Gunpowder empires
"Gunpowder empires", or "Islamic gunpowder empires", is a term coined by the American historians Marshall G. S. Hodgson and William H. McNeill to describe three early modern Muslim empires: the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Empire and the Mughal Empire, which flourished between the mid-16th and early 18th centuries.
McNeill focused on the history of gunpowder use across multiple civilizations in East Asia, Europe, and India in his 1993 work The Age of Gunpowder Empires. The gunpowder empires conquered vast amounts of territory with the use and deployment of newly invented firearms, especially cannon and small arms; together they stretched from Southeastern Europe and North Africa in the west to Bengal and Arakan in the east. In the case of Europe, the introduction of gunpowder weapons also prompted changes such as the rise of centralised monarchical states. As a result, the three empires were among the most stable of the early modern period, leading to commercial expansion, cultural patronage, and the consolidation of political and legal institutions.
According to Hodgson, in the gunpowder empires these changes went well beyond military organisation. The Mughals, based in the Indian subcontinent, inherited in part the Timurid Renaissance, and are recognised for their lavish architecture and for having heralded in Bengal an era of what some describe as proto-industrialization. The Safavids created an efficient and modern state administration for Iran and sponsored major developments in the fine arts. The sultans of the Ottoman Empire controlled the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and hence were the recognised Caliphs of Islam. The power, wealth, culture and other various contributions made by these Islamic empires significantly influenced the course of world history.
The Hodgson–McNeill concept
The phrase was coined by Marshall Hodgson and his colleague William H. McNeill at the University of Chicago. Hodgson used the phrase in the title of Book 5 of his highly influential three-volume work, The Venture of Islam. Hodgson saw gunpowder weapons as the key to the "military patronage states of the Later Middle Period" which replaced the unstable, geographically limited confederations of Turkic tribal confederations, which prevailed in post-Mongol times. Hodgson defined a "military patronage state" as one having three characteristics:Such states grew "out of Mongol notions of greatness", but "uch notions could fully mature and create stable bureaucratic empires only after gunpowder weapons and their specialized technology attained a primary place in military life."
McNeill argued that whenever such states "were able to monopolize the new artillery, central authorities were able to unite larger territories into new, or newly consolidated, empires." Monopolization was key. Although Europe pioneered the development of new artillery in the fifteenth century, no state monopolized it. Gun-casting know-how had been concentrated in the Low Countries near the mouths of the Scheldt and Rhine rivers. France and the Habsburgs divided those territories, resulting in an arms standoff. By contrast, such monopolies allowed states to create militarized empires in West Asia, Russia, and India, and "in a considerably modified fashion" in China, Korea, and Japan.
Recent views on the concept
More recently, the Hodgson–McNeill "gunpowder empire" hypothesis has been called into disfavour as a neither "adequate or accurate" explanation, although the term remains in use. Reasons other than military technology have been offered for the nearly simultaneous rise of three centralized military empires in contiguous areas dominated by decentralized Turkic tribes. One explanation, called "Confessionalization" by historians of fifteenth century Europe, invokes examination of how the relation of church and state "mediated through confessional statements and church ordinances" lead to the origins of absolutist polities. Douglas Streusand uses the Safavids as an example:The Safavids from the beginning imposed a new religious identity on their general population; they did not seek to develop a national or linguistic identity, but their policy had that effect.
One problem of the Hodgson–McNeill theory is that the acquisition of firearms does not seem to have preceded the initial acquisition of territory constituting the imperial critical mass of any of the three early modern Islamic empires, except in the case of the Mughal empire. Moreover, it seems that the commitment to military autocratic rule pre-dated the acquisition of gunpowder weapons in all three cases. Nor does it seem to be the case that the acquisition of gunpowder weapons and their integration into the military was influenced by which variety of Islam the particular empire promoted. Whether or not gunpowder was inherently linked to the existence of any of these three empires, it cannot be questioned that each of the three acquired artillery and firearms early in their history and made such weapons an integral part of their military tactics.
Michael Axworthy has pointed out that the label is misleading in the case of the Safavids, as unlike contemporary European armies, the Safavid military mostly used swords, lances, and bows well into the mid-18th century. It was not until the rule of Nader Shah's Afsharid dynasty that the majority of Iran's troops would be equipped with firearms for the first time.
History
Gunpowder empires of the Muslim world
Ottoman Empire
The first of the three empires to acquire gunpowder weapons was the Ottoman Empire. By the 14th century, the Ottomans had adopted gunpowder artillery. The adoption of the gunpowder weapons by the Ottomans was so rapid that they "preceded both their European and Middle Eastern adversaries in establishing centralized and permanent troops specialized in the manufacturing and handling of firearms." But it was their use of artillery that shocked their adversaries and impelled the other two Islamic empires to accelerate their weapons programs. The Ottomans had artillery at least by the reign of Bayezid I and used them in the sieges of Constantinople in 1399 and 1402. They finally proved their worth as siege engines in the successful siege of Salonica in 1430. The Ottomans employed Middle-Eastern as well as European foundries to cast their cannons, and by the siege of Constantinople in 1453, they had large enough cannons to batter the walls of the city, to the surprise of the defenders.The Ottoman military's regularized use of firearms proceeded ahead of the pace of their European counterparts. The Janissaries had been an infantry bodyguard using bows and arrows. During the rule of Sultan Mehmed II they were drilled with firearms and became "perhaps the first standing infantry force equipped with firearms in the world." The Janissaries are thus considered the first modern standing armies. The combination of artillery and Janissary firepower proved decisive at Varna in 1444 against a force of Crusaders, Başkent in 1473 against the Aq Qoyunlu, and Mohács in 1526 against Hungary. But the battle which convinced the Safavids and the Mughals of the efficacy of gunpowder was Chaldiran.
The matchlock arquebus began to be used by the Janissary corps by the 1440s. The musket later appeared in the Ottoman Empire by 1465. Damascus steel was later used in the production of firearms such as the musket from the 16th century. At the Battle of Mohács in 1526, the Janissaries equipped with 2000 tüfenks "formed nine consecutive rows and they fired their weapons row by row," in a "kneeling or standing position without the need for additional support or rest." The Chinese later adopted the Ottoman kneeling position for firing. In 1598, Chinese writer Zhao Shizhen described Turkish muskets as being superior to European muskets. The Ming-era Chinese work the Wubei Zhi or "Treatise on Armament Technology or Records of Armaments and Military Provisions" of 1621 later described Turkish muskets that used a rack and pinion mechanism, which was not known to have been used in any European or Chinese firearms at the time.
The Dardanelles Gun was designed and cast in bronze in 1464 by Munir Ali. The Dardanelles Gun was still present for duty more than 340 years later in 1807, when a Royal Navy force appeared and commenced the Dardanelles operation. Turkish forces loaded the ancient relics with propellant and projectiles and fired them at the British ships. The British squadron suffered 28 casualties from this bombardment.
At Chaldiran, the Ottomans met the Safavids in battle for the first time. Sultan Selim I moved east with his field artillery in 1514 to confront what he perceived as a Twelver Shi'a threat instigated by Shah Ismail in favor of Selim's rivals. Ismail staked his reputation as a divinely-favored ruler on an open cavalry charge against a fixed Ottoman position. The Ottomans deployed their cannons between the carts that carried them, which also provided cover for the armed Janissaries. The result of the charge was devastating losses to the Safavid cavalry. The defeat was so thorough that the Ottoman forces were able to move on and briefly occupy the Safavid capital, Tabriz. Only the limited campaign radius of the Ottoman army prevented it from holding the city and ending the Safavid rule.
Safavid Empire
Although the Chaldiran defeat brought an end to Ismail's territorial expansion program, the shah nonetheless took immediate steps to protect against the real threat from the Ottoman sultanate by arming his troops with gunpowder weapons. Within two years of Chaldiran, Ismail had a corps of musketeers numbering 8,000, and by 1521, possibly 20,000. After Abbas the Great reformed the army, the Safavid forces had an artillery corps of 500 cannons as well as 12,000 musketeers.The Safavids first put their gunpowder arms to good use against the Uzbeks, who had invaded eastern Persia during the civil war that followed the death of Ismail I. The young shah Tahmasp I headed an army to relieve Herat and encountered the Uzbeks on 24 September 1528 at Jam, where the Safavids decisively beat the Uzbeks. The shah's army deployed cannons in the center protected by wagons with cavalry on both flanks. Mughal emperor Babur described the formation at Jam as "in the Anatolian fashion." The several thousand gun-bearing infantry also massed in the center as did the Janissaries of the Ottoman army. Although the Uzbek cavalry engaged and turned the Safavid army on both flanks, the Safavid center held. Rallying under Tahmasp's personal leadership, the infantry of the center engaged and scattered the Uzbek center and secured the field.