The Gunpowder Revolution In The Dawn Of Modern Warfare

The current field of research into the cause of the downfall of the knightly class generally agrees that it was primarily a result of the introduction of gunpowder weaponry, but some recent scholarship suggests otherwise. Up through the present, historians have believed that the gunpowder revolution in military technology predominantly caused the knightly class in Europe to disappear. Unlike previous ranged weapons developments, firearms took no skill to operate and had the power to punch through the armor of knights. Without the protection afforded by armor, knights had no reason to continue using it. Afterall, it was heavy, cumbersome, and expensive. It became more economical and effective for kings to create standing armies supplemented …show more content…
In his book, he argues that while cannons had an instant impact on how wars would be fought, firearms gradually gained prominence over their classical counterparts. He then concludes with the argument that Europe’s adoption of both of these technologies led to them entering the modern era. Cannons caused an especially significant change in warfare. In terms of siege weapons, they created “a corresponding change in the defense, in [both] the design and construction of strongholds”. Had they had an insignificant effect, strongholds would not have been needed to be redesigned to compensate for them. “Whereas the cannon was a completely new factor in open battle, hand firearms were instruments that…only very gradually succeeded in completely supplanting the older weapons”. He argues that their gradual acceptance was a result of their similar initial performance. The first-hand firearms were no better at penetrating plate armor than an arrow or crossbow bolt, but with the development of larger firearms firing two-ounce projectiles, that same plate armor could be rendered null. As leaders recognized the potential of firearms, they began to implement them into their armies. The changing dynamics of warfare more closely resembled a modern battlefield than a medieval …show more content…
He believes that the Bubonic Plague was the culprit. The Black Plague devastated population numbers which in turn threw the economy into flux. In this new changing economy, the main resource of the nobles and gentry, land, was “...artificially inflating beyond an acceptable working price”. This “...suited suited lesser landowners better than greater ones,” because they could more easily respond to altering circumstances and they had fewer financial obligations. Wealthier individuals with minimal land commitments could better adapt to a changing a society, thus they prospered as the nobles languished. The nobles primarily constituted the knightly class so as they lost their affluence, they could no longer afford to be knights. It was extremely costly to be a knight; the armor was expensive, the squires were expensive and the horses were expensive. Without the financial resources to maintain quality armor, horses and squires, knights were forced to relinquish their position in society. Historians will forever debate what precisely caused the disappearance of knights, but in truth, it wasn’t a single factor. Knights disappeared because of a myriad of factors compounding on each other to eventually cause the knight's demise. At the moment, the general consensus is that it was a direct result of the proliferation of gunpowder in Europe, but there