enemy pole arms.

During this time, the Swiss developed a special type of short sword, the Swiss degen. It could be used both as a sword for slashing and thrusting, and as a long dagger. Swordsmiths devoted their utmost attention to the blade, always striving to combine the best toughness with the greatest hardness. Consequently, the chronological sequence was: conventionally hardened blades, composite blades, case-hardened blades (cemented), and blades made half of steel and half of iron.

Another important weapon for knights was the lance. It consisted of three parts: the shaft made of capable wood, the vamplate, and the lance head. In addition, finely crafted mêlée weapons such as battle axes and maces were also used.

For a long time, the most significant ranged weapon of the medieval era was the bow. It came in two main forms: the hand bow and the crossbow. Both ranged weapons were primarily used by foot soldiers.

Crossbowmen Cocking their Weapons

The advantage of easy aiming and high penetrating power had to be paid for with a slower rate of fire because these devices could no longer be spanned with simple muscle power.

The crossbow served European hunters and warriors as a powerful ranged weapon for one and a half millennia, until it finally had to yield to the superior firearm in the 15th century. The effectiveness of the crossbow was feared, and its use against Christians was banned by Pope Innocent II under the penalty of excommunication at the Second Lateran Council in 1139.

The Production of a Crossbow Required Division of Labor

The crossbow-maker (arbalist) crafted the composite lath and the stock with the lock (nut, tickler, housing). The spanning mechanism was made by the windlass maker, who was a member of the blacksmith’s guild. The fletcher produced the bolt with an iron tip and fletching. In the second half of the 15th century, when the horn lath was replaced by the steel lath, the bow-maker was also added to the group of craftsmen.

King Valdemar IV of Denmark annihilated the Gutnish country yeomen in 1361, the latter wearing minimal protection. When the mass graves from the Battle of Visby on the island of Gotland were archeologically excavated (1905– 1930) and the remains had been scrutinized to identify kerf marks that might indicate traumatic injuries, it revealed 16.2% out of 1,572 casualties showed skeletal blunt force trauma marks, and 10% had headshot wounds. Bolt heads were found in various locations within the skulls, some embedded in the skullcap or the base of the skull, while others were found freely within the cranial cavity. It can be assumed that many of the fallen also suffered soft tissue injuries from crossbow bolts. Even if the wounded didn’t immediately succumb to the trauma, death could occur days later. A prominent example is the demise of Richard I. The King of England was hit in the shoulder by a crossbow bolt and the wound turned gangrenous. Richard died within 11 days, on April 6th, 1199.

Until the 15th century, crossbowmen were always positioned in the front lines of combat. After 1400, the crossbow had become such a precious and strategically important weapon that crossbowmen were granted the status of a knight—for example in Spain.

The hand bow, notably in the hands of English longbowmen, was feared. These well-trained and disciplined warriors could reach out as far as over 300 meters with their heavy, one-and-a-half-meter-long warbows. Employing a new tactic of marching in line, these soldiers became pivotal in battles. Long-bowmen secured England’s supremacy in its wars on the continent for a century. During the Battle of Crécy in 1346, English King Edward III used accurate longbowmen against French cavalry and Genoese crossbowmen. The French and Genoese were defeated, having no chance against the long-range and rapid-firing archers.

The downside of English longbowmen was that they had to fight relatively statically in formation, in a sort of hedgehog formation, which was ill-suited for offensive warfare. It was only much later that troops under Joan of Arc instinctively grasped the correct tactic, which was not to engage these archers.

Conversely, the chivalric code typically didn’t allow for such considerations. Knights often fought as individual combatants even in battles. Personal bravery and weapon honor were more important to them than the ultimate outcome of the engagement. Great physical strength was a fundamental requirement for a knight who not only had to survive battles but also countless tournaments, which were not safe either. Armor and weapons were heavy. With such equipment, only someone with corresponding physical strength who practiced constantly could survive.

In the 14th century, the beginning of the end for knighthood commenced. One of the reasons was the resurgence of powerful and collectively fighting infantry. They were capable of repelling cavalry armies and even going on the offensive against them. The tactic of the pike square, which essentially had Germanic origins, was (re)introduced by the Swiss. In their first battle against a cavalry army at Morgarten in 1315, the classic division of the Swiss pike army into three main squares became evident. The hallmark of the Old Swiss warrior, alongside the long pike, was the halberd. This polearm, more complex in construction than it appeared, had multiple functions. The axe blade could be used to strike against the horse, and the top spike for thrusting. The hook or thorn on the back side of the axe blade served as a type of armor-piercer or for grappling mounted combatants.

Over the course of time, these pole weapons evolved, becoming more refined in design. Ironically, what did not see such an elegant evolution were the rather blunt war customs of the Old Swiss, the Confederates. They effectively did away with the old, profitable practice of taking prisoners and collecting ransoms. Wars were to become bloodier affairs once again.

Halberd Forging Technique

A halberd from the 14th century, made of four parts.

A halberd from the 17th century, consisting of 10 parts.

Renaissance and Reformation (1350–1600), the First Emergence of Firearms

The Renaissance began in Italy around the middle of the 14th century with a renewed interest in antiquity. It ended after more than two centuries, in which foreign lands were discovered and the Reformation questioned the authority of the Pope.

One significant reason for the looming decline of the knightly era was the rise of firearms. Their development not only influenced advances in tactics and technology, but also brought about changes in social, cultural, and economic life. The feudal lords abandoned their increasingly vulnerable castles and became courtiers of emperors and kings. The cities gained power and influence, while the knighthood became gradually impoverished.

The Beginning: Primitive Cannon Made of Iron

The first illustration of a firearm can be found in a manuscript by Walter de Milemete from 1326. An iron arrow-like bolt, feathered with iron, has just left the muzzle of a pot-de-fer—an iron bottle with a narrow neck.

It’s unnecessary to rehash the old debate of “who had firearms first ...” at this point. It should only be briefly noted that Chinese alchemists likely produced gunpowder in the course of their research in the 10th century of the Common Era. The Chinese soon had simple bombs, grenades, and rockets and probably used a crude kind of firearm in warfare around 1120. However, history has shown that European gunmakers were the ones who best mastered the challenges of gunnery. The invention of gunpowder was useless on its own; it required the subsequent invention of a barrel strong enough to withstand rapidly expanding propellant gases, and an appropriate carriage to harness the destructive forces. The first recorded gunpowder recipe in Europe came from the Franciscan friar Roger Bacon of Ilchester (circa 1214–1294), but it was not until about 60 years later when the first firearms appeared.

Warfare and the mentality of warriors were fundamentally transformed over time by guns, and in particular by artillery. Soldiers quickly became accustomed to the fact that the thundering of cannons was an integral part of battles and they soon refused to launch an attack without preliminary artillery fire.

In addition to firearms, another significant “civil” technological innovation from this period should not go unmentioned: the invention of the movable-type printing press in 1445 by Johannes Gutenberg. Thanks to the printing press, a broad secular scholarly class emerged throughout Europe. Education expanded, and soon, there were hardly any members of the upper and middle classes who were illiterate. In 1504, the city of Zurich used this invention to send invitations for a large-scale shooting festival, primarily intended to bring guests from southern Germany to reconcile the divided spirits after the Swabian War. The large number of invitation letters to be sent made it advisable for the city council to utilize Gutenberg’s “script replication capability.”

Coinciding with this development was the revival of Greco-Roman antiquity, emanating from Italy. Entire circles of scholars engaged in the research and dissemination of ancient texts. The Renaissance could only become a cultural movement with the broad distribution of ancient knowledge through Gutenberg’s invention. Even ancient military writings experienced their resurgence and became part of the thinking of prominent military leaders. It wasn’t until the late 16th century that a military leader and prince, drawing inspiration from the Florentine Niccolò Machiavelli and antiquity, would lead his troops into battle following the Roman fashion.

Another innovation that would soon have significant consequences was emerging in shipbuilding. The prevailing form of rowing warships with strong sails had persisted for a long time in the Mediterranean and was to be displaced by the sailing ship.