How far was quality of soldiers the decisive factor in battle throughout the period?
When judging how decisive the quality of soldiers was, there are many other factors that we can
consider contributing to the outcome of a battle. In some respects generalship can be considered to
be more decisive than soldier quality, as part of a good generals role it to motivate and inspire,
which in turn increases the quality of the troops. However, the other key factors that define quality
such as training, experience, and junior leadership are not necessarily the responsibility of a General.
Equally the role of quantity at times plays a crucial role, reaching a peek in world war one. Therefore,
it is fair to argue that soldier quality did have significant role in causing an outcome in battle,
however it is not always a definitive factor across the whole period. As especially towards the end of
the period where armies become much more equally matched in expendability of men and
technology and the role of generalship becomes more important in determining the outcome of a
battle by coordinating all of these factors.
Soldier quality certainly at points across the period does appear to be the decisive, or one of the
most important factors in determining the outcome of a battle. In the French revolutionary wars
troops had what the French called, “ Elan” meaning enthusiasm and motivation. They regularly
accepted 20% casualty rates; at the battle of Lonarto Napoleon with his very small army of 1,200
French men, despite winning against the Austrian army of 3,000 paid the price of loosing over 200
men, from the already very small but formidable army. Similarly, in the American civil war there was
an even higher level of casualty acceptance. On a ridge outside Gettysburg the 1st Minnesota
regiment took a huge 82% casualties in order to maintain the union position. Equally these two
forms of motivation cannot be attributed to generalship as both the southern troops in particular in
the American civil war and the French revolutionaries were inspired by their ideologies, the southern
states fighting for their existence. However, soldier quality is not always based on motivation and
spirt, it is equally as important to have an army who are highly skilled. For example in the Crimean
war the Scottish troops of merely 500 men formed a line only two men deep to successfully hold
back the Russians at Balaklava. However, we must acknowledge the role that weaponry had to play
as they had the advantage of the percussion cap increasing the accurate range of fire to 600 yards.
Yet it is undeniable that the men have to be quality soldiers with skill and training to use the
weaponry. Similarly, in world war one the British were so highly trained in using rifles that some
German soldiers mistook British fire of the Lee-Enfield rifle as machine gun fire, which marks just
how well trained some of the British soldiers were in 1914. However, it also highlights that by WW1
soldier quality does eventually become less important, as battles were long drawn out and attritional
and it is difficult to pick out any factor as decisive. The rapid fire of these rifles did not have a great
effect apart from intimidating the enemy, and it becomes clear that the numbers of men were more
important than the quality. On the other hand examples like the Russo-Japanese war highlight just
how important both troop quality is in terms of training and equally motivation, both of which the
Russians lacked. This eventually leading to a mutiny on the Potemkin, fuelled by discontent.
However, the mutiny had more of a social effect on the Russian people and their growing discontent
with the Tsar rather than effecting the outcome of the battle, even though the Russian army did
eventually loose. Therefore it is clear that at points soldier quality is fundamental in the outcome of
battle, however this is only in a few cases and especially towards the end of the period we see other
factors like numbers becoming crucial, reaching a peek in world war one.
The quantity of soldiers can be considered equally as important as quality of the soldier quality
across the period, however we see this develop over the period reaching a peak in world war one. At
waterloo Wellington had the advantage of quantity when the Prussian army of 48,000 joined the
British army to eventually push back the French. Napoleons army was a mix of highly skilled Grande
When judging how decisive the quality of soldiers was, there are many other factors that we can
consider contributing to the outcome of a battle. In some respects generalship can be considered to
be more decisive than soldier quality, as part of a good generals role it to motivate and inspire,
which in turn increases the quality of the troops. However, the other key factors that define quality
such as training, experience, and junior leadership are not necessarily the responsibility of a General.
Equally the role of quantity at times plays a crucial role, reaching a peek in world war one. Therefore,
it is fair to argue that soldier quality did have significant role in causing an outcome in battle,
however it is not always a definitive factor across the whole period. As especially towards the end of
the period where armies become much more equally matched in expendability of men and
technology and the role of generalship becomes more important in determining the outcome of a
battle by coordinating all of these factors.
Soldier quality certainly at points across the period does appear to be the decisive, or one of the
most important factors in determining the outcome of a battle. In the French revolutionary wars
troops had what the French called, “ Elan” meaning enthusiasm and motivation. They regularly
accepted 20% casualty rates; at the battle of Lonarto Napoleon with his very small army of 1,200
French men, despite winning against the Austrian army of 3,000 paid the price of loosing over 200
men, from the already very small but formidable army. Similarly, in the American civil war there was
an even higher level of casualty acceptance. On a ridge outside Gettysburg the 1st Minnesota
regiment took a huge 82% casualties in order to maintain the union position. Equally these two
forms of motivation cannot be attributed to generalship as both the southern troops in particular in
the American civil war and the French revolutionaries were inspired by their ideologies, the southern
states fighting for their existence. However, soldier quality is not always based on motivation and
spirt, it is equally as important to have an army who are highly skilled. For example in the Crimean
war the Scottish troops of merely 500 men formed a line only two men deep to successfully hold
back the Russians at Balaklava. However, we must acknowledge the role that weaponry had to play
as they had the advantage of the percussion cap increasing the accurate range of fire to 600 yards.
Yet it is undeniable that the men have to be quality soldiers with skill and training to use the
weaponry. Similarly, in world war one the British were so highly trained in using rifles that some
German soldiers mistook British fire of the Lee-Enfield rifle as machine gun fire, which marks just
how well trained some of the British soldiers were in 1914. However, it also highlights that by WW1
soldier quality does eventually become less important, as battles were long drawn out and attritional
and it is difficult to pick out any factor as decisive. The rapid fire of these rifles did not have a great
effect apart from intimidating the enemy, and it becomes clear that the numbers of men were more
important than the quality. On the other hand examples like the Russo-Japanese war highlight just
how important both troop quality is in terms of training and equally motivation, both of which the
Russians lacked. This eventually leading to a mutiny on the Potemkin, fuelled by discontent.
However, the mutiny had more of a social effect on the Russian people and their growing discontent
with the Tsar rather than effecting the outcome of the battle, even though the Russian army did
eventually loose. Therefore it is clear that at points soldier quality is fundamental in the outcome of
battle, however this is only in a few cases and especially towards the end of the period we see other
factors like numbers becoming crucial, reaching a peek in world war one.
The quantity of soldiers can be considered equally as important as quality of the soldier quality
across the period, however we see this develop over the period reaching a peak in world war one. At
waterloo Wellington had the advantage of quantity when the Prussian army of 48,000 joined the
British army to eventually push back the French. Napoleons army was a mix of highly skilled Grande
