• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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

    In the month before his death, FDR had evidently begun to question that presumption, becoming increasingly concerned about Soviet behavior. Had he lived, he may well have adopted a significantly tougher position toward Stalin than he had taken previously. Yet in his last communication with Churchill, Roosevelt was still urging

  2. 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.

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

    never have taken place because Bloody Sunday was a march against the use of internment as people were incensed by the injustice caused by it. Kennedy Pipe claims that "Internment marked an irrevocable change in the nature of the conflict".

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

    As Gregor Strasser observed, Hitler had an ability to read the collective mind of the congregation; "Hitler responds to the vibration of the human heart with the delicacy of a seismograph... enabling him, with a certainty with which no conscious gift could endow him, to act as a loudspeaker proclaiming

  1. Apart from the Second World War, there was peace in Yugoslavia between 1919 and ...

    Many in the country (including Prince Paul's nephew the young King Peter) opposed this move. The Government was overthrown, Prince Paul was forced to step down and Yugoslavia withdrew from the pact. King Peter and the people who had disapproved of siding with the Germans quickly formed a Government dedicated to maintaining neutrality.

  2. “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.

  1. Why did the Communists win in 1949?

    Also, Mao continuously asked peasants of their conditions. By doing this he would give the impression to the people that he cared about them and wanted to do something for them.

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

    Tsar.[11] Khrushchev?s point is further empathised here; possibly the Tsarist regime would have been better equipped, if it had improved such persisting issues equally: continuity of industrial, agriculture and social development. Historians Koenker and Von Laue concur with this view, claiming that Nicholas? incompetence in meeting social and industrial demands,

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