To what extent was generalship less important in the conduct of war after 1914 than it was before?
Generalship: the exercising of skill as a commander of a large military force
Conduct of war: the tactics and strategy used on the battlefield
Less important - some evidence to suggest that generalship less important after 1914 in the conduct of war.
Tactics
● In particular, the tactics employed on the battlefield became decided by divisional commanders
○ Following the Somme in 1916 the BEF Training Directorate was formed, with manuals such as
SS 143 and SS 144 providing divisional officers with 'off the peg' tactics
■ ⇒ role of the divisional officer far more important than the overall commanding general
in deciding tactics used on the battlefield
○ Similarly WWII
■ in the Pacific, skilled American officers had complete autonomy in deciding the tactics
employed by their platoons when flushing out Japanese bunkers on small islands (eg.
Okinawa in Ryukyu islands)
○ By contrast in the 19th Century generals played a far more important role on the battlefield,
directly commanding their smaller forces
■ Eg. Napoleon at Austerlitz 1805, Lee at Malvern Hill 1862, Nogi at Port Arthur 1904
Strategy
● Political leaders more than military generals more important in deciding overalls strategies in World
Wars
○ Perhaps most strikingly, in WWII Hitler, Germany's political leader, assumed military command
of the German army, and consistently ignored the advice of his generals, instead making
numerous poor strategic decisions
■ Invasion of Russia 1941
■ He refused to allow strategic withdrawals, leading to the capture of the 200,000 strong
6th army at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-3
● By contrast, in the 19th Century generals played a far more central role in deciding strategies
○ Eg. Grant masterminded the Union's 1864 Spring Offensive, an ambitious coordinated strategy
between multiple armies under strong commanders such as Sherman and Grant
○ Eg. Italian campaign 1796-7 Napoleon had complete autonomy in determining the complex
strategy employed by the French army, ultimately resulting in the fall of Mantua and the end of
the war of the First Coalition (1792-97)
That said, there is convincing evidence to suggest that generalship still played an important role in the conduct
of war after 1914.
● Although generals were no longer inspirational battlefield figures (such as Garibaldi at Varese and
Como in the 1859 Second Italian War of Unification), they instead played a crucial role in strategic
macro-managing of huge armies
○ Eg. WWI Haig masterminded the victories of the 100 Days Offensive (rapid series of 12
victories such as Amiens) – careful deployment of combined operations (tanks, infantry,
creeping barrage, air support) to secure victory.
○ Similarly, in WWII (US) General Marshall and (GB) Sir Alan Brooke – were more like corporate
managers (not inspirational battlefield figures)
■ General Eisenhower – an effective organiser and manager. Invasion of Europe
depended on detailed planning, secrecy and accumulation of forces.
● That said, there are some examples of continuity with Napoleonic brilliance in battlefield generalship
○ Yamshita’s advance into Malaya and Singapore 1941-2 (rapid movement and daring
assaults) was strikingly similar to Napoleon's tactical brilliance eg. complex manoeuvres at Ulm
and Austerlitz 1805
● Additionally, although Hitler took full military control of the German army, in WWII the majority of
political leaders delegated command to generals
○ Eg. Stalin gave General Zhukov full autonomy in commanding the Soviet army
Overall, In the strategic element of the conduct of war, generals still played a highly important role
Generalship: the exercising of skill as a commander of a large military force
Conduct of war: the tactics and strategy used on the battlefield
Less important - some evidence to suggest that generalship less important after 1914 in the conduct of war.
Tactics
● In particular, the tactics employed on the battlefield became decided by divisional commanders
○ Following the Somme in 1916 the BEF Training Directorate was formed, with manuals such as
SS 143 and SS 144 providing divisional officers with 'off the peg' tactics
■ ⇒ role of the divisional officer far more important than the overall commanding general
in deciding tactics used on the battlefield
○ Similarly WWII
■ in the Pacific, skilled American officers had complete autonomy in deciding the tactics
employed by their platoons when flushing out Japanese bunkers on small islands (eg.
Okinawa in Ryukyu islands)
○ By contrast in the 19th Century generals played a far more important role on the battlefield,
directly commanding their smaller forces
■ Eg. Napoleon at Austerlitz 1805, Lee at Malvern Hill 1862, Nogi at Port Arthur 1904
Strategy
● Political leaders more than military generals more important in deciding overalls strategies in World
Wars
○ Perhaps most strikingly, in WWII Hitler, Germany's political leader, assumed military command
of the German army, and consistently ignored the advice of his generals, instead making
numerous poor strategic decisions
■ Invasion of Russia 1941
■ He refused to allow strategic withdrawals, leading to the capture of the 200,000 strong
6th army at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-3
● By contrast, in the 19th Century generals played a far more central role in deciding strategies
○ Eg. Grant masterminded the Union's 1864 Spring Offensive, an ambitious coordinated strategy
between multiple armies under strong commanders such as Sherman and Grant
○ Eg. Italian campaign 1796-7 Napoleon had complete autonomy in determining the complex
strategy employed by the French army, ultimately resulting in the fall of Mantua and the end of
the war of the First Coalition (1792-97)
That said, there is convincing evidence to suggest that generalship still played an important role in the conduct
of war after 1914.
● Although generals were no longer inspirational battlefield figures (such as Garibaldi at Varese and
Como in the 1859 Second Italian War of Unification), they instead played a crucial role in strategic
macro-managing of huge armies
○ Eg. WWI Haig masterminded the victories of the 100 Days Offensive (rapid series of 12
victories such as Amiens) – careful deployment of combined operations (tanks, infantry,
creeping barrage, air support) to secure victory.
○ Similarly, in WWII (US) General Marshall and (GB) Sir Alan Brooke – were more like corporate
managers (not inspirational battlefield figures)
■ General Eisenhower – an effective organiser and manager. Invasion of Europe
depended on detailed planning, secrecy and accumulation of forces.
● That said, there are some examples of continuity with Napoleonic brilliance in battlefield generalship
○ Yamshita’s advance into Malaya and Singapore 1941-2 (rapid movement and daring
assaults) was strikingly similar to Napoleon's tactical brilliance eg. complex manoeuvres at Ulm
and Austerlitz 1805
● Additionally, although Hitler took full military control of the German army, in WWII the majority of
political leaders delegated command to generals
○ Eg. Stalin gave General Zhukov full autonomy in commanding the Soviet army
Overall, In the strategic element of the conduct of war, generals still played a highly important role
