The Organization Of Armies During The Period Of 1789

At the beginning of the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Army had little to no artillery of their own. It was not until May 10th, 1775, when Benedict Arnold joined Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys to attack Fort Ticonderoga. The attack was small, surprising the British garrison while they slept. This was the also first American victory of the Revolutionary War, which led to the Continental Army to acquire much needed artillery that would eventually help in the Continental Army’s ability to manufacture their own cannons. The most useful piece of artillery were lightweight, which gave them the ability to easily maneuver on the battlefield by carriages, and traveled with the armies to be used as anti-personnel weapons. Not

The United States Army is a complex organization made up of several commands and managed by different command levels. The U.S. Army is an organization different from that of a business in many unique ways. Specific examples of these differences include: financial reporting, disciplinary review procedures, and tactical operations. Although different in many ways, the Army shares many similar characteristics of a normal profit business. Army personnel are managed by supervisors arranged in a command structure similar to that of a business hierarchy. The Army will also encounter internal and external factors that could impede or enhance operations. As such, planning, organizing, leading, and controlling must be used by managers appropriately

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.

For the military leader, the maintenance of good order and discipline is essential for a military force to be effective. An undisciplined military force is a losing one (Hoversten). General Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest military leaders of all time and was firm when it came to discipline. It was important to him that his soldiers understood that, in addition to efficiency, discipline guaranteed a solder’s safety; that if his forces did not prepare themselves for war when they had a chance, they would pay dearly (McBride). Discipline can be best defined as “a state of training, resulting in orderly conduct.” (McBride). This “state of training” must be achieved as well as maintained during peacetime so

Maria Theresa, as inexperienced as she was, was able to see the lack of intelligence in the organization of her military forces, less than ten years into her rule. She wrote, “Each unit had a different order of marching, a different drill, etc. One practiced rapid fire, another slow. The same words of command were differently interpreted in each unit, and it is really no wonder that ten years before my accession the Emperor as defeated every time, and the subsequent state of the army beggars description.” She was able to see, early on, that not only did she need a better trained military force, but she also needed a larger force. Through calibration with her advisors, mostly Haugwitz, she was able to obtain the men and money to have an appropriate military force.

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.

The French Revolution and Napoleonic years are very important to European history because they mark a time of great change and transformation, a time when Europe was in the thrall s of its rise to modernity. Two of the aspects of modernity brought to light during the French Revolution were the increasing importance of the middle class and the idea, though not necessarily the practice, of political liberty. However, some of strides made in France toward modern liberty were almost completely erased only a few years after the Revolution by Napoleon Bonaparte, who brought his own thoughts on modernity to Europe with the advent of nationalism and total warfare.

The military prowess of Roman commanders and legionaries proved to be successful enough to turn a small community into an ancient super power. There are many discussions to be had about the tactics and success of the Roman army, some of which are: their style of fighting, the attitude toward the fight, and the fruits of their war.

Army leaders must be decisive, as Vann was, however, today’s army requires agility and adaptability as

Military strategy forever had been battles of attrition, men throwing themselves at each other until a winner was determined, this form of battle was replaced in Europe during the 16th and 17th century. The change in military strategy took place mostly in Europe, and the countries at the forefront of this were the Swedish empire and the Netherlands. The Swedes and Dutch changed many military strategies and practices which were in place for thousands of years and changed the standard for militaries. They helped to show the first realistic application of David versus Goliath, using smart tactics paired with a smaller army to destroy militaries of greater size. The two smallest nations in Europe took control and led the world in military innovations in the 16th and 17th century through competition and loss. The Swedes and Dutch managed to create fluid militaries which were able to overpower larger armies through deception and agility. The Swedish and Dutch nations during the 16th and 17th century gained military strength through the reformation of tactics, reorganization of the military, improvisation of weapons, and as a result changed the image and action of the military forever. The idea of a military revolution was first explored by a man named Michael Roberts in the 1950s. Roberts said that if the Swedish Empire and the Netherlands had not developed as they did, military strategy and organization would have not evolved for much later.

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.

     In the first phase of World War II in Europe, Germany sought to avoid a long war. Germany's strategy was to defeat its opponents in a series of short campaigns. Germany quickly overran much of Europe and was victorious for more than two years by relying on a new military tactic called the "Blitzkrieg" (lightning war). Blitzkrieg tactics required the concentration of offensive weapons (such as tanks, planes, and artillery) along a narrow front. These forces would drive a breach in enemy defenses, permitting armored tank divisions to penetrate rapidly and roam freely behind enemy lines, causing shock and

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

This source is a magazine article on Sun Tzu, Napoleon Bonaparte and Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson similar battle techniques that I found on the database History Reference. All three of the commanders mentioned were ingenious, and this article discusses the tactics they employed: celerity (speed/swiftness), shaping the enemy, and exploiting victory. Despite the genius of all three commanders this article provided, I only focused on one, Napoleon Bonaparte, because he is my person of eminence. Napoleon highly valued time and believed the loss of it "irreparable in war." He used celerity to gain the advantage of surprise. For example, a rapid flanking march toppled much of the allied forces' command structure at Ulm, Germany, in October

The military revolution was a direct outcome of changes in the virtuosity of war between 1560 and 1660. The changes crucially influenced campaigning and combat in Europe during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The most influential alterations included transformation in weapons, growth in the army size, change in tactics and organization, and centralization of the states’ bureaucracies. There were many battles in the late 17th and early 18th centuries that were highly influenced by the implications of the military revolution, for example, the Battles of Hogue, Danube, and Blenheim. These altercations started a development for military superiority and increased proficiency that enabled Europe to dominate the world long after the Wars of the Spanish Succession. However, I would like to emphasize that those victories mentioned above were heavily influenced by the skills of the commanding individuals and their roles in the military organizational system rather than a full internalization of the revolution’s implications overall. The Duke of Marlborough is a great example of an individual overweighting the flaws of the late 17th century logistical systems to his advantage. By comparison, France’s failure to understand and implement the alterations eventually enabled the rise of Britain’s at the French expense.