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

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

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

To What extent were technological improvements the most significant factor in the changing nature of warfare between 1815 and 1918? The change in warfare in this 100 years has been massively significant, these changes come down to four main reasons; changing in technology (military and non military), changing strategy and leadership, economic warfare and public opinion and propaganda. Improvements in technology included better and more efficient weapons and also ways of supplying troops and transport. Strategy and leadership was another main change in warfare, for example Molkte set up the ring of fire using small troops to attach the enemy. Also the Ludendorf offensive was another feature of changing leadership and strategy. Economic warfare was increasingly important to the outcome of many battles nearer the end of the period including the First World War and the Boer war. Public opinion had an increasing significance as the size of wars increased and civilians were required in the total war effort, so propaganda was vital to increase support towards the war effort and help towards it. So as an overview it is clear that different factors were changed in significance over time and not one factor dominated the change in warfare throughout the period. This essay will examine these factors and conclude as to the most important over the whole time period. It is my opinion that military technology had the biggest impact on warfare over the period. Military Technology was the most significant and progressive change over the early years of this period and had a large effect on the changing nature of warfare. As these weapons progressed accuracy increased and so did firing rate. The percussion cap was invented in 1839 20% of misfires were eliminated due to the use of fulminate of mercury, this resulted in a dramatic increase in casualty rates, this was evident in the Crimean war. The death toll of the Russians was far higher than the allies due to far superior technology. ...read more.

Middle

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.'5 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.'6 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. ...read more.

Conclusion

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' 10 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. 1 John Terraine, The Smoke and the Fire, 1992, pg 132 2 Hilaire Belloc 3 A short History of the war, Richard Gabriel and Karen Metz 4 The development of land warfare, Peter Browning 5 The Victorian Internet, T Standage, 1999, p146 6 The changing nature of warfare, Neil Stewart, 2001, p58 7 The changing nature of warfare, Neil Stewart, 2001, p59 8 British training manual, 1907 9 The Western front, Rosemary Reeds 10 The First World War- Ian Cawood, David McKinnon Bell ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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. "To what extent did napoleon lose the battle of Waterloo due to his own ...

    Eventually an army of 300 000 was created. Allied spies reported [the army's] almost frenzied enthusiasm for the Emperor.[5] Napoleon was unable to use many of his former marshals, for some of them had committed themselves to Louis XVIII. However Ney, Grouchy, Soult and Davout where among those who returned to Napoleon when he regained power.

  2. Why did Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?

    That evening he found them along a high plan south of Mont-Saint-Jean. Because of the torrential rain, the use of artillery or cavalry was out of the question and luckily for Napoleon, a major battle would have been impossible for that day.

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

    agreed to attack Austria if they intervened on the side of France). They knew that if Prussia succeeded in defeating her again, which was highly likely because not much had changed in Austria and in fact some things the Austrian Hungarian Empire was in trouble, this included problems over the

  2. 'In the context of the period 1715-1815 to what extent were economic factors the ...

    Alfred Cobban was one of the first people to disagree with the widely accepted Marxist view, arguing that, actually, the revolution was not instigated or led by the 'proletariat' at all.6 There is fair evidence to back up this theory.

  1. To what extent were economic considerations the main motive for Portuguese exploration and empire ...

    This would have also increased their standing with Pope and would have started to expand Christianity's influence thought-out the world. Also Portugal would have been competing with Castile and the other Catholic nations of Europe for the Pope's favour and so they saw spreading Christianity of a way of gaining

  2. To what extent did the increase in the persecution of witches in Europe from ...

    The fact that at least 20 per cent of the ?witches? prosecuted were men makes the witch craze seem like less of a ?woman hunt?. Regional variations have also been notable. ?France was a fascinating exception to the wider pattern for over much of the country witchcraft seems to have had no obvious link with gender at all.

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

    An issue central to the main contributing failures of the Somme Offensive lies within the actual shells used by the British Army. During the Shell Crisis of 1915, the government had been under enormous political pressure to increase the number of shells being produced.

  2. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    The centralised nature of the Stalinist command economy allowed it to adapt relatively quickly to the needs of war. 4. Stalin?s propaganda during the 1930s had already created a ?siege mentality? among Soviet people. They were used to hardship and adapted easily to the crisis of war.

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