So then what happens during this stage of imbalance?
By a consequence of this nature of warfare, strong leadership was absolutely critical. Massie, the popular American historian and winner of the Pulitzer Prize, in his book on Tzar Peter of Russia, hundreds of thousands of men needed to be coordinated and precisely timed with the rest of the army to deliver a decisive attack .
Organization became the crux of combat, the current mode of warfare required extensive management and logistics.
The early 1700’s rested on the bridge between two technologically different stages of war.
The first and arguably most important weaponry advancement resulted from the introduction of flintlock rifles.
This invention made the rifle more reliable and quicker to reload.
Therefore, a typical rifleman could nearly double his rate of fire: “As a smaller number of men could now deliver the same volume of fire, the sizes of battalions were reduced to make them easier to handle.
Though the study of Russia provides an interesting case in military history, it is no anomaly.
War is a chaotic system, infinitely complex in its variables and conditions, but analysis of recent and historical conflicts suggest that some factors play larger roles than others in the decisiveness of war.
Repeatedly, Russia had somehow found itself winning engagements against superior firepower, often without the advantages of modern weaponry.
Yet flash forward to today and the United States, the most technologically advanced military in the world today, is still struggling with irregular, fragmented insurgents in Iraq after seven years. How significant of a role does technological superiority assume in the determination of victory?
King Charles XII of Sweden had the most modern and well equipped army in all of Europe.