3.2 Changes in the role of the people · the Prussians with breech-loading rifles and artillery...

1800 18101790 1820 1830 1840 1850

The British experience of warfare, c1790–1918

kEy QuESTionS

• How important was technical innovation in the successes of British armed forces during the years 1790–1918?

• How far did the role of the civilian population in the war effort change during the years 1790–1918?

Changes in the role of the people

3.2

INTroDuCTIoNIt has always been true that the side that advances its technology has the edge in war. This goes back to the first bronze weapons developed in the early city states in the Middle East and the first iron weapons of the Assyrians. The advance in shield design helped the Greeks and the Romans, while the Romans also benefited from improved designs of their infantry swords and javelins. However, technological advancement only yields an advantage when tactical improvements are also made.

In some cases, technological superiority is not enough. During the Peninsula War, the superior weaponry of the French could do little to subjugate the elusive Spanish guerrillas. During the Vietnam War, the nature of the strategy employed by the Viet Cong also negated the vast technological advantage enjoyed by the Americans. During the Second World War, the Nazis had superiority in tank, aircraft, rocket and submarine design, but they could not withstand the numerical and industrial advantage enjoyed by the allies.

1793 – Britain declares war on France

1807 – Income tax levied to help pay for the wars with France

1848 – The Dreyse needle gun first introduced into service with the Prussian army

1806 – The first use of Congreve’s rockets 1854–56 – First use in combat

by the British Army of the new rifled musket during the Crimean War

HoW ImPorTANT WAS TeCHNICAL INNoVATIoN IN THe SuCCeSSeS oF BrITISH ArmeD ForCeS DurING THe YeArS 1790–1918?The industrial revolution: science and technologyBritain was the first country in the world to go through an industrial revolution. It was caused by a mix of entrepreneurial spirit, innovation and the right social and political conditions. At first, the advances were in the textiles industries in the north of England during the late 18th century, but these soon spread to iron production and engineering in the first few decades of the 19th century (the first inter-city railway opened in 1830 between Manchester and Liverpool). The development of

GuerrillaAn ‘irregular’ fighter on home territory against an occupying army. The Peninsular War gave the world the Spanish term, which means ‘little war’.

kEy TErM

Unendorsed Proofs

For Planning Purposes Only

1860 18801870 1890 1900 19201910

3.2Changes in the role of the people

1864 – The first use of the Gatling gun during the American Civil War

1866 – Defeat of the Austrians by the Prussians with breech-loading rifles and artillery

1859 – The development of breech-loading rifled artillery by George Armstrong

1884 – Hiram Maxim invents the first self-powered machine gun

new manufacturing machines stimulated advances in engineering and the use of stronger and more durable materials. The rise of the world’s first railway system stimulated British manufacturing to its peak, as cheaply made goods could be quickly transported to ports in order to export them. In 1860, over a quarter of the world’s manufacturing was done in Britain.

For the armed forces, this meant that the possibility of keeping an edge over the enemy was improved. The Royal Navy had the latest steam engines and the development of the screw propeller by Ericsson and Smith kept British warships in the lead during the mid-19th century. From the 1860s onwards, iron ships began to replace wooden ones and then, from the mid-1880s, steel ships began to replace iron ones. The improvements in steel production led by Sir Henry Bessemer meant that Britain had an adequate supply to keep its shipyards busy during the naval arms race of the first decade of the 20th century.

1915 – The beginning of the development of the tank

1905 – Launching of the first HMS Dreadnought battleship

1916 – Britain introduces conscription

Screw propellerSeveral angled blades attached to a central hub that spins and moves water or air in order to propel a vehicle, such as a ship or an aeroplane, forward.

kEy TErM

carronades and the navy in the 1790sreforming the royal NavyUnder Lord Howe, Rear Admiral Middleton and Major-General Blomefield, the Royal Navy underwent major improvements following its poor performance in the American War of Independence (1776–83). Shipbuilding was maintained at wartime levels during the peace in the 1780s and new ships were built and old ones repaired at record speed. Middleton was behind the initiative of coppering, which, despite its cost, improved the performance of Royal Navy vessels and meant that they were able to stay at sea for longer.

The Royal Ordnance, led by Major-General Blomefield, improved the quality of naval guns. Under his lead, Blomefield saw to it that every new naval gun had to be fired 30 times before being installed on a ship, in order to prove that it was soundly manufactured. Also, the firing mechanism was changed with the more reliable flintlock firing mechanism.

CopperingAlso known as copper sheathing, this was the practice of nailing copper sheets to the hulls of ships to protect them from attack by shipworm and to slow down the growth of marine weeds, which would affect the speed and handling of the ship.

FlintlockA mechanism by which a piece of flint was struck against a piece of metal in order to produce a spark. This spark would then ignite the gunpowder that would fire the weapon.

kEy TErMS

However, despite the influence of these individuals within the military establishment, perhaps the most important advancement in naval warfare during this time was through the actions of a private company.

The carronadeFirst developed at the Carron ironworks in Falkirk during the 1770s, the carronade was a short cannon that fired grapeshot at short range. Originally, it was designed for merchant vessels to give them something to fight back with. The rationale was that it was far easier to use than conventional naval guns and could be fired from the deck and so would not impinge on the merchantman’s carrying capacity. Having a shorter barrel but a wider muzzle gave the carronade a far broader angle of fire, meaning that it would strike more of the target than a conventional cannon. It was also quick to reload, used very little gunpowder and was devastating when aimed at the deck of an enemy vessel.

Unendorsed Proofs


40

The British experience of warfare, c1790–19183.2

The navy was quick to see that the carronade would complement the Royal Navy’s favoured tactics of the day. It had been a traditional strength of Royal Navy ships to be more manoeuvrable than the enemy, which they would use to gain an advantageous position and then deliver a broadside at the enemy vessel. Usually this was achieved by ‘crossing the T’, a manoeuvre by which the attacking vessel would sail across the front of the enemy so that their broadside would rake down the length of the enemy ship. Having gained an advantage, the marines on the Royal Navy vessel would board and capture the enemy vessel.

The carronade gave the British a great advantage during this close quarter fighting. Boarding an enemy ship was a risky affair. Swinging from your own ship or walking across a boarding plank was a hazardous undertaking. Well-placed defenders could cause serious casualties to a boarding party, while the boarders could not defend themselves. What the carronade gave the British was a weapon that could repeatedly fire devastating grapeshot across the deck of an enemy vessel and cut to pieces anybody who got in the way. Thus, the deck of the enemy vessel would be all but cleared of sailors and marines just before the boarding party came on board. It would take the enemy time to regroup, at which point the Royal Navy party would be on board their ship in numbers and be able to defend themselves.

Artillery ammunition on land and at seaMuzzle-loading bronze cannons usually fired cannon balls. These were simple, solid steel balls that did damage just by striking enemy troops or structures. The alternative was to fire canister (sometimes known as grapeshot), which was a large tin can filled with scraps of metal. When the cannon was fired, the tin would split and the bits of metal would spray out from the mouth of the gun. Canister was devastating at short range. The British developed a shell, which had a timed fuse and was filled with musket balls, so that the advantages of canister could be used at longer ranges. The shell was designed by Major-General Henry Shrapnel. Naval guns, including the carronade, could also fire chain shot, which was two half balls joined together with a chain. When fired, the projectile would spin and would cause great damage to the sails and rigging of an enemy vessel.

ExTEnd your knowlEdgE

Several captains complained of the carronade; some of its upsetting after being heated by successive discharges; others that, owing to its shortness, its fire scarcely passed clear of the ship’s side, and that its range was too confined to be useful. The captains of some of the 32-gun frigates, in particular, represented that one pair of their quarterdeck carronades was so much in the way of the rigging, as to endanger the laniards of the shrouds, and begged to have their established number reduced from six to four. As the principal objection to carronades appear to have risen from defects in the manner of mounting them, some additional instructions on that head were prepared and forwarded by Mr Gascoigne, the chief proprietor of the Carron foundry. Some alterations were also made in the piece itself. Still the Board of ordnance in repeated conferences with the Navy board, maintain the superiority of the old gun, resting their arguments, chiefly, on the comparative length of its range.

From James, W. The Naval History of Great Britain from the declaration of War by France in 1793 to the accession of George IV, published in 1836.

SourcE

1

Board of ordnanceA government body responsible in overseeing the supply of equipment and ammunition to the army and navy.

kEy TErM

The carronade in actionThe first use of a carronade was in 1782 by the frigate, HMS Rainbow. It caused the surrender of the French ship Hebe after a short fight. In 1795, HMS Glatton, a rare ship in that it was armed entirely with carronades, was overtaken by a squadron of French ships in the Indian Ocean. Thinking that it was easy prey, they came close to it in anticipation of a boarding manoeuvre. The fire from HMS Glatton was so devastating that each of the French ships had to withdraw due to being badly damaged. During the Battle of Trafalgar, the two 68-pounder carronades on HMS Victory were fired through the stern windows of the French battleship Bucentaure with such force that they cleared the top gun deck.

Unendorsed Proofs


41

Changes in the role of the people 3.2

The decline and legacy of the carronadeAfter the wars against Napoleonic France ended in 1815, naval tactics began to change. As long-barrelled guns became more accurate and quicker at firing, it became better for the British to conduct naval engagements at a distance where their superior gunnery would give them the upper hand. With emphasis being placed more on long-range gunnery, carronades, which were only effective at short range, began to be less fashionable. Carronades were phased out of Royal Navy service by 1851.

Carronades illustrated the power of grapeshot against the enemy. Though not that effective against structure, it was devastating against people. The development of high explosive shells fired by artillery both on land and at sea owed much to the effectiveness of the naval carronades. Shrapnel wounds from high explosive shells would come to be the most common form of wound during the First World War.

The other area that carronades drew attention to was windage. There is always a space between the cannonball and the inside of the barrel in order that the ball can be fired. Ideally, this gap should be as narrow as possible so that as much of the explosion of gunpowder is used to propel the ball rather than leaking around the sides of it. As carronades had a much shorter barrel, the windage could be much tighter, whereas in a longer barrelled gun the windage had to be wider to allow for wear and tear and slight discrepancies in the size of the cannonball. As all carronades and all their ammunition were made by the same manufacturer in Falkirk, the ammunition would be made to be as tight a fit as possible. As engineering became more precise and shells with cases became used in rifled barrels, windage ceased to be such a crucial issue. It was the work done by the Carron Company that was important in solving this particular problem.

A sketch from the carron company showing how to mount a carronade on the side of a ship. SourcE

2

WindageThe gap between a projectile and the inside of the gun barrel.

rifled barrelSwirling groves were cut on the inside of the barrel in order to impart spin onto the projectile, which meant it would travel further.

kEy TErMS

The carronades1 What were the advantages of the carronade over existing naval cannon?

2 Read Source 1. Do you think that some naval captains were justified in their attitudes towards the carronades?

3 Look at Source 2. How far does this support the view that the Royal Navy was committed to the use of carronades during the wars against the French (1793–1815)?

4 Why do you think that carronades eventually went out of use?

ACTIVITY KNoWLeDGe CHeCK

Unendorsed Proofs


42


congreve’s rockets, 1806The British had experienced rockets as weapons while fighting in Southern India in the 1790s. After the British victory in the Mysore War, examples of Indian rockets were brought back to the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich in London. They were examined and a British variant was developed by Sir William Congreve, a British engineer who believed that manufacturing rockets would be profitable if the armed forces chose to use them. He published a book, ‘A Concise Account of the Origin and Progress of the Rocket System’ in 1807. With the book, he hoped to convince the government that it was a weapon in which it was worth investing.

Once again, it was left to individual entrepreneurship to drive innovation, as Congreve needed to spend a good deal of his own money on experiments. However, by 1806, he had a working model. This working model, along with the support of George, the Prince of Wales, allowed him to prove its practicability to the War Office, who as a result gave him a grant to develop the rocket. Both the army and the navy adopted the new rocket from 1806 onwards and used it in small numbers during the wars against Napoleon’s France.

The rocket and the royal NavyThe first successful use of rockets by the Royal Navy was part of an attack on Boulogne. In October 1806, 24 cutters fired 2000 rockets at the city. The actual damage was limited, but the psychological effect on both the firers and the target was massive. The winding unpredictable flight path of the rocket, along with the smoke and noise and the extent of the damage, made the rocket a fearsome weapon. The Royal Navy then used the same method but added conventional weapons to bombard Copenhagen in 1807. The effect of a mixed barrage was far greater than from rockets alone. Rockets were also used during the war of 1812 against the USA. The most notable action was against Fort McHenry in 1814 during the Battle of Baltimore.

Sir William Congreve (1772–1828)Congreve was the son of a general, who graduated in Law from Cambridge University. Initially, he tried his hand at journalism and published a political newspaper, The Royal Standard and Political Register, which folded in 1804. He then turned his hand to inventing and working on a variety of ideas from sluice gates to printing machines. It was, however, his work on the rocket used as a weapon for which he is best known.

His father had been in charge of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich and so it was natural that Congreve should have an affinity with armaments. Rockets had been brought back by British forces from India in 1801 and given to the Royal Arsenal for testing. Congreve starting working there in 1804 and soon improved the design, using a cast-iron tube and an improved gunpowder mixture. His hope was to develop a weapon that would replace conventional artillery.

Though used during the Napoleonic Wars, the idea of the rocket as a military weapon was not to catch on until the development of long range missiles during the Second World War. Congreve never stopped inventing, though he did serve for a time as the member of parliament for Plymouth from 1818 until his death in 1828.


The fierce bombardment lasted over 24 hours, though in this case did not achieve the surrender of the fort. The experience at Fort McHenry illustrated the problem with the rockets; though they were loud and frightening, the inaccuracy of them meant that well-protected troops were unlikely to be physically affected by anything other than an improbable direct hit.

It must be laid down as a maxim, that the very essence and spirit of the rocket system is the facility of firing a great number of rounds in a short time, or even instantaneously, with small means; arising from this circumstance, that the rocket is a species of fixed animation which does not require ordinance to project it; and which, where apparatus is required admits of that apparatus being of the most simple and portable kind.

An officer, therefore, having the use of this weapon under his direction, must ever bear this maxim in mind – and his first consideration must be – to make his discharges against the enemy in as powerful volleys as he possibly can.

Thus – if the defence of a post be entrusted to him, and the ground be at all favourable, he will, independent of the regular apparatus he may have at his disposal, prepare what may be called rocket batteries, Consisting of as many in embrasures as his ground will admit; these embrasures being formed by turning up the sod, so as to give channels of direction for 5 feet long, and 3 feet apart; by which a greater number of rockets in a volley may evidently be arranged to defend any assailable point. In these embrasures, if liable to surprise, the rockets maybe placing readiness events not uncovered; though generally speaking, this is not necessary, as so short a time is required to place them – here and there one, only being in its embrasure.

In battle also, where there is not, of course, time to prepare the ground as above stated, but where it is tolerably level, he may, in addition to the apparatus he possesses add to his fire by discharging, from the intervals of his frames or cars, Rockets merely laid on the ground in the direction required: and if an enemy be advancing upon him, there is, in fact, no limit to the volley he may be prepared thus to give, when at a proper distance, but the quantity of the ammunition he possesses, the extension of his own ground, and the importance of the object to be fired at. Under these limits, he may chuse his volley from 50 to 500 – a fire which, if judiciously laid in, must nearly annihilate his enemy: for this purpose trains are provided.

From W. congreve, The Details of the Rocket System: shewing the various applications of this weapon both for sea and land service and its different uses in the field and in sieges, published in 1814.

SourcE

3

The navy used rockets for ship to shore bombardment. Rocket rails, along which the rocket was launched, were easy to fix on board and ships were useful for carrying large numbers of rockets. Also, rockets had a greater range than conventional guns. Therefore, ships could anchor outside gun range and still use rockets to attack onshore targets, such as forts or harbours. The drawback with rockets was that their flightpath was erratic and they did not cause the same amount of damage as canister or cannonballs.

rockets in the armyThere was much opposition to the introduction of rockets into the army. Some veterans of the Indian campaigns, such as the duke of Wellington, were reminded of their lack of accuracy

Unendorsed Proofs


43


and remembered how, in some cases, they could be as big a threat to the firers as to the target. Other generals were naturally conservative and regarded the new weapon as frivolous and unnecessary.

It was, perhaps, the patronage of George, the Prince of Wales, who kept the rocket programme going. He lobbied both the generals and the politicians to push on with trials and develop rockets for use in combat. After successful trials, the rocket brigade was formed under Second Captain Bogue. Some British rockets saw action with European allies at the Battle of Leipzig in October 1813 and served with the Anglo-Portuguese army for the invasion of southern France, and the Royal Horse Artillery’s 1st Rocket Troop saw action at Toulouse before being sent to take part in the attack on New Orleans. The 1st Rocket Troop also saw action at the Battle of Waterloo, where they were also equipped with conventional cannons. The fact that the army did not expand the use of rockets, instead staying with more traditional cannons, suggests that rockets had limited success on the battlefield.

The end of the Congreve rocketsThough Congreve rockets were used after 1815, the problems with their inaccuracy were never solved. They were used as part of the naval bombardment of Algiers in 1816, which destroyed the pirate fleet anchored there and forced the city to surrender. Land forces were to use Congreve rockets during the First Burma War (1824–26) with some success, but their deployment was made difficult by the rough roads. It also became clear that the rockets did not store well; they lost potency and they reacted badly to extreme temperatures. As the wars in which the British were involved shifted focus from a European theatre to colonial conflicts, these problems with Congreve rockets became much more obvious. Rocket troops did, however, continue to be deployed, such as during the wars against the New Zealand Maoris between 1845 and 1872.

Once again, it was left to an individual to improve rocket design and, in the 1840s, the British inventor William Hale patented a new rocket, which used spin to improve accuracy. The new rocket was quickly adopted by the US army and was adopted by the British army in the 1860s, though still for use in very limited numbers. As the 19th century wore on, however, rockets were taken out of service due to the massive advances in steel artillery.

william Armstrong’s new artillery, 1859–60Breech loadingTraditionally, firepower weapons had been loaded through the muzzle (Figure 2.1). This meant ramming the gunpowder down the barrel before the projectile was placed. Thus, re-arming a muzzle-loading weapon was a complex process. Having so much gunpowder igniting in the barrel also meant that the inside of the barrel would quickly become fouled and, thereby, less effective.

The answer to the muzzle-loading problem was to load through the breech, a hole or chamber closer to the firer. This meant that the weapon did not need to be moved so much and that the reloading process was much simpler. Breech-loading ammunition

also needed to be self-contained in a single unit, so that the gunpowder and bullet would be loaded together rather than separately.

Load fromrear breech

Load frommuzzle

Powdercartridge Wad Ball

Shell - contains explosivecharge and projectile

Figure 2.1 The difference between muzzle-loading (top) and breech-loading (bottom) cannons.

The first breech-loading cannon in Britain was developed by the Armstrong Company at the Elswick works in Northumberland. Having originally contacted the War Office with their proposal for a new design in 1854, the first practical field gun was ready for the army in 1858.

Armstrong’s new cannonSir William Armstrong was an industrialist and inventor from the north-east of England. He founded his own engineering company in 1847 at Elswick near Newcastle and enjoyed success designing and manufacturing hydraulic cranes. He was active in a scheme for supplying piped water to Newcastle from distant reservoirs, from which the partial result was the instillation of four hydraulic cranes on the Newcastle dockside. Armstrong was also the founder of Newcastle University. In the 1860s, Armstrong built a house for himself called Cragside, which was the first house in the world to be powered by hydro-electricity. He served as the high sherrif of Northumberland in 1873 and was elevated to the peerage in 1887, becoming Baron Armstrong of Cragside. His legacy survives to this day as the Armstrong Company merged with Vickers, and subsidies of Armstrong still operate as part of Vickers plc and BAE Systems.

Inspired by the problems highlighted in the Crimean War (1854–56), Armstrong set about designing a new cannon for the Royal Artillery. He was told that his five-pounder gun was too small and so he set about developing an 18-pounder.The design for Armstrong’s new cannon was meant to overcome the traditional problems faced by artillery; slow loading time, barrel wear and poor accuracy. It was widely understood in Europe that the answers to these problems lay in the development of a reliable, robust, breech-loading cannon.

The loading time problem was solved by placing the projectile in the breech. Armstrong’s gun had a screw thread on the breech, so that it could be replaced and screwed back into position before the gun was fired. Other designs used a sliding block to seal the breech when the gun was fired.

Unendorsed Proofs


44


to be mounted in revolving turrets rather than firing out of holes in the side.

The impact of the Armstrong cannonThe rise of the steel rifled breech-loading cannon caused significant changes in warfare on land and at sea. While the rise of mass forces made the battlefield wider – the field at Waterloo in 1815 was two and a half miles wide whereas the Somme battlefield in 1916 was 25 miles – it was the improved range and reliability of weaponry that made them deeper.

Armstrong’s cannon had a significant effect on the design of warships. Without breech loaders, the switch from broadside firing to turret-mounted guns would not have happened, and the development of large, heavily armed battleships would not have progressed in the same way. The naval race between Britain and Germany in the years before the First World War owes much to the advances made in cannon design.

On land, the killing power of artillery led to static warfare as men had to rely on trench systems to protect themselves from the cannons of the enemy. This meant that ground could only be gained by costly frontal assaults that led to far higher casualties. Servicemen in the wars of the 20th century were most likely to be harmed by artillery fire, whereas previously the biggest danger had been sickness.

It is indeed a time of great care and anxiety. I am preparing a paper for the cabinet on the amount of force to be maintained. It will be a heavy bill. I do not know how Gladstone will stand the demands made on him by Seymour and myself. I am pressing on arms, cannon, ammunition works; everything is going on at full work. I have closed altogether the Royal Gun Factory at Woolwich, not without much gnashing of teeth. But I satisfied myself that the concern was a failure, not producing better guns or cheaper guns than the French, and, what is worse, not producing them at all. The whole building will now be thrown into the Rifle Canon Factory under Armstrong, and will make his guns, and hoop cast-iron guns, to strengthen them for rifling.

From a letter by sidney Herbert, secretary of state for war, to sir James Graham, member of parliament for carlisle, 1859.

SourcE

4

To accompany the change to breech-loading cannons, projectiles were now coated in a soft metal (lead) that expanded slightly when the gun was fired. This would grip the rifling inside the barrel and put more spin on the shell. As the coating of the shell was softer than the metal inside the barrel, it would not wear down the barrel as quickly. Also, this reduced windage so that less of the propellant gases were lost in the gap between the projectile and shell, which meant that less gunpowder was needed to shoot the shell out of the barrel. Thanks to these new shells devised by Armstrong, but based on the principle of the Minié ball, problems of barrel wear and accuracy were solved.

minié ballA bullet made from iron and lead. Hollows in its conical base expanded to grip the rifling inside the barrel so that the ball spun in flight for greater accuracy.

kEy TErM

Armstrong’s guns and the armed forcesThe army adopted the 12-pounder breech loader in 1859 and a battery of these guns saw service in the New Zealand Wars in 1861. It was found that the guns required more maintenance and a higher level of crew training than the army were prepared for and the ammunition was more expensive than that required for muzzle loaders. Despite the success of breech-loading artillery in the wars in Europe in 1871, the army reverted to muzzle loaders, which were simpler and cheaper.

Breech-loading artillery became the norm from the 1880s onwards. Initially, the BL 12-pounder was the main field gun with a lighter version used by the horse artillery. Both 12-pounders were used during the Boer Wars augmented by a field version of the navy’s quick firing 12-pounder. By the First World War, larger guns were being used in numbers on the Western front, many of which were designed and manufactured by the Armstrong Company.

The Royal Navy also adopted Armstrong’s 12 pounder, though with a slightly shorter barrel. The quick fire version of the 12 pounder was adopted in 1894 and became the main armament for naval destroyers in both world wars. Breech loaders also had a major impact on ship design as larger breech loading guns needed

The next difficulty interposed to onward progress was the long-disputed conflict between the ship and the gun. Armour plates of augmented resisting power were manufactured in rapid succession by various energetic and enterprising firms; whilst, on the other hand, corresponding effects were being made to increase the size and piercing power of the gun; so that the relative advantages trembled in the balance and the final decision was necessarily deferred.

comments on the effects of naval gunnery by sir John Henry Briggs, chief clerk to the Admiralty, in his book, Naval Administrations 1827 to 1892, published in 1897.

SourcE

5

The effect of breech-loading guns on tacticsSmoothbore muzzle-loading artillery had been a useful addition to infantry firepower in the 16th and 17th centuries. Guns had either been formed into small batteries and given to infantry brigades, or had been split into single gun units and given to individual battalions and termed ‘battalion guns’. The development of larger, quicker firing and more reliable cannons changed the way that armies fought battles.

The most decisive change in the use of artillery was concerned with range. The new larger breech loaders were the first guns in history that could fire much further than the gunners could see. This meant that the gun or battery commander was unable to see the effects of his fire. He then had to rely on another soldier, a spotter, to tell him if the fire was falling on the right spot and was effective. Signalling, therefore, became very important and was developed through the use of signal flags, the field telephone and the radio. Early in the First World War, aeroplanes were used for spotting the artillery. Often, artillery would be aimed at points on maps, so it was also important that the army had up-to-date accurate maps.

Unendorsed Proofs


45


contained water in order to stop the barrel from overheating. It was a large gun by modern standards and needed a crew to move, set up and service it, but it could be fired by one man on his own. It was claimed that the Maxim gun could fire 600 rounds a minute.

The committee then gave a list of 11 advantages, with reasons. These were:

1. Facility of loading as regards the introduction of charge and projectile into the bore.

2. Substitution of short and handy rammers, etc., for inconveniently long and heavy sponges and rammers.

3. Recoil can be more easily and simply treated in breech-loaders.

4. A gun may be made of any desired length without practical inconvenience.

5. Less exposure of men while loading.

6. Injury to the gun while firing reduced to a minimum with breech-loaders.

7. Greater rapidity of fire.

8. Saving of labour.

9. The condition of the bore can be ascertained at any moment and the bore can be kept free from rust.

10. Smallest opening of embrasure.

11. Other things being equal, the breech-loader is exempt from accidents occurring from the premature explosion of the cartridge.

the advantages that might arise from breech loaders from the minutes of a meeting of the ordnance select committee on 22 July 1868, quoted in N. skentelberry, A History of the Ordnance Board, published in 1967.

SourcE

6

Congreve’s rockets and Armstrong’s new artillery1 Work in threes. One should prepare an argument for the use

of carronades as the main naval weapon; one an argument for the use of rockets; and one an argument for the use of breech-loading cannons. As a group, then debate the relative merits of the three and write a short report on your findings.

2 Why do think rockets inspired such enthusiasm from some (e.g. George IV) and such suspicion from others (e.g. the duke of Wellington)?

3 Why do you think rockets were used from ships firing at harbours and forts?

4 Despite the introduction of breech loaders, why do you think the army reverted back to using muzzle-loading cannons in the 1870s?

5 Read Source 5. What was the main concern of the navy with regards to firepower?


machine gunQuick-firing automatic gun, such as the British Lewis and Vickers. Machine guns were reloaded with bullets (rounds) from an ammunition belt or a drum (a metal canister).

kEy TErM

The Vickers gunThe Vickers Company acquired the Maxim Nordenfelt Company in 1897 and set about making an improved design of the Maxim gun. The principles remained the same, but the Vickers gun was lighter and was to prove more reliable. Its parts were easier to mass produce and the standard version used the same .303-inch ammunition as the infantry rifle. Like the Maxim, the Vickers needed a crew to operate it, but the gun itself and the tripod that it rested on were far easier to move.

At the start of the First World War, machine guns were parcelled out to each infantry battalion and cavalry regiment. A section of two weapons were assigned to each. By 1915, tactical thinking had changed and a light machine gun, the Lewis gun (invented by the American Colonel Lewis and developed by the British Small Arms company in Birmingham), was being used by infantry battalions. Heavier machine guns like the Vickers were reformed into the Machine Gun Corps, and then larger machine units were assigned to divisions. Eventually, each division had its own machine gun battalion to use as it saw fit.

laurence kiggell, director of Staff duties:After the Boer War the general opinion was that the result of the battle would for the future depend on fire-arms alone, and that the sword and the bayonet were played out. But this idea is erroneous and was proved to be so in the late war in Manchuria. Everyone admits that victory is won actually by the bayonet, or by the fear of it, which amounts to the same thing as far as the actual conduct of the attack is concerned. This fact was proved beyond doubt in the late war. I think the whole question rather hangs on that; and if we accept the view that victory is actually won by the bayonets, it settles the point.

Major n.r. McMahon, chief instructor at the School of Musketry:There is another reason why the adoption of this principle may be urged, viz. forthcoming developments in connection with automatic weapons. We all have it in our minds that before long an automatic rifle may be in use by all nations. Every nation has been trying to put off the date of it upon adoption. It was thought that the French would be the first to be obliged to adopt one, owing to the defects of the Lebel rifle, but, as its chances, the introduction of pointed bullets and the new ammunition has thrown the onus on us, and we have got to lead the way.

taken from the minutes of the British Army staff conference of 1910 and quoted in s. Bidwell and d. Graham, Fire-Power British Army Weapons and Theories of War 1904-1945, published in 1982.

SourcE

7

The Vickers machine gun, 1914–18The maxim gunThe first modern machine gun was designed by Sir Hiram Maxim in 1883, known as the Maxim gun. It used the energy of the recoil (the backward force of the barrel when the gun was fired) to expel the used cartridge and place the next one in the breech. The single barrel was surrounded by a sleeve that

Unendorsed Proofs


46


The impact of the Vickers gunThe Vickers gun and other machine guns played a major role in the tactical changes that occurred in the First World War. Prior to 1914, all warfare had been mobile, with two or more armies shadowing each other until they were both prepared to give battle. The First World War was the first conflict of static trench warfare, in which continuous fronts were held and each side tried to break through the front and force the enemy to fall back and give ground. The rate of the fire of the Vickers gun was a significant factor in the development of this kind of warfare, as men could no longer operate in open ground without being mown down by a machine gun.

The machine gun meant that fewer men were needed to hold an area. As a single machine gun could deliver the same volume of fire of 40 or 50 rifle men, a small machine gun unit could fight on equal terms as a large platoon or small company of infantry. Added to this was the increase in population and the rise of conscript armies. This meant that actual numbers of soldiers increased dramatically. During the campaign in Belgium and Northern France during the First World War, both sides held a continuous front from the North Sea to Switzerland throughout most of the conflict.

As weapons became more and more technically advanced, soldiers needed to be trained better in order to look after them. Machine guns had a lot of moving parts and men serving in machine-gun units needed mechanical expertise in order to strip down and clean the machine gun so that it would keep working efficiently. Men in these units were thereby specialists who needed training beyond that of the ordinary infantryman.

development of the tank, 1915–18The concept of ‘tanks’The idea of tanks goes back to ancient times and was realised in the siege towers that armies used to protect troops attacking fixed defences. These were first used by the Assyrians in the 9th century BC. With the Industrial Revolution came the steam engine and, later, the internal combustion engine, which made vehicles self-powering. The developments in tractors used in rough terrain and cars led to the consideration that a machine could be developed that would move itself, give its occupiers some protection against enemy fire and possibly even carry a weapon of its own.

In Britain, the ‘landships’ programme was initially supported by the Royal Navy and pushed forward by the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. Despite the reluctance of the army, the government made this a joint venture between the navy and the army in June 1915. The landships committee was formed under the leadership of Eustace d’Eyncourt, the director of naval construction. He was joined by engineers from the navy, including Major Walter Wilson who designed the gearbox, and they used industrialists as advisors such as Sir William Tritton, whose company William Foster & Co developed the tracks and built the first prototypes. The name ‘tank’ was adopted in December 1915 as a security measure and it was leaked that they were developing a ‘water carrier’ or ‘water tank’ for use in the Middle East. The word ‘tank’ stuck and has been used in many other languages.

It must not be thought that these guns will keep up a continuous fire, that they will go for an indefinite time umping a solid stream of lead at one place, as some of the opponents of machine guns seem to think in their discussions of the amount of ammunition used by the guns. Such targets are but rarely presented, though they do show up for a few minutes at a time. When a target is presented, the machine gun whirls around and cuts in; as soon as its target disappears, it at once takes advantage of the superior mobility to catch up with the infantry and seek a new place to go in.

The orders to be given to the machine gun men at the beginning of the battle need not be very explicit. The commander of the machine guns should know where the real point of attack is, and should be kept well informed of the progress of the action. With this information he should be able to get into action in an effective manner on his own account, and is likely to do better when not hampered by orders than when compelled to try to comply with instructions laid down probably by an officer who does not understand the true role of machine gun in the battle.

taken from the writing of lieutenant J.H. Parker of the Us army from 1899 and quoted in G.s. Hutchison, Machine Guns, their history and tactical employment, published in 1938.

SourcE

8

Unendorsed Proofs


47


The development of mark IThe first working prototype of a British tank was ‘Little Willie’, developed in the summer of 1915 by a team led by Wilson and Tritton. It showed the benefit of caterpillar tracks for moving over rough terrain and the eventual plan was to mount a single pompom gun (a larger calibre machine gun) in a turret on the top, along with six machine guns. Despite the success of Little Willie, the inventors were not happy with its performance and altered the design. The new prototype, ‘Big Willie’, was closer to the rhomboidal shaped tanks with tracks on the outside that would become the standard model during the First World War.

And now we are on our way over the trenches to the unknown. How far we had to go depended on the country after reaching points gained by the second wave. But Zonnebeke ought to be reached that day. So that is where we are now heading. It was some time before we reached that point where the second wave had concluded their task. Now we are entirely on new ground. The engine was overheating now our faulty radiator wasn’t functioning at all well. The two inch exhaust pipes were encircled by five inch sleeves: these sleeves were getting dull red in places.

Wow! Mud – mud – mud! This was an nth column against our progress. It came in every hole in the tank’s armour. It was like sausage meat of fantastic shapes and sizes – round and rectangular dollops to get about our feet and legs. We slipped and slid about, and more and more came in the farther we went.

Then a dreadful thing happened – we stuck and stuck fast! The tracks were slipping, but the white hot engine kept up revving. Vic B. frantically called upon his tank as though it was a light car he was inducing to move… There was consultation with our section commander of the ‘Lioness’. I was given an order to attach our hawser* to that vehicle which had followed in our tracks.

No sooner said than done, I had the hawser strung between the two tanks. No sooner said than done, the ‘Lioness’ started taking the strain. It snapped as if it had been cotton. Then I was ordered to attach the one carried by ‘Lioness’. This was given the same treatment – with the same result.

What a nerve! Why couldn’t they have sent one of their crew to help me? I was out there alone running from tank to tank in front of everything. The section commander bawled another order to me from his seat in the cabin of the ‘Lioness’: ‘Tell Lieutenant B. to abandon tank. Bring back compass and machine guns.’

*a thick rope

Memoir of Ernest Beall, private in the tank corps, describing his experience at the Battle of ypres in July 1917, in M. carver, M., Britain’s Army in the Twentieth Century, published in 1998.

SourcE

9

The first satisfactory version of Big Willie was working by December 1915 and was renamed ‘Mother’. The advantage over ‘Little Willie’ was that its lower centre of gravity would prevent it from toppling when moving over fixed defences. The idea for this design was Major Wilson’s. ‘Mother’ was developed during the spring into a combat-ready version called ‘Mark I’.

These first tanks were large, cumbersome and difficult to operate. Such was their weight that they required very large engines to drive each of the tracks, and their top speed was little over walking pace. They needed large crews as each individual track required a man to operate the throttle, the gears and the brakes. There was no steering and the direction of the tank was determined by the relative speed of each of the tracks. Such was the noise that communicating inside the tank was by signal only and communication between tanks was mainly by runner, although experiments with flags and pigeons were also tried.

The tank in actionThe tank made its combat debut in September 1916 during the Somme offensive. Mechanical problems meant that, of the original 50 tanks, only 24 actually made it to the start line for the attack. Of these, several more broke down short of the enemy lines and others were destroyed by artillery fire. Some, however, did take part in the attack and helped in the capture of the villages of Flers and Martinpuich.

Despite initial problems, chiefly with reliability, the British persisted with the development of the tank. The Mark IV and Mark V that were used through 1917 and 1918 were upgraded versions of the Mark I, having better engines and heavier armour. The French and Germans also undertook their own tank programmes – the French Renault FT having the first revolving turret and the German AV7 taking part in the first tank versus tank battle at Villers-Bretonneux in April 1918.

Unendorsed Proofs


48


The most successful tank action of the First World War was at the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917. Over 400 tanks supported the infantry and followed a creeping barrage during the first wave of the attack. The tanks were effective in clearing the barbed wire and then supporting the infantry with fire. During the first day, much progress was made by the British, but the Germans counter-attacked on subsequent days and were able to stabilise their position.

Creeping barrageA barrage of artillery shells that falls just in front of advancing infantry and moves forward as they move forward.

kEy TErM

The impact of tanks during the First World WarThough the tanks had some effect on tactics during the First World War, it would not be until the Second World War that they would realise their full potential. Their development had been with a view of providing a means to help infantry break through very heavily defended trench systems covered by large amounts of barbed wire. Tanks became part of the established pattern of massed attacks against fixed positions; only later would they change the nature of fighting.

The tank was used as an infantry support weapon throughout the war, being deployed alongside infantry units and utilised in combined arms assaults. They were used to cut pathways through barbed wire and to provide mobile fire support, both in terms of artillery through their six-pound cannons and small arms through their machine guns. Initially, they had a great shock value and their size and their noise meant that they continued to hold an element of terror for exposed infantrymen who had to face them.

A British Mark iv tank on a training exercise, with a large number of canadian soldiers sitting on top of it, on the Western Front during the First World War. dated February 1918.

SourcE

10

A Level Exam-Style Question Section C

How far do you agree that the British armed forces had a conservative attitude towards the technical developments in weaponry between 1790 and 1918? (20 marks)

TipExplain both sides of the argument for embracing and investing in new weapons but also for being careful not to waste money.

The Vickers machine gun and the development of the tank1 Read Sources 7 and 8. Would Lieutenant Parker have agreed with Laurence Kiggell or Major McMahon?

Explain your answer.

2 Why do you think the British army was slow to adopt the machine gun in large numbers?

3 How important was the machine gun in changing the way that wars were fought in the first decades of the 20th century?

4 Why did the British decide to develop the tank in 1915?

5 Read Source 9 and carry out some independent research. How typical is this experience of the performance of tanks on the Western Front?


Unendorsed Proofs


49


Cause and consequence (7a & b)

Questions and answersQuestions that historians ask vary depending on what they think is important. It is the questions that interest us that define the history that is written. These questions change with time and place. Different historians will also come up with different answers to the same questions, depending on their perspectives and methods of interpretation, as well as the evidence they use.

Below are three historians who had different areas of interest.

richard Holmes E.P. Thompson owsei Temkin

A military historian who lectured at Sandhurst and Cranfield University. He died in 2011.

A social historian and a political activist, being a member of the British Communist Party in the years following the Second World War.

A historian who worked in America and wrote extensively on the history of medicine. He died in 2002.

These are some key events and developments connected with warfare in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The introduction of the tank during the Battle of the Somme in 1916

The McNeill-Tulloch Report, 1855

The rocket attack by the Royal Navy on Fort McHenry in 1814

The development of ancillary services for the armed forces (see page XX)

The abolition of flogging as a peacetime punishment in 1868

The introduction of lead coated projectiles for rifled artillery

The use of the Vickers machine gun during the trench warfare of the First World War

The autobiography of Mary Seacole published in 1857

The use of women in the munitions industry during the First World War (see page XX)

Work in groups of between three and six to answer these questions:

1 Which of these events would have been of most interest to each historian? Explain your answer.

2 Each take the role of one historian and devise a question that would interest them about each of the events.

3 Discuss each event in turn. Present the questions that have been devised for each historian and offer some ideas about how they would have answered them.

4 For each event, decide as a group which question is the most interesting and worthwhile of the three.

Answer the following questions in pairs:

5 Identify the different ways that each historian would approach writing an account of the First World War.

6 In what ways would Holmes and Temkin differ in their explanations of the significance of the introduction of the Vickers machine gun? What would be the focus of their arguments?

Answer the following questions individually:

7 All three historians may produce very different accounts and explanations of the same piece of history. Of the three historians, whose account would you prefer to read first? Explain your answer.

8 Do the differences in these accounts mean that one is more valid than the others?

9 Explain why different historical explanations are written by different historians.

10 Explain why different explanations of the same event can be equally valid.

Unendorsed Proofs


50


HoW FAr DID THe roLe oF THe CIVILIAN PoPuLATIoN IN THe WAr eFForT CHANGe DurING THe YeArS 1790–1918?The role of the populace and the war effortLimited war or total war?The extent to which civilian populations become involved in war can vary. When the war itself moves through an area, the locals cannot help but become involved. There is the obvious danger of the fighting, which also brings the possibility of damage to property. Soldiers are often desperate and hungry, so can be threatening physically, but can also steal items like valuables and food. An army passing through an area can strip the countryside of food and leave the local population facing starvation.

In the British Isles, since the Middle Ages, the only major war where areas of the countryside will have been aware of the movement of large bodies of troops will have been the English Civil War in the 1640s and 1650s. There were some short campaigns either involving wars between England and Scotland or attempts to claim a disputed throne, but these would not have directly touched the lives of many civilians.

Thus, most wars in which the British were involved have been remote and the civilian population would only have heard news about it either through news agencies, such as newspapers, or through conversations with those who were there. There may have been some interruption to daily lives such as changes to the conditions for commerce, but largely life would have gone on as normal until the First World War broke out in 1914.

There were some civilians who made it their affair to travel to a war zone. Some would be civilians who had work connected to the army, perhaps in engineering, supply or medical care. Others would be soldiers’ wives who were willing to share the hardships of their men folk and who walked alongside the baggage train. Some, like journalists, businessmen or missionaries, saw that war could sometimes bring new possibilities, particularly if the campaign included acquiring or securing a new colony during the time when the British Empire was expanding between the 18th and early 20th centuries.

Total war is very different from the usual experience. It involves the whole of the population in the war effort and touches every aspect of daily life. Civilians are expected to undergo privations in order to contribute to the war effort – to accept less food and less pay and to work longer and perhaps have two or more jobs, sometimes voluntary ones, in the service of their country. Civilians are taken away from other jobs in order to equip and supply the fighting men through their toil in the factories and on the farms. Before the age of total war, there were one of two specialist companies who supplied equipment and some items of food and drink. While on campaign, quartermasters and purchasing officers would buy supplies from local sources.

Total war shapes the society in that war to maximise the war effort. In the total wars that have occurred, men of a certain age were conscripted into the armed forces. Their places in industry were taken by older men called out of retirement or women and unskilled workers. The manufacture of consumer goods was suspended to give priority to the manufacture of war materials and people were asked to make do with less to aid the war effort.

Britain has only fought two total wars in its history: the First World War 1914–18; and the Second World War 1939–45.

Different groups at different timesBritain had a majority agrarian population, i.e. people living in the countryside, until the middle of the 19th century when the balance began to change resulting in more people living in the cities. As the economy became more industrial, a new wealthy class began to emerge, which had made its money from industry rather than landowning. Another important social change during the 19th century was an expansion of the population from around 10 million in 1800 to 40 million around 1900.

One of the main effects of war on society was felt through its impact on the economy. On the one hand, as demand for certain manufactured goods and food increased, some sectors did well as prices rose and jobs for the workers were secured. On the other hand, trade was disrupted during wartime

Unendorsed Proofs


51


and so exports dropped, which meant a downturn in some other sectors and so workers were laid off. By the First World War, the government was marshalling people into working in essential industries and so the economic impact of war was felt less on an individual level during the war itself. The real economic impact of the First World War was felt during the 1920s.

Improvements in communications and a large increase in the rate of literacy brought the war closer to people. The dispersed population of late 18th-century Britain may have been aware that Britain was at war with France, but the details would have largely passed them by. A century later, a literate population would be digesting bulletins from the Second Boer War on a daily basis. A growing sense of patriotism developed as a result of this and partly helps to explain the enormous sacrifices made by the population during the First World War.

Warfare also played a part in an increase throughout the period in social mobility. During the French Wars (1793–1815), social structure was fairly rigid and people had little chance to better themselves. By the First World War, the expectation that the aristocracy was the ruling elite had been slightly eroded and, in the army and navy, advancement could also be on merit as well as by social class. This can be illustrated by the fact that the leading politician and general of the French Wars (Pitt and Wellington) were sons of aristocrats and were both educated at Eton, whereas in the First World War the leading figures (Field Marshal Haig and Prime Minister David Lloyd George) were from middle-class backgrounds.

Financing the war effortGovernment finance in BritainBritain fought a series of wars during the 18th century, which increased government debt. The purchasing and maintaining of equipment such as battleships or cannons was expensive and so was the supplying and paying of all the men in the armed forces. In addition, Britain was in the position where it often had to subsidise its allies, such as Prussia during the Seven Years War (1756–63) in order to keep them fighting.

The government mainly raised money through taxes on commerce. With the British economy booming for most of the century, the treasury was able to collect more than enough money for the everyday needs of the state. When war came, however, the government had to take out loans in order to pay for the expansion of the armed forces.

The Bank of england and the financing of warInitially, the Bank of England was founded as a means by which the government could manage its debt. It was responsible for the issuing of government bonds, which was the way that the government borrows money. This gave the British government a great advantage over other governments that had to pay for everything in cash. When the British government commissioned work, it could pay with a promisary note due to the confidence that people had in the Bank of England.

In addition to standard bonds, the government also issued consolidated annuities (consols). These differed from normal bonds in that there was no fixed period by which they had to be repaid. This meant that in theory (though in practice governments do, from time to time, pay off consols) the government would not have to repay the capital investment. For the investor, the advantage was that every quarter they would receive an interest payment. Also, when the rate of inflation was very low, consols that guaranteed a return of 2.5 or 3 percent became highly tradable items on the stock market. The first consols were issued during the 1750s with an interest rate of 3.5 percent, which was then reduced to 2.5 percent. Though consols formed a very small part of government debt, they were issued at important moments when the government was in need of money, notably in 1855 during the Crimean War and in the 1920s when the country was trying to deal with the massive debt caused by the First World War.

Promisary noteA piece of paper promising that a debt will be settled on demand. The idea developed into paper money.

kEy TErM

Government bonds During wartime in the 18th and early 19th centuries, the Bank of England meant that the British government could raise much more money than its enemies. As the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, British trade became much more lucrative. A new middle class of industrialists began to grow and it was to these people, along with the traditionally wealthy landowners and merchants, that investment in government bonds was most appealing. Having a guaranteed return over a fixed period

Unendorsed Proofs


52


was seen as a sound investment and, whilst not a quick way to make huge amounts of money, the government was seldom short of willing investors in a new bond issue.

This ability to borrow large amounts of money when needed affected the way that Britain fought its wars. It took on its enemies with armies and fleets of battleships, but it also used its financial muscle to support its allies. During the Seven Years War, British subsidies to the Prussians kept their armies in the field against the French and the Austrians, which meant that Britain, apart from a brief campaign in 1759, could concentrate on the colonial and naval side of the war.

Financing the wars against the French, 1789–1815Britain financed the wars against the French in much the same way as before, but the scale of the wars put an unprecedented strain on the British economy. After the American War of Independence, the prime minister, William Pitt the Younger, had put in place a series of indirect tax reforms that had increased government revenue from £12.7 million in 1783 to £18.6 million in 1792. By 1792, Pitt had also reduced the national debt from £243 million to £170 million.

By 1798, the ongoing war with France and the need to subsidise the war efforts of Austria and Prussia were putting a considerable strain on the British treasury. Though further indirect tax reforms, a new tax on inheritance, the suspension of gold payments by the Bank of England and a reduction in import duties had further improved tax revenue, outgoings were growing far quicker than revenue. In 1798, Pitt took the decision to impose an income tax on individuals for the first time in British history. The rate was 2 old pence in the pound (slightly less than a modern penny) on incomes above £60 a year and 2 shillings in the pound (10 modern pence) on incomes over £200. Since the average yearly wage was well below £60, this tax did not affect working people but only targeted wealthy businessmen or landowners, who, despite being reluctant to pay, were in a position to afford it.

The Income Tax Act was passed in 1798 as a temporary measure. The first year that the tax was levied, it brought in an extra £6 million for the treasury, though it had been hoped that it would yield £10 million. Many of those eligible declared their income at just under £60 in order to avoid the tax. Pitt got the measure through parliament on the basis that it was the patriotic duty of all subjects of the UK to contribute to the war effort against the French. Income tax was suspended in 1802 when peace was signed, but reinstated in 1803 when war broke out again.

John Bull scratches his head at William Pitt’s (1759–1806) income tax. the angel playing the harp is William Pitt. A 1798 cartoon whose author is unknown but is in the style of Gillray. James Gilray was a highly influential caricaturist and satirist of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

SourcE

11

National debtThe total money owed by the government as a result of borrowing from its own people, foreign governments and international institutions.

Indirect taxCharge levied by the state on consumption, expenditure, privilege, or right but not on income or property.

kEy TErMSFinance through the 19th centuryFrom 1815 to 1914, Britain’s small wars were paid for by taxation and small increases to the national debt. As Britain’s place as the richest manufacturing nation grew, so did government income. The colonial wars that Britain was involved in only required small numbers of British troops and were, therefore, fairly cheap. The two main reasons for this was that the enemy was often few in number and relatively poorly equipped and also that the British were able to conscript local troops to fight for them. During the third Burmese War, there were only 3000 British regulars augmented by 6000 Indian troops. The only wars that required heavy government borrowing were the Crimean War (1854–56), which was partly funded through a large issue of consols by the then chancellor, William Gladstone, and the Second Boer War (1899–1902).

Even though little pressure was placed on the government coffers, there was still a clamour within parliament for a reduction in spending on the armed forces. This was particularly the case in the time following a major conflict or series of smaller conflicts. The Cardwell reforms followed the Crimean War and the Haldane

Unendorsed Proofs


53


reforms followed the Second Boer War (see Chapter 1). Though these reforms were also aimed at fighting efficiency, the financial aspect was also an important in bringing about these changes.

Financing the First World WarSuch was the scale of the First World War that the government had to make a massive increase in the national debt and raise the level of taxation just to keep the British armed forces going.

The national debt increased from £625 million in 1914 to £7800 million in 1918. This money was borrowed from British and international institutions (many from the USA) via government bonds and offered a very good return on investment. Direct loans were also taken from other governments, notably the USA. Such was the size of the debt by 1918 that 25 percent of taxation income was being used to make the interest payments on the debt. Another source of government borrowing was special ‘war bonds’ that were offered to the general public. These were investment bonds that were bought by individuals during the war on the understanding that after the war the government would pay them back plus interest. The first issue of war bonds was at 5 percent interest, though this was later reduced to 3.5 percent. War bonds were priced as low as £5 so that ordinary people could afford to invest if they had a little spare cash. Also, the Post Office allowed ordinary people to open War Savings Certificate Accounts, where you bought stamps for 15 shillings and sixpence on the understanding that you would get £1 back in five years.

This was the first war in British history during which people were asked to personally help finance the war effort. The fact that war bonds and war savings raised hundreds of millions of pounds shows the belief that British people had in the cause of the war and also the trust that they placed in the government. They believed that the government would honour their commitment to repay their debt. The trustworthiness of government stocks and the general strength and reputation of London as a centre for international finance were also important factors in selling government stock to foreign investors.

Another way of increasing government income was to increase taxation. All three chancellors of the exchequer – Lloyd George (1914–15), McKenna (1915–16) and Bonar Law (1916–18) – put up the rate of income tax, which went from 3.75 percent in 1914 to 30 percent in 1918. They also introduced a tax on business profits, the rate of which had increased to 80 percent by 1918. In 1914, only 1.5 million people paid income tax and by 1918, it had risen to 7.7 million people. This was, in part, due to the lowering of the exemption level from £160 to £130 and also the rise in wages over the course of the war.

The Bank of England also took measures to help the government. It stopped issuing gold in exchange for bank notes and kept the gold as an emergency reserve. It also issued more bank notes than it had gold to back up, which meant that the economy could continue to function and the government make payments but it also put inflationary pressure on the economy, which affected interest rates and therefore made borrowing more expensive.

camp followersWho were the camp followers?Armies on the move drag in their wake a large body of people who have no official role in the army but who, for various reasons, have chosen to follow the army on their campaign. These people may be related to a soldier, they may be there for the opportunity to make some money, such as cutlers, vitlers or prostitutes, or may be there for reasons of patriotism, for philanthropy or out of simple curiosity. The term for these people is ‘camp followers’ and for the 18th and most of the 19th centuries this was the primary avenue of interaction between armies and society at large.

Women and childrenSoldiers were allowed to marry and wives were permitted to accompany their husbands on campaign, though officially numbers were limited. During the Peninsula War (1807–14), only six wives were allowed per company for the lower ranks, selection often being made by ballot. These women were listed on the company strength and were subject to army rules and regulations. Officers could only marry with the permission of their commanding officer, but there was no restriction on officers’ wives accompanying their husbands.

In addition to the official women, there were often a good number of unofficial camp followers. These were often wives from home who had not been selected among the official spouses to accompany the battalion but who went anyway. Often, these women, and their children, would have to make their own way to the campaign. There would also be local women who had become attached to a soldier and had decided to follow him as the army moved around on campaign.

The inflationary cycleGovernments in need of capital can simply print more bank notes. This puts more money into circulation and allows governments to pay for goods and services. The downside of this is that people become less confident that the currency will hold its value as the government will find it harder and harder to meet its commitment to repay its debts. As a result, businesses will put up prices in order to make sure that the real value of its income does not fall. This creates price inflation, which also creates wage inflation that, in turn, creates more price inflation. The more bank notes a government prints, the greater the pressure of inflation and the more that the currency loses its relative value.


Financing wars1 Why did it take until 1914 for Britain to be involved in total war?

2 Explain why Britain had such a significant advantage in war during the 18th and early 19th centuries.

3 What was so different about the First World War in the way that it put a strain on British finances?


Unendorsed Proofs


54


Accompanying the army was not an easy choice for a woman; camp followers had to march the same distance as the soldiers, suffering the same privations as them. The difference was that only official wives were given rations or a tent to sleep in, and so all the unofficial camp followers had to fend for themselves. Hard though life was, it was thought a far better option that the alternative.

Extreme poverty was never far from the lives of most people in 18th and 19th-century Britain. If a woman ‘lost’ her husband to the army, she would have felt that there was little prospect of seeing him again. If work was difficult to come by in your area, it would leave women with the stark choice of following the army or possibly going into the workhouse. What also may have affected the decision was the difficulty of sending money home. During the wars against the French (1793–1815), campaign pay was a third of normal pay and the delivery of it was irregular. Moreover, most of the rank and file were drawn from jobless labourers, alcoholics or petty criminals and most wives would not have trusted their husbands not to dispose of their surplus wages on drink and prostitutes.

WorkhousePlace of sanctuary for destitute individuals and families. For meagre board and lodgings, families were expected to do some form of labour.

kEy TErM

It is worth noting that women did not enjoy the same rights as men. Laws that allowed for gender discrimination were not removed until the Sex Disqualification Removal Act of 1919. The different legal status of men and women was reinforced by cultural norms and attitudes. This placed women, particularly single women, in a vulnerable situation. Making her way in the world would be stressful at best for a single woman with so many aspects of life that would be against her, for example being barred from certain professions such as the law or medicine. Married women would be virtually the property of their husbands and thereby dependent on him. This gave them some security but very little freedom.

Following the army gave women some security. For those who wanted it, there was a ready supply of husbands as combat and disease killed off the soldiers. There was also the group camaraderie of the other women. The camp also offered the possibility of making a living, as there were always jobs needing to be done for which the soldiers would be willing to pay.

Ancillary servicesBefore the 20th century, the army focused on its primary function – fighting battles – to the detriment of other activities that allowed it to function well. Thus, areas like medical care, catering and servicing were neglected by the authorities but were often provided by camp followers.

The professionalism of military medical care started slowly, with the Crimean War bringing into sharp focus the need for medical care. Before then, medical care was given by bandsmen who acted as stretcher bearers and by the surgeon attached to each battalion. The nursing would be done by camp followers, an arrangement that put a disproportionate strain on the camp followers. Even after the problems highlighted by the experience of the sick and wounded in the Crimea, full-scale professionalism did not take place until the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the level of care began to mirror the situation in civilian health provision.

The medical practitioners did not represent the best of their profession. For a surgeon, who at this time would not necessarily have been a qualified doctor, a job in the army was probably the least desirable position that he could attain. This meant, in effect, that the army attracted the worst surgeons in the country. Similarly, bandsmen joined the army to play music not to look after wounded soldiers. Many of the wives, however, had been taught practical folk remedies from an early age and so wounded and sick soldiers would often prefer to be treated and looked after by the camp followers. The most famous self-organised and non-official medical practitioner was Mary Seacole (see Chapter 4).

Culinary skill was also prized by the ordinary soldiers. Army rations consisted of hard biscuit, bread (in varying degrees of staleness), meat (usually on the bone) and some form of alcohol (wine or rum). Soldiers were expected to cook for themselves, either individually or in small groups, known as messes. Considering that gender roles were very fixed at the time, it made far greater sense to most soldiers who had partners among the baggage train to seek them out, in order that they might make something palatable out of their rations rather than suffer their own hapless efforts.

Army uniforms and equipment were often of inferior quality and would not stand up to the rigours of campaign. To keep them serviceable, they would need constant running repairs. Camp followers often had far greater skill with a needle and thread than the average serviceman.

Unendorsed Proofs


55


Camp followers and businessThe other motivating factor that led people to follow an army was the possibility of making money. Private enterprises ranging from prostitution and selling alcohol to gunsmiths, cobblers and cutlers would follow the army in the hope of making money. For example, a civilian with a grindstone and the skill to use it could make a very good living sharpening officers’ swords. Also, an army that could march up to 25 miles a day would be in need of boot repairs and would see the benefit of investing in it. Civilians with an entrepreneurial spirit could make a decent amount of money meeting the needs of the army.

Groups of prostitutes have been following armies since armies existed. Often with so few options, many women were forced into this course of action merely to survive. Soldiers with excess pay, time on their hands, miles from civilisation and with the imminent prospect of death around the corner would probably be more willing to engage the services of a prostitute than men in civilian life. It was estimated by the authorities that, during the 1850s, as many as one in five servicemen in Britain had succumbed to a venereal disease. It was as a result of the investigation into this that the Contagious Diseases Act was passed in 1864.

As a result of the Contagious Diseases Act, women could be examined and, if found to be infected with a venereal disease, could be detained for up to three months. At first, this was limited to certain ports and army towns, but in 1866 it was extended to other areas. As the clients of the prostitutes were never examined, it was a controversial Act, which highlighted the social inequality of the genders – the women (prostitutes) who were infected could be examined against their will, while the infected men would be at liberty to carry on as normal. In 1867, the Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act was formed by the social reformer Josephine Butler. In 1886, the Act was repealed.

Josephine ButlerJosephine Grey was born in 1819, the daughter of a wealthy agriculturist and political activist and relative of Whig prime minister, Earl Grey (1830–34). In 1852, she married George Butler, with whom she shared an evangelical approach to Christianity and a commitment to liberal reform.

After losing her only daughter in a domestic accident in 1863, she sought solace in helping those whose pain was greater than her own. This involved helping vulnerable women and campaigning for women to be able to access higher education.

She took a leading role in the campaign against the Contagious Diseases Act, as she saw it as the epitome of the discrimination against women that was prevalent in Victorian society. She was a good public speaker and was even reputed to have reduced a man, Hugh Price Hughes, to tears with her description of the intimate examination of a prostitute by the police.


organising the home frontThe threat of French invasion, 1793–1814The threat of an invasion by the French army caused the forming of militia units throughout the UK. Though part time and not eligible for foreign service, the militia units performed useful duties throughout the war and served as a base from which to recruit regulars.

Cavalry militia units were either ‘fencibles’ or ‘yeomanry’. The word ‘fencible’ derives from the word ‘defencible’ and means temporary units that, by terms of their enlistment, cannot be sent abroad. Fencible units were popular in the 1790s, but most were disbanded following the Peace of Amiens in 1802. After 1803, most of the militia duties were undertaken by the yeomanry, who were part-time soldiers. The main role of the cavalry militia was to act against civil unrest. This allowed regular units to serve abroad with the army.

Infantry units were also styled ‘fencibles’, but could also be ‘militia’ or ‘volunteers’. They were raised by counties and, like the militia cavalry, allowed regular units to serve abroad by taking over their duties. Each county was given a quota of men to raise and sometimes shortfalls were made up by pressing men for service. Militia units were generally given garrison duty away from their home area in order to avoid a conflict of loyalty when policing civil unrest. Volunteer units were part-time

Unendorsed Proofs


56


soldiers like the yeomanry who trained for a few hours and who were meant to defend their local area against invasion.

An example of a yeomanry unit was the South Notts Yeomanry Cavalry. They were raised in 1794 as four troops which operated independently of each other. The Nottingham Troop was commanded by Ichabod Wright, a businessman and local political activist. The troop was involved in suppressing the Nottingham bread riots in 1795, including an incident where a young officer jumped his horse over high iron railings to disperse a group of rioters. Source 12 gives another indication of how local troops were used to restore public order.

Thursday evening a waggon loaded with corn, purchased by a person in Leicester, passing through the two, was stopped and conveyed by the populace to the church. Information was immediately transmitted to the mayor, who, with the Rev. T. Burnaby (one of the magistrates of the county) and the Leicester troop of cavalry, proceeded to the place of their destination. On their arrival they found a vast assemblage of people in the churchyard, who refused to part with the corn. The magistrate remonstrated with them for a considerable time, and promised to accommodate them with a part if they would disperse, but this they absolutely refused. The Riot Act was then read. Unwilling still to proceed to extremities, it was proposed that eight quarters of corn should be left, which was agreed to, and the remainder was put into the waggon. On their going off, however, the cavalry (who before had been insulted) were assailed with brick bats, and some shots fired upon them from the adjacent houses, one of which wounded Mr Stringer in the knee. The cavalry fired in return, and eleven victims fell; three were shot dead on the spot and eight dangerously wounded.

Article from the London Chronicle, published in August 1795, describing the intervention of irregular fencible (from the term ‘defencible’ meaning ‘defensive’) cavalry to prevent public unrest.

SourcE

12

In the 1790s, militia units were financed privately by wealthy individuals or by popular subscription. The Shropshire Yeomanry, for example, was financed by popular subscription, to which the MP for Shrewsbury, Sir William Pulteney, contributed £5000. After 1803, government money was available to units, but under certain conditions that so many days’ training was undertaken through the year. By the end of 1803, 380,000 men were serving in the reserves, 34,000 of these in the cavalry.

The reserves in the 19th centuryFollowing the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, many of the local units were disbanded. Some continued and were able to provide a policing role where necessary. One infamous example of this was the meeting at St Peter’s Field in Manchester in 1819. The local yeomanry were called to disperse the crowd, violence broke out and 11 people were killed with many others injured. The Press attacked the excesses of the yeomanry and dubbed the episode ‘The Peterloo Massacre’. People began to question the relevance of the reservists, particularly when a civilian police force was introduced in 1829.

The reservists became a more structured part of the nation’s defence when parliament passed the Miitia Act in 1852. This was in response to the fear of a French invasion and the lack of planning for this by the military authorities. The Act provided for a militia force of 80,000 men to be enlisted voluntarily or by ballot. The ballot was not quite conscription, as there were many ways around it and there were enough volunteers to fill the ranks. What was important was that the militia was forming a recognised part of home defence in peacetime as well as during war.

In addition to the militia, a volunteer movement grew up from the 1860s onwards. This was popular as many saw it as both patriotic and enjoyable. Volunteer units were freed from the discipline of the militia and the army leaders began to see them increasing as a corps of irregular troops whose skills with a rifle would provide a useful skirmish line for the professionals.

Both the Cardwell and Childers reforms drew the reservists closer to the army until Haldane made them an integral part of defence policy in the early 19th century (see Chapter 1).

Unendorsed Proofs


57


The home front during the First World WarWithin four days of the declaration of war in August 1914, the British government had passed the Defence of the Realm Act. This, and subsequent legislation, gave the government unprecedented powers to influence almost every aspect of everyday life.

The Defence of the Realm Act profoundly changed the relationship between government and society. Throughout most of the 19th century, people, had largely been left alone to live as they pleased. This situation had changed as the government passed laws to tackle social problems, but, by 1914, the government still had a fairly laissez-faire attitude to the affairs of its subjects. The extra powers that the government took at the start of the war enabled it to significantly affect people’s everyday lives. For example, it now became an offence to fly a kite, light a bonfire or buy binoculars. Any talk about military affairs in public was prohibited, as was trespassing on the railways. Clearly, the government was concerned about spying.

There were other measures that concerned the economy. In order to reduce absenteeism from drunkenness, pub opening times were restricted and landlords were told to water the beer down to reduce the alcohol content. Drinkers were also not permitted to buy beer in rounds. One of the most significant effects, still felt to this day, was the introduction of British Summer Time in order to provide more daylight for agricultural work in the evening.

Laissez-faireFrench term meaning ‘leave alone’. The idea that governments should not interfere, especially in trade and business.

kEy TErM

managing the war economyIt was clear by the early months of 1915 that steps needed to be taken to ensure that adequate supplies would reach the front line troops in France and Belgium. This was starkly indicated when a rumour of a shell shortage caused outrage in Britain. This led to the Munitions of War Act of 1915 that resulted in direct government control of the munitions industry with strict rules about what workers could and could not do. The trade unions agreed to abide by the conditions of the Act for the duration of the war.

The main area was the conduct of the workers. Strikes were prohibited and workers could not leave employment in a war industry without the written consent of their employer. No worker could refuse to take on a new job, no matter what the rate of pay, nor could a worker refuse to do overtime, even if it was unpaid. Skilled jobs could be broken down into smaller component parts and done by unskilled workers, a practice known as ‘dilution’. In addition to this, the government could direct workers to work in specific industries in specific areas of the country.

In return, wages were to be protected and pay rises could be offered, but only with the agreement of the government. Workplace disputes would be solved by compulsory arbitration and those workers found contravening the Munitions Act would be tried by special munitions tribunals. Companies

An Act to confer on His Majesty in Council power to make regulations during the present War for the Defence of the Realm.

Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. His majesty in Council has power during the continuation of the present war to issue regulations as to the powers and duties of the Admiralty and the Army Council, and of the members of His Majesty’s forces, and other persons acting on His behalf, for securing the public safety and defence of the realm; and may by such regulation authorize the trial by courts martial and punishment to persons contravening any of the provisions of such regulations designed –

a) To prevent persons communicating with the enemy or obtaining information for that purpose or any purpose calculated to jeopardize the success of the operations of any of His Majesty’s forces or to assist the enemy; or

b) To secure the safety of any means of communication, or of railways, docks or harbours; in a like manner as if such persons were subject to military law and had on active service committed an offence under Section Five of the Army Act.

From the defence of the realm Act, passed on 8 August 1914.SourcE

13

Unendorsed Proofs


58


in the war industries had their profits limited, though there was still a good deal of scope for shareholders to enjoy a return on their investments.

The coal industry also came under some form of government control. The profits of coal mines were fixed for the duration of the war to 1913 levels, with any surplus going directly to the treasury. Coal mines remained in private ownership, but the appointment of a coal controller in February 1917 suggested that full nationalisation would occur should the mines not comply with government guidelines.

NationalisationThe practice of the state taking key industries from private ownership into public ownership.

kEy TErM

rationingGovernment-directed limitation on the amount of certain food types available to each individual per week.

kEy TErM

The transport industry was also subject to government control. Like the mining industry, profits were set at their 1913 levels but, also like the mining industry, individual companies continued to run their own services for much of the war. This was particularly the case for the railway companies, though merchant shipping came under increasing control by the government. By 1918, most merchant ships had been requisitioned by the ministry of shipping in order to keep the country supplied.

Controlling the workforceDuring the first months of the war, British industry experienced a crisis as young men, many of them key skilled workers, flocked to join the armed forces. It was recognised early on that the country had to balance the needs of maintaining the army and navy with the requirements of industry and agriculture at home.

By 1915, recruiting sergeants were instructed not to recruit men from reserved occupations. These were miners, shipbuilders, farmers, merchant seamen, drivers and workers in the munitions industry. Some men who had already joined up were recalled to take their place at work, as it was felt that they could have more of an impact at home than on the front line. As the war went on, more and more from reserved occupations were called into the army to make good the appalling losses suffered.

What also allowed the release of men from reserved occupations was the deployment of women in industry. Women working in the munitions industry increased from 82,859 in July 1914 to 947,000 by November 1918. Over 200,000 women became civil servants during the war and 500,000 others did clerical work for private firms. The transport industry also took on women: 117,000 by the end of the war.

While the nature of women’s work changed during the war, the numbers of women doing waged work did not rise dramatically. In 1914, 5.9 million women were employed; by 1918 that figure had risen to 7.3 million, an increase of 22.5 percent. Most British women were still housewives in 1918.

It was only by the end of the war that the ministry for manpower had gained the authority to manage manpower to the best interest of the nation. For most of the war, the government had to negotiate between the competing areas of industry and military as to which need for manpower was greater.

Food and drinkFood was a problem for the island nation. In 1914, 60 percent of Britain’s food was imported. This meant that merchant shipping was very important for keeping the country supplied. It also meant that any drop in domestic food production could have a major effect on the food supply.

The strain on merchant shipping caused by unrestricted U-boat warfare was having an effect on the food supply. By the end of 1916, there were shortages in the shops and long queues of disgruntled people formed outside them. The price of food, when it was available, had risen dramatically since 1914.

To tackle this situation, the government took two measures. The first was a massive shipbuilding programme to make good the losses to the merchant fleet and to ensure that imports of food continued to flow into the country. The second was the setting up of a food agency and the introduction of rationing.

The food agency was given sweeping powers to supervise food production. Livestock farmers were encouraged to turn to food crops, particularly wheat, barley and potatoes. The government guaranteed to keep the prices of these commodities artificially high in order to encourage farmers to switch. Every farm came under the control of the Board of Agriculture, which was to ensure that the famer was making the best use of the land. The wages of male landowners were set at a national minimum to keep workers on the farm rather than joining the services. From 1917, the creation of

Unendorsed Proofs


59


the Women’s Land Army (WLA) provided women labourers to take of the place of men who were needed to fight. In the end, only 16,000 women joined the WLA.

Compulsory rationing was introduced in January 1918. Voluntary rationing had been tried before but without success. Staples like meat, butter, margarine and sugar were all rationed, with each person being allowed a certain amount a week. Bread was not rationed and the price of a loaf was subsidised by the government. This meant that, although a varied and rich diet was not possible under rationing, at least the availability of bread meant that people would not go hungry. Though the average diet dropped in the number of calories by 3 percent, this is a very low figure when compared to the effect of the war on the diets of civilians in Europe where many people suffered malnutrition.

As referred to briefly earlier, another area that the government felt it needed to control was alcohol. It identified that alcohol was the cause of the loss of working time, along with being responsible for incidents of civil disorder. The Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act was passed on 31 August 1914. It gave authorities the right to limit the opening times of pubs, advised landlords to water down beer and to stop allowing customers to buy rounds of drinks. In certain areas of military importance, such as naval ports or areas with a large number of armament factories, opening hours were very restricted. The effect of government policy on drinking was very successful. Beer consumption had halved by 1918, and consumption of spirits was less than half. Convictions for drunkenness had gone from 3388 per week in 1914 to 449 per week in 1918.

Censorship and propagandaOne of the main thrusts of the Defence of the Realm Act was the restriction on information. It became an offence to talk of military matters in public and information to the newspapers was carefully controlled. It was only in 1916 that correspondents were allowed access to the front lines and, even then, they were only given carefully written statements by the Army Press Bureau. Civil servants were busy making sure that the Press did not reveal anything sensitive. In 1916, 38,000 articles, 25,000 photographs and 300,000 private telegrams were examined by government censors. Some newspapers that tried to give a balanced or an anti-war perspective could be shut down, as was the Tribunal newspaper due to its support for conscientious objectors.

A Level Exam-Style Question Section C

‘The civilian population was far more important during the First World War than previous wars.’

How far do you agree with this statement? (20 marks)

Tip Consider the direct impact of the civilian population on the war, give clear examples and then contrast these to the situation in previous wars.

Propaganda was seen by the government as an important part of the war effort. Over 50 million posters were printed during the First World War in addition to other publications, the organising of rallies and the production of films. The propaganda film, the Battle of the Somme, not all of which was filmed on the actual battlefield, was made by independent filmmakers but sold to the government and was a great success. By October 1916, it had been shown in over 2000 cinemas. Perhaps the most effective propaganda concerned the behaviour of the Germans. Real incidents, such as the naval bombardment of Scarborough or the Zeppelin raids on civilian targets, added to the exaggerated claims about babies being bayonetted or women being crucified by barbaric German soldiers.

The home front1 Why were civilians so important to the army during the wars of the 19th century?

2 Read Source 12. Do you think that these civilians would have behaved differently if the soldiers had been regulars? Try and think of points for both sides of the argument.

3 Read Source 13. How far does this illustrate a change in the way that the government conducts itself during a war? Explain your answer.


Unendorsed Proofs


60


First World War poster requesting the public to donate food and supplies to the salvation Army to distribute to soldiers fighting in France. Produced by the salvation Army in 1915.

SourcE

14

Unendorsed Proofs


61


The scale of warDuring the period 1789 to 1918, the scale of warfare changed. The wars up to 1914 had been limited to single armies moving in relation to one another with a limited impact on the whole of a country’s civilian population. After 1914, the First World War was fought over multiple armies, which formed a cohesive front and pitched the populations of whole nations against one another. Technological advances meant that killing during the First World War had reached new levels of efficiency, resulting in many more men being needed for Britain to intervene successfully on the continent. The number of British casualties from the Somme in 1916 would have wiped out the British contingent at the Battle of Waterloo (1815) several times over.

Technology and people’s experience of war1 How did technological developments over the course of the 19th century make the killing of enemy

soldiers more efficient?

2 How were civilians dragged closer and closer to war between 1789 and 1918?

3 How did the British experience of war change between 1789 and 1918?

ACTIVITY SummArY

widEr rEAding

Farmer, A. The Experience of Warfare in Britain: Crimea, Boer and First World War 1854–1929, Hodder (2011)

Rees, R. and Stewart, G. The Experience of Warfare in Britain 1854–1929, Pearson (2008)

Stewart, N. Access to History Themes: The Changing Nature of Warfare, 1700–1945, Hodder (2002)

Unendorsed Proofs


Date post:	26-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

3.2 Changes in the role of the people · the Prussians with breech-loading rifles and artillery...

Documents