“Land strategies were more important than sea strategies in determining the outcome of wars.” Discuss with reference to two wars, each chosen from a different region.

The question requires that candidates offer a considered and balanced review of the argument that land strategies were more important than sea strategies in determining the outcome of two wars, each chosen from a different region. As the question refers to the outcome of the chosen wars, the outbreak may pre-date the timeframe. There may be reference to sea strategies such as the use of galleys and Venetian galleasses as platforms for battles between soldiers, as in the Battle of Lepanto, although this did not prevent the disbanding of the Holy League. The Wars of Spanish Succession would provide opportunities to discuss the relative importance of land and sea strategies. The use of both land and sea strategies in the Spanish and Portuguese conquests of the Americas and the Indies as well as the seizure of coastal ports along the West African seaboard to facilitate the transportation of slaves may be discussed. Candidates should consider both land and sea strategies but, depending on the wars chosen, may prioritize one over the other. Candidates’ opinions and conclusions will be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.

The question required that candidates offer a considered and balanced review of the argument that land strategies were more important than sea strategies in determining the outcome of two wars. There were very few responses seen.