You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help with English thesis ideas
- Thread starter BKH
- Start date
Technosavant
New member
I would probably go with some idea about the use of gunpowder in warfare as being the most important development since we went from sharp rocks to sharpened metal.
BigD_in_FL
Moderator
How was warfare fought before gunpowder?
How did the use of gunpowder change the way warfare was conducted?
(Don't forget to go back to the Chinese and rockets)
How did the use of gunpowder change the way warfare was conducted?
(Don't forget to go back to the Chinese and rockets)
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There are specialized military history textbooks and references books on this topic. An academic data base or even Google will bring them up.
A college student should have such referencing skills.
A college student should have such referencing skills.
Gunpowder leveled the playing field: An armored Nobleman, who spent his entire life honing his combat skills and required a huge amount of wealth to outfit and maintain him, could be killed by a barely trained conscript who had been furnished a relatively inexpensive (when compared to the Knight's plate armor, warhorses, and retinue costs) arquebuss.
While the English Longbow also was superior to the Knight on an economic level, a Longbowman took years to train, and had to be relatively well fed...... any starving peasant could be drafted and given a matchlock, and have a shot at besting the mightiest armored knight in all the land. Put a few dozen together with some pikemen and halberdiers, and you have a force that could kill entire generations of nobilitiy of region in a single battle, and be replaced relatively quickly and easily.
Gunpowder was one of the important reasons for the end of Fuedalism, and the rise of Professional Armies.
While the English Longbow also was superior to the Knight on an economic level, a Longbowman took years to train, and had to be relatively well fed...... any starving peasant could be drafted and given a matchlock, and have a shot at besting the mightiest armored knight in all the land. Put a few dozen together with some pikemen and halberdiers, and you have a force that could kill entire generations of nobilitiy of region in a single battle, and be replaced relatively quickly and easily.
Gunpowder was one of the important reasons for the end of Fuedalism, and the rise of Professional Armies.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
A short history of the modern era
Gunpowder >> training unwashed masses as infantry >> declining power of aristocracy >> political and social change of one kind or another, for better or worse.
There's probably a thesis or two in there somewhere; go forth and think.
Gunpowder >> training unwashed masses as infantry >> declining power of aristocracy >> political and social change of one kind or another, for better or worse.
There's probably a thesis or two in there somewhere; go forth and think.
In addition, it takes an expert to make a good arrow. Anyone can be taught to cast a lead ball in just a few minutes.While the English Longbow also was superior to the Knight on an economic level, a Longbowman took years to train, and had to be relatively well fed.......
I've also seen people speculate that the noise, flash & smoke was also part of the reason that guns caught on for warfare. The idea is that they were much more intimidating.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The Chinese invented gunpowder, some time between the 9th and 11th century A.D.BigDinFL said:(Don't forget to go back to the Chinese and rockets)
I was going to propose that the introduction of gunpowder into warfare allowed killing from a distance -- and then I remembered that longbows and crossbows already did that. So, that's perhaps NOT the appropriate thesis to pursue.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
It's all in the scholarly texts. I took military history years ago from a major general - not hide to find.
In fact, is it legit with the prof to ask for outside aid? Where I teach, this would be a tad funky depending on how you use the info.
In fact, is it legit with the prof to ask for outside aid? Where I teach, this would be a tad funky depending on how you use the info.
Like the crossbow, before, only more so, the firearm allowed peasants to fight against professional soldiers.
After the advent of firearms, the Nobility largely got out of the business of doing the actual fighting ...... and paid professional soldiers to do it.
kilimanjaro
New member
Firearms were cheap when compared to a knight in armor, with or without a horse, and a soldier could be trained in their use in days or weeks, instead of years.
Artillery pounded stone castle walls to rubble in a few hours, so the age of cruel sieges of populous cities was over, now the armies would fight it out in the open by maneuvering bodies of troops.
Artillery pounded stone castle walls to rubble in a few hours, so the age of cruel sieges of populous cities was over, now the armies would fight it out in the open by maneuvering bodies of troops.
Not quite true. The Thirty Years War featured firearms and artillery, yet sieges still occurred.
They would continue for a couple centuries, at least into Napoleonic times, hence Napoleon's comment on artillery fire from the circumference to the center being everything, and from the center to the circumference being nothing.
Fortifications would change, though, with earthworks replacing stone.
They would continue for a couple centuries, at least into Napoleonic times, hence Napoleon's comment on artillery fire from the circumference to the center being everything, and from the center to the circumference being nothing.
Fortifications would change, though, with earthworks replacing stone.
Not quite true. The Thirty Years War featured firearms and artillery, yet sieges still occurred.
They would continue for a couple centuries, at least into Napoleonic times, hence Napoleon's comment on artillery fire from the circumference to the center being everything, and from the center to the circumference being nothing.
Fortifications would change, though, with earthworks replacing stone.
Tall curtain walled stone castles could indeed be reduced in a very short time by cannon fire ...... low earth and brick star forts armed with cannon of their own had to be starved out, or undermined.....
if you can carry the musket, you can load it, fire it, and normally kill a particular person you aim at on the other end of the football field.
if you want to use a bow, you have to be of certain size and strength, and trined from childhood. crossbows not as dependent on training, but strength and size is still an issue. as you needed a specific amount of strength to cock it.
there are so many socio economic aspects, political, class, that its not funny.
in essence, it became easier for the nobles to expend excess peasant populations by having wars with each other.
if you want to use a bow, you have to be of certain size and strength, and trined from childhood. crossbows not as dependent on training, but strength and size is still an issue. as you needed a specific amount of strength to cock it.
there are so many socio economic aspects, political, class, that its not funny.
in essence, it became easier for the nobles to expend excess peasant populations by having wars with each other.
MLeake wrote:
Agreed. Look at what firearms did to the centuries old feudal system of Japan.
Like the crossbow, before, only more so, the firearm allowed peasants to fight against professional soldiers.
Agreed. Look at what firearms did to the centuries old feudal system of Japan.
MarkDozier
New member
Lot of great info,
My subject is how the invention of gunpowder changed warfare. I'm having some trouble forming a thesis.
Take it a different direction. I think Newton gave you some good points to start your thesis devolopment. That is the general direction I was thinking of.
How gunpowder blah blah blah. has been done to death. You need to boldly go where not many have gone before.
in spitie of the pompus remarks, my school encouraged open discussion with peers as part of the learning process.
My subject is how the invention of gunpowder changed warfare. I'm having some trouble forming a thesis.
Take it a different direction. I think Newton gave you some good points to start your thesis devolopment. That is the general direction I was thinking of.
How gunpowder blah blah blah. has been done to death. You need to boldly go where not many have gone before.
in spitie of the pompus remarks, my school encouraged open discussion with peers as part of the learning process.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Depends on the rules of the assignment. Schools vary and some consider asking others in some cases not to be legit. So keep the pomposity to yourself.
If you are asking us for substantial help that you then use, paraprhase and quote - it has to be cited as such.
If you are asking us for substantial help that you then use, paraprhase and quote - it has to be cited as such.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And that would be ... where?MarkDozier said:How gunpowder blah blah blah. has been done to death. You need to boldly go where not many have gone before.
I don't think a university professor commenting that asking other people for the information with which to write your report could be construed by faculty as cheating is "pompous." I would consider that sage advice. Further, I don't think the OP is engaging in an open discussion with his peers. His peers are the other students in whatever class this paper is for. Most (if not all) of us on this forum are years or even decades older than the OP, we are mostly long since done with being students, and we have many more years of exposure to both firearms and history to draw on than the OP. That's simply not a peer-to-peer relationship.in spitie of the pompus remarks, my school encouraged open discussion with peers as part of the learning process.
My subject is how the invention of gunpowder changed warfare.
Excellent, debunk that nonsense, challenge the accepted theories. The more the weapons evolve the more the actual conflict stays the same., or does it?
Really, what is it that is really changing when you boil it all down to so many of these guys are trying to kill so many of those guys who are really trying to kill the first guys first.
Is it war that's changing, the way we conduct war, the purpose or object of war, who is doing the fighting and dieing?
We are supposedly winding down a nice long, (for the history books), 10 year war. It opened pretty dramatically with the highjacking of four airliners, ( dudes with box cutters). I think many Brits would tell you the war on terror is still going on and their latest casualty was killed when his head was cut off. What did gunpowder have to do with that I wonder?
Just food for thought, get the old grey matter thinking.