1) The Napoleonic Revolution
“The transformation of French society that followed the fall of the bastille to a Parisian crowd in 1789 changed not only France but Europe forever.”
“Warfare too was transformed. The French Revolution realized the ideal of the nation in arms, and so nationalism added its force to the western emphasis on discipline. Common soldiers were now expected to display the same kind of commitment once reserved only for officers, and the new loyalties of the rank and file influenced tactics, logistics, and strategy. Eventually, Napoleon demonstrated the potential implicit in the new form of warfare and thus altered the conduct of military operations forever.” —Parker, Geoffrey, ed. “The Western Way of
War.” In The Cambridge History of Warfare, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2005, 186.
2) Creation of the Modern State
“The first of the five great military revolutions introduced a degree of order and predictability … Impersonal military discipline focused upon the state made European military organizations of the mid- to late- seventeenth century infinitely more effective on the battlefield than the feudal levies, mercenary companies, and haphazardly organized hostilities-only forces that they replaced. And the new disciplined military instruments were self-reinforcing: they backed with force the state’s collection of the taxes needed to pay troops regularly. In return for pay, the state could and did demand that its soldiers maintain a disciplined obedience in garrison as well as on the battlefield; Western societies could henceforth take for granted the order and responsiveness of their military institutions.” —Knox, MacGregor, and Williamson Murray, eds. “Thinking about Revolutions in Warfare.” In The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300 – 2050, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 7 – 8.
3) The Industrial Revolution
“The late nineteenth century saw an acceleration of industrialization in the United States and Germany, while France, Austria-Hungary, and even Tsarist Russia participated in the expansion of the western world’s economic power. This growth in turn fuelled a world economy that showed every prospect of spreading wealth beyond the narrow band of upper classes. In the end, the West’s economic power provided the resources for the catastrophic wars of the twentieth century;…”
“…economic expansion placed enormous military power in the hands of these states and in the long run made war both inevitable and disastrous. Western political sophistication failed to keep pace with its burgeoning military and economic power.” —Parker, Geoffrey, ed. “The Western Way of War.” In The Cambridge History of Warfare, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 242.
4) The First World War
“In 1914 European armies confronted a technological revolution on the battlefield. The weapons developed over the previous decades—bolt-action rifles, machine guns, modern howitzers—provided firepower in unprecedented measure and presented insoluble problems to western military organizations. Modern weapons allowed armies to set up impregnable defensive positions, and neither the officer corps nor the general staffs worked out how to use modern technology, or evolved tactical concepts to break through such defences, until 1918. Moreover, during the course of the war, gas, tanks, aircraft, and a panoply of new infantry weapons made tactical problems daunting and solutions elusive, while battlefield doctrines grew ever more complex. The front lines—at least in the west—remained relatively stable, but conditions within the battle zone underwent enormous changes, while military forces had to adapt and innovate in accordance with developments on the other side of the hill.” —Parker, Geoffrey, ed. “The Western Way of War.” In The Cambridge History of Warfare, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 266.
5) Nuclear Weapons
“The end of World War II ushered in forty-five years of uneasy peace known as the ‘Cold War’.”
“…over this contest hung the shadow of nuclear weapons whose destructive potential was such that in the end neither side dared resort to a direct military challenge to its opponent. After Hiroshima some predicted that nuclear deterrence would eliminate war and, in the sense that the United States and the Soviet Union never directly engaged each other in war, they were right.”
“The extraordinary development of technologies to support strategic nuclear weapons represented a quantum change in the capabilities which the opposing sides in the post-war world deployed. Yet, as Vietnam underlined, technology alone could not compensate for defects in policy, strategy, or even tactics.” —Parker, Geoffrey, ed. “The Western
Way of War.” In The Cambridge
History of Warfare, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 340.
National Warfare Is Introduced
• France mobilized its people and resources on a scale that shocked the old dynastic powers.
• The ideological and nationalistic enthusiasm of the French levée en masse, coupled with tactical and organizational innovation, easily countered old-style regular forces.
• The French Revolution unleashed new energies in military, political, and social affairs with aftershocks felt into the twentieth century.
Napoleon as an Enabler
• Rising to power through merit and luck, Napoleon Bonaparte demonstrated strategic genius in wielding the mass of the French army to conquer much of Europe.
• In campaign after campaign, he crushed the forces that opposed him. • The
notion that an army officered by commoners and commanded by a person of modest background could achieve such success brought the aristocratic social order of all of Europe into question.
Changes in Warfare
• Major changes can occur in warfare that are due to social and political developments, rather than developments in technology or weaponry. • Technology and weaponry changed little during the Napoleonic period; however, warfare would never be the same.
French Firsts
For the armies of continental Europe, the French Revolution would mark the first: • Instance of commissioning of commoners;
• Permanent formations above regimental level; and,
• Legislated support of military forces.
Two Lesson Intentions
• Explore the ways in which Napoleonic warfare was different from eighteenth-century warfare.
• Unlock the mystery of how a new mode of warfare could be so successful.
Napoleonic Warfare
• Napoleonic warfare, as a military revolution, was linked inextricably to social, economic, political, and diplomatic upheaval.
• Prior to Napoleon, Frederick the Great and the highly-trained Prussian army exemplified the paradigm of military force.
• The energy released by the French Revolution exploded onto the battlefields of Europe and, under a master like Napoleon, overthrew forever the Frederician way of war.
• Napoleon became the name most closely associated with military victory and, even in defeat, his name inspired several generations of military professionals.
Why Analyze Napoleon’s and Frederick’s Ways of War?
• Troops in French Revolutionary armies largely used the same weaponry
employed by Frederick’s Prussians forty years earlier. • Therefore, it is worthwhile to sort out and analyze the crucial differences between Napoleon’s and Frederick’s ways of war, almost none of those differences being technical.
The Old Regime
• Under the old regime, armies and the rest of the government were the private dynastic properties of the king.
• The people had little to do with the army, nor did they identify with the army or its purpose.
• Therefore, the population-at-large strongly resisted every effort of the king to increase his revenues at their expense, for military purposes or otherwise.
• Only nobles could become officers in the Royal Army.
• Only great nobles could become colonels or above.
The New Regime
• The revolutionary National Assembly, however, converted the army into a public institution, publicly funded, and publicly commanded and controlled.
• Suddenly, the army was an instrument of the public purpose and of the people’s collective aspirations, not the king’s aspirations. • All citizens were eligible for all ranks.
• This meant that the public was willing to tolerate larger contributions to military activity, both of personnel and of funds, and in times of national emergency, they embraced these burdens eagerly.
In what ways did the military change because of the French Revolution? 1. Strength in Numbers
• The old regime army stood at about 180,000
in 1789.
• Under levée en masse, the army grew to a
million by 1794.
2. Promotion Policy
• Promotion in the old army depended on class
background, which an individual could not
change.
• Promotion in the new army depended on
talent and performance only, at all levels,
private to field marshal.
• A peasant could become a general.
• This had the effect of invigorating
performance at all levels.
3. What Am I Fighting For?
• Moreover, the new army represented the
public good, so the whole public benefited
from its successes.
• Consequently, the individual soldiers
identified with the cause of the army, which
was rarely the case in the old army.
• In other words, the ideology of nationalism
motivated individual troops to perform loyally.
4. New TTPs
• The new scale and new loyalty dictated new
tactics and new logistics.
• The numerous new troops of 1794 had much
enthusiasm, but no training.
• Therefore, they abandoned the lock-step
tactics of the old regime and adopted two new
formations that required loyalty, but no
training.
– One of these was skirmishing. Old regime
soldiers could not do this because they
would desert.
– Another was the assault column. Soldiers
would gather in mass just out of enemy
range, then charge down on the enemy line,
a method that required enthusiasm, but no
alignment.
• After the military emergency eased in 1795,
the new tactics combined with the old, more
disciplined formations.
5. Life-on-the-Go
• Revolutionary armies were logistically more
dynamic than the old armies were.
• Being ideologically loyal, troops could forage
for themselves without the fear of them
deserting.
• They would put up with temporary shortages
of food or pay, unlike their more mercenary
forbearers.
• Even officers, being commoners, were willing
to live lean in the field.
• All this meant the new armies could move
farther faster, and campaign without a supply
line if need be.
Napoleonic Military System = Revolution in Conducting War?
When French armies grew dramatically in the 1790s, new echelons added progressively above the old permanent formation of the regiment, brigade, division, and corps.
These new units, up to this point, were autonomous in assets and staffing, thus greatly simplifying the problems of command and control.
Napoleon was especially famous for his skillful use of the new corps d’armée in combat.
Any male could be an officer in post-revolution France. And Napoleon’s tactics were somewhat new and flexible. He knew how best to use what he had available.
How the French raised mass armies.
It converted the army into a public institution, publicly funded, and publicly commanded and controlled. The army became an instrument of the public purpose and of the public’s collective aspirations, not the king’s aspirations. All citizens were eligible for all ranks.
The public was willing to tolerate larger contributions.
Which of the following are reasons that ways of warfare changed? The Class of 1794 French soldiers just received the basics of combat. No advanced training or experience here. They were just farmers and regular citizens with no professional military training. These soldiers, however, did learn to conduct more mobile tactics, like skirmishing, since they weren’t trained in the old, formal methods. – Nationalist ideology motivated troops to perform loyally.
– Troops adopted skirmishing and assault column tactics.
– Promotions depended on talent and performance.
– Troops could forage for themselves without deserting.
Maneuver
• Some argue that Napoleon’s forms of field maneuver were not particularly innovative.
• Napoleon’s success derived from his manner of execution—the energy, resolve, speed of execution, and relentless pursuits were breathtaking.
Decisive Battle
• Moreover, unlike the conduct of limited war in the eighteenth century, Napoleon focused his efforts almost exclusively on the destruction of the enemy’s main army in the field through decisive battle. • Capture of terrain, fortifications, or capitals was secondary. • This approach was so radical that it took his opponents years to adapt. • Typically, Napoleon advanced his forces so deeply into enemy territory that his opponents could not refuse to fight.
Charisma
• Napoleon’s boundless charisma and ability to motivate his subordinate commanders and their soldiers grew with the seemingly endless string of victories. • His soldiers were confident of success when he was present on the battlefield. • He intimidated his opponents, which went a long way toward keeping them off-balance.
Effective Field Commander
Most regarded Napoleon as the most effective field commander of his day Characteristics that helped him win included: • Napoleon had exceptional understanding of terrain and troops, friendly and unfriendly. • Napoleon was able to inspire troops.
• Napoleon had exceptional battlefield judgment.
• Napoleon was able to select and motivate talented subordinate field commanders. • Napoleon had great willpower that allowed him to focus all his energies on the command requirements of battle.
Keys to Napoleon’s success were:
• Superbly trained and motivated soldiers.
• Experienced subordinate commanders working as a team.
• Effective operational and tactical deception efforts.
• Maintenance of the initiative.
• Deep strategic penetration.
• Fast strategic movement.
• Superior command and control system.
• Superior tactical planning and execution.
• Relentless pursuit.
