Hummm! Interesting idea that the influx of conscripts had reduced the overall morale/efficiency of the French Army in 1813. That said, you need to realize that the Prussian Army was created almost from scratch (12 line regiments of infantry and I forget how many cavalry regiments as a core around which the mass of Landwehr was formed). The Russian Army had suffered massive losses in the 1812 campaign, most regiments reduced to a single battalion and a stream of new recruits going into them. It is also worth pointing out that in the 1812 campaign the Russians had emptied the depots of any soldier capable of walking, so any new troops were absolutely raw, inexperienced troops. And the Austrian Army was also built up with new recruits, its army of 1809 had been heavily prunned. I would put it to you that the ranks of ALL of the armies in 1813 were heavily filled with new recruits.

As I look at the 1813 battles, after August, the French won them when Napoleon was present. Vandamme's corps was destroyed, but that was more due to geography than the lack of morale of the troops or poor leadership. I've walked that battlefield. When a Prussian corps comes in behind you and the main Allied army is in front of you, locking you in a narrow valley, your fate is inevitable.

Dresden was a substantial French victory with Napoleon in charge and under terrible conditions - rain and cold steel being the only weapon usable. Katzbach, Gross-Beeren, and Dennewitz were Napoleon's subordinates' losses.

I would put it to you that when well led, the French fought just fine, that the lack of cavalry is the key that kept the French from penetrating the screens of the more numerous Allied cavalry, and got them into situations that would not have occurred otherwise. To support this, in the spring campaign, the French army was heavily filled with new recruits and mobilized national guardsmen, and it won every battle. The Allies were obviously able to put the armistice to better profit than Napoleon.