• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

“Generals Win Battles, Resources Win Wars”. How Far Does Your Study of the Period from 1792 to 1919 Confirm this View?

Extracts from this document...


"Generals Win Battles, Resources Win Wars". How Far Does Your Study of the Period from 1792 to 1919 Confirm this View? The period between 1792 and 1919 was one of massive fluidity and change in terms of the structure of society, the military, and economics in both Europe and America. These changes, individually of no small weight, would combine to dramatically alter the way that war was waged across the world. The Industrial Revolution, begun in Britain in the 18th Century, would completely change the production capacity of those nations which evolved to embrace its principles of mass production and mechanisation. Arguably the greatest revolution of the era, it lead to huge social changes as the dominance of the aristocracy was brought into question by the rising middle-class industrialists and the voice of the people gained greater power - socialism had been born. The individual desire to achieve coupled with the swelling of the pool of collective inventive thought and the principles of mass production would lead to a rapid increase in the development and production of new technological innovations - much of which could be applied to and would change the nature of war. As the population grew and more was produced, so to were armies expanded and more readily equipped. This dramatic birth of what is still today a popular political philosophy in the work houses of Britain would lead almost inevitably to the only challenger to industrialisation as the greatest revolution of its era - the French Revolution. Occurring at the end of the 18th Century, it swept away nearly all vestiges of the old order, establishing the ancien regime in its stead. Chaos and bloodshed were the rule as the oppressed united to overthrow those they perceived as the instigators of their misery. What seems to have been a predecessor to the ideals of modern communism had emerged kicking and screaming into an unwelcoming world - which in 1792 in the form of the First Coalition moved swiftly to stem its growth and silence it forever. ...read more.


That said however, the American conflict makes it clear that"...logistics impinge on the warmaking even of the most care taking and talented general." Surrounded as the Confederates were on all sides and bereft of sustainable industry and resources, this sad fact would bring about the end of Lee and Southern dreams of independence. What is evident from Lee's early victories is that "...logistic supremacy rarely wins a campaign against a determined enemy..." unless accompanied by an appropriately skilled commander. Lee was able to take advantage of this fact, and drive the more numerous yet poorly lead Unionist forces almost to submission in his counter-invasion of 1862. However, when quality of generals began to equalise with the arrival of Meade, Sherman and Grant in the Northern ranks the tide of war was turned inextricably against the southerners who now faced a large, better-equipped and equally well lead force, which would begin an overwhelming spiral of defeat after defeat that proves well the adage that whilst a general will win battles, resources will eventually win a war. The factor of time is of the essence here, the American conflict clearly demonstrating that the longer a war was waged the more likely it was that the adequately supplied would triumph - regardless of the commanders involved. Following the difficulties experienced by both the French and British during the Napoleonic conflicts, it seems inconceivable that a more effective method of transportation would not have been developed for supplying soldiers in the field prior to the advent of the railway. Yet Crimea is the embodiment of a conflict where commanders did not learn from past experiences, despite the fact that all those involved had seen service in the Napoleonic Wars some forty years earlier, and should have learnt from Russia that mismanagement of resources leads to disaster. Napoleon learned through his own unsuitable and inflexible tactics that, much to his detriment, "...few commanders...could campaign outside their home territories with a freedom unconstrained by logistical consideration..." ...read more.


The railway, and the general staff that came with it, would be instrumental in changing the role of generals and resources in war to such an extent that responsibility for victory fell more heavily on the former, but yet relied more stringently on the latter. The Great War is quite possibly the best example of a pre-planned war in European history, and is also a clear example of a war won "...not by any discovery or application of new military technique by the high commands, but by the relentless attrition of manpower by industrial output." It was a war of resources, fought by resources in a variety of forms, and won by resources. That those resources were directed in battle by commanders shows that resources still needed direction, or stalemates such as those at Verdun would ensue, but is also firmly backs the hypothesis that whilst generals will win battles "...it was supply and logistics...which ensured victory...." in war. Warfare throughout the period under study has clearly been a thing of change, but one theme has remained intact throughout - the conflicting role of resources and generals in the winning of battles and wars. The fact that it commonly takes a good general to win both confuses the issue, with the campaigns of both Napoleon and Lee supporting the view that generals can and will win battles without the supposedly necessary resources, but the eventual defeat of each also epitomises the fact that war cannot be made sustainable in a manner that leads to victory without adequate resources. The logistical skills and ability to inspire troops that were and remain the role of the general, when compared with the ability to wage war provided by resources, makes it fair to conclude that battles cannot be won without skilled generals, but that the final victory which success in battle represents cannot be achieved without proper logistical support and presence, handled by an able commander. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    Averell Harriman, the American ambassador to Moscow after October 1943, had engaged in extensive business dealings with the Soviet Union during the 1920S and believed firmly in the policy of providing American assistance to rebuild the Soviet economy. Such aid, Harriman argued, "would be in the self-interest of the United

  2. How far were White weaknesses responsible for Red success in Russian Civil War?

    As Commissar for War, Trotsky's active involvement in the Reds' campaigns, travelling in a specially equipped train to the fiercest points to provide support and supplies, enforcing the universal aim, greatly contributed to the performance and determination of the army.

  1. 'Generals win battles, resources win wars.' How far does your study of the period ...

    By the twentieth century and the First World War, resources had become the definitive factor in warfare, both in singular battles and in the course of the war itself. Though the ability of leadership was still required in battle, and the lack of a great military strategist in the Great

  2. American History.

    For the year following Concord, the Americans besieged Boston, where the British had retreated. - The British only broke away from the siege at the Battle of Bunker Hill [which marked a turning pt. for them strategically from containment of a radical movement in New England to more of a

  1. The great Patriotic war - From incompetence to victory.

    Voroshilov would not allow the German side of the war game to have a qualitative advantage or surprise attack.viii This, as history has shown, was precisely what happened six years later. Tukhachevskii stated that Germany's preparations for war made it imperative that the defense of the Soviet western frontiers be

  2. How far do you agree with the view that World War II triggered major ...

    In this way, evacuation changed government policy forever. The same can be said for another aspect of the Home Front - the introduction of rationing. Both evacuation and rationing made welfare an issue. The government was now seen to have a moral duty to ensure the well-being of the nation. Before 1939 this had never really been considered.

  1. Explain Why the White Armies Despite Allied Intervention Were Unable to win the Civil ...

    Therefore, unlike the Whites the Reds were well organised, united and confident they could win. The Whites also had little or no successful tactics. This was mainly due to their ideological divisions and poor communications between the factions of the White Army.

  2. In the context of the period 1905-2005, how far do you agree that Khrushchev ...

    aspects of Russia are not reformed equally, disdain for a condition which is improved, is displaced onto another condition that is less developed: consequently leading to possible anarchy. These persistent long-term problems had to be assessed equally with other pivotal reforms, in order for the state to progress; this is apparent in the rule of Nicholas II.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work