Assess the view that conscription was the most significant development in the conduct of warfare in
the period 1792-1945?
Conduct of warfare = strategy and tactics used by generals
Conscription – Certainly a significant development, as lower quality but mass armies determined the tactical
conduct of warfare
● Eg. full frontal assaults with mass conscript armies seen throughout the period
○ Somme and Passchendaele - WW1
○ Siege of Port Arthur - Russo-Japanese War
○ Battle of Fleurus 1794 – French Revolutionary Wars
● Striking impact of conscription seen when comparing Napoleon’s tactics in 1805 vs. 1812
○ Veterans of FRWs made up the bulk of his army in 1805 , allowing Napoleon to use complex
manoeuvre eg. as seen at Austerlitz
○ However by 1812, the bulk of the Grande Armée were poorly trained Eastern European
conscripts → meant that Napoleon was forced to use only basic attrition tactics at Borodino
● WW2 – consideration of conscription also had a key impact in determining tactics
○ Rapid and motorised Blitzkrieg campaigns were intended to produce fast results to avoid a war
of attrition due to fears regarding the quality of mass conscripted troops.
Conscription – Likewise, conscription had a decisive impact strategic use of mass armies
● Attritional strategy was possible as mass armies could sustain huge losses
○ French Revolutionary Wars - 800,000 men raised through conscription
■ Meant that 20% losses per battle were sustainable, and France was able to wage as
many as 10 multple campaigns at once
○ Identical impact seen at the end of the period in WW2 – Attritional strategy used by Russian
High Command 1942-43
■ USSR 16 million-strong conscript army sustained just under 5 million casualties during
Operation Barbarossa
● Conscription of workers was also instrumental as it facilitated the supplying of mass conscript armies
○ Eg. 80,000 Land Girls and 48,000 Bevin Boys were conscripted in Britain in WW2 to supply
mass armes
○ Likewise conscription of 250,000 factory workers during Levée en Masse allowed the French
armies to be properly supplied
■ (eg. one factory in Paris produced 700 muskets daily)
However I would argue that Industrialisation was more important in determining the conduct of wars
● Industrialisation on weaponry
○ Development of machine gun and accurate rifles determined battlefield conduct
■ Whilst in FRWs full frontal assaults were effective against lines of defenders using
unaimed volley fire, as seen at Jena 1806
■ by WWI the strength of defensive weaponry such as the Lewis machine gun (effective
firing range of 800m and 600 rpm) resulted in a 3 year stalemate on the Western front,
as it nullified the effectiveness of frontal assaults by mass conscript armies
● eg. at the Somme 1916).
● Industrialisation on transport
○ Eg. development of railways had a decisive strategic impact
■ Franco-Austrian War 1859 - Transportation of 120,000 rested French troops in 2
weeks by rail to Northern Italy (a journey that previously took 2 months by foot) allowed
them to defeat 400,000 strong Austrian conscript army at Magenta and Solferino
(1859), who were exhausted and dispirited after a 150km march in wet conditions.
■ Similarly 1864 Sherman's March to the Sea - the 60,000 strong conscript army could
not have undertaken such a campaign were it not for the 400 mile long Chattanooga
railway, which effectively supplied them with 36,800 wagons worth of food and
materials.
the period 1792-1945?
Conduct of warfare = strategy and tactics used by generals
Conscription – Certainly a significant development, as lower quality but mass armies determined the tactical
conduct of warfare
● Eg. full frontal assaults with mass conscript armies seen throughout the period
○ Somme and Passchendaele - WW1
○ Siege of Port Arthur - Russo-Japanese War
○ Battle of Fleurus 1794 – French Revolutionary Wars
● Striking impact of conscription seen when comparing Napoleon’s tactics in 1805 vs. 1812
○ Veterans of FRWs made up the bulk of his army in 1805 , allowing Napoleon to use complex
manoeuvre eg. as seen at Austerlitz
○ However by 1812, the bulk of the Grande Armée were poorly trained Eastern European
conscripts → meant that Napoleon was forced to use only basic attrition tactics at Borodino
● WW2 – consideration of conscription also had a key impact in determining tactics
○ Rapid and motorised Blitzkrieg campaigns were intended to produce fast results to avoid a war
of attrition due to fears regarding the quality of mass conscripted troops.
Conscription – Likewise, conscription had a decisive impact strategic use of mass armies
● Attritional strategy was possible as mass armies could sustain huge losses
○ French Revolutionary Wars - 800,000 men raised through conscription
■ Meant that 20% losses per battle were sustainable, and France was able to wage as
many as 10 multple campaigns at once
○ Identical impact seen at the end of the period in WW2 – Attritional strategy used by Russian
High Command 1942-43
■ USSR 16 million-strong conscript army sustained just under 5 million casualties during
Operation Barbarossa
● Conscription of workers was also instrumental as it facilitated the supplying of mass conscript armies
○ Eg. 80,000 Land Girls and 48,000 Bevin Boys were conscripted in Britain in WW2 to supply
mass armes
○ Likewise conscription of 250,000 factory workers during Levée en Masse allowed the French
armies to be properly supplied
■ (eg. one factory in Paris produced 700 muskets daily)
However I would argue that Industrialisation was more important in determining the conduct of wars
● Industrialisation on weaponry
○ Development of machine gun and accurate rifles determined battlefield conduct
■ Whilst in FRWs full frontal assaults were effective against lines of defenders using
unaimed volley fire, as seen at Jena 1806
■ by WWI the strength of defensive weaponry such as the Lewis machine gun (effective
firing range of 800m and 600 rpm) resulted in a 3 year stalemate on the Western front,
as it nullified the effectiveness of frontal assaults by mass conscript armies
● eg. at the Somme 1916).
● Industrialisation on transport
○ Eg. development of railways had a decisive strategic impact
■ Franco-Austrian War 1859 - Transportation of 120,000 rested French troops in 2
weeks by rail to Northern Italy (a journey that previously took 2 months by foot) allowed
them to defeat 400,000 strong Austrian conscript army at Magenta and Solferino
(1859), who were exhausted and dispirited after a 150km march in wet conditions.
■ Similarly 1864 Sherman's March to the Sea - the 60,000 strong conscript army could
not have undertaken such a campaign were it not for the 400 mile long Chattanooga
railway, which effectively supplied them with 36,800 wagons worth of food and
materials.
