How important a turning point in warfare in the period 1792 to 1945 was the growth in state control over
resources in France 1792-94?
Turning point = a striking change with lasting impact
Warfare - both conduct, scale and outcome of war
Although the growth in state control over resources had a striking impact on the scale and outcome of war, it
was not a turning point as a similar level of state control over resources was not seen in the following century
● Scale of war
○ FRWs - Growth in control over resources allowed the supplying of mass armies
■ Control over resources eg. setting up of 12 gun factories and 20 bayonet factories as
part of Levée en masse had a striking impact on the size of the army
● → Whilst previously armies rarely larger than 150,000
● The state control over resources allowed the supplying of 800,000 strong
conscript army by 1794, an unprecedented size
○ However in the Crimean War (1854-56), lack of state control over resources in Britain meant
that its army was as small as 107,000
● Outcome of war → superior resources important in determining French victory in war
○ FRWs
■ Ability of the French army to besiege the Austrians in Mantua for over 6 months (1796-
97) with regular and powerful artillery barrages from 179 heavy guns led to the
surrender of the Austrians and the end of the War of the First Coalition (1792-97).
○ Austro-Prussian War 1866
■ Prussian state had little support from its economy, forcing the Prussian army to gain a
decisive victory before it ran out of resources (which it gained in 7 weeks)
● Therefore rather than being a significant turning point, growth in state control over resources in 1792-4
was a stand out anomaly in the period.
● Perhaps World War I a more profound turning point as a model of state control was established that
was then replicated by states in WW2
○ Eg. WWI the ability of the Entente powers to harness their control of 61% of world industrial
output relative to the 19% of the Central Powers was decisive in forcing Germany's surrender
in 1918 due to lack of resources (760,000 citizens had died from starvation).
○ Replication of the transformation of British economy into a welfare state to allow it to maximise
industrial output for war seen in 1939 Emergency Power Act
■ gave the government control over transport, trade and agriculture
○ Likewise WWII → Stalin's total control over Russia's resources - 4,900 factories run by female
conscripts (⅔ of entire female population) - allowed the equipping of the 16 million strong
Russian army
⇒ Therefore overall, whilst the growth in state control over resources in France 1792-4 was more of a striking
anomaly rather than an important turning point, the most striking turning point was seen in WWI.
That said - there convincing evidence to suggest that the growth in state control over resources was an
important turning point in warfare
⇒ in the respect that it facilitated the use of mass armies and the new tactics and command structure that came
with it, which did have an immediate and lasting impact
● Eg. whilst previously armies would line up on the battlefield and shoot volleys from static positions, the
use of mass armies led to the revolutionary development of shock tactics, in which columns of infantry
would charge at enemy lines before rampaging with bayonets as the 800,000 strong French army could
afford to sustain 20% casualties
○ Striking impact seen with this new tactic becoming widely used
■ Eg. by Russian army at Inkerman 1854, by Confederacy at Gettysburg 1863, by
Japanese at Port Arthur 1904, and by British at the Somme 1916
● Similarly, the growth in the size of the French army as a result of the increased supply of resources
from the state meant that large number of command positions opened up
resources in France 1792-94?
Turning point = a striking change with lasting impact
Warfare - both conduct, scale and outcome of war
Although the growth in state control over resources had a striking impact on the scale and outcome of war, it
was not a turning point as a similar level of state control over resources was not seen in the following century
● Scale of war
○ FRWs - Growth in control over resources allowed the supplying of mass armies
■ Control over resources eg. setting up of 12 gun factories and 20 bayonet factories as
part of Levée en masse had a striking impact on the size of the army
● → Whilst previously armies rarely larger than 150,000
● The state control over resources allowed the supplying of 800,000 strong
conscript army by 1794, an unprecedented size
○ However in the Crimean War (1854-56), lack of state control over resources in Britain meant
that its army was as small as 107,000
● Outcome of war → superior resources important in determining French victory in war
○ FRWs
■ Ability of the French army to besiege the Austrians in Mantua for over 6 months (1796-
97) with regular and powerful artillery barrages from 179 heavy guns led to the
surrender of the Austrians and the end of the War of the First Coalition (1792-97).
○ Austro-Prussian War 1866
■ Prussian state had little support from its economy, forcing the Prussian army to gain a
decisive victory before it ran out of resources (which it gained in 7 weeks)
● Therefore rather than being a significant turning point, growth in state control over resources in 1792-4
was a stand out anomaly in the period.
● Perhaps World War I a more profound turning point as a model of state control was established that
was then replicated by states in WW2
○ Eg. WWI the ability of the Entente powers to harness their control of 61% of world industrial
output relative to the 19% of the Central Powers was decisive in forcing Germany's surrender
in 1918 due to lack of resources (760,000 citizens had died from starvation).
○ Replication of the transformation of British economy into a welfare state to allow it to maximise
industrial output for war seen in 1939 Emergency Power Act
■ gave the government control over transport, trade and agriculture
○ Likewise WWII → Stalin's total control over Russia's resources - 4,900 factories run by female
conscripts (⅔ of entire female population) - allowed the equipping of the 16 million strong
Russian army
⇒ Therefore overall, whilst the growth in state control over resources in France 1792-4 was more of a striking
anomaly rather than an important turning point, the most striking turning point was seen in WWI.
That said - there convincing evidence to suggest that the growth in state control over resources was an
important turning point in warfare
⇒ in the respect that it facilitated the use of mass armies and the new tactics and command structure that came
with it, which did have an immediate and lasting impact
● Eg. whilst previously armies would line up on the battlefield and shoot volleys from static positions, the
use of mass armies led to the revolutionary development of shock tactics, in which columns of infantry
would charge at enemy lines before rampaging with bayonets as the 800,000 strong French army could
afford to sustain 20% casualties
○ Striking impact seen with this new tactic becoming widely used
■ Eg. by Russian army at Inkerman 1854, by Confederacy at Gettysburg 1863, by
Japanese at Port Arthur 1904, and by British at the Somme 1916
● Similarly, the growth in the size of the French army as a result of the increased supply of resources
from the state meant that large number of command positions opened up
