Changing nature of warfare

Essay QuestionsExam Preparation

Thank you to Sir Roger Manwood School for this presentation

Assess the impact of developments in communications and transport on the conduct of war in the period from 1792 to

1945.

Assess the impact of developments in communications and transport on the conduct of war in the period from 1792 to

1945.

Both communications and transport must be addressed to move above

Level III.

• Major Transport developments?

• application of steam power in the form of railways (and steam ships where their use applies to land warfare – the Crimean War, for example) and the use of aircraft carriers to transport troops in World War Two.

• impact of the internal combustion engine in WWI and WWII (lorries, tanks and aircraft). Here many of the comments for rail apply to motorized troops. For tanks and aircraft we might expect some discussion of use in battle

• For pre-steam technologies use of waterways to transport troops or mass use of horse drawn carts were important

• Communications development?

• developments of the second half of the period, referring to the telegraph, telephone and radio. Telegraph first starts to make an impact with the Crimean War; with the telephone we move to the Boer War and Russo- Japanese War; radio is a feature of the World Wars.

Task

• Read through article on transport and communication

• As you read think about the key factors on which transport and communications had an impact

Influence on the conduct of war

• rapid strategic movement

• the ability to mobilize large numbers of soldiers

• impact on concentration of force

• Leadership, command and control of armies

• Public opinion and organisation of the state

Limitations of transport and communication developments in the period?

• Legitimate targets – Sherman’s campaign

• Integration into strategy (leadership)

• Industrial production

• railway only took armies so far and once separated from rail networks soldiers moved as fast as their 18th century forebears had done.

Influence on the conduct of wargo through your notes/textbook and add evidence under each

heading• rapid strategic movement• “every new development of railways is a military advantage” Moltke 1843• 1859 Austrians marched across difficult terrain sometimes only managing 3 miles per day. impact on concentration of force• German blitzkrieg in 1939-1940 vs limits of Schlieffen Plan• ACW – Atlanta 62 key strategic objective• March dispersed, fight concentrated – ulm/austerliz vs 1812• Radio and tanks

• the ability to mobilize large numbers of soldiers• French 120,000 transported to northern Italy by rail in less than 2 weeks – previously would have required 2 month march. 70,000 troops

delivered by steam ship• 1850-70 Prussian rail track trebled due to industrial growth – lead over rivals• Union ACW• WW1 – parisian cabs and marne – Verdun lorries passed each other every 14 secs• Crimea and steamships• Live off the land – Nap + 1870

• Leadership, command and control of armies• Prussian General staff integrated telegraph and railways into core of strategic planning. • Napoleon’s Imperial HQ• Telegraph linked commanders Crimea with capitals – influence of Nap III• FP + ACW telegraph had little use commanding troops at tactical level

• Public opinion and organisation of the state • “nation in arms”• Conscription• Dunant + Solferino• Industrial production and economies• Voice of pol leaders – ‘fireside chats’

“Military strategy remained the same.” How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the

period 1792-1945?

“Military strategy remained the same.” How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the

period 1792-1945?

Definition of military strategy?• Strategy is defined as the art of planning and

directing overall military operations as opposed to tactics - the control of armies in battle.

• Jomini “the art of waging war upon a map”

• Clausewitz "the employment of battles to gain the end of war”

• Liddell Hart "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfil the ends of policy"

Principles of Strategy• Movement and disposition of forces

• concentration of force at the decisive place and time

• Planning and conduct of campaigns

• maintenance of aim - Direct every military operation towards a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective

• manoeuvre on a strategic level - Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the flexible application of combat power

• Surprise - Deception of the enemy

• Offensive (Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative)

• Unity of Command

• Simplicity (Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and clear, concise orders to ensure thorough understanding)

What influenced military strategy in the period?

• Leadership

• Theorists

• Transport and Communication

• Resources eg. Manpower

• Aims of a war – limited vs unlimited

• Legacy of previous conflicts

What influenced military strategy in the period?

Markscheme

Responses might link strategy to other elements of the specification which emphasise developments in warfare and engage the question by interweaving the two.

Candidates may argue that developments in weapons technology did not influence strategy whilst those in transport and communications did.

It is possible for responses to include battle tactics but only as an outcome of strategy, an example might be – due to the developments in weapons technology French strategy in the opening rounds of the Franco-Prussian War placed emphasis on positioning armies in strong defensive positions to fight battles successfully.

• Strategy (and tactics) must constantly evolve in response to technological advances. A successful strategy from one era tends to remain in favour long after new developments in military weaponry and matériel have rendered it obsolete.

• World War I, and to a great extent the American Civil War, saw Napoleonic tactics of "offense at all costs" pitted against the defensive power of the trench, machine gun and barbed wire.

• As a reaction to the experience of WW1 France entered WW2 with a purely defensive doctrine, epitomised by the "impregnable" Maginot Line, but only to be completely circumvented by the German blitzkrieg in the Fall of France.

Turning point?

• WW1?

• WW2?

Complete the table with examples from wars of the period – key aim is bringing out change and continuity!

Military strategy stayed the same Strategy changed through the period

Military strategy stayed the same Strategy changed through the period

Spirit of the offensiveConcentration of force at the decisive pointLegacy of Napoleon

Blitzkrieg + MansteinRailAttritional strategy WW1Civilian targets

Task

• Read through a pupil’s real exam answer to this question.

• Peer assess

• Grade it for A01a and A01b

• What was good/what could be improved upon

AO1a AO1bTotal mark for each question = 60

Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately, and communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a clear and effectivemanner.

Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation, analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of: - key concepts such as causation, consequence, continuity, change and significance within an historical context; - the relationships between key features and characteristics of the periods studied

Level 1A

• Uses a wide range of accurate and relevant evidence• Accurate and confident use of appropriate historicalTerminology • Answer is clearly structured and coherent; communicates accurately and legibly18-20

• Excellent understanding of key concepts (eg. continuity and change) relevant to analysis in their historical context• Excellent synthesis and synoptic assessment• Answer is consistently and relevantly analytical with developed explanations and supported judgements• May make unexpected but substantiated connections over the whole period36-40

Level 1B

Uses accurate and relevant evidence• Accurate use of a range of appropriate historicalterminology• Answer is clearly structured and mostly coherent; communicates accurately and legibly16-17

Very good level of understanding of key concepts (eg. continuity and change) in their historical context• Answer is consistently focused on the question set• Very good level of explanation/ analysis, and provides supported judgements• Very good synthesis and synoptic assessment of the whole period32-35

Level II

Uses mostly accurate and relevant evidence• Generally accurate use of historical terminology• Answer is structured and mostly coherent; writing is legible and communication is generally clear14-15

• Good level of understanding of key concepts (eg. continuity and change) in their historical context• Good explanation/ analysis but overall judgements may be uneven• Answer is focused on the issues in the question set• Good synthesis and assessment of developments over most of the period28-31

Level III

Uses relevant information but there may be some inaccuraciesAnswers include relevant historical terminology but this may not be extensive or always accurately used.Most of the answer is structured and coherent; writing is legible and communication is generally clear.12-13

• Shows a sound understanding of key concepts, especially continuity and change, in their historical context• Most of the answer is focused on the question set• Answers may be a mixture of analysis and explanation but also description and narrative, but there may also be some uneven overall judgements; OR answers may provide more consistent analysis but the quality will be uneven and its support often general or thin• Answer assesses relevant factors but provides only a limited synthesis of developments over most of the period24-27

Level IV There is deployment of relevant knowledge but level/ accuracy will vary• Some unclear and/or underdeveloped and/or disorganised sections• Mostly satisfactory level of communication10-11

• Satisfactory understanding of key concepts (eg. continuity and change) in their historical context• Satisfactory focus on the question set • Answer may be largely descriptive/ narratives of events, and links between this and analytical comments will typically beweak or unexplained• Makes limited synoptic judgements about developments over only part of the period20-23

Level V General and basic historical knowledge but also some irrelevant and inaccurate material• Often unclear and disorganised sections• Adequate level of communication but some weak prose passages8-9

• General understanding of key concepts (eg. continuity and change) in their historical context• Some understanding of the question but answers may focus on the topic and not address the question set OR provides ananswer based on generalisation • Attempts an explanation but often general coupled with assertion, description / narrative very little synthesis or analysis and only part(s) of the period will be covered16-19

Level VI • Use of relevant evidence will be limited; there will be much irrelevance and inaccuracy • Answers may have little organisation or structure• Weak use of English and poor organisation4-7

• Very little understanding of key concepts (eg. continuity and change) in their historical context• Limited perhaps brief explanation• Mainly assertion, description / narrative• Some understanding of the topic but not the question’s requirements8-15

AO1a – LII – accurate and relevant 15

A01b LIB – Good synthesis and focus on the questions. Uneven judgements but low LIB due to best-fit due to level of understanding shown32

Total 47/6078%

How far do you agree that tactics and strategy remained

essentially the same during the period 1792-1945?

How far do you agree that tactics and strategy remained

essentially the same during the period 1792-1945?

Did one change more than the other during the period?

Turning point for both factors?

Definitions

• Tactics – the detailed methods and procedures by which strategic aims are achieved

• Strategy – the setting of the higher aims and conduct of war

Key influences on strategy

• Legacy of Napoleon and teachings of military theorists – rapid movement, concentration of forces, manoeuvre

• Spirit of the offensive• leadership• Developments in transport and

communication

Development of tactics

• Changing weaponry • Leadership• Changes during wars eg.

WW1 – western front generals learning lessons and changing tactics as a result of individual

battles (creeping barrage, tanks)• manpower

January 2005 Examiners Response:• The tactics and strategy developed by the French armies of the 1790s and refined

by Napoleon in the 1800s included the following elements:

a) taking the offensive against the opponents main forces, with a head-on attack on their lines and a ‘movement to the rear’

b) combining separate armies on the battlefield to ensure maximum firepower in the offensivec) integrating a ‘mixed order’ of infantry, cavalry and ‘light’ infantry within the separate armiesd) making use of reserved troops at key points in the battle.

• However, not all forces during the Napoleonic era followed these methods eg. The armies of British and Russia which ultimately defeated an over-ambitious France. However, the French model became the standard for others to follow.

• Aspects of the aggressive French strategies can be found in the campaigns of Lee, Moltke (1866) and in the French strategies against Prussia 1870.

• However, other states followed more defensive strategies which departed from the French model.

• The availability of more accurate rifle fire by the mid-19th C also caused some generals to develop more cautious battlefield tactics.

• The shift to more defensive strategies continued to WW1 (at least on the western front) as the invention of the machine gun and heavy artillery made concentrated battlefield fire more intense.

• However, belief in the strategic offensive remained powerful, as shown by the frequent attempts to break the stalemate on the western front in 1915-17.

Essay structure

• INTRO – Definitions and judgement. Use key words from title qu.

• 5 minutes to write your own introduction to this question

• Swap your introduction with a neighbour

Sample IntroductionStrategy can be defined as the overall military aims and objectives in warfare- what de Jomini called the “art of waging war upon the map”. Tactics are what are done on an everyday level on the battlefield to achieve those strategic aims. In the period both tactics and strategy changed but tactics developed more quickly as it was more directly forced to by the progressing weaponry and leadership. On the other hand strategy, and the belief in the offensive, remained largely constant due to the legacy of Napoleon and the influence of military theorists. Therefore, although both strategy and tactics changed in the period, tactics changed at a faster rate.

Essay structure

1. Spirit of the Offensive

2. Leadership

3. manpower

4. Advances in technology

Task

• Read through sample essay on tactics and strategy

• Peer assess and grade




Level 1A



Level 1B



Level II



Level III









How effectively did states react to the demands of war in the

period?

How effectively did states react to the demands of war in the

period?

Task

• How do you define a state?

• What does the “demands of war” mean?

How do you define a state?• Groups of people which have acquired international recognition as an

independent country and which have a population, a common language and a defined and distinct territory.

• A State is a people organized for law within a definite territory.“ (Woodrow Wilson)

• How would you differentiate a state from a nation?

• States are the recognized actors in international politics - not nations. "Nations (typically ethnic groups each with a common language and a common sense of community) differ from states in one vitally important way: states possess the attribute of sovereignty.

• Nationhood is a demographic and psychological phenomenon; statehood is a formal-legal phenomenon.

What does the “demands of war” mean?

• The organisation and conduct of war

Demands of war - organisation and conduct

• Mobilisation of resources• Mass mobilisation of military manpower • Conscription• Labour force• Economic power• Industrial capacity• Executive power

Markscheme• The candidates need a clear understanding of what constitutes state involvement in the

organisation and conduct of war, although some leeway might be expected on the part of examiners given the potential scope of the question.

• Good responses will set down criteria and then evaluate them in relation to the evidence. The mobilization of resources in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods might concentrate on the French Republic and Empire, its successful conscription of manpower in the military and economic infrastructures. Napoleon’s organisation of France and her empire would be a good example. The industrial and financial power of Britain and her empire throughout the period might be a good example for investigation, although the Crimean War might well be part of a negative argument. The mobilization of the state in the support of war in Bismarck’s Prussia might be contrasted with the more haphazard effort of both France and Austria in the wars of Unification. The First and Second World Wars with mass mobilization of military manpower, labour and resources, etc is an obvious candidate for discussion.

• In order to meet the synoptic elements of the mark scheme candidates might chart the different reactions of states to war across the period arguing that effectiveness depended when the question was being applied between 1792 and 1945.

• Candidates wishing to use the American Civil War might cite the Union as an example of the state being ineffective in meeting the demands of war at the start of the conflict but becoming more effective as the war went on. The Confederacy reacted to the demands of war in the opposite fashion, initially being very effective but becoming ineffective as the long

term effects of the conflict took hold.

Structure

1. Manpower2. Industrialisation/Resources3. Technology4. Economy5. Alliances

You must deal with

“How effectively”

through each

section

Task

• Read through a student’s answer to the June 2012 question.

• Peer assess and grade




Level 1A



Level 1B



Level II



Level III









Examiner’s marks

AO1a LIB – accurate and relevant17AO1b – LIB – synoptic, analytical, focused on question35

52/6087%

June 2011

“Armies were led by incompetent generals.” To what extent do you agree with this view of the period

from 1792 to 1945?

June 2011

“Armies were led by incompetent generals.” To what extent do you agree with this view of the period

from 1792 to 1945?

• How are you going to assess a general’s incompetence?

• Record in battle• Tactics used• Ability to see the wider strategic picture• Casualty rates (issues of manpower)• Relationship with superiors• Relationship with soldiers• problems created by incompetent

subordinates• ability to adapt to changing demands of war

eg. Transport and technology• Clausewitz’s “friction”

Markscheme

*The incompetence or competence of a general might be discussed in the context of the changing nature of warfare and, indeed, this might be the mark of a high quality response.*

Flexibility and adaptability of generalship in the period

• Go through the conflicts studied and find examples of incompetent and successful generalship

• Use the criteria already discussed to help you find evidence

• Complete the tables

• You may want to split this task up and work in groups to complete

War Incompetent generalship examples

Revolutionary and Napoleonic

Crimea

Franco-Austrian

ACW

Austro-Prussian

Franco-Prussian

Russo-Japanese

WW1

WW2

Incompetent generalship throughout the period

• Mack @ Ulm• McClellan• Rommel?• Haig?• Raglan

War Successful generalship examples

Revolutionary and Napoleonic

Crimea

Franco-Austrian

ACW

Austro-Prussian

Franco-Prussian

Russo-Japanese

WW1

WW2

Successful generals in the period

• Napoleon• Wellington• Sherman• Lee and Grant?• Eisenhower• Rommel?• Montgomery

• Von Moltke• Brusilov• Sir Colin Campbell• Benedek ‘Lion of

Solferino’

Essay structure• Introduction – judgement on the qu. Focus is on

quality of leadership: criteria to judge quality (incompetence/competence) set out. Awareness of the fact that generalship must be evaluated in the context of the changing nature of warfare

1. control and application of strategy and tactics2. ability to respond positively to the changing

demands of warfare in the period (new technologies, transport systems, etc.)

3. skill to motivate other officers and men 4. willingness to delegate and to be flexible

Markscheme• Examples of incompetent generals in the period are legion but specific examples

might be Mack, Brunswick in 1806, Raglan, McClellan, Benedek or Bazaine. Examples of competent generals that might be used to challenge the proposition are Napoleon, Wellington, Lee, Grant, Sherman, Moltke the Elder, Montgomery, Eisenhower, von Manstein, Guderian, Zhukov or Slim. Some candidates may refer to generals who have been the subject of revision; an obvious example might be Haig. We might expect discussion of quality of leadership: control and application of strategy and tactics, an ability to respond positively to the changing demands of warfare in the period (new technologies, transport systems, etc.), the skill to motivate other officers and men, broad vision, willingness to delegate and to be flexible. Other factors may be included in the essay but the key prompt of the question must be at the core of the response. Where other factors are linked directly and intelligently to the specific wording of the question then credit is due. Candidates might discuss the role of luck, fog of war, problems created by incompetent subordinates. The incompetence or competence of a general might be discussed in the context of the changing nature of warfare and, indeed, this might be the mark of a high quality response.

January 2010

How far did developments in command and control of armies

determine the outcome of battles in the period from 1792 to 1945?

January 2010

How far did developments in command and control of armies

determine the outcome of battles in the period from 1792 to 1945?

What does command and control of armies mean?

Command and control is the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces

in the accomplishment of a mission.

the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of

the mission. Command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of

personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures employed by a

commander in planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations in the

accomplishment of the mission

Von Moltke and Auftragstaktik• appointed Chief of the Prussian General Staff in 1857.

• Auftragstaktik = "mission tactics“

• a command method stressing decentralized initiative within an overall strategic design.

• Moltke understood that, as war progressed, its uncertainties diminished the value of any detailed planning that might have been done beforehand.

• Beyond calculating the initial mobilization and concentration of forces "no plan of operations extends with any degree of certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy force."

• believed that, throughout a campaign, commanders had to make decisions based on a fluid, constantly evolving situation. For Moltke, each major encounter had consequences that created a new situation, which became the basis for new measures.

• Auftragstaktik encouraged commanders to be flexible and react immediately to changes in the situation as they developed. It replaced detailed planning with delegation of decision-making authority to subordinate commanders within the context of the higher commander's intent. Moltke realized that tactical decisions had to be made on the spot; therefore, great care was taken to encourage initiative by commanders at all levels.

• Moltke believed that commanders should issue only the most essential orders. These would provide only general instructions outlining the principal objective and specific missions. Tactical details were left to subordinates.

• For Moltke, "The advantage which a commander thinks he can attain through continued personal intervention is largely illusory. By engaging in it he assumes a task that really belongs to others, whose effectiveness he thus destroys. He also multiplies his own tasks to a point where he can no longer fulfill the whole of them."

Successful mission command rests on:

• Commander's intent.

• Subordinates' initiative.

• Mission orders.

• Resource allocation.

• Read through the handout on the Battle of Chancellorsville

• The piece should illustrate how one commander successfully used all four mission command techniques-commander's intent, subordinates' initiative, mission orders, and resource allocation-to defeat a more powerful opponent who relied on detailed command techniques.

• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-0/chap1.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-0/chap1.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-0/chap1.htm

What developments were there in command and control?

• Creation of general staff

• Developments in tactics

• individual skills of a given commander in chief

• Generalship on the battlefield (subordinate commander on receipt of orders = mission tactics)

• Inefficencies in command and control through the period?

What else determined the outcome of battles?

• resources• Manpower• Morale• friction

Structure

1. General staff – How far did developments determine the outcome of battle

2. generalship - How far did developments determine the outcome of battle

3. Utilisation of tactics - How far did developments determine the outcome of battle

4. Other factors that may have determined the outcome of battle

• No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. The question prompts a discussion of the organisation of war by the combatant powers and the control of armies during the period. Napoleon was the first to develop a true general staff and this was taken to new levels of effectiveness by the Prussian general staff of the middle and later part of the period. The planning of WWI and WWII is an obvious case for discussion. Candidates might point to ineffective command and control as a basis for argument, a good example of deficiencies in this era was the armies of Napoleon III and Austrians in 1866 versus Prussia. The failure of command and control might be a useful way to argue against the premise of the question. The American Civil War fits easily into the debate. The impact of command and control on the outcome of warfare can be discussed on many levels from grand strategy to the tactics. Better candidates may balance these two factors against others, but a discussion of the command and control of armies must form the core of the essay.

• Examples of the outcome of battles being determined by command and control could be drawn from the individual skills of a given commander in chief or from the use of command and control systems or both. In the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars virtually any battle with Napoleon and the French staff system directing one side will apply, but of especial interest might be Austerlitz. The allies eventually developed similar methods but examples will have to come from later in the wars, the 1813 period would be useful but even then Napoleon tended to win all of his battles. A good example of success using more antiquated methods of command would be any of the Duke of Wellington’s battles. Of course the Napoleonic system sometimes was found wanting, for example at Borodino or Waterloo. For the battles of the mid century candidates should be aware that the size of actions increased and had an impact on command and control despite developments in this area, Magenta or Solferino in 1859 were both confused affairs. In 1866 and 1870-1 the Prussian staff system brought their army to the battlefield with some efficiency but once again many of the battles themselves demonstrated the difficulty of controlling armies fighting in long linear formations, Konigsgratz is an example as are many of the battles of the Franco-Prussian War although Gravelotte-St. Privat is of especial interest. The First World War has many obvious examples on the Western Front, so too the Second World War.

• Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

“Industrialisation was most successfully applied to warfare in the First World War.” How far would you agree

with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945?

January 2010

“Industrialisation was most successfully applied to warfare in the First World War.” How far would you agree


• You need to be aware of how industrialisation had an impact on the successful waging of war

in the period.

Wars that benefitted from industrialisation

• WW1

• WW2

• Revolutionary and Napoleon

• ACW

• Prussian

Industrialisation

• Industrial revolution – brutality of war• Weaponry + standardisation• Home front and production of resources• Urbanisation, population increase and

education• Mass armies and casualties• Non-military technology• Economic warfare• Financial powers of a state

Impact on WW1

• “the long duration of the war, the size of the armies involved and the geographic spread of the conflict meant that victory went to the side with the greatest industrial might.”

• What impact did industrialisation have on WW1? (10 minutes)

Industrialisation and WW1• Weaponry• Machine guns• Artillery• Tanks• Chemical warfare• U-boats• Planes• Non military technology• Link to tactics and strategy• Casualty rates

• Alliances • Organisation of the state• Home front and civilians • munitions crisis 1915• Economic blockade – role that plays on

German industrialisation

If not WW1…

• Britain and Napoleonic War• Crimean• ACW – North after 1862• Prussians• R-J• WW1• WW2

What did industrialisation allow?

• Mobility• Greater casualties• Globalisation• Increase in weaponry• Changing tactics• Greater planning and preparation• Supplies and logistics

Impact on the successful waging of war

• Utilisation of new technologies

• Changing tactics (Strategy)

• Economic capacity to fight

• State organisation for war

• Raising mass armies (casualties)

Structure1. Intro - Explain concept of industrialisation• Highlight change and continuity

2. Criteria on which industrialisation impacted• Agreed/reject statement - Offer alternatives across

the entire period

• Start with WW1 for discussion on each of your criteria. Ensure you are aware of limitations. Put forward your alternative judgement on the qu throughout

Examiner’s report

• This question was not well answered though it was quite popular. Several essays revealed a paucity of knowledge concerning the First World War and technological developments. As a consequence they could not compare it with other turning points such as World War Two. Some saw ‘industrialisation’ as an all-inclusive term that included communications and propaganda but seldom the infrastructure required for countries to gain an upper hand in modern warfare. Thus, the narrow focus tended to result in responses reaching Level III at best. The most common error was to describe technological changes of the nineteenth century in isolation without applying them to warfare.

• ‘Industrialisation was most successfully applied to warfare in the First World War.’ How far would you agree with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945? (January 2010)

• No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the whole period. The First World War is an obvious example of the first conflict where the application of industrialisation to conflict was the key to victory. This was partially due to the sheer scale of the conflict. Candidates might argue that the long duration of the war, the size of the armies involved and the geographic spread of the conflict meant that victory went to the side with the greatest industrial might. Alternatives might be the Napoleonic Wars where one might argue that Britain as the first industrial power played a key role in the conflict or that France was successful for much of the period due to an emerging proto-industrial economy. Another is the Crimean War where the industrial might of the Allies caused them to emerge victorious over an industrially backward Russia – a power that played a key role in the final defeat of Napoleonic France. Another alternative would be the impact of a newly industrialised Prussia on the conflicts of the mid-nineteenth century. For later conflicts the Second World War might fit the ‘successful application of industrialisation’ in the title better than the First, i.e. that industrialisation had a much wider impact on this conflict. The American Civil War can be discussed by candidates, the industrialised North defeating the non-industrialised South but the successful application of command in the question must be addressed in this context given that it took time for the Union’s industrial might to overcome the Confederacy. Candidates need to be aware of how industrialisation had an impact on the successful waging of war in the period.

January 2013

• “Economically strong states were always successful in war.” To what extent do you agree with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945?

January 2013

• “Economically strong states were always successful in war.” To what extent do you agree with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945?

• Question focus: aspects of economic strength and the impact of such factors on the outcome of wars.

What makes an economically strong state?

• Industrial capacity

• Agricultural strength

• Commerce

• Manpower

• Effective state leadership and organisation

Assessment analysis

• Did the development of the scale of warfare as the period went have an impact on economic systems?

• Did the economic strength of any nations change as a war progressed?

Examples of economically strong states being successful in war

Britain in the Napoleonic Wars

coalition against Russia in the Crimean

USA in World Wars

North in ACW

Examples when economically strong states were not successful in war

• France in the Napoleonic Wars

• Austria in the 1866 war against Prussia

• Germany in WW1

• Russians in 1904-1905

aspects of economic strength • Importance of alliances

• trade

• Resource production

• Financial structure/management

• Ability to keep nation (homefront) supported • manpower

“Economically strong states were always successful in war.” To what extent do you agree with this view of the period from 1792

to 1945?

• Resource production

• Manpower

• Organisation of the state for war

• (Other factors?)

Examiner response

This was the least popular question in this section, but still attracted a wide range ofresponses. Many answers equated economically strong with industrially strong and often produced quite a narrow response as a result. Such answers often contained much description of technological developments that improved weaponry and war craft/transport. Many argued that economically strong states were successful. Some did note the economic strength of Germany, particularly in the First World War, and used this to challenge ‘always’, although they often pointed out that the USA was even stronger. The American Civil War was also frequently put forward to support the statement, but this only highlighted the weakness of much that is known about this conflict. However, there was a mixed response in attempting to balance this argument. Some candidates tried to argue that there were economically strong states that failed but most candidates provided ‘other’ factors for success. Weaker answers often relied upon assertion and/or generalisation regarding economic factors in the outcome of war.

Responses will need a sound understanding of what is meant by economic strength and its impact on war. Thus, candidates might examine the impact of industrial power, man power, agricultural wealth etc on the outcome of wars agreeing or disagreeing with the basic precept of the question as the response develops.Examples of economically strong states being successful in war might be Britain in the Napoleonic Wars, the coalition against Russia in the Crimean Wars or the USA in WWII. Examples of economically strong states being unsuccessful might be France in the Napoleonic Wars or Austria in the 1866 war against Prussia.

In both of these cases the nature of economic strength might be examined, industrial strength as opposed to stronger manpower and/or agricultural strength. A clearer example of a more economically strong state losing to a weaker one might be the Russo-Japanese War. There are more complex situations where the relative economic strength of the combatant powers change depending on which point of a conflict is being discussed, for example the Axis powers in WWII.The important quality to identify in scripts is the application of the synoptic element of the mark scheme to the question set in a focused manner. Weaker scripts might agree or disagree with the question – or indeed do both – and then list wars to prove the case. Examiners might even encounter scripts that accept and reject the question producing two lists with relevant reasoning, effectively two mini essays.

Better responses will engage the question in a synoptic manner and produce a thematic response focused on aspects of economic strength and the impact of such factors on the outcome of wars.

June 2010

• ‘The concept of ‘total war’ should be applied only to conflicts in the twentieth century.’ How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the period from 1792 to 1945?

June 2010

• ‘The concept of ‘total war’ should be applied only to conflicts in the twentieth century.’ How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the period from 1792 to 1945?

• Stewart “A war effort requiring the total mobilisation of an entire society and its resources”.

Total war

• geographic spread• the economic and political commitment

needed by the victorious powers• the scale of the military forces involved• Conscription• Un-conditional surrender• the scale of the carnage• the involvement of large percentages of the

populations of the combatant states.

Total wars

• WW2

• WW1

• ACW

• Revolutionary and Napoleonic

Mark Neely – not total• U government never tried to control the North’s

economy or to mobilise all its economy.

• Little of the ruthlessness and cruelty that characterised 20TH C warfare. On the whole civilians were safe.

• The ‘hard war’ policies adopted by Sherman and Sheridan were designed to damage property, not kill

James McPherson - total• “The Civil War mobilised human resources on a scale unmatched by

any other event in American history except, perhaps, WW2”

• Far more American men (proportionately) were mustered than in the Second World War.

• War more total in the South than in the North

• ¼ of white men of military age lost from the Confederacy lost their lives.

• Union eventually did all it could to destroy the South’s economic resources as well as the morale of its civilians.

war Manpower and casualties

Executive powers

economic ideological homefront Weaponry, tactics and strategy

WW2

WW1

ACW

1792-1815

Criteria

• Ideology

• Tactics and Strategy

• Mobilisation of civilian society (organisation of the state)

• Industrialisation and economy

OCR MarkschemeNo set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the whole period.The two twentieth century conflicts we might expect to be addressed are the First and Second World Wars. Both easily fit the concept of total war very well due to their geographic spread, the economic and political commitment needed by the victorious powers, the scale of the military forces involved, the scale of the carnage, and the involvement of large percentages of the populations of the combatant states. There are many nineteenth and eighteenth century conflicts that might be used to counter the line advanced by the question. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars might be argued to rival WWI and II in scale and all of the criteria for total war advanced abovecould be applied to these conflicts. The same argument can be applied to the ACW. The Wars of Unification in the middle part of the nineteenth century are less convincing candidates for total war due to their short duration and limited domestic impact. Alternatively the Russo-Japanese War also does not easily fit the concept of total war. Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

“A strong alliance was the most important reason for a country to succeed in war” To what extent do you agree


Jan 2011

“A strong alliance was the most important reason for a country to succeed in war” To what extent do you agree


“Better responses should set the impact of ‘strong alliances’ against a

range of factors.”

• The traditional balance of power theory asserts that the increase in the aggregate capabilities of a rising power will stimulate alliances among the rest to balance against it

Kenneth Waltz 1979

Stephen Walt 1987

• states do not simply react to changes in aggregate power, but rather, they react to their perceived threat

• the increased threat perception can lead to either balancing or ‘bandwagoning’ actions of neighbours.

• Walt - small and weak neighbours of great powers may be more inclined to bandwagon "because they will be the first victim of expansion, because they lack the capabilities to stand alone, and because a defensive alliance may operate too slowly to do them much good”

Two key functions of alliances

1 - is idealistic: nations commit themselves to fight alongside each other because of shared values and ideas.

2 - realistic and rests on an analysis of costs and benefits: alliances can save costs and multiply benefits through the division of responsibilities, the sharing of common assets, or simply the protection provided by having a stronger country as an ally.

Alliances of the period

Various coalitions formed against revolutionary and Napoleonic France Isolation of France’s enemies Prussia 1806 and Austria 1809 France tended to form alliances (forced or not) with minor powers eg. Confederation of the Rhine and Italian States, defeated Prussia and Austria in 1812. Anti-Russian alliance of the Crimean War (Great Britain, France, Piedmont and Turkey) used to project power into the Crimean and defeat isolated Russia on home territory Franco-Piedmont alliance 1859 in war against Austria American Civil War – failure of confederacy to secure diplomatic relations with European countries

Austro-Prussian War – Prussian success on her own yet both sides formed alliances of minor states around themselves Franco – Prussian War – isolation of France vs. Prussian led German alliance Russo-Japanese – involvement of America and Britain WW1 – before and during war – Key involvement of America Nazi-Soviet Pact WW2 – Japan and America

Focus

• importance of alliances on success in warfare

• did importance of alliance change across period?

• In certain periods strong alliances were less important and alliances tended to be used to diplomatically isolate powers rather than create powerful military and economic blocs

• relative importance of alliances to other factors

Other factors• Leadership

• size of armies

• military technology

• Tactics and strategy

• Draw the links to alliances

structure

• Economic capacity to wage war

• Leadership and strategic overview

• Manpower

• ‘A strong alliance was the most important reason for a country to succeed in war.’ To what extent do you agree with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945? [60]

• There are two key concepts to be evaluated here, firstly the importance of alliances in warfare; secondly, if the significance of the role of alliances changed across the period.

• Strong alliances tended to have more importance at a time when Europe was in a state of general warfare and conflicts took place over a longer period of time. These examples will allow candidates to chart success/failure in war and link that to the state of given alliances. In the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods coalitions of European powers were vital to containing and eventually defeating France. A key point would have been the need to form strong alliances when faced with the demographic and economic power of France. Candidates may also argue that France forged alliances of sorts with states in the wake of military victories. Examples would be Bavaria and other German minor states, the alliances with Austria and Prussia between the middle part of the Napoleonic Wars and the Russian campaign of 1812. The First World War is tailor-made for the question as it entailed two strong alliances fighting with each other. In the case of the Central Powers the relationship of a dominant partner – Germany – with its allies might be a worthwhile area for discussion. The Second World War saw a large powerful alliance of Britain, the USA and the USSR successfully defeating a far weaker alliance, Germany – again very much the dominant partner – Italy, Romania and other Axis minor allies. Candidates could discuss the formation of the Western/Soviet alliance over time and relate this to varying success on the battlefield.

• In other periods strong alliances were less important and alliances tended to be used to diplomatically isolate powers rather than create powerful military and economic blocs. Good examples are the Wars of Unification and the Crimean War. The American Civil War might also be used in this context, candidates arguing that the Confederacy could only win with a strong alliance with a third power, an event that did not take place and/or that the Union was capable of winning the war without an ally. Other examples of countries winning without the aid of a strong alliance might be Austria against Piedmont in 1848 & 1849, Japan defeating Russia in 1904-5 and the many examples that come from the colonial conflicts of the period, especially where the colonial power was defeated by indigenous forces. Some candidates may place a greater emphasis on factors other than alliances eg the quality of leadership, strategy and tactics, economic resources and technological developments. Better responses should therefore set the impact of ‘strong alliances’ against a range of factors.

• Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

To what extent did the mid 19th century Wars of Unification mark the most important turning point in the development of planning and preparation for war in the

period from 1792 to 1945?January 2008

To what extent did the mid 19th century Wars of Unification mark the most important turning point in the development of planning and preparation for war in the

period from 1792 to 1945?January 2008

Wars of Unification?

• 1859

• 1864

• 1866

• 1870-71

Turning point

• Have to agree or reject

• If you reject you must offer an alternative war

• Can argue that it was a continuation of policy

Planning and preparation• logistics• Tactics• Strategy• Size of armies• leadership• General staff• maps• Resources and supplies• Training• Finance• alliances

Alternative turning point?

• WW1

• ACW

• Revolutionary period

Wars of Unification planning and preparation

• Textbook reading

• Ensure negatives of 1859 are addressed

Essay Structure

• Intro – agree/reject. Offer alternative. Weaknesses of 1859. criteria of planning and preparation

• Sections are different elements of planning and preparation

• In each section synthesis across the time period.

structure

• Command and control of armies

• Technological developments


• Organisation of the state

June 2011

• “The development of the Prussian general staff during the Wars of German Unification was the main turning point in the conduct of war.” How far do you agree with this view in the period from 1792 to 1945?

June 2011

• “The development of the Prussian general staff during the Wars of German Unification was the main turning point in the conduct of war.” How far do you agree with this view in the period from 1792 to 1945?

“the concept of turning point might be rejected altogether, rather planning and preparation for war was part of an ongoing process.”

Prussian Wars of Unification• the development of a meritocratic,

professional and properly trained officer corps• higher army organisation• the mobilisation and control of mass armies• the development of general staffs• The planning of campaigns (military

concentration, speed of movement, control of corps etc.)

• the search for rapid and decisive victory

Alternative turning point

the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods - the development of Napoleon’s headquarters and allied attempts to copy them during those conflicts

the planning & preparation by the Great Powers for WWI.

The American Civil War could be used either way, pointing to American armies copying & developing European styles of war or pointing to a general state of disorder.

the links between technology and command and control in WWII as the real turning point.

Conduct of war (focus on planning and preparation)

• General staff

• (Leadership, command and control of armies)

• rapid strategic movement

• the ability to mobilize large numbers of soldiers (impact on concentration of force)

• Technological developments (tactics)

• organisation of the state

‘The development of the Prussian general staff during the Wars of GermanUnification was the main turning point in the conduct of war.’ How far do you agree

with this view in the period from 1792 to 1945? [60]

Candidates may argue for the turning point because it was only in the wars of 1866 and1870-1 that the Prussians had fully developed their general staff concept and applied it tothe planning and control of warfare. Key ideas for discussion might be the development ofa meritocratic, professional and properly trained officer corps, higher army organisation,the mobilisation and control of mass armies, the development of general staffs, theplanning of campaigns (military concentration, speed of movement, control of corps etc.),and the search for rapid and decisive victory. This list is not exhaustive.A positive answer might concentrate on the rise of Prussian styles of warfare and woulduse evidence from the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars. Candidates mightargue that this Prussian style of higher command then dominated warfare until the end ofthe period. Alternative turning points might be the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periodswith the development of Napoleon’s headquarters and allied attempts to copy them duringthose conflicts; the planning & preparation by the Great Powers for WWI. The AmericanCivil War could be used either way, pointing to American armies copying & developingEuropean styles of war or pointing to a general state of disorder. Candidates might point tothe links between technology and command and control in WWII as the real turning point.Alternatively, the concept of turning point might be rejected altogether, rather planning andpreparation for war was part of an ongoing process.Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

New Specimen

• To what extent were the quality and training of ordinary soldiers the main factors in the success of armies in the period from 1792 to 1945?

New Specimen

• To what extent were the quality and training of ordinary soldiers the main factors in the success of armies in the period from 1792 to 1945?

• Focus: Evaluation of the impact of specific factors in warfare

Quality of soldiers

• Élan• junior leadership• Motivation, positive attitude, and self-

discipline • Small professional force (recruitment)

Training of soldiers

• battlefield tactics• Drill - physically, technically and psychologically• Discipline• Doctrine• Advanced training in military technology and

equipment• Military academies

quality and training of soldiersled to success by armies when…

• Place in context:

• when in difficult situations – outnumbered, fighting on disadvantageous battlefields

• Counter-argument…armies being successful without high levels of quality and training.

• ‘national characteristics’ - the stoic resistance of Russian troops throughout the period

Impact of raising mass armies

• Impact of conscription

• the use of masses of poorly trained, low quality troops on the battlefield

• Tactical link

• effectiveness of methods by which armies prepared a conscript army for war (Prussian - German armies.)

Other factors for success?



To what extent were the quality and training of ordinary soldiers the main factors in the success of armies in the period from 1792

to 1945? Structure

• Tactical understanding

• Utilisation of technological developments

• Command and control of armies (strategy)

• Increasing size of manpower

To what extent were the quality and training of ordinary soldiers themain factors in the success of armies in the period from 1792 to

1945?• Focus: Evaluation of the impact of specific factors in warfare• There are plenty of armies in the period that had high levels of ‘quality• and training of ordinary soldiers’. Examples might include the French• Grande Armée in the period 1805-07, the British army at any time in the• period – even the Crimean War - but especially the BEF of 1914, and the• Wehrmacht between 1939 and 1945. Discussion supported by such• examples might address ‘quality’ such as élan, junior leadership or• motivation, and ‘training’ in battlefield tactics, drill, discipline and• doctrine. Placed in the right context, the quality and training of soldiers• could be used as an argument for success by armies when in difficult• situations – outnumbered, fighting on disadvantageous battlefields, etc.• On the other hand, candidates might point to armies being successful• without high levels of quality and training. Candidates might point to• ‘national characteristics’ such as the stoic resistance of Russian troops• virtually throughout the period. Another line of enquiry would be the use• of masses of poorly trained, low quality troops on the battlefield, a factor• that became ever more common with the introduction of mass• conscription as the period went on. Candidates might discuss the• effectiveness of methods by which armies prepared a conscript army for• war, a good example would be the Prussian and, subsequently, German• armies. Candidates who want to discuss the American Civil War might• point to the poor training but high levels of élan of some of the fighting• units, mostly Confederate but also some Union – such as the Iron• Brigade.• Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to• alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

January 2010

Assess the extent to which conscription enabled armies to succeed in war in the period from

1792 to 1945

January 2010

Assess the extent to which conscription enabled armies to succeed in war in the period from

1792 to 1945

Conscription

• Raising large armies• Mass casualties• Attritional conflicts• Suicidal tactics• Training• Nation in arms

Nations without conscription

• Revolutionary and Napoleonic period - the use of long service professionals and mercenaries by the dynastic armies of France’s enemies

• Britain - long service professional army supported by Territorials at the start of WW1, Kitchener’s army of volunteers, conscription 1916

What else allowed armies to succeed in war

• Resources• Leadership• Command and control• Tactics• Strategy• Weaponry• Economic capacity

Structure• Raising mass armies

• Training and organisation of troops

• Technological integration


• (organisation of the state?)

Assess the extent to which conscription enabled armies to succeed in war in the period from 1792 to 1945.

• The impact of conscription on warfare is not limited to the massing of larger numbers of soldiers but this will probably form the bulk of the answers met. Conscription is applied to warfare right at the start of the period by the development of ‘a nation in arms’ by France in the early part of the Revolutionary Wars developing into more regulated conscription in the later Revolutionary & Napoleonic period. This might be contrasted with the use of long service professionals and mercenaries by the dynastic armies of France’s enemies. The reaction of France’s enemies to conscription might include the tentative use of Frei Korps and Landwehr by Austria or the traditional use of conscripted serfs by Russia’s long service army. A good topic for discussion would be the development of the Krumper system in Prussia after 1808. Candidates might note that Britain never embraced conscription in this period and yet her army was successful. For the period of unification the different systems used by the combatant powers might be examined. Generally candidates will point to the superior organisation of manpower by Prussia and the resulting large size of her army in proportion to her population. This was illustrated by the defeat of France’s long service army by Prussia’s reservists despite superior French weapons technology in the ‘Imperial’ phase of the Franco-Prussian War. The expansion of the use of reservists in the last part of the 19th century is a profitable area for discussion. The First World War is an obvious example where conscription played a key role in warfare. Note that Britain used a long service professional army supported by Territorials at the start of the conflict, replacing this with Kitchener’s army of volunteers and finally conscription. WWII also saw the use of mass armies of conscripts but with more sophisticated technologies in the hands of these soldiers with resulting problems in training and use on the battlefield. The American Civil War falls into the mainstream of the debate, the north having a preponderance in manpower.

January 2011

• To what extent did public opinion influence the conduct of war in the period from 1792 to 1945?

January 2011


• “Better responses should argue for and against the influence of public opinion upon the conduct of war”

• Clausewitz – war belongs to ‘the province of social life’

Definition of public opinion

• the attitude of the public, especially as a factor in determining the actions of government

• Importance of the structure of a state

• Democratic v autocratic structures

Democratisation• Decision to go to war and manner of its conduct

voiced through traditional media – opinion polls, press and broadcasting – hold government and armed forces to account

• Government empower their armed forces to use violence and to do so in ways that may be at odds with the norms of peace time democracies

• The democratic process means that the electorate not only hold its government to account but also empowers it

Public opinion and conduct of war

• Political pressure on elites• Education• Press• Propaganda• Nationalism• Ideological war• Nation in arms• Executive powers• Revolutionary and reactionary• Autocratic regimes

• Giulio Douhet – Italian military commentator who understood the importance of public opinion via use of aerial bombing

Which wars were influenced by public opinion?

• At the beginning?

• Impact during a conflict?

• The conclusion of war

factors other than public opinion

• the quality of leadership

• strategy and tactics

• economic resources

• technological developments

Structure

• Public opinion (influence on the conduct of war):

• Ideological – unlimited warfare• Strategy (tactics?)• Role of the state

• Other factors• (assess against importance of public opinion

throughout)

Examiners response• Neither popular nor well answered. Few candidates

effectively linked public opinion to the conduct of war. Most answers described why and how public opinion became more important and, although education, the popular press and democracy were often addressed, nationalism was strangely ignored. Answers were generally thin on concrete illustrations. There were also some rather strange notions of what constituted public opinion. A significant mistake that many made was to talk about developments in communications and then assume that this equated to an increase in the influence that the public had on the conduct of war. Also, some only considered how war shaped public opinion and the extent to which this had repercussions for governments in general.


• It is expected that candidates will discuss the conduct of war in the light of the pressures of domestic public opinion. Definitions of public opinion can be expected and examiners need to be aware that political pressure on elites can come in many forms. Candidates might link developments in state structures – for example, the development of more democratic forms of government – and/or more effective forms of media that informed public opinion as the period developed. Arguments that public opinion did influence military decisions might include the early part of the Revolutionary Wars where the French Republic was fighting perhaps an ideological war for its existence. Candidates might point to the concept of the ‘nation in arms’ or the execution of generals for political reasons. It might be argued that the Ancien Regime powers fought for the same reasons, ie to protect their own political establishment from potential opposition from below. Napoleon might be used both ways, for example the need for military victory and its links to political stability. The Crimean War is a good example where military decisions were influenced by public opinion placing pressure on military decisions via the political demands on the French and British governments. Popular reaction within Russia to this conflict might also be discussed. With regard to the Wars of Unification, an example of the impact of public opinion might be the entry of France into the Italian War of 1859. The impact of rising nationalism on all of the wars of this period provides many obvious examples for candidates to use in support of analysis. Candidates might link the outcome of the Russo-Japanese war to the 1905 Revolution. Colonial conflicts in the latter part of the period, for example the Boer war, are candidates for discussion. Both WWI and II have a lot of potential with regard to the question with discussions of propaganda, different forms of media and censorship. Conversely, candidates might argue that military decisions were made with no regard to public opinion in autocratic states or that factors other than public opinion were of greater importance eg the quality of leadership, strategy and tactics, economic resources and technological developments. Better responses should therefore argue for and against the influence of public opinion upon the conduct of war.

• Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

January 2005

• ‘Domestic factors played little part in the outcomes of wars from 1792 to 1918.’ How far do you agree with this statement?

January 2005

• ‘Domestic factors played little part in the outcomes of wars from 1792 to 1918.’ How far do you agree with this statement?

• Democratic v autocratic• Organisation of the state for war

Domestic factors

• Raising mass armies• Public opinion• Industrialisation and the homefront• nationalism• Popular government support• Economic capacity of a state• Organisation and control of the state for war

Little part in outcome of wars?

• Unlimited, attritional conflicts

• Role of Manpower

• Public opinion and government’s capacity to wage war

• Industrialisation - resources

Other factors that determined outcome of wars

• Generalship



structure

• Domestic factors influence on outcome of wars:

• Raising mass armies• Industrialisation and home front• Public opinion and government control

• Other factors (assessed against ‘little part’ role of domestic factors)

January 2009

• To what extent was Napoleon the most important influence on the development of generalship in the period from 1792 to 1918?

January 2009

• To what extent was Napoleon the most important influence on the development of generalship in the period from 1792 to 1918?

Napoleon

• Spirit of the offensive• Concentration of force at the decisive point• Rapid strategic movement• Command and control of armies• Role of artillery• Raising mass armies• Legacy + work of theorists

Role of von Moltke

• Creation of general staff• Command and control• Integration of non-military technology• Nationalism

• Was he a greater influence for 20th century conflicts?

What else influenced generalship

• Legacy of previous campaigns• Availability of new technology• Political preparation for war (training etc)• Strategic aims of war

Structure• Legacy of Napoleon (strategy, tactics, command and

control)• Spirit of the offensive• Rapid strategic movement• Concentration of force at the decisive point• Imperial HQ• Work of military theorists

• Interpretations by the Prussians• Developments in technology• Other factors

June 2007

• Assess the view that armies failed to apply developments in weapons technology to battlefield tactics in the period from 1792 to 1945

June 2007

• Assess the view that armies failed to apply developments in weapons technology to battlefield tactics in the period from 1792 to 1945

Focus: evaluation of the impact of technology on war in the period

• If you simply list the developments in relation to weapons technology you will not be awarded more than a level IV (D)

• Application of weapons technology varied across time period, nation, army.

• Tactics – detailed methods and procedures by which strategic aims are achieved

Developments in weapons technologyFrench 1792-1815 – weaponry developments predates start of study periodPercussion capsMinie bulletBreech loading riflesArtillery developments – rifling, breech loading, new munitions, recoil systemsMachine gunsexplosivesTankAeroplaneGasAtomic weapons

Development of battlefield tacticsDid armies embrace new technologies well? Prussians? French with the Chassepot rifle?

Armies always one step behind? Why? Leadership, offensive strategy, legacy of Napoleon

Varied across time period – failure to adapt 1914 versus success of Blitzkrieg

Which nations had more success in adapting weapons into battlefield tactics? Germans vs Allies WW1?

Tactics – why were developments in weaponry not applied?

• Spirit of the offensive• Leadership• Legacy of Napoleon• Quick, decisive victory (Strategy)• Industrial revolution and resources• Return to ‘normalcy’ after 1815• Misinterpretations of the wars fought• Quality of manpower

Structure

1. Spirit of the offensive

2. Leadership

3. Quality of manpower

4. Industrial revolution and resources