Was world war 1 won solely on the battlefield?
World War I was not in fact won solely on the battlefield. While the land-battles and conflicts at sea were important, the primary key to ultimate victory was moral and logistical; that is, the demoralization of the German military combined with the increasing logistical might of the Alliance-nations was what finally brought victory to the Alliance.
Is a general's win-loss record on the battlefield is the best gauge of measuring greatness as a military leader?
During the American Civil War, but it is also true in most other military contexts, a general's win-loss record on the battlefield is, indeed, the best gauge for measuring his greatness as a military leader. It remains true that many excellent generals can be found among those who lost more times than they won, mostly because battles are not won solely through generalship: supply, morale, and political considerations may also have a decisive effect on…
In the context of World War I, 'stalemate' refers to the impossibility of achieving decisive results through battlefield conflicts and clashes. Territory might be gained or regained; advances were sometimes made; small victories might be won. Yet, until late in the war, stalemate dominated the war's major fronts, with no significant or decisive results able to be won, no matter how much effort (or life) was expended.
Passchendaele was a war fought during WORLD WAR 1, not the Civil War or the American Revolution! Basically, the battlefield was entirely muddy, and the mobility of the troops of both sides were limited. The Germans won this battle due to the fact that they had better artillery, and were able to pick off Canadian/other Triple Entente powers as they struggled to retreat.
The question does not specify which of the two Battles of Bull Run (1861 and 1862), but both of them were clear and undeniable victories for the South, and the North was twice forced to leave the battlefield at Bull Run. Actually, the South won the majority of battles in the Civil War because of superior military leadership, but each Southern victory weakened them more, whereas the Northern ability to make war was not diminished…