Territorial battalions in the First World War favoured a relaxed approach to discipline. They preferred to motivate their men through positive, civilian-inspired strategies, rather than enforcing behaviour by the threat of punishment. Yet they were still military units and their personnel subject to military law. In contrast to most occupations in civilian life, those serving in the army were being asked to risk their lives on a daily basis. Under these circumstances, many commanders, including those of the Territorial Force, saw the punitive sanctions of the disciplinary system as an important tool to help ensure compliance.

Most historical analysis of the British army's disciplinary system has concentrated exclusively on capital courts-martial. Books such as Shot at dawn have captured the popular imagination, and fuelled recent campaigns to obtain a parliamentary pardon for those executed. Research of this genre, which focuses on wartime executions to the exclusion of other, less dramatic, disciplinary strategies, paints a picture of a discipline system that was harsh and inflexible. For the unfortunate men executed, the system was indeed brutal, but their experience needs to be considered in context. Whilst the generals considered executions to be a necessary deterrent amidst the unprecedented slaughter of the war, only 346 men had their death sentences confirmed. They formed only 11.23% of all men sentenced to death by courts-martial, and 0.006% of the British army as a whole. Clearly, the resort to capital courts-martial occurred only in a minority of cases.