To what extent were technological changes the biggest feature in the changing nature of warfare between 1815 and 1918

Non-military technology was another key change of warfare over the period, it changed methods of fighting and the structure of wars. One of the downfalls of Napoleon was his inability to relay information quickly enough and this was shown at the Battle of Waterloo when he was unable to get contact with Ney before 12pm thus giving time for Wellington to prepare. So when telegraphs were invented this allowed messages to be sent hundreds of miles in an instant. When printing press and newspapers started to use telegraphs it allowed the people at home to know the happenings of the war by the next day. However this technology was no were near perfect and had it’s limitations, firstly once on the battle field old techniques like dispatch runners, bugles, drums and flags had to be used still. So directly on the battlefield there was little improvement and this new technology didn’t have much impact on the result of a battle. The main impact it had was on the people at home not in the war, as officer’s tactics and the amount of people killed was shown publicly in newspapers. This resulted in leaders starting to think about human life as moral and recruitment was critical to the success of an army, so the telegraphs could have helped reform tactics of the leaders but in fact censorship came about and the lies began. British officer in Crimea: ‘The confounded telegraph has ruined everything.’ Telegraphs were new and many leaders found them confusing, and that they didn’t end up aiding a battle but hindering it: ‘Telegraphs often appeared to do no more than confuse both sides.’ This shows how telegraphs and printing press were actually a hindrance to warfare and wasn’t a significant change but ended up causing confusion. The most important non-military piece of technology was by far the train and railway systems. For obvious reasons they allowed the faster movement of troops, the deployed troops would be fresh and ready to die, the sick and wounded could be cleared quickly and more men could be at a battle in total. Munitions and food could also be carried by train, this helped prevent starvation and running out of arms at the battle. In the Franco-Prussian war a French army of 120,000 was transported to Northern Italy in two weeks, without rail it would have taken 2 months. The Austrians had to march three miles a day across difficult terrain to reach the battleground. This technology was a massive change in warfare during the period but when it came down to the battles trains and transport helped carry more troops and weapons/munitions, all of which were needed due to the changing military technology. So it is clear that this technology was really only a result of military change. When the Austrians finally decided to have a go at the railway many of them got lost, this could be down to a limititation of trains but it is still clear that they were an important change to meet the growing sizes of army.

 The third feature of change in warfare is the leadership and strategy.  Leadership and strategy had little direct impact but due to poor leadership other weaknesses were exposed (for example the little change in leadership exacerbated the strength of the new developing weapons-Somme). At the beginning of the period Napoleon’s legacy and type of warfare continued, for example skirmishers were still used and frontal attacks and cavalry charges were common. In the Crimean war the Russians used Napoleonic columns against new artillery guns and longer ranging rifles. In the Franco-Austrian war of 1859 the French also reverted to Napoleonic columns, which were inefficient and outdated. The first real change of strategy since the start of the period (cult of the offensive) was Molkte’s mission tactics which were first used in the German unification. Molkte realised the age of the frontal attack was over and new tactics had to be adopted, he was a stickler of tactics and attention to detail, despite this he was still flexible to new ideas and believed in a means to an end. His tactics involved a small group of skirmishers to outflank the enemy then use a ring of fire to finish of the enemy. Molkte also had great use of railways and technology to aid his victory. Molkte was unlike many officers as he was chosen on merit and had new ideas to aid warfare not just blindly follow traditions of the good old days. ‘Molkte transformed the Prussian general staff into the most effective army leadership in Europe’ However Molkte was a wildcard and he didn’t turn up trumps, other leaders didn’t follow his methods and reverted back to older ways.  For example Haig introduced the lance to cavalry in 1909 and in a British training manual it stated: ‘The rifle cannot replace the effect produced by the speed of the horse, the magnetism of the charge.’ This shows the backwardness of many army officers and leaders who have not adopted new techniques just blindly followed the past. This shows how there were a few leaders with new ideas and changes to strategy and tactics but they had little impact on the majority of commanders and tactics had little impact on change over most of the period. Haig was a prime example of this, he was a devout Christian and believed when soldiers died they went to a better place, and that they were lucky to be killed. This obviously doesn’t mean he intended soldiers to die, but it can help understand his mindset. ‘Haig was a cavalry officer. He did not understand how to fight a war with infantrymen. His one tactic was to attack over and over again, no matter how little was gained or how many died.’Haig epitomised the way things were in the good old days, but it has become clear that old tactics were a massive problem in the warfare of the time. Joffre was another military leader who refused to endorse the new methods of warfare; at the start of WW1 the French soldiers were still wearing blue and white traditional costumes. On arrival they used traditional frontal attacks and Napoleonic columns- 300,000 men were lost in the first few weeks of the war. At the height of the stalemate of ww1 the Ludendorf offensive was developed to try and attack the enemies trenches, it consisted of small groups of 11 soldiers that would perform a surprise attack on the enemies trench with grenades and heavy fire. The element of surprise was crucial and it appeared to the British that there were more numbers than there actually were. However these tactics were only a small change in strategy and leadership, most of the fighting was still hand to hand and used old methods, the Ludendorf offensive finally didn’t succeed and his tactics were still outdated. So in conclusion there are a few new methods of leadership but the majority of leaders still used old Napoleonic tactics and leadership had changed little. I believe leadership couldn’t keep up with technology which caused such great casualties at the Somme with over 1 million casualties. So leadership wasn’t a large change in the nature of warfare but a reason that new military technology was so effective.  It’simportance to the outcomes of wars was crucuial however, as these old tactics and methods meant death tolls of battles were much higher and that more men would be needed, this was one of the reasons that brought about stalemate and small gains in world war one.

As wars developed in lengths and the size of armies increased the economy became an increasingly important factor in the changing nature of warfare. For example in August 1914 Britain set up the defence of the Realm act to help with the war effort , this act was extended several times and gave the government complete control of the economy and business. This resulted in the enrolment of women in factories to help build munitions. Britain’s access to an empire and the naval blockade was crucial to the success in World War One. This is because central powers were starved of supplies and as they had no empire surrender was the only option, 750,000 German civilians were starved and Prussia had to surrender. Russia in world war one is an example of how a failing economy was unable to fight a large scale war; inflation got out of control and infrastructure failed, Russia could no longer afford to be in the war and had to withdraw. So it is clear that nearer the end of study the economy was the most significant change in warfare as all the other factors were held in form by the economy, for example propaganda needed funding, so did soldiers and machinery. With a strong economy wars could continue to be fought for years as soldiers and machinery simply be replaced. So long term battles and wars would continue until one countries economy collapsed and the war would then be lost. ‘The war god of our times is economic power’  this quote confirms my view that the economy was the most important factor near the end of the period, however for the majority of the period economy had little to do with the outcome of battles or the change in warfare. Economic warfare was a direct result of the industrial revolution and new technology. With  more efficient and longer ranging weapons and quicker means of transport being introduced battle were lasting longer and involving increasingly more people. So to the question of was it the most significant change over the period the simple answer is no but from 1900 onwards the economy was crucial to success as weapons, soldiers and supplies needed financing.

In conclusion it has become clear that there are many factors that have had massive impacts in the change of warfare; for example economic power was increasingly important over the period but more so during world war one. Propeganda and public opinion also became much more important nearer the end of the period as wars increased in length involved civilians and a home effort, however this was not key in the whole period. Therefore technological improvements were the biggest change to warfare over the whole period as nearly all of the wars in this period were won due to the involvement of a new military weapon that the opposition didn’t have.