Case Studies and Comparisons in the History of Warfare

Using battles to investigate wider changes

A case study lets us examine warfare at a particular time and then connect that example to a wider development. Instead of simply learning what happened in a battle, we ask what it reveals about weapons, the people using them and the influences shaping warfare.

For this thematic study, the main factors are governments and individuals; science, technology and communications; and attitudes in society. Case studies give these broad categories a concrete meaning. A weapon can provide evidence about technology, for example, but we must also explain what difference it made to fighting.

From a historical detail to an explanation

The longbow was important at Agincourt. It relied on the archer’s skill and fired one arrow at a time. This connects a technological feature—the weapon—to the individual who operated it. Possessing a longbow was not the same as being able to use it effectively.

In the First World War, machine guns could fire hundreds of bullets per minute. Tanks could move across no-man’s-land, the ground between opposing armies’ positions. These examples show two different ways technology could affect fighting: increasing the volume of fire and providing a means of moving across the battlefield.

The useful historical explanation is therefore more than ‘weapons improved’. It identifies a particular development and explains its practical significance. Machine guns greatly increased the amount of fire soldiers could produce compared with weapons that discharged one projectile at a time. Tanks illustrate a change in battlefield movement rather than simply a faster rate of firing.

Making a detailed comparison over time

A strong comparison begins with a shared feature. If the feature is the speed of firing, compare the longbow with the machine gun—not the longbow with the treatment of civilians.

For example: one difference between medieval and modern weapons was their rate of fire. At Agincourt, longbow archers fired one arrow at a time and depended on their skill. In the First World War, machine guns could fire hundreds of bullets per minute. The comparison shows how technological change greatly increased the volume of fire that could be directed at an enemy.

Notice the structure: a clear difference, evidence from each period, and an explanation of what the difference meant. The two examples work together rather than forming separate descriptions.

The same evidence can also reveal a continuity. Both longbows and machine guns were weapons used to attack an enemy with projectiles. Their broad purpose persisted, while the mechanism and rate of firing changed. Continuity and change can therefore exist together; the conclusion depends on which feature you are comparing.

Naseby: connecting leadership, training and victory

The Battle of Naseby, fought on 14 June 1645, provides a different kind of case study. During the English Civil Wars, Parliament’s New Model Army defeated Charles I’s main Royalist army. Thomas Fairfax commanded the Parliamentarian army, while Oliver Cromwell commanded its right-wing cavalry. The battle was a decisive turning point because it destroyed the king’s main fighting force.

The contrast between the actions of the cavalry helps explain the outcome. On the Royalist right, Prince Rupert’s cavalry defeated the opposing Parliamentarian cavalry but pursued them towards the baggage train rather than immediately helping the Royalist infantry. Their success on one part of the battlefield therefore did not become a victory for the whole army.

On the Parliamentarian right, Cromwell’s cavalry defeated the opposing Royalist cavalry. Cromwell kept most of his men together rather than allowing all of them to pursue the fleeing enemy. They could then turn against the Royalist infantry, helping the Parliamentarians defeat it.

This is evidence of the importance of individual leadership working with military organisation. Cromwell’s decision mattered because disciplined troops remained available to carry it out. The New Model Army’s emphasis on repeated drill and strict discipline helped commanders use soldiers as a coordinated force. Meanwhile, Fairfax rallied his infantry when it came under pressure. Parliamentarian victory cannot therefore be explained simply by naming Cromwell or listing the army’s weapons.

Comparing the importance of training across periods

Agincourt and Naseby can be compared through the shared feature of effective use of soldiers’ skills. At Agincourt, the longbow depended on the skill of individual archers. At Naseby, disciplined cavalry enabled Cromwell to redirect troops after defeating their immediate opponents. In both examples, equipment alone was insufficient: the people using it needed appropriate skills.

There was also a distinction in what those skills achieved. Archery skill enabled effective use of a particular weapon, whereas cavalry discipline at Naseby enabled coordinated movement and obedience to command. This is a more precise comparison than saying that ‘training was important in both battles’.

Judging what a case study can demonstrate

A case study is a focused example, not a complete picture of its period. Comparing Agincourt with First World War fighting demonstrates a major contrast in weapons, but it does not mean that every medieval soldier was an archer or that every modern battle involved tanks.

The evidence must also fit the factor being investigated. Weapon capabilities help explain technology; Cromwell’s decisions at Naseby help explain leadership. To investigate attitudes in society, look for evidence about people’s beliefs and how those beliefs affected actions such as volunteering, resisting recruitment or supporting military change. Battlefield success alone does not establish what wider society believed.

When using further case studies, follow the same reasoning: choose a common feature, identify precise evidence from each example, explain the similarity or difference, and connect it to the relevant factor. This turns individual events into evidence about the development of land warfare over time.

Comparison anchors

• Agincourt: longbows depended on skilled archers and fired one arrow at a time.
• First World War: machine guns fired hundreds of bullets per minute; tanks could cross no-man’s-land.
• Weapons comparison: greater volume of fire was a change; attacking enemies with projectiles was a continuity.
• Naseby, 14 June 1645: Fairfax commanded Parliament’s army. Cromwell retained control of most of his victorious cavalry and redirected it against Royalist infantry; Rupert’s cavalry pursued towards the baggage train.
• Training comparison: skilled archery at Agincourt and disciplined cavalry at Naseby both show that equipment needed effective human use.

Apply the evidence

Shared feature → evidence from both periods → direct comparison → historical significance.

At Naseby, leadership and disciplined organisation worked together. Claims about societal attitudes need evidence about beliefs and their effects.

A case study illustrates a wider development; it does not represent every battle in its period.