ABSTRACT
Success can consist of meeting targets, even if meeting them falls short of absolute success. Few would say that the First World War was an absolute success, and most of the blame has been pinned on the “donkeys”—the generals. The time absorbed by arraigning culprits has largely precluded consideration of the lesser definitions of success. If things could not be the best, were they the best possible? Artillery is often brought into debates over how the war should have been fought-debates that implicitly assume it was fought the wrong way, and that the ultimate victory of 1918-19 was tainted. Yet imposing this view on the evidence will automatically distort the results, for it takes little account of the views of the participants. How well did the artillery meet the goals set for it in this period, bearing in mind that those goals changed over time?
