"Technological developments changed the nature of the battlefield but did not decide the
outcome of battle." How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the period 1792-1945?
Changed the nature of the battlefield - convincing evidence
● Development of defensive weaponry - minié ball then machine gun – significantly changed
the nature of the battlefield
○ While in the French Revolutionary Wars battles were fluid and fought in open fields,
■ (eg. Valmy 1792)
○ .. by the Siege of Petersburg (1864) in the American Civil War, Model 1861 rifles with
accurate range of 1230 paces forced infantry to shelter in trenches
○ Perhaps most strikingly, by 1915 the abilities of defensive technology, in particular the
Lewis machine gun which had an accurate range of 800m and could fire 600 rounds
per minute, reduced the Western front to a 3 year stalemate, with both armies dug into
trench networks 700km long
● Similarly, coordination between different sections of the army was revolutionised through
developments in communication
○ Eg. The Telephone: Russo Japanese War – Battle of Mukden (1905)
■ During infantry flanking movements of the Japanese 3rd army at Mukden in
1905, artillery units were sent specific requests by field units for supporting fire
via telephone
○ By contrast, at Magenta in Franco-Austrian War (1859), artillery and infantry were
disconnected during the course of battle, and therefore less coordinated and effective.
However – arguably did not decide the outcome of battle as skilled generals were required to
maximise the potential of technological developments
● Russo - Japanese
○ Nan Shan (1904) - although Russian force was able to hold back Japanese infantry
assaults from defenses with 6 machine guns, the fact that General Fock refused to
allow the use of any of the 44 available reserve artillery pieces and retreated as soon
as he was given permission from Kuropatkin, resulted in an unnecessary Russian
defeat
● Franco-Prussian
○ Similarly, Battle of Mars-la-Tour 1870
■ Despite outnumbering Prussians 130,000:30,000 and being equipped with
superior chassepot rifle (had twice the range of Dreyse needle gun), Bazaine's
indecision led to French defeat and they were routed back into the city of Metz.
● Conversely, it was only when skillful commanders maximised the potential of the available
technological developments that they were decisive on the battlefield
○ Second Battle of Sedan 1940 → In a powerful blitzkrieg attack, German army
destroyed French defenses with rapid motorized strikes (involving tanks, aircraft,
armoured vehicles) routing the French forces before penetrating deep into France with
great range and speed (Panzer tanks could travel 42 mph)
● Likewise Austro-Prussian 1866
○ Fact that Prussian General Staff under Moltke used 4 strategic railways to rapidly
converge 250,000 troops at Könnigratz in 1866 meant that the incomplete Austrian
army was taken by surprise, leading to Prussian victory
● By contrast, earlier on in Napoleonic era (1792-1815) - technological developments had little
to do with French victory
○ Eg. Austerlitz 1805
outcome of battle." How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the period 1792-1945?
Changed the nature of the battlefield - convincing evidence
● Development of defensive weaponry - minié ball then machine gun – significantly changed
the nature of the battlefield
○ While in the French Revolutionary Wars battles were fluid and fought in open fields,
■ (eg. Valmy 1792)
○ .. by the Siege of Petersburg (1864) in the American Civil War, Model 1861 rifles with
accurate range of 1230 paces forced infantry to shelter in trenches
○ Perhaps most strikingly, by 1915 the abilities of defensive technology, in particular the
Lewis machine gun which had an accurate range of 800m and could fire 600 rounds
per minute, reduced the Western front to a 3 year stalemate, with both armies dug into
trench networks 700km long
● Similarly, coordination between different sections of the army was revolutionised through
developments in communication
○ Eg. The Telephone: Russo Japanese War – Battle of Mukden (1905)
■ During infantry flanking movements of the Japanese 3rd army at Mukden in
1905, artillery units were sent specific requests by field units for supporting fire
via telephone
○ By contrast, at Magenta in Franco-Austrian War (1859), artillery and infantry were
disconnected during the course of battle, and therefore less coordinated and effective.
However – arguably did not decide the outcome of battle as skilled generals were required to
maximise the potential of technological developments
● Russo - Japanese
○ Nan Shan (1904) - although Russian force was able to hold back Japanese infantry
assaults from defenses with 6 machine guns, the fact that General Fock refused to
allow the use of any of the 44 available reserve artillery pieces and retreated as soon
as he was given permission from Kuropatkin, resulted in an unnecessary Russian
defeat
● Franco-Prussian
○ Similarly, Battle of Mars-la-Tour 1870
■ Despite outnumbering Prussians 130,000:30,000 and being equipped with
superior chassepot rifle (had twice the range of Dreyse needle gun), Bazaine's
indecision led to French defeat and they were routed back into the city of Metz.
● Conversely, it was only when skillful commanders maximised the potential of the available
technological developments that they were decisive on the battlefield
○ Second Battle of Sedan 1940 → In a powerful blitzkrieg attack, German army
destroyed French defenses with rapid motorized strikes (involving tanks, aircraft,
armoured vehicles) routing the French forces before penetrating deep into France with
great range and speed (Panzer tanks could travel 42 mph)
● Likewise Austro-Prussian 1866
○ Fact that Prussian General Staff under Moltke used 4 strategic railways to rapidly
converge 250,000 troops at Könnigratz in 1866 meant that the incomplete Austrian
army was taken by surprise, leading to Prussian victory
● By contrast, earlier on in Napoleonic era (1792-1815) - technological developments had little
to do with French victory
○ Eg. Austerlitz 1805
