From Stones to Nukes: European and Atlantic World's Military Advancements

By Adolf Kellenberger

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.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Books on Demand
• Release date: Feb 14, 2024
• ISBN: 9783758332548

Adolf Kellenberger

Adolf Kellenberger ist langjähriger Verfasser diverser Artikel in Waffen-Fachzeitschriften und u. a. Co-Autor des Oerlikon Taschenbuches. Bekannt ist auch sein 26-seitiger Beitrag "Karl May - Seine Waffen, der Henrystutzen und der Versuch, Unmögliches möglich zu machen", veröffentlicht im Werk Karl-May-Welten V, erschienen im Karl-May-Verlag.

Book preview

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