As the title suggests, this chapter is going to explore the nature of how the European military (not to suggest there is just one) evolved since the French Revolution. My prompts explore the implications of what this means in the context of the larger European story. Pick 1 to discuss on the blog. And please make sure you read your peers remarks so you don't say the same things. Look forward to reading your responses by August 7th. Hope band camp and all of the other athletic programs that start in the Fall go well for everyone! MZ
1. What was the relationship between economic developments and military developments?
2. How might you describe how various European demographics understood / perceived the nature of technological progress that related to the arming of European states?
3. How did "military theory" change over the course of the 19th-20th Century? Why did it change?
4. How did military leadership change over the course of the 19th-20th Century? What were the implications of these changes?
5. How did military equipment / assets change over the course of the 19th-20th Century? What were the implications of these changes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
5) Throughout the 19th century, the weaponry was much more primitive compared to the military weaponry of the 20th century. 19th century wars were fought with muskets, grapeshots, and limited artillery, which had not changed much since the wars of Louis XIV. They provided limited accuracy, short range, and slow rate of fire. But by the 20th century, wars were being fought with tanks, heavy artillery, machine-guns, flame-throwers, gas, ground-attack aircraft, long-range bombers, etc. All in all, weaponry of the 20th century had reached a level of high performance and reliability. This dramatic change proved how much industrialization had changed the world. Through steel production and the manufacturing of raw materials, powerful weapons could be made to equip entire armies. Ultimately, military modernization was fueled by industrialization.
Thanks Megan for the contribution. How is everyone else doing? How about some more responses to the prompts. If you look at Megan's answer she brought out the many connections (cause and effect) relationships between industrialization and nature of military organization and uses. In many ways the speaks to a larger issue in world history...science matters in making military machines. Just got back from the NJ shore...Avalon. We had a nice time. I will put up our next set of questions tomorrow (still reading the remaining pages of chapter 4).
The economic and military development worked together to increase Europe's warfare and technological innovations. In the context of war coming in 1914 countries were spending more money on armed forces and other military forces then before. For example, Britain was spending 2.04 per head a year for defense mechanisms while Germany was only spending .77. This shows that due to the advances and significant funding into the military modernization, Europe's economic development was transforming.
1) It can be determined that economic developments changed the overall feel of European warfare. From supplies to weaponry to dress, the shift to industrialization and technological innovation reshaped the nature of war. However, it cannot be determined whether industrialization specifically helped the advanced countries once on the battlefield. In fact, there does not seem to be any correlation between the two. During the Napoleonic wars, France ruled militarily, while Britain ruled economically. In WWI, Russia, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman empire maintained war despite their inherent “backwardness.” Said backwardness merely incited them to spend comparably more on defense than the nations who were industrially advanced. Britain spent more than double the amount on armed services than the leading US and Germany. However, this did not necessarily translate to “military hegemony on the continent,” as Britain’s strength was mainly with the navy. Manpower was also at a higher level for a country like Russia, as the men were not tied down and absorbed by industry. The economic developments in these advanced nations could possibly be a set back in waging war, as they were very dependent on industry. Also, there was not a large disparity concerning weapons of the advanced and backward nations, as they were all “comparably equipped.” Clearly, while there is some connection, one must not need to succeed economically to succeed militarily, and vice versa.
1. Due to the industrial revolution and economic developments, the military of Europe became highly mobilized since the end of the French Revolution in 1799. It was industry that made mobilization and effective rapid transportation, not more advanced weaponry that allowed Britain and Germany, which were more industrialized nations to succeed. However, the industrialization did allow them to make bigger, better ships. The emphasis on mobilization had a negative impact in August 1914 as every nation raced to mobilize for the beginning of the Great War and were unable to turn back from the brink due to their dependence on mobilization.
1) There is no doubt that a strong economic base can lead to a strong military, but this was not always the case in Europe. Although a strong economy, mainly because of industriliazation in the 19th and 20th century, was able to provide machinery and weaponry for war, it did not always translate into dominance on the battlefield. During the Napoleonic wars, France was the leader in military affairs, yet Britain was by far the strongest economic power. Britain put forth more money on its military than the US and Germany did during that time combined and still did not manage to become dominant on the side of defense. In addition, in WWI, Germany (Europe's second biggest industrial leader) was not the only big player on the battlefield. Russia was able to keep in the war as well, despite its economic backwardness and lack of mobilization. There are several examples of this, but another important part of the correlation (or lack of) between economy and military is that "backwardness" does not add to ineffectivess. This is said because it may actually be harder for more advanced economies to wage war because their man power is held up in industry, and to wage a war they must halt all other operations to prepare for war. In this sense "backwardness" was almost an advantage in that there was more manpower available not only to fight, but also to produce for the fight on hand. Economics today is an important part of military advancement, but in Europe's history it is the technological development that mainly pushed some countries ahead in the arms race.
4. In the 19th and 20th centuries, armies created general staffs to develop plans of war in times of peace, to control/organize troops and to formulate strategy plans. Austria-Hungary amended its staff in 1871 and again in 1881, France added staff with line officers in 1883, and Britain created a general staff in 1906. With these new forms of military, war was now about management and organization. Administrative incompetence led to failure as thought by the British. This new system also led to the French and British victory in WWI.
#4 and #5:
Many changes occurred to the military over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries advancing it to better than it had ever been before, both in the equipment and in leadership. To begin, the equipment became much more advanced. For example, Strachan explained that in the 19th century, grapeshots and simple guns such as muskets were the primary source of weaponry, which lead to very limited fire and accuracy. However over the course of this time period, weapons such as machine gun and long range bombers were being widely used and offering great advantages. These changes imply that along with the weaponry’s advancement, the industrial world had also made great strides, as it allowed for such tools to be made. Not only did the new equipment improve, but also the leadership strategies. Strategies and plans were now created by the well-organized staffs consisting of generals, etc. This shows that countries began to realize wars and battles were a much bigger deal (not that they always weren't and didn't know this..) but that they would have a much bigger impact on the country. With the combination of organization and reliable equipment, war had taken a turning point in the world.
5. During the period between the 19th and 20th centuries, Europe saw vast improvements in military equipment and assets. Military engineers from Britain and France were the first to use the electric telegraph in the Crimean War, which lasted from 1853 to 1856. The telegraph made communication far easier, and added a new facet of stragey to the art of war. Also, railroads became immensely popular during this time, and those who controled the railways controled the war. This was an improvement for transfering troops aswell as military materials. Finally, advancements in firearms, specifically with the repeating rifle, machine guns, and lightweight artillery enabled smaller military units to take out larger groups of oppenents, as well reducing the cost of conquest.
1. the relationship between the economic and military development rely on one another. the better the economic growth is doing the more military growth there will be and visa versa. for example as the economy gets more money and grows that allows for the military to get more money as well. also when the military is doing well, that could be winning in a war, the spoils that come with that allow new ideas and innovations to be brought into the economy. overall the military advancement and growth help the economy too, and visa versa
4. Whereas former leadership had focused on military strategy on the battlefield, giving out orders to men based on how a battle was perceived to be going during the battle, the new leaders of the late 19th, early 20th century sat behind desks. While not nearly as exciting at first, these leaders were still important in that they did not need to be on the battlefield. They were able to direct the general direction of the entirety of their army, navy, whatever, having lower ranks deal out orders directly in the field. All this allowed for extensive preparation and levels of strategy unheard of before this time. Future planning and views of battles and wars from afar as a whole allowed for a leader to plan out every aspect going on in order to benefit and win in the long-term, not just focus on immediate battles and needs in small areas. With these changes, it meant a war could be won in advance, in a way, allowing for many important factors to be handled at once.
3) As time elapsed from the 18th to the 19th century the theory of how to win a war also changed. War had a sense of art and class prior to Napoleon. An army kept their composure, moved as a unit and wore colors for vanity rather than for camouflage. But Napoleon changed all this. By deploying armies of 194,000 at a time, he combined quantity with mobility. He took countries in a fashion to quick to form an effective resistance to. His ideals did not stop at his defeat at Waterloo, rather the great minds of Germany followed this plan during World War I and especially during World War II when Hitler used his blitzkrieg attack to take Europe swiftly and efficiently.
Because of the Industrial Revolution, warfare in Europe was slowly but surely becoming more modernized. Soldiers carried guns with more fire power that could inflict much more danger. They soon started parading around in tanks than on horses. European soldiers lost their vibrant matching uniforms and started wearing clothes that would blend them into their surroundings. Armies were becoming much more efficient. For example, Napoleon and Hitler were two European military geniuses. Both conquered many lands and both invaded those lands before a defense tactic could be planned. This has everything to do with leaders looking back at the past and evolving the tactics of the generals before them in order to defeat their enemy at that time.
3. Military theory changed primarily in response to an advance in technology. As Strachan points out, earlier battles (Waterloo, even Bunker Hill) would have seen colorful uniforms, showy flagbearers, and huge standards. Battlefields would be packed with men, and armies would often assemble directly across from each other. Weapons were often innacurate and unwieldy, contributing to the willingness to seem conspicuous. As soon as 100 years later (in World War I) aircraft carpet bombing, gas attacks, tanks, and more accurate small arms created some of the horrors of the 19th century: trench warfare, the gas mask, and a war that cost 20 million lives: Strachan writes that men "had lost their individualities to the self-protective necessities of industrialized warfare". The "Pomp and Circumstance" of the 19th century had changed to become a ruthless and efficient battle, about attrition and wearing the enemy down through constant artillery barrages and psychological weakening of the enemy.
Post a Comment