How Artillery Became The King of Battle (1500-1800)

Get a 25% discount for Curiosity Stream with code sandrhoman! It's just $14.99 for one year! https://curiositystream.com/SandRhoman

Contrary to popular belief, only very few canons were found on the battlefields of Europe in the age of gunpowder. Although artillery had become an integral part of European warfare in the mid-15th century, the use of cannons actually decreased over the course of the 16th century, and it took almost 300 years until it lived up to its true potential against sturdy fortresses and well-seasoned enemy armies. This delay was not caused by limited effectiveness on the battlefield. Initially, when canons were deployed, they tore enemy formations to pieces and before long, they did the same to medieval walls. The issues was that, as a reaction, engineers soon designed fortresses that were able to resist their bombardments. These so-called bastion forts were built all over Europe, and soon the cannons of the time couldn't keep up. In field battles, too, the ponderous and few guns initially proved their worth only to a very limited extent. While Napoleon managed to bring a whopping 700 pieces to Leipzig in 1813, generals in the 16th and 17th century often only brought a mere handful to the battlefield. This raises the question: When, how, and why exactly became artillery a full-fledged third military branch alongside cavalry and infantry?

Patreon (thank you):   / sandrhomanhistory  
Prints & T-Shirts: https://sandrhoman.creator-spring.com/
Paypal (thank you: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter:   / sandrhoman  

Bibliography:
Fiedler, S., Kriegswesen und Kriegsführung im Zeitalter der Landsknechte, Koblenz 1985.
Van Nimwegen, O., The Dutch Army and the Military Revolutions. 1588-1688. https://amzn.to/3CmnrNY
Ortenburg, G., Waffe und Waffengebrauch im Zeitalter der Landsknechte, Koblenz 1984.
Schmidtchen, V., "Riesengeschütze des 15. Jahrhunderts. Technische Höchstleistungen ihrer Zeit", Technikgeschichte, 44.3(1977), pp 213–237.
DeVries, K./ Smith, R. D., Medieval Military Technology, Toronto 2012. https://amzn.to/3Cl2t1P
Quaas, Gerhard, s.v. Artillery, in: Enzyklopädie der frühen Neuzeit Online, https://referenceworks.brillonline.co... (letzter Aufruf am 19.05.2022).
Pepper, Simon, Operational Art: Communication, Cannon, Small War, in: Tallet, Frank/Trim, D. J. B. (Ed.), European Warfare 1350-1750, Cambridge 2010.

Reading list:
Warfare:
Duffy, C., Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World 1494-1660, Vol. 1, 1979. https://amzn.to/32dvvwM
Devries, K., Douglas, R., Medieval Military Technology, 1992, https://amzn.to/3IazYoC.
Rogers, C.J., The military revolution debate. Readings on the military transformation of early modern Europe, 1995. https://amzn.to/3geVDMM
Rogers, C.J., Soldiers' Lives through History - The Middle Ages, 2006. https://amzn.to/3j2kQvG
Parker, C., The Cambridge History of Warfare, 2005. https://amzn.to/32ggn1L
Van Nimwegen, O., The Dutch Army and the Military Revolutions, 1588-1688, 2010. https://amzn.to/2E3Fc95

Fiction related to the Early modern period:
Alexandre Dumas,The Three Musketeers https://amzn.to/2CJVAuu
Alexandre Dumas, 20 Years After https://amzn.to/32g82Lv
Alexandre Dumas, The Vicomte de Bragelonne https://amzn.to/2EnIOCB
Markus Heitz, The Dark Lands https://amzn.to/3ntZgEu

Military Si-Fi recommendations:
Bernard Cornwell, Sharpe (Series of 22 books on the Napoleonic Wars), https://amzn.to/3RZyty0
Dan Abnett, The Founding: A Gaunt's Ghosts Omnibus (Gaunt’s Ghosts) https://amzn.to/3vdGxkZ
Dan Abnett, The Lost: A Gaunt's Ghosts Omnibus (Gaunt’s Ghosts) https://amzn.to/3osvFvA
Dan Abnett, The Saint A Gaunt's Ghosts Omnibus (Gaunt’s Ghosts) https://amzn.to/3orikUk
Glen Cook, Chronicles of the Black Company (Chronicles of the Black Company Series Book 1) https://amzn.to/3PVgyGV

Historiography:
Neville Morley, Writing Ancient History 1999. https://amzn.to/3NCyoNl
Albeit focused on ancient history, it's a brilliant book for anybody who is interested in what history actually is. Is it a story? How does it work in practise? Can writing history be objective? Is it "scientific"? What makes it a proper discipline at university?