How far did developments in command and control of armies determine the outcome of battles in the period
from 1792 to 1945?
Command - when armies developed a meritocratic command structure it had a decisive impact.
● French Revolutionary Wars
○ Development of a strictly meritocratic command structure arising from revolutionary ideals gave rise to
highly able commanders such a Napoleon (22 year old Corsican artilleryman) and Ney (son of a
cooper), whilst incompetent generals would be executed (80 killed 1792-94)
■ Led to regular victories in battles against enemies who were commanded by aristocrats who
had usually bought their commission
○ Eg. at Lodi 1796 and Eylau 1807
● By contrast WWII
○ German command structure based on political loyalty rather than on merit, whereas allied command
structure was far more meritocratic
■ Instrumental to German defeat in key battles
○ Eg. the incompetence of Goring, who remained in command of Luftwaffe due to his loyalty to Nazi
party, led to defeats at Battle of Britain 1940, Stalingrad 1943 and Dunkirk 1940 despite having a
superior air force
Control of armies → decentralisation of the control of armies when armies became too large had a clear impact
● When size of armies increased dramatically decentralisation of command became crucial
○ Eg. following battle of the Somme 1916…
■ where the British army (over 1.5 million) had been ineffective and sluggish under the sole
control of General Haig
○ …control of British forces became delegated, with divisional commanders having autonomy in making
tactical decisions on the battlefield
■ Had a decisive impact in determining the outcome of battles as more fluid and effective tactics
were employed, leading to victory for example at Amiens 1918
● By contrast, when the smaller armies of the 19th Century were controlled by a single, competent general who
gave clear and effective orders, they were highly effective in gaining battlefield victory
○ eg. Garibaldi at Varese and Como 1870 and Napoleon at Austerlitz 1805.
However, when there was no clear disparity between enemies, outcome of battles was instead determined by quality
of soldiers.
● Control of armies
○ → in Crimea both Britsh and Russian Generals were incompetent, and so instead battles were
determined by quality of soldiers
■ eg. Inkerman 1854 - Highly trained and composed British troops overcame repeated waves of
Russian infantry assaults despite facing numerical odds of 1:9
● Conversely: American Civil War
○ both Union and Confederacy had meritocratic command structures meant that both armies were
commanded by competent generals
○ E.g. First Bull Run 1861 both Union and Confederacy commanded by Scott and Jackson respectively
■ Confederate victory instead determined by fact that Southern infantry, many of whom were
farmers, were far more experienced with firearms than the inexperienced Northern troops
● By contrast, when there was a significant difference in command structures of the armies, the superior armies
reglarly gained victory
○ Eg. Russo-Japanes War 1904-5
■ Meritocratic command structure of Japanese army compared to aristocratic Russian structure
meant Japanese generals were far more competent
■ à meaning that at Mukden 1905 Japanese General Oyama very successfully employed
combined operations between infantry and artillery, whilst Russian General Kuropatkin gave
sparse and ambiguous orders, leading to decisive Japanese victory
● Similarly Austro-Prussian 1866 the disparity in control of army had a clear impact on the outcome of battle
○ Eg. while battlefield tactics of Austrian army was controlled by high-ranking generals competent
Prussian lower-ranking officers were given a certain level of autonomy in controlling tactics used on
the battlefield ("mission tactics")
● led to more flexible and effective tactics that were decisive in determining outcome of
battle
■ Eg. at Königgrätz 1866 Prussian officers employed Kesselschlacht tactics, pinning down
Austrian regiments and encircling them from both sides, leading to a crushing victory.
from 1792 to 1945?
Command - when armies developed a meritocratic command structure it had a decisive impact.
● French Revolutionary Wars
○ Development of a strictly meritocratic command structure arising from revolutionary ideals gave rise to
highly able commanders such a Napoleon (22 year old Corsican artilleryman) and Ney (son of a
cooper), whilst incompetent generals would be executed (80 killed 1792-94)
■ Led to regular victories in battles against enemies who were commanded by aristocrats who
had usually bought their commission
○ Eg. at Lodi 1796 and Eylau 1807
● By contrast WWII
○ German command structure based on political loyalty rather than on merit, whereas allied command
structure was far more meritocratic
■ Instrumental to German defeat in key battles
○ Eg. the incompetence of Goring, who remained in command of Luftwaffe due to his loyalty to Nazi
party, led to defeats at Battle of Britain 1940, Stalingrad 1943 and Dunkirk 1940 despite having a
superior air force
Control of armies → decentralisation of the control of armies when armies became too large had a clear impact
● When size of armies increased dramatically decentralisation of command became crucial
○ Eg. following battle of the Somme 1916…
■ where the British army (over 1.5 million) had been ineffective and sluggish under the sole
control of General Haig
○ …control of British forces became delegated, with divisional commanders having autonomy in making
tactical decisions on the battlefield
■ Had a decisive impact in determining the outcome of battles as more fluid and effective tactics
were employed, leading to victory for example at Amiens 1918
● By contrast, when the smaller armies of the 19th Century were controlled by a single, competent general who
gave clear and effective orders, they were highly effective in gaining battlefield victory
○ eg. Garibaldi at Varese and Como 1870 and Napoleon at Austerlitz 1805.
However, when there was no clear disparity between enemies, outcome of battles was instead determined by quality
of soldiers.
● Control of armies
○ → in Crimea both Britsh and Russian Generals were incompetent, and so instead battles were
determined by quality of soldiers
■ eg. Inkerman 1854 - Highly trained and composed British troops overcame repeated waves of
Russian infantry assaults despite facing numerical odds of 1:9
● Conversely: American Civil War
○ both Union and Confederacy had meritocratic command structures meant that both armies were
commanded by competent generals
○ E.g. First Bull Run 1861 both Union and Confederacy commanded by Scott and Jackson respectively
■ Confederate victory instead determined by fact that Southern infantry, many of whom were
farmers, were far more experienced with firearms than the inexperienced Northern troops
● By contrast, when there was a significant difference in command structures of the armies, the superior armies
reglarly gained victory
○ Eg. Russo-Japanes War 1904-5
■ Meritocratic command structure of Japanese army compared to aristocratic Russian structure
meant Japanese generals were far more competent
■ à meaning that at Mukden 1905 Japanese General Oyama very successfully employed
combined operations between infantry and artillery, whilst Russian General Kuropatkin gave
sparse and ambiguous orders, leading to decisive Japanese victory
● Similarly Austro-Prussian 1866 the disparity in control of army had a clear impact on the outcome of battle
○ Eg. while battlefield tactics of Austrian army was controlled by high-ranking generals competent
Prussian lower-ranking officers were given a certain level of autonomy in controlling tactics used on
the battlefield ("mission tactics")
● led to more flexible and effective tactics that were decisive in determining outcome of
battle
■ Eg. at Königgrätz 1866 Prussian officers employed Kesselschlacht tactics, pinning down
Austrian regiments and encircling them from both sides, leading to a crushing victory.
