Review of Carlo M. Cipolla, Guns, Sails, and Empires

Carlo M. Cipolla, Guns, Sails, and Empires: Technological Innovation and the Early Phases of European Expansion (Manhattan, KS: Sunflower University Press, 1985).

Biography: Carlo M. Cipolla was a primarily Italian economic historian. He studied at the University of Pavia, University of Paris, and the London School of Economics. He taught in Italy for many years before coming to the United States as Fulbright fellow in 1953 where he taught at Cal-Berkeley. He has authored 19 works

Overview: An exploration European expansion and exploration that made the “Vasco da Gama Era” between 1498 and 1947 possible. 

Central Thesis: The success of Europeans in this era was a commercial venture tied to their development of first siege artillery, man of war ships, and later mobile field artillery.

Scope of Book: 

  • Book is broken into two parts. Part One details developments within Europe. Part Two details how those development played out around the world.
  • Cipolla argues that Medieval Europe was chronically weak because their population was small, they were fighting each other, could not band together efficiently, and their military organization was suspect. European armies relied on heavy cavalry chasing the elusive notion of striking heavily at the enemy in a decisive blow. (17)
  • He argues that European expansion was not a product of the fall of Constantinople and other Ottoman threats, but rather a desire of Europeans in general. Rather the Europeans were merely trying to find the most efficient routes to the Spice Islands and coasts of West Africa and the need to outflank military and political blockades of the Ottoman and other Muslim groups was already felt in the thirteenth and fourteenth century.
  • However, he does point out an interesting paradox: “while Europe was boldly expanding overseas and was aggressively imposing her predominance on Asia, Africa, and the America, on her eastern border she was spiritlessly retreating under the pressure of the Turkish forces. 
  • The development of cannon in the 1300s centered on Northern Italy, central Germany and Belgium due to raw material stores. Initially Bronze weapons were the best, but expensive and heavy. Iron cannon were not as accurate but easier to produce and lighter. 
  • Cannon initially proved most adept at sieges, displaying an intense ability to destroy medieval castle walls. Because of their heft and accuracy issues, they were not well suited to use in open warfare. Early guns, he says, were individuals, and each had different capabilities and requirements. The English eventually begin mass production of good cast-iron cannon in the mid 16th century.
  • This changes in the mid 17th century when the Swedes invent an effective, light, transportable field gun known as the regementsstycke. This was largely used at home but further enlarged the military technological gap between Europe and the rest of the world.
  • Because large heavy guns were best suited to siege, they also performed well mounted on ships. However, to get the most use out of them the ships needed to be larger, as the Mediterranean galleys were not suitable. Galleys were likewise not suitable to long voyage and thus the Man-of-War develops. Once cannon were mounted along the sides rather than in ships castles, in 1501 by a Frenchman, the technology really took off. Also prior to the man-of-war, different ships served different purposes. Now these three-masted heavy tonnage ships had merchant and wartime capabilities in one ship.
  • “Within Europe herself, supremacy was gained by those nations which shifted more completely to guns and sails. The era of human energy was over and the era of the machine was beginning to open up.” (89)
  • Outside of Europe, the Ottoman’s for many cultural and practical reasons devoted to the production of siege ordnance rather than field artillery which really became a problem in the mid 17th century.
  • After outflanking the Turks, Europeans were confronted with primitive peoples of the Americas and Africa and the sophisticated peoples of Asia. The Chinese, who used gun powder as early as the 10th century, failed to develop it further while during the 15th century European technology made noticeable progress. 
  • The Chinese failed to develop artillery due to “technical skill, but also taste, cultural pride and institutions.” (117) After European arrival in Asia, an arms race develops for the technology that the Europeans are very reluctant to share. 
  • Interestingly, for Asian and other cultures to compete, they would then have to embrace “Western technology” which is antithetical to many of their cultures.
  • Cipolla concludes by arguing that the industrial revolution widened the original disequilibrium, allowing further territorial control in Africa, Asia, and especially in the Americas where the geography allowed greater expansion.

Commentary: A quick, compelling read sure to invigorate even the least versed reader on this time period. This is an excellent starting point for discussion of the Military Revolution, because Cipolla looks at it through a very practical, economic perspective. 

Leave a Reply