Evaluate the extent to which gunpowder technology accounts for the rise of land-based empires in the period circa 1450 to 1750.
Excerpts from historical sources. Cuts are marked with ellipses, and words in brackets were added for clarity.
Document 1
Babur, Central Asian prince and founder of the Mughal Empire, memoir describing his victory over the sultan of Delhi at the Battle of Panipat in northern India in 1526, written c. 1529.
Seven hundred carts (araba) were brought in. The order given to Ustad 'Ali-quli was that these carts should be joined together in Ottoman fashion, but using ropes of raw hide instead of chains, and that between every two carts 5 or 6 mantelets [movable wooden shields] should be fixed, behind which the matchlockmen were to stand to fire. . . . The turning-parties wheeled round and began to rain arrows down. . . . Ustad 'Ali-quli made good discharge of firingi [cannon] shots; . . . Our right, left, centre and turning-parties having surrounded the enemy, rained arrows down on him and fought ungrudgingly. . . . By God's mercy and kindness, this difficult affair was made easy for us! In one half-day, that armed mass was laid upon the earth.
Document 2
Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, ambassador of the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor to the court of the Ottoman sultan Suleiman I, letter written from Constantinople, 1560.
It makes me shudder to think of what the result of a struggle between such different systems must be; one of us must prevail and the other be destroyed, at any rate we cannot both exist in safety. On their side is the vast wealth of their empire, unimpaired resources, experience and practice in arms, a veteran soldiery, an uninterrupted series of victories, readiness to endure hardships, union, order, discipline, thrift, and watchfulness. On ours are found an empty exchequer, luxurious habits, exhausted resources, broken spirits, a raw and insubordinate soldiery, and greedy generals . . . [N]o nation in the world has shown greater readiness than the Turks to avail themselves of the useful inventions of foreigners, as is proved by their employment of cannons and mortars, and many other things invented by Christians.
Document 3
Vincentio d'Alessandri, Venetian ambassador to the Safavid shah Tahmasp I, report to the government of Venice on the Persian state, early 1570s.
There are fifty sultans [provincial military commanders], by whom all the soldiery of the kingdom is made up . . . These same commanders have the charge of from five hundred to three thousand horsemen each, and from the regions assigned to them get as large an income as will support their retainers and cavalry . . . In all, they may amount to sixty thousand cavalry . . . They use for arms swords, lances, arquebuses, which all the soldiers can use . . . They use them with such facility, that it does not hinder them drawing their bows nor handling their swords . . . The strength of the king lies in his having caused them to lay waste the country on the frontiers of the Turk on every side for six days' journey in distance, and to pull down every castle in the district, in order to strengthen himself by the Turks having no inclination to seize and hold it.
Document 4
Visual source
Illustration from the Illustrated Chronicle, an official history produced at the court of Tsar Ivan IV of Russia, showing the Russian siege of the Tatar city of Kazan in 1552, Moscow, 1570s.
Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan IV (Tsarstvennaya kniga), Wikimedia Commons, public domainDescribe the image
An ink drawing shows a battle outside the walled and towered city of Kazan, which stands at the upper left. On the left, Tatar warriors from Kazan, some on horseback, shoot arrows from bows. On the right, a tightly packed line of the tsar's foot musketeers (streltsy) aim long matchlock guns at them. Above the musketeers, Russian cavalry gather under banners, one of which bears the face of Christ; the rider directly beneath that banner wears a crown. The chronicle text beneath the drawing reports that the men of Kazan rode out and shot at the Russian regiment, that the sovereign's musketeers fired on them with their guns, and that when the Kazan horsemen charged the musketeers on foot, cavalry from the Russian regiment were ordered to support the musketeers.
Document 5
Abu'l Fazl, chief minister and official historian of the Mughal emperor Akbar, the Ain-i-Akbari, an official account of Akbar's government, 1590s.
Guns are wonderful locks for protecting the august edifice of the state; and befitting keys for the door of conquest. With the exception of Turkey, there is perhaps no country which in its guns has more means of securing the government than this. There are now-a-days guns made of such a size that the ball weighs 12 mans [a unit of weight]; several elephants and a thousand cattle are required to transport one. His Majesty looks upon the care bestowed on the efficiency of this branch as one of the higher objects of a king, and therefore devotes to it much of his time. . . . The imperial guns are carefully distributed over the whole kingdom, and each Subah [province] has that kind which is fit for it. For the siege of fortresses and for naval engagements, His Majesty has separate guns made, which accompany his victorious armies on their marches.
Document 6
Martino Martini, Italian Jesuit missionary who lived in China during the Manchu conquest, history of the fall of the Ming dynasty to the Manchus (whom he calls Tartars), 1654.
By occasion of this war the two noble Christian Doctors, Paul and Michael, found means to persuade the Emperor to demand of the Portuguese of Macao, some greater Pieces, and also some Guns and Gunners . . . But they [the Tartars] were always so beaten, and so defeated, as they could never fix a constant habitation. For by this time were arrived seven excellent Gunners from the Portuguese quarters, which both by themselves, and by teaching the Chinese, advanced infinitely the King of China his Affairs . . . [I]n less than the space of a year . . . they had conquered Peking, Xansi, Xensi, and Xantung, which are the four vast Northern Provinces of China. In all which they changed nothing in their Political manner of Government; nay, they permitted the usual custom of the Philosophers of China to govern the Towns and Provinces; they left also the same Examens [examinations] as were used for the approving of learned men . . . yet they kept the Militia in their own hands.
Document 7
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, wife of the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, letter to a noblewoman in England, written from Edirne (Adrianople), 1717.
The government here is entirely in the hands of the army, the grand signior [sultan], with all his absolute power, is as much a slave as any of his subjects, and trembles at a janizary's frown. . . . [W]hen a minister here displeases the people, in three hours time he is dragged even from his master's arms. They cut off hands, head, and feet, and throw them before the palace gate, with all the respect in the world; while the sultan (to whom they all profess an unlimited adoration) sits trembling in his apartment, and dare neither defend nor revenge his favourite. . . . This may give you some idea of the unlimited power of these fellows [the janizaries], who are all sworn brothers, and bound to revenge the injuries done to one another, whether at Cairo, Aleppo, or any part of the world. This inviolable league makes them so powerful, that the greatest man at court never speaks to them but in a flattering tone.
How it's scored
1 ptThesis or claim. A historically defensible thesis that establishes a line of reasoning, in one or more consecutive sentences in the intro or conclusion.
1 ptContextualization. Describe a broader historical context relevant to the prompt: events, developments, or processes before, during, or after the prompt's time frame.
2 ptsEvidence from the documents. One point for accurately describing the content of three documents. Two points for using the content of at least four documents to support the argument.
1 ptEvidence beyond the documents. Use one specific, relevant piece of historical evidence that appears in none of the documents, and explain how it supports the argument.
1 ptAnalysis and reasoning: sourcing. For at least two documents, explain how or why the point of view, purpose, historical situation, or intended audience is relevant to the argument.
1 ptAnalysis and reasoning: complexity. Demonstrate a complex understanding: explain nuance, consider multiple variables, analyze both similarity and difference, or qualify the argument with evidence that cuts against it.
