General (non specific)

• How did the steam engine impact on military strategy?

  More men could be moved further distances and resources could be transported quicker
• How did citizen armies impact on the nature of warfare?

  Tactics had to become simpler eg frontal assaults
• What replaced the old flintlock mechanism of the rifle?

  percussion cap (more reliable)
• Minie bullets impact on the nature of warfare?

  Increased the deadliness of rifles and gave them extra range etc
• Main role of generals?


  Inspire troops, follow an effective strategy, use effective tactics, manage and deploy resources effectively, understand politics and public opinion, make effective military decisions, adapt their practice to suit the challenges/circumstances they were faced with
• One advantage of breach loaded rifle over the muzzle loaded rifle?

  It could reload 5x faster so had a faster fire rate
• Main roles of a general?

  • To inspire their troops
  • To be innovative
  • To make use of effective tactics
  • To follow an effective strategy
  • To understand politics and public opinion
  • An effective general is able to adapt their practice to suit the challenges/circumstances that they are faced with
  • To make effective military decisions
  • To manage and deploy resources effectively
• Lines of argument for quality of soldiers?

  • Greater quality= significant advantage combined with good leadership and tactics
  • Quality can take a variety of forms and troops do not need to be quality in every sense eg lack of training could be replaced by high morale, bravery or enthusiasm
  • Tipping point at which greater quality can be outweighed by quantity, determined by a range of factors including generalship, weaponry and resources
  • influence of quality can diminish in the face of superior technology or leadership
• How did citizen armies develop throughout the period?

  Became more common and bigger (big in FRW, smaller in between, massive in WW1 and WW2), filled void of professional soldiers
• How important was the role of nationalism?


  It affected the nature significantly in terms of increased casualty rates and sustaining the war
• Conclusions on QS impact?

  • larger conscript army= less trained= simpler tactics
  • smaller professional armies= better tactics
  • quantity can overcome quality but CW is an anomaly perhaps due to poor organisation and generalship
  • massive impact on warfare- all tactics relied on QS
• Strategy affect on outcome?

  • could end wars quicker (trains)
  • could cause to lose (Schlieffen plan- offensive strategy)
  • economic usually worked aided by offensive- mixed results, never only reason for victory
• Strategy affect on nature?

  • less casualties (allies in WW2 vs heavy casualties in WW1)
  • decided what tactics to use (WW2- Blitzkrieg, failed Anaconda to the invasion)
  • could give the advantage (trains)- wars quicker
  • offensive strats= high casualties
  • economic strats= civilian targeting
• Change in strategy?

  • alternatives to offensive (trains, economic, whereas Nap struck to offensive + wouldn't change)- use of technology
  • deliberate targeting of civilians (ACW Anaconda plan, WW1- blockade of Germany, WW2- bombing/ethnic groups)
  • domination of decisive victories lessens
• Continuity in strategy?

  • aimed for swift + decisive victories- Nap, WW2, Schlieffen plan, failed anaconda- OFFENSIVE STRATS FAVOURED
  • failed strategy can determine the outcome (Nap vs Russia, Schlieffen plan, WW2 Barbarossa)
• Elements of total war?

  Any means to achieve victory, civilian involvement, civilians being targeted, censorship, propaganda, full mobilisation of economy, size of forces involved, scale of carnage and geographic spread
• Lines of argument for industrialisation and technology?

  • Nations/forces with greater industrial capacity and a stronger economy were victorious
  • the new tech through industrialisation gives the potential for wars to be more devastating
  • new tech created possibilities, it had to be utilised effectively to have a big impact
  • it was industrial capacity rather than technological superiority that led to victory
  • industrialisation drastically affected the nature of warfare with the mass production of new weapons leading to industrial manslaughter
• What was the anomaly for industrialisation and technology being decisive in outcome/conduct?

  By the 20th century there was an anomaly – Japan was far less developed than Russia yet was

  victorious in the Russo-Japanese War.
• Did industrialisation have a big impact on the conduct of war?

  Yes and it allowed fro greater organisation of both manpower and resources
• Evidence for line of argument that new tech only created possibilities, it had to be used effectively in order to have a big impact?

  FPW French and better rifle (Chassepot) and an early machine gun (Mitrailluse) yet lost. Similarly Britain’s first use of tanks during Somme 1916 wasnt effective. However when Germans used tanks effectively in WW2 (1939/40 Blitzkreig) it had devastating impact and almost won the war if they hadn’t run out of resources
• A semaphore telegraph is a system of conveying information by means of visual signals, using towers with pivoting shutters, also known as blades or paddles.
• The electrical telegraph, or more commonly just telegraph,

  superseded optical semaphore telegraph systems, thus becoming the first form of electrical telecommunications. In a matter of decades after their creation in the 1830s, electrical telegraph networks permitted people and commerce to transmit messages across both continents and oceans almost instantly, with widespread social and economic impacts
• Radar is a detection system that uses radio waves to determine the range, angle, or velocity of objects. It can be used to detect aircraft, ships, spacecraft, guided missiles, motor vehicles, weather formations, and terrain.
• Radio is the technology of using radio waves to carry information, such as sound.
• A telephone converts sound, typically and most efficiently the human voice, into electronic signals that are transmitted via cables and other communication channels to another

  telephone which reproduces the sound to the receiving user
• Developments in transportation affected warfare in terms of both mobilisation and resourcing, in some cases this helped lead to shorter, more decisive engagements. While in other cases it had an opposite effect – ensuring that wars were more prolonged and stagnated. Developments in communications technology allowed for greater co-ordination on the

  battlefield. However, as seen with the study of other factors it only gave possibilities- they still had be used effectively
• What mode of transport and the biggest impact in each period?


  Start- marching. Middle- Railways, steamships. End- Combustion engine, railways. Overall most- railways
• What mode of communication and the biggest impact in each period?

  Start- word of mouth. Middle- Telegraphs. End- radar, radio. Overall- radio or radar
• How much can you agree that communications and transport helped armies to become increasingly mobile by end of the period which led to huge changes in terms of tactics and strategy?

  Mostly yes- however Napoleon did have mobility in his army so whilst it did become increasingly mobile it wasn’t like there was never mobility/ a big change from none to lots. In ACW transport mobilised men and in GWU. In WW2 + WW1 similar
• How far can you agree that communication and transport had a limited impact on the conduct of wars because throughout the period there was continuity as soldiers relied on marching into battle?

  Even though horse and cart and marching continued throughout, there were huge changes to transport and communication
• How far can you agree that despite improved communications, there were still huge challenges faced by generals and soldiers during battles?

  True- Haig received out of date information and generals received messages late in midst of battle
• How far can you agree that communication and transport needed to be used alongside effective tactics and strategy because only then did they have a decisive impact on the outcome of battles?

  Strongest argument- CW, ACW, GWU
• Where weaponry changed nature of warfare by increasing casualties?

  • GWU- APW Sadowa 1866 44,000 Austrian casualties to 9000 Prussian
  • Recoilless cannon increase the rate of fire which resulted in artillery claiming over 70% of casualties in WW1
  • machine gun
  • battle of somme 500,000 casualties
• Where weaponry changed tactics?

  • Mission tactics GWU because of new rifles
  • fats firing artillery = trench warfare style tactics
• Where new weapons became the dominant arm in warfare?

  • FPW new steel breech loaded rifle caused disappearance of heavy cavalry formations because infantry assaults would now be supported by artillery
  • 90% rifles and minie bullets before war, then WW changed to 70% artillery
• Where weaponry acted as a force multiplier allowing numerically smaller armies to emerge victorious ?

  • RJW- Nan Shan 1904 single Russian infantry regiment was able to hold off the attack of 3 Japanese divisions fro over 12 hours with only 10 machine guns proving to be an effective force multiplier
  • Inkerman was 9:1
  • colonial wars in Sedan, 2 machine guns, Brits outnumbered
• Where weaponry didn’t have a significant impact due to ineffective use?

  • tanks WW1 1916
  • RJW- Russians had superior Model 1900 3 inch artillery piece but its effectiveness was limited as artillery men were inexperienced draftees
  • FPW- mitrailleuse machine gun not used effectively
• Where weaponry was decisive in determining the outcome?

  • atomic bomb
  • Inkerman, Sadowa
• In the middle of the period how important were alliances?

  Alliances themselves weren’t that important but the lack of alliance had a bigger impact as it made them weaker or caused them to lose in som cases like the ACW
• Impact of alliances on the nature of warfare?

  • Alliances made a huge difference to strategic planning and tactics, eg. Germany’s decision to use the Schlieffen Plan was seek victory and to combat the pre-WW1 alliance systems. Also led to two-frontal war.
  • Alliances allowed nations to mobilise more men and encompass a greater geographical spread
  • Alliances allowed wars to be longer in duration and more devastating