Battlefield Coalitions in the Twentieth Century: 10 Takeaways

Rosella Cappella Zielinski and Ryan Grauer are doing fantastic work using quantitative data to document the historical significance of battlefield coalitions.¹

I’m still catching up with some of their latest stuff, but here’s ten takeaways from a 2022 article that hint at their prevalence, composition, and effectiveness.²

1. Nearly a quarter of all belligerents in major battles (a far more granular variable than wars or campaigns) between 1900 and 2003 were battlefield coalitions, with their frequency increasing over time, especially after the Cold War.
2. These coalitions had a slightly higher success rate, winning approximately 54% of their engagements, compared to 45% for forces fighting alone.
3. Coalitions with partners that had fought together in the previous 25 years won nearly 60% of their battles, while those without such experience won only about 40%.
4. Less than 40% of battlefield coalitions included at least two members with prior defense agreements, indicating that formal alliances aren’t the sole factor in coalition formation.
5. Superpower involvement wasn’t predominant; the U.S. contributed forces to about 34% of battlefield coalitions between 1900 and 2003, and 39% post-Cold War.
6. Less than half of the battlefield coalitions included forces from democracies, suggesting regime type isn’t a primary determinant in coalition participation.
7. Approximately 40% of battlefield coalitions involved at least one non-state actor, highlighting the diverse composition of these coalitions.
8. Differences in political and strategic objectives among coalition partners often led to disputes over command authority, impacting operational effectiveness.
9. During World War I (one of their major case studies), British and French forces confronted severe coordination challenges due to differing strategic aims and command disputes. Unified command proved incredibly finicky to implement at any level.
10. For contemporary military planners, understanding the dynamics of battlefield coalitions is crucial. Recognizing potential coordination issues and the value of prior joint experience can enhance coalition effectiveness in future conflicts.

---

1. They define a battlefield coalition as “groups of officers, troops, and materiel brought together by multiple distinct political communities for the purpose of jointly waging combat in the same operational battlespace.”↩︎

2. Rosella Cappella Zielinski and Ryan Grauer, “Practice Makes Perfect for Battlefield Coalitions,” Military Strategy Magazine 8, Issue 1 (Summer 2022): .↩︎

---

---