In Dan Cohen’s lecture regarding the so-called “scientific revolution”, one of the primary questions that he posed was whether or not we can view “revolutions” in scientific thought as revolutionary in their own right. In terms of this question, I would have to say that yes, scientific revolutions, or great breakthroughs in scientific or technological thought can be revolutionary. While they may not be revolutionary beyond the realm of the scientific community on their own, I would argue that revolutions in science and technology often lead to profound changes in the course of human history due to the impact of these “revolutionary” discoveries and breakthroughs. The specific scientific revolution that Mr. Cohen referred to occurred just a few centuries ago, but scientific revolutions – that is, revolutions brought about by scientific and technological breakthroughs – have been going on all throughout the course of human history. Take, for example, Ancient Greece in the 4th century BCE. After his predecessor died in a catastrophic battle that wiped out most of their army, Philip II ascended to the Macedonian throne. Beset on all sides by threats hoping to take advantage of the vulnerable state that Macedon found itself in, Philip quickly set about reforming his army. He equipped his infantry with long, two handed spears called sarissa, and pioneered new tactics for his newly formed army. He also was the first power in Greece besides Sparta to have a significant professionally trained army, whom trained and fought year round for their wage, unlike the other Greek city states, who formed their armies out of citizen militias. Philip was also the first to provide his soldiers with equipment, whereas other Greek city states required their hoplites to buy their own gear. In battle, the sarissa was able to keep enemies from reaching his infantry through a forest of spears, while his cavalry charged the archaic hoplite phalanx of the other Greek city states from behind. With this new army, Philip was able to bring much of Greece under his rule, and after his death, his son Alexander took the same army to the East, conquering Persia and going even as far as the Hydaspes river in India, and earning himself the title of Alexander the Great. In this instance, one can clearly see that while a technological development may not be revolutionary in and of itself, its adoption and effective application can be decisive in determining the course of history. Philip and Alexander were without a doubt effective commanders in their own right, but they would not have been able to achieve victory after victory without the technological innovations pioneered by Philip. Instances like these, in my opinion, show that scientific and technological breakthroughs can, indeed be revolutionary.