How has the nature of leadership changed over the period 1790-1945?

Authors Avatar

How has the nature of leadership changed over the period 1790-1945?

Developments in warfare over this period have undoubtedly been dramatic, and the changes have necessarily occurred in all areas as individual sectors respond the challenges or opportunities presented by a certain catalyst. And, in the case of warfare developments have stemmed ostensibly and most significantly from the increasing technological proficiency across the range of procedural units which define the armies’ strength. While we may be drawn naturally to the dramatic advancements in weapons technology, the nature of modern warfare is obviously also reliant on the improvements made in areas such as communication and transport because these even more clearly have allowed for the rapid expansion in forces involved in combat. In scale the World Wars of the 20th century were unprecedented, but in the conflicts of the previous decades the developments were evident and visible in a number of ways. The precedent for Blitzkrieg tactics is arguably to be found in the Franco Prussian war, and J.C Fuller also drew attention to this conflict in order to provide a degree of context for his assessment upon the effects of mechanization on the nature of warfare and its effects on the individual soldier. And, the principle of total war, to which the 20th century wars seem to conform most unarguably, was enshrined in the warfare of the Napoleonic period. But if that was a clear and decisive turning point in the future developments of military history, we must recognize that so many other elements have also changed dramatically since. It is not as simple as drawing a straight line between the warfare of that period and those of the 20th Century but in many ways the Levee en masse which effectively signaled the era of total war and mass civilian involvement has been the catalyst for a whole chain of cause and effect which has produced manifold changes in virtually all conceivable aspects of war. Leadership is just one small part of an at times fragmented picture, no matter how the propagandists attempt to depict it. More than any other of the recognized factors in the military success of failure, this one is inherently human, and while many of these human led advancements are inherently reactionary, in this case the personal element can provide a barrier to development; with attitudes, enshrined in a culture of historic reflection, proving to be the most difficult things to change.  And in almost every case the reluctance to change old habits, or failure to recognize the imperative of such action, has proved disastrous against a backdrop of such relentless and rapid progress.

The factor of leadership has traditionally been viewed as the single most important when comparing the relative merits of the opposing forces in battle.  It is natural to highlight the individual achievements of characters that come to define conflicts and even whole periods in the collective historical memory. Inspirational military leaders have been the source of great national pride because their heroic escapades can readily be established as representative of an idealised national character.  And whilst we may regard the relationship the status of military leaders as sanctified and unchallengeable, it is important to reflect that, as with any other aspect of military conduct, the relative position and importance of leadership has changed over the course of the most revolutionary period in military history. It is also important that the role of leader has altered not only in practical terms, but also in the representations of the military effort of a country. In an era where conflicts have been so vast in their scale and devastation, particularly in the 20th century, the emphasis in the remembrance and reconstruction of the conflict has been to capture the stories of the common soldier, who served so bravely for his country. The nature of warfare as defined by the massive volunteer armies has come to be most powerfully encapsulated in the memorials to the Unknown Soldier, rather than the any individual figure. Whilst this symbolic embodiment of the pity of war is arguably the most profound legacy in human terms, it is important to make clear that this is something that has only developed after the fact, in a concerted effort to suitably portray the consequences of such enormous changes in the nature of war and provide a channel for people to reflect. Whilst the great engine of change was at full throttle, individuals and, of course the leaders in particular, were faced with stressful and highly pressurized decisions; as the future of their countries depended upon how well and perhaps above all, how quickly they could recognize and respond to developments which would significantly alter the conduct of war.

Join now!

It is clear that some distinct changes have occurred in regard to the nature of leadership, essentially as a response to developments resulting from the fundamental but dramatic increase in scale. Operating under these new conditions made command into a far more complicated and pressured situation, as control was so difficult to maintain over vast areas and armies. In spite of the complexities of the issue; in real terms the change in the nature of leadership can be expressed fairly simply as stemming from the increase in the physical distance from battle. Fuller wrote about this topic with a great ...

This is a preview of the whole essay