‘Tactics had a more significant impact on the outcome of wars in the period before
1865 than after’. How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the period from
1792-1945?
INTRO
TACTICS BEFORE 1865
FRW - Carnot decided to use the French advantages in terms of morale and weight in
numbers to overwhelm the enemy through shock tactics. Therefore the FRW were able to
defeat their enemies despite their lack of training by storming the enemy troops.
NW - Contrastly, Napoleon made use of ‘flanking’ his enemy, a tactic that was only made
possible due to the adaptation of the corps system - consisting of 30,000 men. This was
perfected at Ulm and Austerlitz in 1805, where Napoleon trapped an entire Austrian enemy
with minimal losses, successfully forcing their surrender. However, despite early success
Napoleon lost the war at Waterloo in 1815 suggesting other factors were of more importance
in his downfall.
ACW - There were continuations to Napoleonic style tactics, as full frontal assaults were
still used such as at Gettysburg. However, the use of scorched earth tactics were of more
significance as at Sherman’s 480km March to the Sea, there was $1 million in damage
which cripplied the confederacy’s economy. This impacted the outcome massively.
COUNTER ARGUMENT FOR BEFORE 1865
ALLIANCES:
NW - The coalitions were instrumental in Napoleon’s defeat, as by the 6th coalition in 1813,
nations of Europe had learned earlier lessons of coalition warfare which meant by the 7th
coalition, they were more united to defeat Napoleon. Involved the Treaty of Chaumont -
Russia, Prussia and Austria agreed they wouldn’t make separate peace treaties until France
was defeated. This greater cooperation and planning led to Prussia joining the British at
Waterloo and defeating Napoleon through the coalition.
ACW - Scorched earth tactics were of significance in crippling the south’s economy, but the
lack of an alliance also contributed, as couldn’t make up for the losses and compete with
the North. Because of the South’s deficiency in manpower, supplies and industry, they
needed support from Britain and France to require trade and supplies for financial support
but failed to gain it.
TACTICS AFTER 1865
GWoU (Austrian-Prussian war) - the defeat of Austria in 1866 (main battle took place at
Sadowa) was down to Moltke’ use of avoiding frontal assault tactics for more flexible
approaches - mission tactics, to break up the forces into small, mobile units to swarm
around the flanks of the enemy and blast them from all sides. However, it could be argued
1865 than after’. How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the period from
1792-1945?
INTRO
TACTICS BEFORE 1865
FRW - Carnot decided to use the French advantages in terms of morale and weight in
numbers to overwhelm the enemy through shock tactics. Therefore the FRW were able to
defeat their enemies despite their lack of training by storming the enemy troops.
NW - Contrastly, Napoleon made use of ‘flanking’ his enemy, a tactic that was only made
possible due to the adaptation of the corps system - consisting of 30,000 men. This was
perfected at Ulm and Austerlitz in 1805, where Napoleon trapped an entire Austrian enemy
with minimal losses, successfully forcing their surrender. However, despite early success
Napoleon lost the war at Waterloo in 1815 suggesting other factors were of more importance
in his downfall.
ACW - There were continuations to Napoleonic style tactics, as full frontal assaults were
still used such as at Gettysburg. However, the use of scorched earth tactics were of more
significance as at Sherman’s 480km March to the Sea, there was $1 million in damage
which cripplied the confederacy’s economy. This impacted the outcome massively.
COUNTER ARGUMENT FOR BEFORE 1865
ALLIANCES:
NW - The coalitions were instrumental in Napoleon’s defeat, as by the 6th coalition in 1813,
nations of Europe had learned earlier lessons of coalition warfare which meant by the 7th
coalition, they were more united to defeat Napoleon. Involved the Treaty of Chaumont -
Russia, Prussia and Austria agreed they wouldn’t make separate peace treaties until France
was defeated. This greater cooperation and planning led to Prussia joining the British at
Waterloo and defeating Napoleon through the coalition.
ACW - Scorched earth tactics were of significance in crippling the south’s economy, but the
lack of an alliance also contributed, as couldn’t make up for the losses and compete with
the North. Because of the South’s deficiency in manpower, supplies and industry, they
needed support from Britain and France to require trade and supplies for financial support
but failed to gain it.
TACTICS AFTER 1865
GWoU (Austrian-Prussian war) - the defeat of Austria in 1866 (main battle took place at
Sadowa) was down to Moltke’ use of avoiding frontal assault tactics for more flexible
approaches - mission tactics, to break up the forces into small, mobile units to swarm
around the flanks of the enemy and blast them from all sides. However, it could be argued
