• 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. “Generals Win Battles, Resources Win Wars”. How Far Does Your Study of the Period ...

    The traditional resources of war coupled with those of an industrial and revolutionary world would combine with the soldiers of the era and the advent of the railway to form the wide scope of resources available to the commanders of the period in their efforts to emerge triumphant from conflict.

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

    Though the introduction of the troops is not seen as a strong argument, it certainly had an effect and can also be argued to have caused further problems and violence within Northern Ireland. The rise of violence in Northern Ireland seemed to confirm for both the nationalist and unionist communities that gradual improvement was impossible.

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

    When the attack began, the city boasted a population of 3 million citizens. At the end, only 600,000 remained. There was no food, no fuel, no hope. More than a million starved, and some survived by resorting to cannibalism. Yet the city endured, the Nazis were repelled, and the victory

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

    This allowed for air power to extend well into North Korea, putting the enemy on the defensive. None of this would have been possible had not the logistical system met the challenge of overcoming the primitive conditions of South Korea.

  1. Russia: a Century of Upheaval.

    None of the men Rasputin chose were at all suitable. Eventually, a group of nobles, led by Prince Yusupov murdered him, but the damage had already been done. There were many politicians in and outside Russia, plotting revolution, but in the end it was the normal people who started it.

  2. Why did the Communists win in 1949?

    It was based on the principle of "from the people to the people", which, in practice, meant that the masses must be consulted, decisions made on the basis of such consultation, and these decisions explained to the masses. Mao very cleverly adopted a method in which to fuel the process of revolution inside the peasants.

  1. The Sieges of Ladysmith, Mafeking, and Kimberley

    You are the hero of the day."6 Mafeking's glorious siege, as well as the less glamorous sieges of Kimberley and Ladysmith, were adventures the whole B.P followed, and indeed, identified strongly with. "The identity of the three towns' fate with England's was so strong as almost to create the belief

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

    Statistics show an initial increase in production: such as iron output increasing by 56 percent during 1965-75 and then decreasing to less than 7 percent from 1975-85.[16] Furthered by Brezhnev?s later crippled economic output, prior industrial growth stagnated in 1970-80, falling to less than 2.6 percent.

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