“Military tactics and strategy remained the same”. How far do you agree with this view of warfare in
the period 1792 to 1945?
● Military tactics, that is the use of armed forces on the battlefield, clearly partially remained the same
● However there is more convincing evidence that strategy, that is the overall use of armed forces to
achieve the desired political aims of war, developed significantly over the period
Undoubtedly convincing evidence that offensive military tactics remained the same during the period
● Full frontal assaults
○ Eg. Mons 1914
■ German attack columns
○ Fundamentally identical to enthusiastic columns of French bayonet attacks at Valmy 1792
○ And Pickett's charge of 3 Confederate divisions over 2km of open ground at Gettysburg 1863
● Manoeuvre
○ Blitzkrieg WW2 defeat of France 1940, eg. 2nd Sedan where motorized forces outflanked
and encircled allies
○ Shows remarkable tactical similarity to Napoleon’s encirclement of Mack’s forces at Ulm in
1805
However significant tactical changes in the development of defensive trench tactics
● Perhaps most striking at Nan Shan
○ Single russian regiment held back 3 jap divisions for 12 hours from fortified trenches
○ Whereas in FR and N Wars eg. Jemappes (1792) and Eylau (1807) Coalition defenders
stoof in long lines and fired volleys at attacking french infantry columns.
○ Culminated in WW1, where 700 km of trenches defended w/ artillery, machine guns and
barbed wire dominated the western front, w. both sides dug in from 1915-17
Therefore there is convincing evidence to suggest that, while defensive trench tactics developed
significantly, offensive tactics of frontal assaults and manoeuvre remained essentially the same.
That said, there is evidence to suggest that strategy developed more significantly.
● Perhaps most strikingly, the period saw the development of Grand strategic aims
○ Whilst in Franco-Prussian War strategic aim was merely the gain of the region Alsace-
Lorraine, and in Napoleonic Wars the sole strategic aim of the 6th and 7th coalitions was to
defeat Napoleon
○ By WWII nations had ambitious geo-political strategic aims eg. Nazi Germany's grand
strategic goal was the creation of a global 1000 year Reich.
● Similarly military strategy became more complex with development of new technology and General
Staff systems
○ While in Franco-Austrian 1859 the fact that both sides lacked a coherent General Staff
system led to chaotic and indecisive campaigns, eg. the two nations met by mistake at
Solferino and battle didn't commence for 3 days
○ In Austro-Prussian 1866, the development of Prussian General Staff meant that 250,000
troops were rapidly mobilized via 4 strategic railways, facilitated the strategy of a short,
decisive war lasting just 7 weeks.
○ This culminated in WWII with the German Blizkrieg strategy, using an armoured motorized
force to rapidly penetrate enemy defenses before continuing far into emeny territory, led to
defeat of France in just 6 weeks in May-June 1940.
● That said, strategic use of blockades to defeat enemy remained fundamentally the same
○ Eg. The WWI royal navy blockade of Germany and WWII German use of U-boats to enforce
blockade of imports into Britain
○ Striking resemblance to Napoleon's strategy of blockading British imports onto the European
continents following the 1806 Berlin Decree with the aim to weaken Britain economically
However on balance, the strategic developments of rapid coordination of forces in whole theatres of war
and striking development of grand strategic aims demonstrate that strategy saw radical change.
the period 1792 to 1945?
● Military tactics, that is the use of armed forces on the battlefield, clearly partially remained the same
● However there is more convincing evidence that strategy, that is the overall use of armed forces to
achieve the desired political aims of war, developed significantly over the period
Undoubtedly convincing evidence that offensive military tactics remained the same during the period
● Full frontal assaults
○ Eg. Mons 1914
■ German attack columns
○ Fundamentally identical to enthusiastic columns of French bayonet attacks at Valmy 1792
○ And Pickett's charge of 3 Confederate divisions over 2km of open ground at Gettysburg 1863
● Manoeuvre
○ Blitzkrieg WW2 defeat of France 1940, eg. 2nd Sedan where motorized forces outflanked
and encircled allies
○ Shows remarkable tactical similarity to Napoleon’s encirclement of Mack’s forces at Ulm in
1805
However significant tactical changes in the development of defensive trench tactics
● Perhaps most striking at Nan Shan
○ Single russian regiment held back 3 jap divisions for 12 hours from fortified trenches
○ Whereas in FR and N Wars eg. Jemappes (1792) and Eylau (1807) Coalition defenders
stoof in long lines and fired volleys at attacking french infantry columns.
○ Culminated in WW1, where 700 km of trenches defended w/ artillery, machine guns and
barbed wire dominated the western front, w. both sides dug in from 1915-17
Therefore there is convincing evidence to suggest that, while defensive trench tactics developed
significantly, offensive tactics of frontal assaults and manoeuvre remained essentially the same.
That said, there is evidence to suggest that strategy developed more significantly.
● Perhaps most strikingly, the period saw the development of Grand strategic aims
○ Whilst in Franco-Prussian War strategic aim was merely the gain of the region Alsace-
Lorraine, and in Napoleonic Wars the sole strategic aim of the 6th and 7th coalitions was to
defeat Napoleon
○ By WWII nations had ambitious geo-political strategic aims eg. Nazi Germany's grand
strategic goal was the creation of a global 1000 year Reich.
● Similarly military strategy became more complex with development of new technology and General
Staff systems
○ While in Franco-Austrian 1859 the fact that both sides lacked a coherent General Staff
system led to chaotic and indecisive campaigns, eg. the two nations met by mistake at
Solferino and battle didn't commence for 3 days
○ In Austro-Prussian 1866, the development of Prussian General Staff meant that 250,000
troops were rapidly mobilized via 4 strategic railways, facilitated the strategy of a short,
decisive war lasting just 7 weeks.
○ This culminated in WWII with the German Blizkrieg strategy, using an armoured motorized
force to rapidly penetrate enemy defenses before continuing far into emeny territory, led to
defeat of France in just 6 weeks in May-June 1940.
● That said, strategic use of blockades to defeat enemy remained fundamentally the same
○ Eg. The WWI royal navy blockade of Germany and WWII German use of U-boats to enforce
blockade of imports into Britain
○ Striking resemblance to Napoleon's strategy of blockading British imports onto the European
continents following the 1806 Berlin Decree with the aim to weaken Britain economically
However on balance, the strategic developments of rapid coordination of forces in whole theatres of war
and striking development of grand strategic aims demonstrate that strategy saw radical change.
