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

How far did developments in command and control of armies determine the outcome of battles in the period from 1792 to 1945?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐How far did developments in command and control of armies determine the outcome of battles in the period from 1792 to 1945? The command and control of armies developed throughout the 1792 -1945 period. In the Napoleonic era, Napoleon seldom delegated command to his subordinate officers, developing the logistics of battle himself. Granted, he did begin to develop a General Staff but mainly for reconnaissance purposes and to ensure his orders were communicated to other generals. However, by the end of WWII Dwight Eisenhower had been appointed as the supreme allied commander of the Allied forces in Europe to influence co-operation between various heads of the army, navy and air force operating in that theatre. Each power in WWII had their own general staff who facilitated correspondence between a commanding officer and subordinate military units. They also had to compose contingency plans for future battles accounting for defensive or offensive conditions. I think the developments in the command and control of armies were necessary for success in battle in this period. Without an extensive organisation to aid, help foresee and incite the process of war armies wouldn?t have been able to successfully employ tactics and take advantage of technological developments. ...read more.


Development in Technology and communications had a great influence on the command and control of armies. For example the successful mobilisation and co-ordination of troops on the battlefield could be attributed to the development of radio, aircraft and tanks. This enabled infantry, planes and tanks to quickly co-ordinate their movements on a large scale, known as the Blitzkrieg tactic. Germany?s early successes in WWII could be related to their innovation of radio-equipped tanks, allowing them to co-ordinate their movements more efficiently than the Allied armies. The Prussian army in the wars of the mid-19th century also benefitted from advances in technology by the mobilisation of its military by railway: The Prussian General Staff had a railway department. During the Austro-Prussian war the Prussian army of 250,000 men was deployed using 5 separate railways across 300 miles to organise and converge quickly on enemy positions. However in the Franco-Austrian war of 1859 poor organisation and planning led to unfulfilled utilisation of railway. For example when the Austrian reserve force used railway they managed to get lost and miss the battle. Similarly, when travelling by rail, despite successfully reaching the battlefield, the French army left their guns and ammunition behind. This shows a direct correlation between careful planning and the control of armies, and the exploitation of developments in technology. ...read more.


Alliances evolved into having their own command structure as in WWI the Allied armies were under the control of Supreme Commander Ferdinand Foch. Along with the British commander Field Marshal Haig, Foch planned the Grand Offensive, opening on 26 September 1918, which led to the defeat of Germany. The decision was made to strike on the Somme, east of Amiens, which marked the boundary between the British Expeditionary forces and the French armies, allowing the two armies to cooperate. Alliances could also be proved a hindrance. For example in WWI the German army?s view of its alliance with Austria-Hungary was that they were "shackled to a corpse." Supply shortages, low morale, and the high casualty rate seriously affected the operational abilities of the Austro- Hungarian troops, as well as the fact the army was of multiple ethnicity, all with different race, language and customs. Finally, in WWII Dwight Eisenhower was appointed Supreme Allied Commander acting as more of a diplomat, admitting that his strategic knowledge was minimal In conclusion, Essentially command and control of armies was more important than generalship in successful war campaigns. Conscription and the forging of alliances led to mass armies so it wasn?t just about being a great tactician and strategist, such as Napoleon, political skill and diplomacy were essential to properly control armies in the most effective way. ...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 Modern European History, 1789-1945 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 Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Reasons for Napoleon's Success (to 1807).

    * Following Guibert's precepts once again, Napoleon ensured that the army should travel light and therefore speedily, covering an average of 12 to 15 miles a day living ff the land instead of relying on slow supply wagons or on depots requiring careful advance preparation.

  2. Why did the Franco-Prussian war happen and why were the Prussians able to defeat ...

    order to deploy troops quickly and efficiently, an example of this is the speed in which the Prussians pushed the French back into France in late 1870. Railways could not just be used to attack but also to defend and reinforce.

  1. Can Napoleons rise to power be attributed merely to his control of the army?

    He could be charming if he wanted to, but he could be unpleasant as well . He had intense loyalty to his family and old associates, but nothing and no one were allowed to interfere with his work. This excess made him a very nervous person, and sometimes he had nervous collapses similar to epilepsy.

  2. "To what extent was French defeat at the battle of Waterloo due to Napoleons ...

    generals, Napoleons remarks are entirely explicable"9 Napoleon was merely just trying to avoid the defeatist comments his generals were hearing. Looking at it from this point of view you could imagine how encouraging it may have been to hear Napoleon discounting the enemy in this way.

  1. To what extent did victory or defeat in war in the period 1792-1918 depend ...

    then the Danube to envelop the Austrians at Ulm, leading to an Austrian surrender as they were surrounded and could not unite with the Russians. The importance of Napoleon's generalship in relation to tactics should not be undermined as he used different tactics for different battles making predicting the course of attack difficult for the enemy.

  2. Consequence of WWI

    The troops were starving and weaponless. February Revolution began with the uprising of females. They quickly attracted the support of large numbers of workers, as well as soldiers at the front finally. The Russia military collapsed. One month later, the Central Powers and Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918.

  1. The Somme Offensive Failure - analysis of the sources.

    Black and white photographs were all that existed at the time of this war, furthering the authenticity of this source. With the factual and documented research behind the reasons for this untouched wire, a historian using this source can fully grasp the situation of inadequate planning and bombardment, which led to the failure of the Somme Offensive.

  2. Evaluate the significance of the use of tanks had in the outcome of WW1

    Sir Douglas Haig had acted in haste and even the men who were supposed to lead the tanks into battle were not able to live up to the high expectations set upon them. The tanks which were able to be led into battle either broke down or were captured by

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