• 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...


Rob Williams 'Generals win battles, resources win wars.' How far does your study of the period from 1792 to 1919 confirm this view? From my study of Land warfare from 1792 through to 1919, it can be judged, with fair certainty that the hypothesis, 'Generals win battles, resources win wars', is correct. However it needs deeper study to precisely define 'how far' this hypothesis is accurate; do Generals by the end of 'the Great War' have any influence on the outcome the war? Or was the side with the greater resources and attrition 'bound' to win? Are the battles of the First World War won purely on attrition, or did Generals still have a part to play by 1919? This essay intends to argue that throughout the period 1792-1919 that Generals influence both on the outcome of battles and wars decreases substantially, whereas the nation's resources, and how they efficiently used them, became increasingly important to the nations final victory. However what it will not argue is that Generals become redundant in the role of winning either battles or wars. If we look, briefly, at the middle Ages, the military leader was decisive in both the battle and war's outcome. Although discrepancies in armies, due to the resources of the King or noble affected the battles outcome, it certainly was not critical. If one takes Henry VI at Agincourt for example, he overcomes great disadvantages in resources to win, by inspirational leadership, against poor leadership (with the help of the English longbow) ...read more.


They met next at the battle of Solferino, which is a battle that indicates how far, at least human resources, had come in the four decades since Napoleons demise. Both France and Austria had over 120,000 men each, making the battle the largest since Leipzig and over twice the size of Waterloo. However, as a result of the length of the battle (14 hours), and the improved material of warfare (e.g. rifled guns), casualty rates were far higher than Napoleonic warfare. Some 40,000 men on both sides were killed or injured, thus showing the destructive effect of improved weaponry and the increasing importance to have more or more effective resources. A similar conclusion, on a broad scale, can be reached after analysis of the American Civil War. It was though, on the surface, the complete antithesis of the Franco-Prussian war; A Civil war-fought half the world apart, a four-year war that concentrated more on attrition (not to the extent of WWI) than Napoleonic decisive battles, but one were skilful Generals proved that they could still influence the outcome of battles. However the conclusion must be that in the end the superior resources of the North were finally victorious. Browning writes about the American Civil War, "The fundamental social and economic differences between the North and the South lead some to conclude that the victory of the North was inevitable. While it might be true that the North was bound to win eventually, it was not inevitable that it would win in 1865." ...read more.


For almost 40 years there were no major wars between the European powers, however during this time industrialisation took a grip, and many of the countries were spending more and more on military resources due to the ensuing arms race. As Helmut von Moltke prophesised as early as 1890 the next war will be "a people's war...and if this war breaks out then its duration and its end will be unforeseeable." The First World War was unlike any that had previously, were not only armies where mobilised for warfare, but whole countries economies geared towards warfare. It was a war where casualty rates where (and still are) incomprehensible, and were civilians for the first line became the front line. It was 'Total War'. Total war relied on a huge output of resources, both in terms of men and in terms of armaments. The historical arguments about the First World War are endless, but two main theories are firmly set in popular belief; firstly that it was a war of attrition, and secondly that the adage "lions led by donkeys" is true. Although much debated, and much exaggerated, both of these popular beliefs are, in the main, true. From 1915-1917 a form of static warfare took place on both the Western and Eastern fronts, with either side entrenched deep in defensive positions. This static warfare presumed that one side would finally break, because a lack of resources, while the other side was the victor. Eventually this was the outcome, Germany being defeated ultimately because when the Americans joined the war on the side of the allies, it gave them a huge access to new resources that German could not compete with. ...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. Do the Writings of Clausewitz have contemporary relevance?

    how his writings have become dated in places It supports the notion of decisive victory in that it shows how a country can conclusively defeat an enemy - thus supporting his idea of decisive victory. But at the same time it shows clearly that not all of Clausewitz is still relevant.

  2. How far do you think Bloody Sunday was a turning point in the course ...

    Furthermore it can be argued that the introduction of the British troops caused a rapid growth of paramilitaries in the area. For Republicans the presence of the British troops in their communities focused attention on the role of Britain in supporting the unionist system and encouraged the arguments for armed forces against the British and the Unionist community.

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

    It was time, Stalin said, to stop viewing Russia as "a passive third observer. ... It is impossible to tolerate such a situation any longer." In the end, Britain and the United States offered the token concession of giving the Soviets an innocuous role on the advisory commission dealing with

  2. Reasons for the increasing support given to NSDAP by the German people in the ...

    Later when in power the "Fuhrer myth" was to play an important part in maintaining the enthusiastic support of the public. The NSDAP was able to target a broad range of social groups with their energetic and tireless campaigning. The strategy used was to adjust the content of their propaganda to suit the audience.

  1. A Study of Air Supremacy in the Korean War.

    Their shuttle system that enabled them to repair aircraft in a less amount of time had the effect of significantly increasing their flying hours and in-commission rates. The Fifth Air Force realized this was the answer and responded by establishing the Rear Echelon Maintenance Combined Operation (REMCO).9 This setup lasted

  2. Africa and the role they played during both of the world wars.

    Recruitment of Africans took a variety of forms, but most could be described as conscription. Usually a chief would be asked to provide people to fight. If he failed he might be fined or imprisoned.10 Without the cooperation of local leaders and chiefs, European powers would not have been able to raise the troops and carriers they needed.

  1. Arab-Israeli Wars.

    Arabs designed a full-scale war to undo the consequences of 1948-1949 war and destroy Israeli state.For Israel, it would be a limited war,just to stregethen its position and anticipate Aon an arab attack. In the mean time Egypt was growing to be a regional power under the rule of Nasser,who

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

    As Sakwa states, Putin?s Russian society is characteristic of a centralised ?Soviet-style bureaucracy?: similar to Stalin.[7] However, a conclusion on Putin?s office is not comprehensive, as his government remains; still reforming elements of society. The ?thaw? is a clear demonstration of the importance of state prosperity (economic growth), being interlinked with general reforms.

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