The Importance of Technology and Other Factors in the Allied Victory in the Crimean War

The soldier-writer Charles Carrington said, “The Somme battle raised the morale of the British Army. Although we did not win a decisive victory there was what matters most,a definite and growing sense of superiority, man to man…We were quite sure we had got the German beat.” (M.Brown ,”Somme where in France”,History today,July 2006,Vol. 56 Issue 7,pp22-4)

William Pollard once said, "Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient tomorrow." Maybe the generals of World War 1 (WW1) should have been told this when they used cavalry when they were outdated and rifles and machine guns were the weapons of this war. They found this out the hard way which sparked the time of technological innovations and changes that was WW1. The three technological innovations I will write about are machine guns, planes and tanks.

At this time things were not going well for the Allied troops. Italy had suffered a major defeat after the Battle of Caporetto when the Austrians captured 275,000 soldiers. This had forced French and British troops forces to change their troops from the Western front to Italy in order to help them. At the same time the French Army was experiencing mutiny and many feared that she would collapse from within. In Russia there was a revolution as the Bolsheviks came to power ousting and executing the Romanov royal family. The country’s internal struggle pulled them out of the war in 1917. The German submarine attacks on Britain were so powerful that many people predicted Britain’s collapse within months.

D) resulted in a massive Russian offensive fueled by the numerical superiority of Russian armies.

Russian inability to recognize changing tactics and weapons of modern warfare is inexcusable but sadly explainable. Because the Czar tended to centralize power and surround himself with "yes men," he missed the good advice of those in his country who could have helped guide Russia into war. Some of these choices can also be blamed on misconceptions of Russian capabilities, and of its military identity. The military reforms that were not completely halted by inept leaders were otherwise thwarted by the lack of details with which an army mobilizes and fights. Details were not an important aspect for Russian pre-war strategy or estimations.

The Siege of Petersburg occurred from June 15-18 1864. However, it was actually a series of battles fought around Petersburg from 9 June 1864 to March 25, 1865. This was to be a evolving era for the military, society and how the two would affect each other. During this era, new tactics and strategies would be tried, changed and adopted throughout future wars while others would fail miserably. Your position in society would usually dictate your position on the battlefield. Even though your position in society did not qualify you as a leader or good decision maker as several outcomes of this Siege would prove. This may very well have affected the outcome of new strategies and tactics. Had better decisions been made on the battlefield

The British went into the Somme with a mixed attack plan, which led to an unsuccessful first assault resulting in a battle of attrition. The opening day of The Battle of the Somme resulted in near 60,000 casualties for the British, the largest in British military history for a single day. Originally the Somme was supposed to be a French dominated offensive, however the Germans attacked to the South in Verdun occupying the majority of French troops. The British were then thrust into control of the offensive, leaving Sir Douglas Haig and General Rawlinson to arrange an offensive strike against the Germans. Haig advocated for the use of infantry including foot soldiers as well as cavalry to lead the offensive. Rawlinson countered with a bite and hold strategy, which involved fortifying a strong defense and warding off German counter attacks. Rather than committing to one strategy, the two were combined in order to create a week-long bombardment followed by an offensive attack on foot.

In “The Face of Battle,” John Keegan analyzed the experiences of the individuals involved in the battles of the Somme and Waterloo; he thoroughly examined the advancements of industrialization in warfare and battle strategy between 1815 and 1916. The industrialization of modern warfare during the battle of the Somme, while progressive, was very much still in its experimental stages. While the inventions during this time period were later evolved into much more useful products, it seems as though the organized warfare in Waterloo was much more effective; the soldier’s mediocre training for the Somme was obvious in the chaotic events that occurred. While each battle was disastrous in their own ways, industrialization certainly improved means of warfare and the experience that the soldiers had.

2. The war especially hit hard on the Russian military. Russian military was defeated time and it me again, and the costs were high to maintain the forces. The war forced Russians to start to build a railroad

The easiest way to examine the major contributory factors is to divide them into system, state, and individual levels. The first system-level factor was the winter weather when the Swedes marched on Moscow. Charles XII could have easily gained a very advantageous peace from Russia but instead chose to march on Moscow. He happened to do this during the worst winter in recent European history. Much of the advancing Swedish army was lost. This lead to the disastrous defeat at Poltava. Had the winter been more mild Charles would have suffered fewer losses. Had he suffered fewer losses he may have been able to take Poltava before the main Russian army arrived. Had Poltava fallen, Charles would have had a strong defensive position from which to face the Russians. In this scenario he could have fared much better and Moscow would have almost certainly fallen. The Russians had taken the Swedish supply train during the winter, and by recapturing it the Swedes could have completed their advance and subjugated Russia. Because of the weather their army was destroyed and they never truly recovered from their defeat at Poltava.(Rickard,

The Allied forces essentially had more personnel, weaponry and munitions supplies. This, along with their ability to develop tactics and engage all elements of the battlefront, supported the perpetuation of ‘Total War’ and the allies’ victory.

The influence of various theories and concepts on the conduct World War I has generated a range of studies in an attempt to understand how and why World War I was fought. Specifically, Clausewitz’s theories on warfare have come under a considerable amount of scrutiny with regards to their influence on World War I. This scrutiny has led to the ascertation that the protracted and bloody stalemate of World War I was largely due to a stubborn reliance on Clausewitz’s theories. The question that this paper attempts to address is weather the cause of the bloody and protracted

Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia was a major factor in his downfall. In 1812, Napoleon, whose alliance with Alexander I had disintegrated, launched an invasion into Russia that ended in a disastrous retreat from Moscow. Thereafter, all of Europe, including his own allies, Austria and Prussia, united against him. Although he continued to fight, the odds he faced were impossible. In April 1814, Napoleon’s own marshals refused to continue the struggle and stepped down from their positions. During the actual Russian campaign, there were many key factors that greatly impacted his downfall.

Everyone knows that Napoleon was a great leader and commander but it is not as cut and dry as popular history makes it out to be. His great victory at Austerlitz cemented him as one of the greatest commanders in history. This battle is was a tactical masterpiece up there with Gaugamela and Cannae. However, there is more to analyze here than just the battle itself. Many aspects of war include mobilization, supply, training, moral, army structure etc. and all play a part in Napoleon’s victories and the creation of the French Empire. Another variable to consider is the quality of the armies led by Tsar Alexander I of Russia and the Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II of Austria. The focus here is to look at how these aspects played a role in

Therefore, morale in Russia was not a reason why there was an outbreak of revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, the few military successes could not make up for the shocking casualty list revealed later on in wartime. Also, when the economic and military problems arose they could have been tolerable for the general public if they were encouraged by the people at the top such as the Tsar but no leadership was shown. Though this was a problem in Russia the morale in Russia was not too bad although people did begin to focus more on taking care of themselves because of the effects of the war on everyday life. On the other hand, the fact that central leadership was not being provided to the Russian public, criticisms began to be pointed directly at the Tsar. Nicholas failed in being commander-in-chief of the Russian armed services. He did not encourage war effort and did not prove to be the appropriate representative for the Russian people. In addition, the fact that he took on this important role meant that he was responsible for the wars consequences and the survival of Tsardom depended on military success. Due to the lack of success, Nicholas II was blamed and not his generals. This was a reason for the revolution in February 1917 to happen as it appeared to the citizens of Russia that they did not have a strong leader, also the tsarist system’s claim to the loyalty of the Russian people had been forfeited thus