|
Encarta Historical Essays reflect the knowledge and insight of leading historians. This collection of essays is assembled to support the National Standards for World History. In this essay, Edward J. Davies II of the University of Utah examines the changes that occurred in warfare and world politics after industrial technology was applied to the development of military weaponry.
By Edward J. Davies II
In the fall of 1854, French and British troops clashed with Russian infantry in Crimea. Armed with new, rifled muskets, the invaders delivered devastating blows to the Russians, who fought with outmoded, smoothbore muskets in traditional formations used in the era of Napoleon. Within a decade of that war, in the United States, President Abraham Lincoln ordered 25,000 men from the Army of the Potomac to board trains on their way to relieve threatened Northern forces around Chattanooga, Tennessee. Meanwhile, Lincoln apprised Ulysses S. Grant, thousands of miles away in the western theater, of his plans to break the Confederate lines near Chattanooga. To send this information, Lincoln used the telegraph. These seemingly unrelated events heralded the beginnings of a technological transformation in warfare that would reshape armies, nation-states, and later, the world.
 |
|
Also on Encarta |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Industrialization forever changed warfare in Europe and the west, starting in the mid-19th century. Weapons, transportation, and communication all took new forms as industrial technology increased the firepower and variety of weapons as well as the speed and volume capabilities for moving people, war materials, and information. Europeans and Americans used these technologies to organize and equip mass armies filled with ordinary citizens rather than professional warriors. More than before, war involved entire nations. Europeans used these military technologies to reach beyond their borders into Africa and Asia, conquering most of the peoples on these continents. Advances in western medicine made it possible for Europeans to survive the harsh climates and the diseases encountered in these regions and thus indefinitely sustain their presence. Yet, Europeans would meet fierce resistance on both continents, sometimes resistance with other industrial weapons. The costs of war and imperialism would be heavy, both in human and material terms.
The technological innovations of industrialization created new battlefields and armies from the mid-19th century onward. The most significant changes came early and were in the areas of transportation and communications. Railroads appeared first in Britain then quickly spread to the continent and across the ocean to North America. Military commanders realized the implications of these “Iron Horses” that could move men and equipment great distances in relatively short times. Suddenly, wars, once confined to a few tens of kilometers, now expanded to hundreds, even thousands, of kilometers.
The great distances between theaters of operation were also bridged by the telegraph. Introduced by American Samuel Morse, the telegraph enabled commanders to move information almost instantly across spaces as vast as those covered by the railroads. Commanders could remain in daily contact with scattered armies. Distance became less and less an obstacle to military planning and execution.
|
|
Also on MSN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, industry created a new set of deadly weapons. Manufacturing entrepreneurs in Europe and the United States produced a new array of products, from rifled muskets in the 1850s and 1860s to breech-loading rifles and machine guns by the 1880s. New improvements increased the power of these weapons. Smokeless gunpowder, for instance, increased the velocity of the bullet in the muzzle and improved its ballistic behavior overall. The new steel industry of the 1860s and 1870s produced larger artillery weapons with greater strength and durability. Manufacturers made stronger, more effective barrels, simplified how they were loaded, and developed high-explosive shells to fire out of them. By the 1890s, the addition of the recoilless mechanism increased the rate of fire, regardless of the size of an artillery piece. These and other innovations made battlefields far more deadly sites as the ability to kill or injure thousands of troops in a relatively short time increased dramatically.
The demand for these new weapons was high, yet the new weapons manufacturers managed to meet that demand. Staffed by a vast array of scientists and engineers, Krupp Manufacturing in Germany, Carnegie Steel in the United States, and a host of other large-scale companies delivered new or improved weapons in large quantities and on strict schedule. By the end of the 19th century, the size and flexibility of a country’s industrial base proved an effective indicator of its military capacity.
The American Civil War (1861-1865) was one of the first industrialized wars. Both the North and the South equipped large armies that fought over distances of more than a thousand kilometers. Both the North and South needed modern forms of transportation and communications to command their forces. The North used its huge industrial base, much greater than the cotton-based economy of the South, to build up the war materials necessary to support its vast armies, which had grown to 1 million men by 1864.
To win the war, Union Commander Ulysses S. Grant realized the Union needed both to break civilian morale and to destroy the economic capacity of the South to sustain Northern armies. He planned to reduce Southern forces in the east through relentless combat, gambling that the greater northern economic resources would prevail. To complete the task of reducing Southern resistance, Union General William Sherman led his forces on a massive raid into Georgia and South Carolina with the intention of devastating the economies and the people of these states. This raid and other similar acts did, indeed, accomplish these goals. Grant had used the tools of modern war, including the railroads and telegraph lines, to achieve victory.
In Europe during these years, Prussian leadership used these same tools to dominate the German states, then under the influence of the Austrian Empire. Beginning in the 1840s, Prussia, vulnerable along its exposed borders, had built a system of strategic railways designed to move troops quickly from one threatened area to another. Prussia had also organized an effective general staff composed of officers trained in the science and history of war. These men demonstrated keen organizational abilities, especially in the arena of planning and running campaigns. Under the leadership of the brilliant Helmuth von Moltke, the general staff had acquired a professional and innovative character unmatched by any other military group in Europe.
Realizing the new demands of industrialized warfare, Moltke decentralized the command structure in order to give his officers flexibility in achieving their objectives. At the tactical level, the company and platoon became the units of maneuver because these units could efficiently exploit a battlefield dominated by rapidly firing weapons. Moltke believed that the smaller formations also enabled his lower-level officers to use every available rifle in combat and thus maximize the army’s effectiveness. The main infantry weapon, the new bolt-action, breech-loading Dreyse rifle, enabled the Prussian soldier to move quickly on the battlefield while firing at rates far greater than those of the older muskets. Strategically, Moltke continued to urge the state to invest funds in railways and telegraph lines because these facilitated the speed and mobility essential for victory.
The Prussians also instituted universal conscription. This fostered patriotism, which was couched in terms of defending the homeland against enemies. Universal service that included spending time in the reserve army also enabled the Prussians to exploit the power of their citizenry to the fullest. To ensure the availability of trained veterans, the state demanded that all men sign up for three years with the regular army, four years in reserve, and finally, five years in the Landwehr, or home watch. No other power in Europe could draw on their male populations to such an extent as the Prussians could.
The Austrians, the Prussians’ chief military rival, approached war much as their grandfathers had. Tactically, the Austrians employed column maneuver, shock assaults, and cavalry pursuit. Strategically, they placed their faith in fortresses and rigid lines of communications. The Austrians had developed no general staff nor put in place effective plans for mobilization. Needless to say, once the Prussians and Austrians battled for supremacy among the German states, the assets of the Prussians proved decisive.
At first the world was stunned at the might of Prussian victories against the powerful Austrians in the 1860s and, a decade later, against the French. Later they emulated them. Armies that had modeled their military schools, tactics, and strategy after the French now turned to the Prussians. Even Prussian-style uniforms were adopted throughout the West. Military professionals avidly read the writings of German military theorist Karl von Clausewitz, whose writings had taught Moltke so much about war. War had taken a new road; one built on conscription, steel, and technology.
The tools of war enabled Westerners to reach beyond their boundaries into lands once dominated by Asian and African powers. The new industrial technology of war provided a crucial means to accomplish this end. But Europeans were also greatly aided by dramatic breakthroughs in medical knowledge. For centuries, disease had effectively blocked Europeans from permanent settlement in Asia or Africa. Malaria, yellow fever, typhoid, cholera, and other diseases devastated Western troops regularly.
Breakthroughs such as the new understanding of how germs worked helped Europeans survive the tropics. Discoveries such as mosquito abatement for malaria moved quickly through an international network of medical professionals. For the deadliest killer, malaria, Westerners had used quinine as an effective deterrent since the 1600s. In the 1800s they perfected their technique. By the 1890s, Westerners knew how to purify water, remove and treat sewage, and kill deadly bacteria. The tropics posed a far less intimidating environment. No longer would armies succumb to the assault of disease.
Once they knew they could endure the tropics, Europeans used heavily armed steamships to journey inland along the interior rivers. Made first of iron, then steel, steamships were more durable in the tropics than wooden ships, which were prone to rot. Armed with steel guns and high-explosive shells, steamships also proved far more lethal than their predecessors. New industrial products such as brass cartridges were designed for efficient storage on the new metal ships and proved resistant to deterioration.
These advances facilitated the expansion of European power throughout the tropical world. By 1900, Europeans would rule almost all of Africa and parts of Asia. Even with their industrial might, however, this feat was rarely easy. Africans bitterly resisted encroachments on their independence. Often, the Africans’ resistance depended on European weapons and ingenious strategies.
The British fought the Ashanti of the Gold Coast for twenty years before conquering them in 1896. The Ashanti had been partners with the Europeans in the African slave trade. By the late 19th century, they had built a formidable state, were equipped with European weapons—albeit inferior ones—and were otherwise capable of challenging the British. First rebuffed in the 1860s, the British returned in 1873 under Lord Wolseley, whose campaign against the Ashanti provided a model of administrative and planning excellence. He limited the number of troops to a few thousand to simplify logistical arrangements and ordered roads built to facilitate supplying his forces. Along these routes, he set up way stations to assist his men and maintain a British presence. Wolseley also made sure that pack animals were available and that his troops were supplied with canned food, quinine, and potable water, all of which ensured their good health. Once he confronted the Ashanti, he had the maximum number of breech-loading Snider rifles, plus artillery pieces that fired seven-pound shells and the American-made, rapid-firing gatling guns. The less well-armed Ashanti depended on inferior European muskets. Wolseley’s victory proved short-lived, however, since it would take the British another 20 years to subdue the powerful Ashanti.
In their struggles against the Europeans, African states such as the Ashanti often had built-in cultural disadvantages that weakened their technical and organizational abilities. The Ashanti organized their society on cultural premises very different from those of Europeans. These premises were reflected in Ashanti armies. For example, leaders arranged their troops on the battlefield in an arc. In this arc, position was determined by the hierarchical relationship of the local chief to the ultimate ruler. To organize any differently would have nearly required a cultural revolution within the society as a whole. The Ashanti armies were also geared toward small slaving raids or brief campaigns against formidable enemies. Once a neighboring enemy yielded, it became part of the Ashanti empire, a practice common in West Africa. The Ashanti never imagined war of the duration, scale, and level of violence that the Europeans wielded in their determination to impose permanent rule.
In some cases, those who resisted attempted to match the European advances. The African military leader Samory Touré waged an 18-year resistance against the French in the Senegal-Niger region of West Africa beginning in 1880. He understood European advantages and sought to offset them. Early on, Samory Touré acquired European muskets, which gave him undisputed leadership among potential leaders in the region. Always alert to opportunities, he purchased French chassepots rifles in the mid-1880s and the French Gras and German Mauser repeater rifles in the 1890s. In fact, by 1898 he had some 4,000 repeaters in his arsenal. He even tried to develop a local arms industry, but the regional blacksmiths simply lacked the resources to manufacture European weapons made in industrial centers. In the end, the French assets proved too formidable, and Samory Touré, captured by the French, spent his last days in Gabon, another French colony.
On one occasion, Europeans found they could neither hold a significant advantage in weapons nor overwhelm their enemies. The Ethiopian state withstood an attempted conquest by the Italians in the late 1890s. Much like Samory Touré, the Ethiopians realized the advantages of industrial weapons and purchased the latest rifles to equip their armies. They bought Hotckiss machine guns, developed by Austrian Baron Adolf von Odkolek and first adopted by the United States Navy in 1897. And they went one step further by abandoning their traditional phalanx formation, which like the Ashanti’s arc, reflected their social organization. In its place, they introduced the loose formation that was first developed by the Prussians to accommodate the firing methods of the new weapons.
When the Italians began their war of conquest in 1896, the Ethiopians were skilled in European warfare and well-practiced in the use of European weapons. The Ethiopians also relied on British advisers to prepare their army for battle. Plus, the Ethiopians received 100,000 rifles and 2 tons of ammunition from the French governor of nearby Somaliland, who feared an Italian victory. Still, the Ethiopians lacked the logistical apparatus of European armies and were faced with dwindling resources when Italian generals, forced by their political bosses in Rome, launched a premature attack on the Ethiopian army. Even so, the decision proved fatal for the Italians as Ethiopians troops, ably led and superbly equipped, defeated the Italian troops.
Europeans also encountered unexpected opposition in Southeast and East Asia. In China, the British Navy met defeat in 1859 at the mouth of the Peiho river, where Chinese artillery, protected by fortifications, severely damaged British warships. The Chinese had also turned back the British landing at Taku in 1857 when they tried to seize Canton on the south coast of China. In Vietnam, the French confronted substantial resistance. To overcome this opposition, the French raised a large fighting force and committed significant resources to impose their rule on Vietnam from 1882 to 1896.
Probably the most formidable opposition encountered by imperial powers were the Boers of South Africa, descendants of the early Dutch settlers. Forced out of their original 16th-century colony by the British in the late 1800s, the Boers set up two independent republics: Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The mineral wealth of these regions—especially the gold reserves—compelled the British to attempt a takeover of these republics. The Boers, anticipating this move, conducted a preemptive strike against British positions in 1899. The Boers arrived with smokeless powder, bolt-action rifles, and machine guns. They fought in elusive mobile columns.
Early Boer victories compelled the British to gather more resources from other parts of their empire and to develop new strategies and tactics. Yet, once the British defeated the Boers, die-hard Boer resisters formed a guerrilla army prepared for a long fight. The British responded with novel techniques. Under Lord Kitchner’s leadership, the British built blockhouses in enemy territory to guard communications and supply lines. Kitchner, a powerful figure in the British military, also forced Boer civilians, mostly women and children, into camps, where they were leveraged as hostages against the men in the field. Thousands died because of the poor conditions they were forced into by the British. This, and the rising costs of victory, provoked bitter protests in Britain. Nevertheless, the strategy worked, and the Boer republics became part of the British colony in South Africa.
Of non-western nations, only the Japanese successfully adopted the western industrial strategy. In the late 1860s, the Japanese abandoned their feudal order and embraced industrialization and other aspects of modern life. Subsequently, they sent missions to Europe and the United States to study their institutions and military systems. The Japanese then modified what they had learned to Japanese culture. From a society defended by samurai warriors in the 1850s, Japan emerged with a modern army, a general staff, universal conscription, and a Prussian-style reserve scheme by the 1890s. To sustain these innovations, Japan relentlessly pursued industrialization. And by 1900, they had established a modern economy. Japan built one of the best navies in the world, fielded an army unmatched in Asia, and began building an overseas empire in island possessions. In 1904, Japan went to war with Russia for control of the Korean peninsula. To the shock of the Russians and the Western observers, Japanese forces decisively defeated the Russians both on land and at sea. Japan had gained a foothold on the Asian mainland. The tables seemed to have turned.
The high casualty rates and huge financial and material costs of the Russo-Japanese war foreshadowed what would happen in World War I a decade later. In the two decades before World War I, European powers—fueled by enormous corporate production and innovation—constructed large navies, introduced increasingly powerful weapons, and prepared for conflict that few expected would last long. The technology that brought ascendancy after 1850 would prove far too effective during the great destruction of World War I. The huge costs of World War I—including the loss of an entire generation of young men—forced many Europeans to reexamine where industrialization had taken them. The progress of the previous century had collapsed into horrifying catastrophe. Industrialization had changed the way they lived their lives. Now it had changed how many thousands would die.
About the author: Edward J. Davies II is an associate professor of history at the University of Utah. He is the author of The Anthracite Aristocracy: Leadership and Social Change in the Hard Coal Regions of Northeastern Pennsylvania among other publications.
Appears in
Scramble for Africa; Industrial Revolution; Colonialism and Colonies; Warfare
|
Hotmail
Messenger
My MSN
MSN Directory
Appears in
