The purpose of this essay is to explore the relevance of Stephen Biddle’s theory of the Modern System as a model for explaining victory and defeat. Using a multiple case-study of battles from the Finnish-Russo conflict during the Second World War, comparisons are made between the system, doctrines and actual methods of combat in order to draw conclusions about the relevance of the theory.

Results of the study confirm that the Modern System is applicable as an explanatory model since both cases show that the victor used methods of combat more comparable to the system than the loser. However, no relationship could be found between the system and the doctrines used which indicates that the Modern System based purely on doctrine is not enough to explain victory and defeat in combat. Therefore the explanatory value of the system is related to methods of combat rather than written doctrine.