The tactics and technologies developed in this period changed the way we fought, and they are still used in modern combat. The Civil War was a chaotic period in American history. A united America was an incredibly tough opponent; however, a divided America was left scrambling for everything. The industrial works were in the North, the weapons manufacturers in the South. The South had to make do with the weapons they already had due to most of the resources being in the north.
Do you agree with the view that the Great War resulted in a revolution in the art of warfare for the British army? Throughout the First World War, there were numerous technological and tactical advances, many of which had not been seen or used by military forces before. Between the start of the war in 1914 and the end of the war in 1918, the changes in tactics and technology was huge, thus creating a new never before seen type of warfare. From looking at the sources, we can see both sources 7 and 8 agree with the view that the Great war resulted in a revolution in the art of warfare, whereas source 9 disagrees. As we see in source 7, Captain D. Kelly states ‘The attack gave a striking proof of the also make mentions of the advancements of the British army’.
To what extent did technology change the nature of warfare during World War One? Contents Introduction The Beginnings of Trench Warfare Flamethrowers Communication Gas Tanks Machine Guns Conclusion Bibliography Introduction A lot of the technology developed during World War 1 significantly changed the nature of warfare. Some technologies helped to change the nature of warfare more than others. I will be looking at the following technologies to see how they were used in WW1 and see if and how they affected future wars: Flamethrowers – The experiments that led to their development. Communication – What types were used and how effective they were.
This technology would change the face of war forever. The first category, weapon advances, is a very important category. Leading up to the war, weapons were changing constantly. Weapons of World War One were out of date. They were becoming more accurate, and capable of longer ranges.
To what extent was Napoleon the decisive influence on the development of warfare from 1792 to 1815? The end of the French Revolutionary Wars and the following Napoleonic Wars was a period of great development to the nature of warfare brought about by many years of almost constant fighting. In order to understand the influence of Napoleon on this development it is first necessary to identify which developments took place and then to assess to what extent these developments depended on the influence of Napoleon over other potential influences. Although this period saw significant developments in most aspects of warfare, it is important to note that weaponry remained largely unchanged throughout this period and since it is difficult to identify a change it is therefore necessary to largely exclude this aspect of warfare. One of the greatest inhibiting factors on the development of warfare in the eighteenth century was the limitations of purpose: mercantilism and a lack of ideological and religious purpose meant that dynastic rulers were typically limited in their ambitions, resulting in a reduced rate of development in other areas of warfare.
Would the war have happened without Kaiser Wilhelm II’s aggressive foreign policy? Or were there many other causes and countries who share the blame for the war? This essay will analyze the extent of Germany’s responsibility in the outbreak of World War One. There is no doubt that the rising power of Germany and personality of the Kaiser caused concern throughout Europe in the years leading up to 1914. But the rising power of Germany and the Kaiser’s personality wasn’t a reason for accusing Germany of starting the war.
Our nation struggled to establish and economy but after years of becoming economically stronger and industrialized what we stood for would be forgotten. The civil war happened for many reasons; it reestablished what our country stood for and kept the union together. The differences between the north and south would eventually need to be resolved. War did not have to be the answer but if the war did not happen slavery could have gone on for much longer. When our country was established, inhabitants of the southern colonies shared a great deal with the northern colonist.
Germany had only been a united country since 1871 however by 1914 it had built up a strong army, navy and had the beginnings of an overseas empire. As you can see, Germany since its unison had been very competitive and ambitious against the other ‘leading’ countries. I feel that this may have brought the other countries resentment, especially Britain. Britain had been known as and was the main industrial country in Europe for over 100 years but Germany had very quickly grown into a powerful country. This would have caused Britain some concern, especially because the leader over Britain was cousins with the Kaiser, this would have brought extra tension between them as they both wanted their country to be the best.
How might technological developments affect the way wars are fought? War and technology have always been linked very closely. Indeed, without technology, there would probably have been no war. After all, without technology, if only in the form of sticks and stones, man’s ability to kill his own kind is extremely limited. For instance, the First World War was the trial period of modern weaponry, where as the Second World War saw modern weaponry came of age and become truly devastating.
(92) The 200 men of the U.S. Army were massacred by the 1,800 strong force of native warriors. On the other hand, civilized armies were able to counteract the natives’ superior numbers by just making simple fortifications. Using the same battle, Keeley recounts how Colonel Custer’s subordinates fortified a hill with 400 men and were able to reject the natives. (92) With just some simple fortifications, these men were able to hold out until the Native Americans’ food ran out and they were forced to leave due to incoming reinforcements. Keeley gives many different examples of battles between civilized and primitive armies.