Changing nature of warfare

Essay Questions
Exam 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 war
go through your notes/textbook and add evidence under each
heading
• “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?

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 offensive
Concentration of force at the decisive
point
Legacy of Napoleon
Blitzkrieg + Manstein
Rail
Attritional strategy WW1
Civilian 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 AO1b
Total
mark
for
each
questi
on =
60
Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately, and
communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a clear and
effective
manner.
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 historical
Terminology
• Answer is clearly structured and coherent; communicates accurately and legibly
18-20
• 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 period
36-40
Level
1B
Uses accurate and relevant evidence
• Accurate use of a range of appropriate historical
terminology
• Answer is clearly structured and mostly coherent; communicates accurately
and legibly
16-17
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 period
32-35
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 clear
14-15
• 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 period
28-31
Level
III
Uses relevant information but there may be some inaccuracies
Answers 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 period
24-27
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 communication
• Satisfactory understanding of key concepts (eg. continuity and change) in their
historical context
• Satisfactory focus on the question set

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 shown
32
Total 47/60
78%

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
offensive
c) integrating a ‘mixed order’ of infantry, cavalry and ‘light’ infantry within the
separate armies
d) 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 Introduction
Strategy 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

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. Manpower
2. Industrialisation/Resources
3. Technology
4. Economy
5. 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

Examiner’s marks
AO1a LIB – accurate and relevant
17
AO1b – LIB – synoptic, analytical, focused on
question
35
52/60
87%

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 tactics
2. 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?

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

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 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)

Structure
1. 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 of
responses. 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 Markscheme
No 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 above
could 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
Jan 2011

“A strong alliance was the most
important reason for a country to
succeed in war” To what extent do
“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
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)
• 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 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? [60]
Candidates may argue for the turning point because it was only in the wars of 1866 and
1870-1 that the Prussians had fully developed their general staff concept and applied it to
the planning and control of warfare. Key ideas for discussion might be 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.),
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 would
use evidence from the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars. Candidates might
argue that this Prussian style of higher command then dominated warfare until the end of
the period. Alternative turning points might be the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods
with 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. Candidates might point to
the 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 and
preparation 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 soldiers
led 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 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
• 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

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

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

Napoleon
• Concentration of force at the decisive point
• Rapid strategic movement
• Role of artillery
• 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)
• 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

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 technology
French 1792-1815 – weaponry developments predates start of
study period
Percussion caps
Minie bullet
Breech loading rifles
Artillery developments – rifling, breech loading, new munitions,
recoil systems
Machine guns
explosives
Tank
Aeroplane
Gas
Atomic weapons

Development of battlefield tactics
Did 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?
• 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

Changing nature of warfare

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Changing nature of warfare

Similar to Changing nature of warfare (20)

More from HLimm

More from HLimm (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Changing nature of warfare