Myths of military revolution: European expansion and Eurocentrism

Abstract

This article critiques explanations of the rise of the West in the early modern period premised on the thesis that military competition drove the development of gunpowder technology, new tactics, and the Westphalian state, innovations that enabled European trans-continental conquests. Even theories in International Relations and other fields that posit economic or social root causes of Western expansion often rely on this “military revolution” thesis as a crucial intervening variable. Yet, the factors that defined the military revolution in Europe were absent in European expeditions to Asia, Africa, and the Americas, and conventional accounts are often marred by Eurocentric biases. Given the insignificance of military innovations, Western expansion prior to the Industrial Revolution is best explained by Europeans’ ability to garner local support and allies, but especially by their deference to powerful non-Western polities.

Where is Conflict Research? Western Bias in the Literature on Armed Violence

“…One serious issue is that our general body of knowledge is potentially skewed-focused on a small and unusual set of states, yet we use the literature to generalize about all states. 26 A growing line of research illustrates the problems associated with applying US or European models to other countries ( Zhang 2003 ;Sharman 2018 ;Cheng and Brettle 2019 ). More generally, are we over-learning the lessons of Northern 24 Most of the countries in this paragraph experienced tens of thousands of battle deaths during the years studied ( Pettersson and Eck 2018 ).…”

“…This appears to have occurred with other subjects, such as research on climate change's effects ( Hendrix 2017 ;Adams et al 2018 ). In conflict research, scholars have asserted that over-focus on Western cases has affected conclusions on topics such as military innovation ( Sharman 2018 ) and Chinese security strategy ( Kopper and Peragovics 2019 ). Beyond these specific subjects, it is unclear if similar biases are present broadly in conflict studies.…”

Africa’s Revolutionary Nineteenth Century and the Idea of the “Scramble”

“…But as Sharman argues for the early modern period, it is equally plausible that European armed supremacy is something of a myth and that the 'Scramble' was only made possible through a concoction of local alliances as well as a generous dollop of good fortune. 121 Those local alliances, moreover, are not solely the result of a particular European genius for diplomatic machination and persuasionalthough to be sure such skill is in evidence, necessitated by a greater degree of weakness than was subsequently acknowledgedbut the direct outcome of the continent's own political transformation in the course of the nineteenth century. Europe's imperialisms in Africa were made possible by a whole range of African imperialisms unfolding over much the same timeframe, though to be sure some of the latter were rooted in the era of the Atlantic slave trade.…”

Territorial sovereignty and the end of inter-cultural diplomacy along the “Southern frontier”

“…Then, during the so-called “Arauco War,” they resisted European colonization. As Sharman (2017) recently pointed out, Europeans had by no means a clear military advantage in colonial encounters prior to the 19th century. In a general uprising in the late 16th century, the Mapuche defeated the Spanish and destroyed all settlements south of the Biobío river, thus ending the conquest and establishing the “Southern frontier” as a matter of fact (Bengoa, 2000: 36–37; Jones, 1999: 148).…”