'Generals win battles, resources win wars.' How far does your study of the period from 1792 to 1919 confirm this view?

This essay hasn't yet been marked by one of our teachers

You can view 9 essays on International History, 1945-1991 that have been Marked by Teachers

The first 200 words of this essay...

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