Studying 19th century warfare strategy and tactics I have noticed the transition from wars decided by single battles, like Austerlitz or Trafalgar to wars decided primarily by logistics and multiple campaigns starting with the American Civil War. With few exceptions (the Battle of Tsushima comes to my mind), this seems to be the rule of modern (20th century) warfare, where strategy is the primary deciding factor: proper management of human and material resources shadows de importance of battlefield tactics, reflected in the change from the napoleonic frontline commander who managed all the tactical details to the strategically minded "desk commander" of the 20th century who left most tactical details of battle to subordinates, commanding from the rear (Two models that clashed in the American Civil War in the form of Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant). The most obvious factor contributing to this is the technological development, specially in the area of transport (the train being the key up until WW2), but also in firepower, that lead to a great expansion of the operational theatre. In the case of naval warfare, the replacement of the sail by the steam motor opened a completely new capability of avoiding the engagement if desired, opening a window for limited engagements instead of the "all or nothing" battles of ships of the line. I am sure this is not the only factor, and that I currently understand just a fraction of the implications of the referred changes. I would deeply appreciate any help in understanding the causes of this important transition, or any commentary about the topic. Feel free to correct me if necesary, needles to say. Thank you.