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

What was the impact of transport improvements on the nature of warfare 1792-1945?

Extracts from this document...


What was the impact of transport improvements on the nature of warfare 1792-1945? Transport had a huge impact on the nature of warfare. This was helped with the Industrial Revolution which helped with the evolution of transport. This can be seen with warfare changing from static to mobile throughout the period. Generals would use transport to gain speed over other armies, meaning they could move across land quicker and get resources to the front line quickly. Moreover, it can be suggested that it is not how revolutionised the transport is, but in fact how it is utilised. A general may have the best form of transport in the world, but if he does not utilise it in the best possible way then there may be no impact on warfare whatsoever. However, it can be argued that there were other factors which impacted warfare further than transport. In the Napoleonic War speed was very limited, but warfare was fairly mobile. Cavalry was the army's prized possession, they used horse and foot when travelling anywhere and to attack the enemy, which was used in the battle of Austerlitz. Napoleon made his men walk while their horses carried any supplies they may have. This mode of transport showed a lack of speed and so Napoleon trained his men while they walked, using the Corp System. He then utilised this tactic to win the battle of Ulm. ...read more.


From this war it can be seen that this improvement of transport helped make warfare faster as the speed of mobilisation and manoeuvring is faster. This can be shown with the use of simultaneous movement across the line. However, it is obvious that transport was important in bringing in resources and soldiers but not actually used in fighting. In the Franco-Prussian War, Moltke made efficient use of the railway. He built mile long platforms which allowed fast manoeuvring and allowed men to preserve energy before battles. Furthermore, platforms were built near the border of France which was useful for the execution of the ring of fire, which was seen in the battle of Sedan and Metz. However, warfare is still cavalry based, there is no transport that can actually be used offensively, as trains were not able to reach the front line. This also meant that when trains delivered resources there was a delay from the platform to the front line. This means that the way the battles are fought is not changed from back to the Napoleonic Wars, instead it changes the strategy which is first produced. Again this war shows how the transport available has been utilised well, yet there is only so much it can do. Like with Napoleon, Moltke has made the best use he can out of what he has got. Railway can only take resources and soldiers so far, meaning that speed is still not fully enhanced in battles. ...read more.


Yet, it can also be argued that it was the change in weaponry which helped impact the nature of warfare too. In conclusion, transport did not actually impact the nature of warfare until world war two. Yet, with the introduction of the railway, transport was constantly used as the heart of tactics. Although it can be seen that the element of speed was crucial in war, and is what every general needed to succeed. For example, Napoleon made his soldiers travel on foot everywhere, not only did it mean they were slow in travelling, it also meant that his men were tired before battle. As the war went on the soldiers became more and more tired and so more were needed to be able to fight. This combined with Napoleon's inability to supply his soldiers with resources helped in his defeat. Whereas, Moltke and Lee, who effectively used the railway were successful in their battles. Not only did they use them to transport men and resources but they proved that transport was the key to a master plan. As more transport was introduced, such as tanks and aeroplanes, then the nature of warfare was impacted. The lethality increased and made warfare mobile again. Soldiers and provisions were able to be transported back and forth efficiently and promptly. This also helped warfare become more offensive as transport was used a weapons as well. ?? ?? ?? ?? Charlotte Bilton Page of 2 ...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 ...

    a reserve force under Drouet d'Erlon, who would go to the aid of either Ney or Grouchy. Ney was to head towards Quatre-Bras and take on the Anglo-Dutch army, while Napoleon, expecting Prussia to give a more aggressive fight, traveled to Ligny with Grouchy and a force of 71 000.

  2. To What Extent was Napoleon Master of Europe

    The night before the battle, it rained. The Duke of Wellington positioned his men on the bridge. It was Napoleon's time to attack. Risking everything, he ordered all of his troops to attack through one frontal attack. The British formed squares and waited for the French army to come.

  1. To what extent were technological changes the biggest feature in the changing nature of ...

    Cordite burnt much more cleanly and the cloud of smoke after firing was eliminated which resulted in soldiers staying better hidden from enemy fire. Artillery had been an important feature of warfare since the late seventeen hundreds but in 1853 the Napoleon cannon was created, it was a 12 pounder (12 cm barrel)

  2. To what extent did weapons technology represent the biggest change in warfare in the ...

    The Dreyse rifle changed warfare as it eliminated the need for muskets, and was excellent as it could be fired and loaded from lying position allowing effective cover. After initially seeing service during the 1849 May Uprising in Dresden it quickly proved its effectiveness during the the Austro-Prussian War (1866).

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

    The superior leadership makes Prussia able to win the Franco-Prussian War because with better leaders than the French the Prussians were able to quickly get the army mobilised and gain quick victories, e.g. the siege of Metz of 1870, with decent officers the Prussians were generally better fighters because they were better led.

  2. Why did Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?

    If Davout had been in Waterloo with Napoleon, it is definite that Napoleon would have been victorious. Early June, the English and Prussian began to amass. On June 14, Napoleon left Paris at three o'clock in the morning hoping to make a swift advance before the Russians and Austrians could

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

    Another reason that Napoleons lack of judgement could've lead to defeat at the battle of waterloo is his blatant disregarding of his enemy. Having not personally fought the British for twenty-two years he talked to his entire general staff in a meeting on the morning of Sunday 18th June 1815 about the British army.

  2. Trench Warfare

    I've only been serving for three weeks now, and yet I find myself plagued each day with the stresses and pains of a hundred years. We have been strictly instructed to restrain from human curiosity, for if we so much as show a hair above the boundary of the trench,

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