Facts for each theme/nature and outcome
Impact of factors on the conduct
FRW - French Revolutionary Wars
NW - Napoleonic Wars
CW - Crimean War
GWoU - German Wars of Unification
ACW - American Civil War
WW1 - First World War
WW2 - Second World War
Generalship - nature / battlefield tactics
- NW - generals assisted with the concentration of forces, outflanking and innovative
tactics. This is seen at Austerlitz in 1805 where Napoleon used these skills to
deceive and overwhelm the inferior Russian generals. Napoleon also revolutionised
tactics through coordinating advanced manoeuvres such as Napoleon’s Movement to
the Rear - evidenced at the Battle of Castiglione.
- ACW - similarly Grant, commander-in-chief of the Union army, showed innovation
and strategic brilliance throughout the war. For example, during the Vicksburg
Campaign 1863, Grant employed three major diversionary feints to confuse his
enemy, while moving the bulk of his army down the West Bank of the Mississippi and
conducting a huge amphibious crossing of the river.
- WW1 - Haig demonstrated his skills through masterminding the careful deployment
of combined operations (tanks, infantry, creeping barrage, air support) of the 100
Days Offensive (rapid series of 12 victories such as Amiens).
Generalship - outcome
Generals were responsible for defining effective tactics
- NW - Napoleon’s impressive tactics led to many victories. For example, one of the
greatest victories achieved was at the Battle of Austerlitz where he used flanking. He
deliberately weakened his right flank and enticed the enemy into launching a major
assault. Napoleon’s tactics were so impactful that the column charges and mass
frontal assaults were persisted by the Russians in the Crimean War. However, it
wasn't enough to secure victory which may suggest other factors were more
impactful in his downfall.
- German Wars of Unification - Molke. Unlike other generals he didn’t want to
continue with Napoleon’s tactics and concluded the age of frontal assaults was over.
He replaced it with mission tactics, to break up the enemy’s forces, and used small
mobile units to swarm around the flanks of the enemy, and blast them from all sides
using the increased firepower of the Dreyse needle gun.
- ACW - Grant - choice of tactical moves was essential in the victory of the Union
army. Grant knew that the North were superior in regards to resources and the
number of men, so he decided on using attritional assaults on the South, including
scorching Earth tactics. This applied pressure on the South as they were drained of
resources and forced to surrender.
, - WW2 - Gudarian. The mastermind behind Blitzkrieg, in the hope that it would bring a
short and decisive victory for Germany. The tactic included the element of surprise,
speed and movement which is similar to Napoleonic style warfare. At the start of the
war, the tactics led to devastating victories against Poland and France, yet wasn’t
enough to secure the German army their ultimate victory. This suggests that outcome
was determined by other factors.
Quality of Soldiers - nature / affected battlefield tactics
- NW - levee en masse = huge numbers of citizens in the French army. The
conscription of larger forces involved considerable changes in the nature of warfare.
Change in tactics to huge frontal assaults as soldiers had received less training and
couldn’t perform complex tactics. The years of intensive training in drill and musket
technique could not be crammed into basic training, therefore the simpler tactics
were used.
- GWoU - there was a shift from the Napoleonic wars and most soldiers were now
highly trained therefore able to follow Moltke’s advanced mobilisation plans and
mission tactics, thus showing more advanced tactics had returned from frontal
assaults. There was an increase in flexibility and skills therefore rapid manoeuvres
could be effectively deployed.
- WW1 - however in the First World War there were continuations of Napoleonic style
tactics, as the army was highly conscripted citizen forces. The commanders didn’t
think the mass conscripted army could perform complex manoeuvres, therefore they
moved away from advanced tactics and towards huge frontal assaults which were
used at the Somme and Passcendaele.
Quality of Soldiers - outcome / highly skilled soldiers assisted with tactics which
helped bring victory
More important at the start of the period - FRW, NW and CW
- NW - Napoleon’s Grand Armee at Austerlitz was highly skilled which enabled them
to perform complex battlefield manoeuvres, including outflanking and innovative
tactics. Without the high level of these soldiers, Napoleon would have been forced,
like his predecessors, to employ less ambitious tactics and therefore it could be
argued that Napoleon’s tactics were only possible due to the highly skilled army at
his disposal. However, at Waterloo, although Napoleon had the advantage of quality
over a relatively inexperienced force under Wellington, the French were defeated.
Had the Prussians not arrived, Napoleon’s forces may well have been successful -
suggesting alliances were of more importance.
- GWoU - There were similarities between Napoleon’s use of complex manoeuvres
and Molke’s ability to use mission tactics. Molke understood that the developments to
the rifled musket frontal assaults were no longer feasible, and so advocated the use
of small unit advances. The use of the mission tactics were largely reliant on the
highly skilled soldiers of the German army, who were able to delegate command
and use initiative on the field. Seen with the capture of Napoleon III and over 100,000
Impact of factors on the conduct
FRW - French Revolutionary Wars
NW - Napoleonic Wars
CW - Crimean War
GWoU - German Wars of Unification
ACW - American Civil War
WW1 - First World War
WW2 - Second World War
Generalship - nature / battlefield tactics
- NW - generals assisted with the concentration of forces, outflanking and innovative
tactics. This is seen at Austerlitz in 1805 where Napoleon used these skills to
deceive and overwhelm the inferior Russian generals. Napoleon also revolutionised
tactics through coordinating advanced manoeuvres such as Napoleon’s Movement to
the Rear - evidenced at the Battle of Castiglione.
- ACW - similarly Grant, commander-in-chief of the Union army, showed innovation
and strategic brilliance throughout the war. For example, during the Vicksburg
Campaign 1863, Grant employed three major diversionary feints to confuse his
enemy, while moving the bulk of his army down the West Bank of the Mississippi and
conducting a huge amphibious crossing of the river.
- WW1 - Haig demonstrated his skills through masterminding the careful deployment
of combined operations (tanks, infantry, creeping barrage, air support) of the 100
Days Offensive (rapid series of 12 victories such as Amiens).
Generalship - outcome
Generals were responsible for defining effective tactics
- NW - Napoleon’s impressive tactics led to many victories. For example, one of the
greatest victories achieved was at the Battle of Austerlitz where he used flanking. He
deliberately weakened his right flank and enticed the enemy into launching a major
assault. Napoleon’s tactics were so impactful that the column charges and mass
frontal assaults were persisted by the Russians in the Crimean War. However, it
wasn't enough to secure victory which may suggest other factors were more
impactful in his downfall.
- German Wars of Unification - Molke. Unlike other generals he didn’t want to
continue with Napoleon’s tactics and concluded the age of frontal assaults was over.
He replaced it with mission tactics, to break up the enemy’s forces, and used small
mobile units to swarm around the flanks of the enemy, and blast them from all sides
using the increased firepower of the Dreyse needle gun.
- ACW - Grant - choice of tactical moves was essential in the victory of the Union
army. Grant knew that the North were superior in regards to resources and the
number of men, so he decided on using attritional assaults on the South, including
scorching Earth tactics. This applied pressure on the South as they were drained of
resources and forced to surrender.
, - WW2 - Gudarian. The mastermind behind Blitzkrieg, in the hope that it would bring a
short and decisive victory for Germany. The tactic included the element of surprise,
speed and movement which is similar to Napoleonic style warfare. At the start of the
war, the tactics led to devastating victories against Poland and France, yet wasn’t
enough to secure the German army their ultimate victory. This suggests that outcome
was determined by other factors.
Quality of Soldiers - nature / affected battlefield tactics
- NW - levee en masse = huge numbers of citizens in the French army. The
conscription of larger forces involved considerable changes in the nature of warfare.
Change in tactics to huge frontal assaults as soldiers had received less training and
couldn’t perform complex tactics. The years of intensive training in drill and musket
technique could not be crammed into basic training, therefore the simpler tactics
were used.
- GWoU - there was a shift from the Napoleonic wars and most soldiers were now
highly trained therefore able to follow Moltke’s advanced mobilisation plans and
mission tactics, thus showing more advanced tactics had returned from frontal
assaults. There was an increase in flexibility and skills therefore rapid manoeuvres
could be effectively deployed.
- WW1 - however in the First World War there were continuations of Napoleonic style
tactics, as the army was highly conscripted citizen forces. The commanders didn’t
think the mass conscripted army could perform complex manoeuvres, therefore they
moved away from advanced tactics and towards huge frontal assaults which were
used at the Somme and Passcendaele.
Quality of Soldiers - outcome / highly skilled soldiers assisted with tactics which
helped bring victory
More important at the start of the period - FRW, NW and CW
- NW - Napoleon’s Grand Armee at Austerlitz was highly skilled which enabled them
to perform complex battlefield manoeuvres, including outflanking and innovative
tactics. Without the high level of these soldiers, Napoleon would have been forced,
like his predecessors, to employ less ambitious tactics and therefore it could be
argued that Napoleon’s tactics were only possible due to the highly skilled army at
his disposal. However, at Waterloo, although Napoleon had the advantage of quality
over a relatively inexperienced force under Wellington, the French were defeated.
Had the Prussians not arrived, Napoleon’s forces may well have been successful -
suggesting alliances were of more importance.
- GWoU - There were similarities between Napoleon’s use of complex manoeuvres
and Molke’s ability to use mission tactics. Molke understood that the developments to
the rifled musket frontal assaults were no longer feasible, and so advocated the use
of small unit advances. The use of the mission tactics were largely reliant on the
highly skilled soldiers of the German army, who were able to delegate command
and use initiative on the field. Seen with the capture of Napoleon III and over 100,000
