KEY ISSUE 1: The impact of various factors on the conduct of war.
1. What impact did the role of generalship have on the conduct of warfare?
How important was that role? How did the role change?
‘Generalship was always important in war in this period, but its nature changed.
● Whereas generals such as Napoleon Bonaparte in Italy in the 1790s were battlefield leaders
● by contrast generals in the wars of the 1860s like Moltke became planners rather than leaders on the
battlefield
● subsequently, as armies grew in size and became more dependent on technology, generals such as
Brooke, Eisenhower and Marshall in WW2 became much more like managers.’
French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
● Need for inspirational commanders (who showed tactical and strategic brilliance) who had risen by
talent rather than birth as a result of the Revolution’s insistence on political and military merit.
■ 1793-4 80 officers executed
○ This both ensured a high quality of soldiers, and meant victory was literally a personal matter
of life or death for Generals
● this period saw the promotion of talent irrespective of age and background
○ e.g. Napoleon rose from being a Corsican artillery officer to brigadier general at 24, later
commanding 34 battles, only losing 6.
○ Ney became a general (son of a cooper)
● The promotion of such inspirational men to the highest positions set a tone within the army, helping to
form the revolutionary élan seen in the French Revolutionary armies
Men such as Napoleon had a significant impact on the conduct and outcome of warfare:
● In the French army talented young and innovative men, such as Napoleon, were rapidly promoted
through the ranks, (whereas his counter-parts were elderly and conservative).
○ speed of manoeuvre
■ eg. Ulm 1805 - capture of Mack's 27,000 men → destruction of Austrian army and
French control of Bavaria
○ brilliant deployment
■ e.g. concentration of forces, outflanking, innovative tactics → seen at Austerlitz in 1805
where Napoleon used these skills to deceive and overwhelm the inferior Russian
generals
○ revolutionised tactics through coordinating advanced manoeuvres
■ eg. Napoleon's Movement to the Rear, which involved one unit holding down the
enemy at the front while others enveloped it from the rear, as evidenced at the Battle
of Castiglione (1796)
○ inspirational and innovative
■ e.g. Arcole 1796 grabbed a French flag and stood in open fire to inspire his men, and
had 25 men play bugles to convince Austrians that he had a much larger force →
demoralise)
However
● the existence of officer training schools meant that the wealthy still dominated the officer class ( a
hangover form the Ancien Regime)
○ → tempers the significance of generals in the success of army
● A number of French generals were incredibly ineffective
○ eg. General Louis D'Hillers who was recalled from all the battles he commanded due to his
short-sighted strategic decisions
● the generalship of Napoleon did not always have the defining impact:
○ e.g. Russian Campaign 1812 – depended on logistics and supply
● success often depended on the weakness of the opposition
1. What impact did the role of generalship have on the conduct of warfare?
How important was that role? How did the role change?
‘Generalship was always important in war in this period, but its nature changed.
● Whereas generals such as Napoleon Bonaparte in Italy in the 1790s were battlefield leaders
● by contrast generals in the wars of the 1860s like Moltke became planners rather than leaders on the
battlefield
● subsequently, as armies grew in size and became more dependent on technology, generals such as
Brooke, Eisenhower and Marshall in WW2 became much more like managers.’
French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
● Need for inspirational commanders (who showed tactical and strategic brilliance) who had risen by
talent rather than birth as a result of the Revolution’s insistence on political and military merit.
■ 1793-4 80 officers executed
○ This both ensured a high quality of soldiers, and meant victory was literally a personal matter
of life or death for Generals
● this period saw the promotion of talent irrespective of age and background
○ e.g. Napoleon rose from being a Corsican artillery officer to brigadier general at 24, later
commanding 34 battles, only losing 6.
○ Ney became a general (son of a cooper)
● The promotion of such inspirational men to the highest positions set a tone within the army, helping to
form the revolutionary élan seen in the French Revolutionary armies
Men such as Napoleon had a significant impact on the conduct and outcome of warfare:
● In the French army talented young and innovative men, such as Napoleon, were rapidly promoted
through the ranks, (whereas his counter-parts were elderly and conservative).
○ speed of manoeuvre
■ eg. Ulm 1805 - capture of Mack's 27,000 men → destruction of Austrian army and
French control of Bavaria
○ brilliant deployment
■ e.g. concentration of forces, outflanking, innovative tactics → seen at Austerlitz in 1805
where Napoleon used these skills to deceive and overwhelm the inferior Russian
generals
○ revolutionised tactics through coordinating advanced manoeuvres
■ eg. Napoleon's Movement to the Rear, which involved one unit holding down the
enemy at the front while others enveloped it from the rear, as evidenced at the Battle
of Castiglione (1796)
○ inspirational and innovative
■ e.g. Arcole 1796 grabbed a French flag and stood in open fire to inspire his men, and
had 25 men play bugles to convince Austrians that he had a much larger force →
demoralise)
However
● the existence of officer training schools meant that the wealthy still dominated the officer class ( a
hangover form the Ancien Regime)
○ → tempers the significance of generals in the success of army
● A number of French generals were incredibly ineffective
○ eg. General Louis D'Hillers who was recalled from all the battles he commanded due to his
short-sighted strategic decisions
● the generalship of Napoleon did not always have the defining impact:
○ e.g. Russian Campaign 1812 – depended on logistics and supply
● success often depended on the weakness of the opposition
