Command became quicker, easier, and more responsive”[1].

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 [1].

Organization became the crux of combat, the current mode of warfare required extensive management and logistics[1].

However, what happens if the invention of a weapon with a higher rate of fire, such as a machine gun, comes about?

Suddenly this idea of concentrating men in a slow moving column is rendered utterly useless.

Massie attributes Russian victory in the face of technological inferiority: leadership and training [1].

Tzar Peter’s risky decision to lure the enemy into the cold winter of Russia and sever their supply lines reflects dominance in strategy over strength, brains over brawn.

King Charles XII of Sweden had the most modern and well equipped army in all of Europe.

These glaring discrepancies help illustrate the factors to which Robert K.

In one fell swoop, just one mistake by the Swedish command, Charles’ great army was defeated.

This is only one of many instances in history where the underdog bested his opponent so quickly through means other than attrition.

The point remains, however, that the new gunpowder arms did little to change battle outcomes.