Asses the impact of conscription on the outcome of wars across the period 1792-1945
Across the whole period conscription plays a varying role in impacting the outcomes od battle.
Equally it is worth noting that across the period various models were used to different degrees of
success, such as the cadre, militia and the expandable selective model, or in some cases conscription
is not used at all, if we take the British army up to 1916 as an example. Conscription had an impact
on two main areas, the quality of the army, and the size of armies. Consequentially it is clear that
the impact of conscription does not play a pivotal role across the whole period, and perhaps it is best
described as contributory, alongside factors such as alliances through the majority of the period,
reaching a peek in the middle with the limited wars of unification.
Conscription has a varying effect on the size of armies across the period, which towards the end of
the period becomes less advantageous, and mealy a pre-requisite. The introduction of Levve en
mass in the revolutionary wars was a turning point and is the first time that we see the ‘citizen as
soldier.’ Consequentially there was mass expansion of the Revolutionary armies with 300,000 men
divided into 11 separate armies (only three years previously there was only 3 armies.) However, the
beneficial effect of raising such a large army were not truly fully realised until the Napoleonic wars.
This is particularly prominent at Ulm where Napoleon’s superiority of 210,000 men against 72,000
Austrians allowed him to use tactics such as enveloping, and he managed to capture Mauston’s army
of 23,000 Austrians, thus demonstrating the wide reaching effects of conscription giving numerical
superiority in the outcome of war, in the beginning of the period. By World War One even the
previously elite BEF expanded, and by 1916 the military service act required conscripts to supply the
vast amount of men required to continue the war of attrition. the impact of conscription on
numbers, could no longer be considered pivotal, as all armies were conscripting, therefore
suggesting that perhaps other factors are more important in determining the outcome of war, with
conscription playing a contributory role, later in the period. Similarly, in the middle of the period in
the Austro-Prussian war, the Austrian army despite being numerically superior due to conscription
lost to Prussia as they were poorly organised, delaying for two months in Vienna to train. Therefore
highlighting that perhaps the effects of conscription on numbers are not as significant as their
effects on quality if the right model has been used. Overall conscription can be considered as having
a partially significant effect on the outcome of war, as their effect on numbers become less
impactful across the period, as conscription is no longer a pivotal factor, unlike in the Napoleonic
wars where Levve En Masse is often considered one of Napoleon’s biggest strengths.
The impact of conscription on quality of soldiers is perhaps more significant, as unlike numerical
superiority well trained troops, with motivation are seen as essential by all. Therefore it could be
argued that conscription can only be considered pivotal if the cadre system is used combining both a
numerical advantage and well trained troops. This is best exemplified by the Prussian conscript
reforms of 1862 where due to the introduction of the cadre system troops could be mobilised
quickly and effectively which alongside Bismarck’s focus on industrialisation meant that they would
be transported rapidly to battle using the 5 new railway systems, unlike the Austrians who were not
as well trained using the militia model. Equally, conscription across the period often tied into
nationalistic ideological campaigns as we see in the revolutionary wars where armies could accept a
vast number of casualties (200 out of 1,200 men dies at Lontarno, which for a very small army is
significant.) This is even more prominent in the American Civil War where the 1st Minnesota
regiment took 82% casualties to maintain the union position outside Gettysburg. However, it is
unclear whether ideological motivation is a result of conscription, as the troops in the American civil
war and Revolutionary wars are already motivated with Elan, fighting for the existence of heir
countries. Therefore, conscription can be considered an exacerbator of ideological motivation as it
