The Great Strategists Of The 19th Century

These developments influenced most of the powerful nations of Europe and were soon repeated in similar forms around the world. Furthermore, many of the Prussian enhancements in army doctrine are the foundation of the command structures of many modern militaries today.

Germany started out as a divided nation fighting for dominance in Europe. Otto Von Bismarck was able to take this struggling complexity and unify it. During this process Bismarck turned the small country of Prussia into a powerhouse, growing the population from 11 to 18 million. Bismarck sprung from a landlord class and moved his way up the political ladder as realpolitik, realistic Politician. He was a man of simple ideals; he stressed duty, service, order, and the fear of God. These ideals along with manipulative tactics are what lead Bismarck on his journey of the unification of Germany, proving that without Bismarck’s diplomatic efforts between 1871 and 1890 Europe would not be the stabilized continent it is today.

In February 1891 Count Alfred von Schlieffen was appointed Chief of the Prussian General Staff, a post which he held until the end of 1905. The most important responsibility of the General Staff was to produce the annual deployment plans, which stipulated how the German army was to be drawn up ready for battle in case of war. The initial pattern of deployment was the basis of the operational plan for the conduct of the war itself. The General Staff routinely tested these war plans in studies and exercises. During most of Schlieffen’s time as Chief of Staff, the essential strategic problem for Germany was indeed the likelihood that the next war would have to be fought against two enemies on widely separated fronts, the French in the west and the Russians in the east. Schlieffen never found a convincing solution to this problem. His suggestion was to deploy much greater forces on one of the fronts in order to defeat that enemy quickly and decisively, and then to use rail mobility to reinforce the other front and win a decisive victory there too. That sounded fine in theory, but when it was tested in exercises it proved hard to achieve. An initial victory on one front could not be fully exploited because of the need to switch forces promptly to the other front. Once that happened, the first enemy

In the year of 1792, a twelve year old boy named Carl von Clausewitz enlisted in the Prussian army for war, and soon after appearing in such battles as Jena-Auerstädt and Waterloo, became dedicated in conflict and its reasons for their results most of his life. By being alive at the same time as Napoleon's rise and fall, Carl von Clausewitz was able to document and relate how war was fought, won, and lost. It's important to comprehend that in his writings, he is relaying why it is pertinent to think about how war is fought, not how to win a war. Clausewitz' theories described in “On War,” are not only effective in wars fought in today's time and past, but will remain current in future endeavors, due to its generic layout of

Political machines were a very corrupt but necessary group during the 19th century into the early 20th. They were a local political party organization that made it possible to get a large number of voters out to get their candidate elected. Political machines were appealing to immigrants and other poor people living in the cities as much as they were important to the politician they got elected.

There is a sense that modern weapons during the 20th century proved to be the most technological advancements and thus created competition in which sprawled into a new stage of warfare enlightenment. At the brink of the war and the salient of forces perhaps the most technological tool used had been the trenches. The pursuit of territorial conquest would halt at the trench lines inventing a new progression in how war is envisioned today. The disadvantages often outnumber the benefits of war, however, war managed to create a boosted in advanced warfare starting as early as the Franco-Prussian War. As the war progressed during 1914, items such as uniforms called for change. The sense of pride in nationality struck in numbers and not in bright colors. For the sake of duty and country was the most powerful drive including those who sought ground in the western lines.

Militarism was felt very strongly in 20th century Europe. Between 1890 and 1914, the countries involved in WW1’s armament growth was tremendous. Germany’s army and navy rose

Germany became a unified country in 1871 under the leadership of Otto Von Bismarck. The separate states up until this time were independent, Prussia being the strongest and most influential, followed by Austria. There are several contributing factors to the unification of Germany, the most influential of which being the leadership of Otto Von Bismarck. The three wars that Prussia fought with Denmark, Austria and France also played significant roles in the unification of the German states. Another factor to consider is the increase in support of nationalism around Western Europe at the time, and the changes in German society. Through an evaluation of these factors and relevant sources one can

General von Steuben established the precedent of NCOs as trainers and wrote much the doctrine that the Army used until the early 19th Century, and that still forms the basis of much of the Army’s current doctrine. The purpose of this paper is to observe the legacy left by Major General von Steuben, to show how that legacy has impacted me as an Army leader, and to reflect on the legacy that I plan to leave on future Army leaders. Background While serving as Ambassador to France, Benjamin Franklin selected Friedrich von Steuben, a former Prussian military Officer, to come to the Colonies to help in the fight

Between 1815, the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and 1850 the German states experienced a growth of nationalism and the desire for unity. The obstacles to German unification were religious divisions, rulers’ fear of losing power, and the opposition from Austria. The tension and rivalry that existed between the two largest German states intensified and the existing religious divisions and made the possibility of unification more difficult.

Unique systems of finance such as nation state resources, levee en masse, and alliances provided the means to build, strengthen, and maintain military forces for war. Innovation was used to change organizational design and maneuver practices which allowed the command and control of large military forces and successful engagements of the enemy. Discipline allowed forces to understand and study tactics through Bildung and Nationalism among troops allowed forces to move great distance by pillaging for logistic resources without deserting their units.

Leading into the Fall of 1914, tactics on both sides of the line involved the rapid mobilization, maneuver and envelopment of the opposing side.10 Pre-1914 doctrine took little into account the effects of emerging new technology and their impact on both defensive and offensive operations. This disconnect between doctrine and technology contributed to the failure of early offensive operations in the Fall of 1914 and resulted in staggering casualties.11 Both sides developed doctrine that took into effect the unique terrain and technology that had been developed prior and during World War I. However by the end of the war, a combination of flexibility, decentralized control, and counterattack at every echelon made the German defensive system the most effective.12 This “elastic defense” had three unique characteristics; dedicated counter-attack force at all levels, decentralized command and control, fluid defensive belts and integrated artillery support at the Division level. Under this new doctrine, Corps headquarters had the role sustaining subordinate units, but not directing their actions during battle.13 This defense-in-depth and the lessons learned during the Verdun battles of 1918 were so successful that British forces adopted many of the German tactics with a special emphasis on their counterattack capability.10 Utilizing the new doctrine, by August 1918, Germany had made substantial gains, however had

Within hours of taking power Reza Khan and Seyyed Reza the prime minister, ordered the arrests of 400 “grandees” (elites, princes) which the British Embassy confessed that the “arrested princes owed large sums to the government on various accounts” reasoning the arrests that the few hundred nobles, who hold the reins of power by inheritance had sucked, leechlike, the wealth and blood of the people.

Rommel achieved this legacy by working under some of the worst staff generals of all time, in a German General Staff that included men proclaimed by Rommel to be “fools” such as Wilhelm Keitel and Franz Halder (Young 346). Yet Field Marshal Rommel was able to overcome these obstacles to success with an array of successful strategies such as daring initiative, populist style of command, and bold use of natural camouflage. Germany’s greatest hero, Erwin Rommel was a towering figure at home and abroad, the victor of France, Gazala, and Kasserine

Bismarck was the man who did the most to unify Germany. It was clear that unification was one of his major objective which he announced in his famous ‘Blood and Iron speech’. I was fascinated by how he managed to unify the so many divided states. Thus, my historical investigation examines the question, to what extent was the Franco-Prussian war Bismarck’s final step to unify Germany? To assess whether the Franco-Prussian war was Bismarck’s final step for unifying the loose net of 39 German states or not, the investigation analyses the previous steps made by Bismarck to unify Germany. It investigates the events between 1962, when Bismarck became Minister president of Prussia and 1971, when Germany became officially unified. The events analyzed are the Danish war, The Prussian Austrian war and the Franco Prussian war.