Generals had little impact on the outcome of battles. How far do you agree with this view of warfare in the period from 1792 to 1945?

The role of generals in warfare has been a subject of intense debate throughout history. Some argue that generals are the architects of victory, their strategic brilliance and tactical acumen determining the fate of battles. Others contend that the outcome of battles is primarily dictated by factors beyond the control of generals, such as technology, logistics, and the morale of troops. This essay will explore the extent to which generals had a significant impact on the outcome of battles during the period from 1792 to 1945, arguing that while their role was certainly important, it was often overshadowed by other factors.

The Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) provide a compelling example of the influence of a brilliant general. Napoleon Bonaparte, through his innovative tactics and strategic brilliance, achieved remarkable victories against larger and seemingly superior armies. His military genius was evident in his innovative use of artillery, his rapid marches, and his ability to inspire his troops. Napoleon’s victories at Austerlitz (1805), Jena-Auerstedt (1806), and Friedland (1807) demonstrated his ability to outmaneuver and defeat his opponents, seemingly proving the decisive impact of a great general. However, even Napoleon’s genius was ultimately constrained by factors beyond his control. His invasion of Russia in 1812, for example, was a strategic disaster, ultimately leading to his downfall. The harsh Russian winter, coupled with logistical difficulties and the resilience of the Russian army, played a far greater role in his defeat than any tactical brilliance.

The rise of industrialization during the 19th century had a profound impact on warfare. The development of new technologies, such as the railway and the telegraph, revolutionized the way armies were mobilized and supplied. The American Civil War (1861-1865) provides a powerful example of this. While generals like Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee were undoubtedly skilled tacticians, the conflict was ultimately decided by factors such as the vast industrial capacity of the North and its superior resources. The North’s ability to produce weapons, ammunition, and supplies at a much greater scale than the South gave it a significant advantage that no general could overcome.

The 20th century witnessed the emergence of even more sophisticated weaponry, including the machine gun, the tank, and the airplane, further transforming the nature of warfare. The First World War (1914-1918) is often cited as a prime example of the dominance of technology over generalship. The trench warfare that characterized the conflict rendered traditional tactics useless, and the devastating firepower of machine guns and artillery meant that generals were often forced to rely on attrition warfare. The stalemate on the Western Front, with its horrific casualties, highlights the limitations of generalship in the face of such overwhelming technological advancements.

The Second World War (1939-1945) presented a more nuanced picture of the role of generals. While technology continued to play a vital role, the conflict also saw the emergence of gifted military leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower, George Patton, and Erwin Rommel. These generals were able to adapt to the complexities of modern warfare and utilize new technologies to achieve significant tactical and strategic successes. However, these successes were often contingent on factors such as the political climate, the availability of resources, and the overall strategic goals of the war. For instance, while Patton’s brilliance as a tank commander was undeniable, his victories were also enabled by the superior industrial capacity and logistical capabilities of the Allied forces, as well as the strategic decisions made by Eisenhower and other high-ranking leaders.

In conclusion, while generals have undoubtedly played a significant role in the outcome of battles throughout history, their impact was often limited by factors beyond their control. The rise of industrialization and the development of sophisticated weaponry in the 19th and 20th centuries significantly altered the nature of warfare, reducing the influence of individual generals. While brilliant military leaders could adapt to evolving circumstances and achieve tactical successes, their ultimate effectiveness was often dependent on the political context, the availability of resources, and the overall strategic objectives of the war. To claim that generals had "little impact" on the outcome of battles might be an oversimplification, but it is undeniable that the influence of generalship was significantly diminished in the period from 1792 to 1945 due to the technological advancements and the complex nature of modern warfare.