Many would argue that, the statement ‘generals win battles, logistics win wars’, is true to some extent.

Throughout the Napoleonic era, Napoleon had won countless of battles that were against set the odds. To win a battle, it is prominently down to the leaders, and Napoleon is identified as being a very good leader, with his charisma, ruthlessness as well as his ability to motivate his men. Napoleon had used Guibertian warfare to his advantage, Austerlitz is one of the most significant battle for Napoleon, as it highlights him as a great leader. Although Napoleon was never innovative, he was great at implementing them, at the Battle of Austerlitz, the French were heavily outnumbered and were at a major disadvantage seeing as the Russians were on the high ground. However, despite this the French army had trust in Napoleon, and believed that he would find a way to defeat the Russians. The French skillfully tricked the Russians to abandon their high ground, and when they did they had seized the opportunity and attacked from the rear, and the point of contact was led by Davout, who had been following Napoleons plan. Leadership plays a prominent role in motivating men, even when the chances of victory seem unlikely. Napoleon maintained this position within his army, and inspired his soldiers to not see defeat as an option. This had help in many of their battles, having the morale high had maintained their goal and had won several battles against the odds. However, although Napoleon was able to achieve success in several battles, he was unable to win the war.

Additionally, another great battlefield commander is Robert E Lee. Lee had always been in the disadvantage when it came to manpower, as well as resources. Like Napoleon, he had worked against the odds and had won several battles. Lee had faith that his army could achieve anything, because the balance of morale favoured his Virginians. He was a strong believer in his faith and his state. He also cared and loved his men in a paternal way. An exceptional battle for Lee was Chancellorsville 1863. The CSA were outnumbered, lacked the technology such as communication, out-gunned and were surrounded. Even with the so little chance of winning, Lee refused to surrender. Instead Lee came up with the tactics to outflank the flanks. This had changed the battle completely, leading to CSAs success. In the American Civil War, Jackson had the responsibility and was allow to choose the point of impact, the time and the route. Whilst, in Austerlitz, Davout had strick guidelines, and had to follow Napoleons commands.

Napoleon and Lee are arguably the greatest battlefield commanders, however neither of their sides had won the wars. It is debated that logistics had defeated them. There was also a change between these two periods, weapons. Many were using rifles, rather than muskets. Even with this alteration, The American Civil War had followed a similar strategy as Napoleon. Weapons had adapted, so that they were more accurate, implying that they can achieve shots at a further range, in comparison to Napoleonic wars.

Throughout Napoleon’s era, foraging had been seen as an advantage. As they were foraging in another country, providing the army speed as they had less to carry, as well as it was cheap. Furthermore, foraging had allowed corps to concentrate more on the battlefield. However, foraging had its downside. As it was uncertain that they would get food. Foraging had been designed for Europe, as there had been an agricultural revolution and had led to surplus farming. During 1812, the foraging system had failed the French. As there was the absences of the agricultural revolution in Russia, and the Russians had made sure that the French would not survive, had scorched the Earth, so even with the little crops that they had, the French could not have it. This had resulted in the French manpower dwindling from 800,000 to 20,000, this had been such an overwhelming lost, that they had never recovered. The Russians had played their cards well, by using progressive degradation, they had made the French army weakened and there was a massive imbalance in manpower. France were going to be invaded by Russia and its allies, almost half a million men, compared to the French who had only 37,000. Due to France weakening of its logistics, this had placed France in a terrifying position, and they lost the war. Even though, with years of winning battles, it all came down to logistics defeating them. France were not able to recover the man lose in 1812.

In the American Civil War, there had always been manpower disparity between the CSA and USA. The USA had used this factor, for their own gains. With the Anaconda plan, with their approximation that it will last for about two years, they had to ‘squeeze’ the CSA’s resources until they were left with nothing. Although with this disadvantage, hanging over the CSA, they had managed to win four battles, draw one and lost two. It was crucial for CSA not to lose a battle, as they had to maintain their resources. Thunder runs were a way for the USA to destroy the CSAs resources, by sweeping through enemy territory. The battle of Gettysburg, was caused due to CSA’s shortages, and the need of logistics. It was an encounter attack, and CSA was running short of time as well as men in order to win the war. The USA on the other hand, were able to lose battles, as they tend to recover, as they had good logistics. Due to CSAs lost of logistics, they had fallen short, and had lost the battle. This emphasises the great importance of logistics when an army has to recover from a lost.

In conclusion, the statement ‘generals win battles, logistics win wars’, is to true to a large extent. Leadership is vital for maintaining high morale even if the army are highly likely to lose, this is demonstrated int he battles like Austerlitz and Chancellorsville. Nevertheless, logistics plays are larger role in winning wars. As logistics are crucial to build and recover from disasters, even if you have great leaders, like Lee and Napoleon, it would be difficult to rebuild a corp and its resources, especially if the other side has the advantage of logistics.