CHAPTER V.
OF SEVERAL MIXED OPERATIONS, WHICH ARE IN CHARACTER PARTLY STRATEGICAL
AND PARTLY TACTICAL.
ARTICLE XXXVI.
Of Diversions and Great Detachments.
The operations of the detachments an army may send out have so important
a bearing on the success of a campaign, that the duty of determining
their strength and the proper occasions for them is one of the greatest
and most delicate responsibilities imposed upon a commander. If nothing
is more useful in war than a strong detachment opportunely sent out and
having a good _ensemble_ of operations with the main body, it is equally
certain that no expedient is more dangerous when inconsiderately
adopted. Frederick the Great regarded it as one of the essential
qualities of a general to know how to make his adversary send out many
detachments, either with the view of destroying them in detail or of
attacking the main body during their absence.
The division of armies into numerous detachments has sometimes been
carried to so great an extent, and with such poor results, that many
persons now believe it better to have none of them. It is undoubtedly
much safer and more agreeable for an army to be kept in a single mass;
but it is a thing at times impossible or incompatible with gaining a
complete or even considerable success. The essential point in this
matter is to send out as few detachments as possible.
There are several kinds of detachments.
1. There are large corps dispatched to a distance from the zone of
operations of the main army, in order to make diversions of greater
or less importance.
2. There are large detachments made in the zone of operations to
cover important points of this zone, to carry on a siege, to guard
a secondary base, or to protect the line of operations if
threatened.
3. There are large detachments made upon the front of operations,
in face of the enemy, to act in concert with the main body in some
combined operation.
4. There are small detachments sent to a distance to try the effect
of surprise upon isolated points, whose capture may have an
important bearing upon the general operations of the campaign.
I understand by diversions those secondary operations carried out at a
distance from the principal zone of operations, at the extremities of a
theater of war, upon the success of which it is sometimes foolishly
supposed the whole campaign depends. Such diversions are useful in but
two cases, the first of which arises when the troops thus employed
cannot conveniently act elsewhere on account of their distance from the
real theater of operations, and the second is that where such a
detachment would receive strong support from the population among which
it was sent,–the latter case belonging rather to political than
military combinations. A few illustrative examples may not be out of
place here.
The unfortunate results for the allied powers of the Anglo-Russian
expedition to Holland, and of that of the Archduke Charles toward the
end of the last century, (which have been referred to in Article XIX.,)
are well known.
In 1805, Napoleon was occupying Naples and Hanover. The allies intended
an Anglo-Russian army to drive him out of Italy, while the combined
forces of England, Russia, and Sweden should drive him from Hanover,
nearly sixty thousand men being designed for these two widely-separated
points. But, while their troops were collecting at the two extremities
of Europe, Napoleon ordered the evacuation of Naples and Hanover,
Saint-Cyr hastened to effect a junction with Massena in the Frioul, and
Bernadotte, leaving Hanover, moved up to take part in the operations of
Ulm and Austerlitz. After these astonishing successes, Napoleon had no
difficulty in retaking Naples and Hanover. This is an example of the
failure of diversions. I will give an instance where such an operation
would have been proper.
In the civil wars of 1793, if the allies had sent twenty thousand men to
La Vendée, they would have accomplished much more than by increasing the
numbers of those who were fighting fruitlessly at Toulon, upon the
Rhine, and in Belgium. Here is a case where a diversion would have been
not only very useful, but decisive.
It has already been stated that, besides diversions to a distance and of
small bodies, large corps are often detached in the zone of operations
of the main army.
If the employment of these large corps thus detached for secondary
objects is more dangerous than the diversions above referred to, it is
no less true that they are often highly proper and, it may be,
indispensable.
These great detachments are chiefly of two kinds. The first are
permanent corps which must be sometimes thrown out in a direction
opposite to the main line of operations, and are to remain throughout a
campaign. The second are corps temporarily detached for the purpose of
assisting in carrying out some special enterprise.
Among the first should be especially enumerated those fractions of an
army that are detached either to form the strategic reserve, of which
mention has been made, or to cover lines of operation and retreat when
the configuration of the theater of the war exposes them to attack. For
example, a Russian army that wishes to cross the Balkan is obliged to
leave a portion of its forces to observe Shumla, Routchouk, and the
valley of the Danube, whose direction is perpendicular to its line of
operations. However successful it may be, a respectable force must
always be left toward Giurgevo or Krajova, and even on the right bank of
the river toward Routchouk.
This single example shows that it is sometimes necessary to have a
double strategic front, and then the detachment of a considerable corps
must be made to offer front to a part of the enemy’s army in rear of the
main army. Other localities and other circumstances might be mentioned
where this measure would be equally essential to safety. One case is the
double strategic front of the Tyrol and the Frioul for a French army
passing the Adige. On whichever side it may wish to direct its main
column, a detachment must be left on the other front sufficiently strong
to hold in check the enemy threatening to cut the line of
communications. The third example is the frontier of Spain, which
enables the Spaniards to establish a double front,–one covering the
road to Madrid, the other having Saragossa or Galicia as a base. To
whichever side the invading army turns, a detachment must be left on the
other proportioned in magnitude to the enemy’s force in that direction.
All that can be said on this point is that it is advantageous to enlarge
as much as possible the field of operations of such detachments, and to
give them as much power of mobility as possible, in order to enable them
by opportune movements to strike important blows. A most remarkable
illustration of this truth was given by Napoleon in the campaign of
1797. Obliged as he was to leave a corps of fifteen thousand men in the
valley of the Adige to observe the Tyrol while he was operating toward
the Noric Alps, he preferred to draw this corps to his aid, at the risk
of losing temporarily his line of retreat, rather than leave the parts
of his army disconnected and exposed to defeat in detail. Persuaded that
he could be victorious with his army united, he apprehended no
particular danger from the presence of a few hostile detachments upon
his communications.
Great movable and temporary detachments are made for the following
reasons:–
1. To compel your enemy to retreat to cover his line of operations,
or else to cover your own.
2. To intercept a corps and prevent its junction with the main body
of the enemy, or to facilitate the approach of your own
reinforcements.
3. To observe and hold in position a large portion of the opposing
army, while a blow is struck at the remainder.
4. To carry off a considerable convoy of provisions or munitions,
on receiving which depended the continuance of a siege or the
success of any strategic enterprise, or to protect the march of a
convoy of your own.
5. To make a demonstration to draw the enemy in a direction where
you wish him to go, in order to facilitate the execution of an
enterprise in another direction.
6. To mask, or even to invest, one or more fortified places for a
certain time, with a view either to attack or to keep the garrison
shut up within the ramparts.
7. To take possession of an important point upon the communications
of an enemy already retreating.
However great may be the temptation to undertake such operations as
those enumerated, it must be constantly borne in mind that they are
always secondary in importance, and that the essential thing is to be
successful at the decisive points. A multiplication of detachments must,
therefore, be avoided. Armies have been destroyed for no other reason
than that they were not kept together.
We will here refer to several of these enterprises, to show that their
success depends sometimes upon good fortune and sometimes upon the skill
of their designer, and that they often fail from faulty execution.
Peter the Great took the first step toward the destruction of Charles
XII. by causing the seizure, by a strong detachment, of the famous
convoy Lowenhaupt was bringing up. Villars entirely defeated at Denain
the large detachment Prince Eugene sent out in 1709 under D’Albermale.
The destruction of the great convoy Laudon took from Frederick during
the siege of Olmutz compelled the king to evacuate Moravia. The fate of
the two detachments of Fouquet at Landshut in 1760, and of Fink at Maxen
in 1759, demonstrates how difficult it is at times to avoid making
detachments, and how dangerous they may be. To come nearer our own
times, the disaster of Vandamme at Culm was a bloody lesson, teaching
that a corps must not be thrust forward too boldly: however, we must
admit that in this case the operation was well planned, and the fault
was not so much in sending out the detachment as in not supporting it
properly, as might easily have been done. That of Fink was destroyed at
Maxen nearly on the same spot and for the same reason.
Diversions or demonstrations in the zone of operations of the army are
decidedly advantageous when arranged for the purpose of engaging the
enemy’s attention in one direction, while the mass of the forces is
collected upon another point where the important blow is to be struck.
In such a case, care must be taken not only to avoid engaging the corps
making the demonstration, but to recall it promptly toward the main
body. We will mention two examples as illustrations of these facts.
In 1800, Moreau, wishing to deceive Kray as to the true direction of his
march, carried his left wing toward Rastadt from Kehl, whilst he was
really filing off his army toward Stockach; his left, having simply
shown itself, returned toward the center by Fribourg in Brisgau.
In 1805, Napoleon, while master of Vienna, detached the corps of
Bernadotte to Iglau to overawe Bohemia and paralyze the Archduke
Ferdinand, who was assembling an army in that territory; in another
direction he sent Davoust to Presburg to show himself in Hungary; but he
withdrew them to Brunn, to take part in the event which was to decide
the issue of the campaign, and a great and decisive victory was the
result of his wise maneuvers. Operations of this kind, so far from being
in opposition to the principles of the art of war, are necessary to
facilitate their application.
It readily appears from what goes before that precise rules cannot be
laid down for these operations, so varied in character, the success of
which depends on so many minute details. Generals should run the risk of
making detachments only after careful consideration and observation of
all the surrounding circumstances. The only reasonable rules on the
subject are these: send out as few detachments as possible, and recall
thorn immediately when their duty is performed. The inconveniences
necessarily attending them may be made as few as practicable, by giving
judicious and carefully-prepared instructions to their commanders:
herein lies the great talent of a good chief of staff.
One of the means of avoiding the disastrous results to which detachments
sometimes lead is to neglect none of the precautions prescribed by
tactics for increasing the strength of any force by posting it in good
positions; but it is generally imprudent to engage in a serious conflict
with too large a body of troops. In such cases ease and rapidity of
motion will be most likely to insure safety. It seldom happens that it
is right for a detachment to resolve to conquer or die in the position
it has taken, whether voluntarily or by order.
It is certain that in all possible cases the rules of tactics and of
field-fortification must be applied by detachments as well as by the
army itself.
Since we have included in the number of useful cases of detachments
those intended for _coups de main_, it is proper to mention a few
examples of this kind to enable the reader to judge for himself. We may
call to mind that one which was executed by the Russians toward the end
of 1828 with the view of taking possession of Sizeboli in the Gulf of
Bourghas. The capture of this feebly-fortified gulf, which the Russians
rapidly strengthened, procured for them in case of success an essential
_point d’appui_ beyond the Balkan, where depots could be established in
advance for the army intending to cross those mountains: in case of
failure, no one was compromised,–not even the small corps which had
been debarked, since it had a safe and certain retreat to the shipping.
In like manner, in the campaign of 1796, the _coup de main_ attempted by
the Austrians for the purpose of taking possession of Kehl and
destroying the bridge whilst Moreau was returning from Bavaria, would
have had very important consequences if it had not failed.
In attempts of this kind a little is risked to gain a great deal; and,
as they can in no wise compromise the safety of the main army, they may
be freely recommended.
Small bodies of troops thrown forward into the zone of the enemy’s
operations belong to the class of detachments that are judicious. A few
hundred horsemen thus risked will be no great loss if captured; and they
may be the means of causing the enemy great injury. The small
detachments sent out by the Russians in 1807, 1812, and 1813 were a
great hinderance to Napoleon’s operations, and several times caused his
plans to fail by intercepting his couriers.
For such expeditions officers should be selected who are bold and full
of stratagems. They ought to inflict upon the enemy all the injury they
can without compromising themselves. When an opportunity of striking a
telling blow presents itself, they should not think for a moment of any
dangers or difficulties in their path. Generally, however, address and
presence of mind, which will lead them to avoid useless danger, are
qualities more necessary for a partisan than cool, calculating boldness.
For further information on this subject I refer my readers to Chapter
XXXV. of the Treatise on Grand Operations, and to Article XLV. of this
work, on light cavalry.
ARTICLE XXXVII.
Passage of Rivers and Other Streams.
The passage of a small stream, over which a bridge is already in place
or might be easily constructed, presents none of the combinations
belonging to grand tactics or strategy; but the passage of a large
river, such as the Danube, the Rhine, the Po, the Elbe, the Oder, the
Vistula, the Inn, the Ticino, &c, is an operation worthy the closest
study.
The art of building military bridges is a special branch of military
science, which is committed to pontoniers or sappers. It is not from
this point of view that I propose to consider the passage of a stream,
but as the attack of a military position and as a maneuver.
The passage itself is a tactical operation; but the determination of the
point of passage may have an important connection with all the
operations taking place within the entire theater of the war. The
passage of the Rhine by General Moreau in 1800 is an excellent
illustration of the truth of this remark. Napoleon, a more skillful
strategist than Moreau, desired him to cross at Schaffhausen in order to
take Kray’s whole army in reverse, to reach Ulm before him, to cut him
off from Austria and hurl him back upon the Main. Moreau, who had
already a bridge at Basel, preferred passing, with greater convenience
to his army, in front of the enemy, to turning his extreme left. The
tactical advantages seemed to his mind much more sure than the
strategical: he preferred the certainty of a partial success to the risk
attending a victory which would have been a decisive one. In the same
campaign Napoleon’s passage of the Po is another example of the high
strategic importance of the choice of the point of crossing. The army of
the reserve, after the engagement of the Chiusella, could either march
by the left bank of the Po to Turin, or cross the river at Crescentino
and march directly to Genoa. Napoleon preferred to cross the Ticino,
enter Milan, effect a junction with Moncey who was approaching with
twenty thousand men by the Saint-Gothard pass, then to cross the Po at
Piacenza, expecting to get before Mélas more certainly in that direction
than if he came down too soon upon his line of retreat. The passage of
the Danube at Donauwerth and Ingolstadt in 1805 was a very similar
operation. The direction chosen for the passage was the prime cause of
the destruction of Mack’s army.
The proper strategic point of passage is easily determined by
recollecting the principles laid down in Article XIX.; and it is here
only necessary to remind the reader that in crossing a river, as in
every other operation, there are permanent or geographical decisive
points, and others which are relative or eventual, depending on the
distribution of the hostile forces.
If the point selected combines strategic advantages with the tactical,
no other point can be better; but if the locality presents obstacles
exceedingly difficult to pass, another must be chosen, and in making the
new selection care should be taken to have the direction of the movement
as nearly as possible coincident with the true strategic direction.
Independently of the general combinations, which exercise a great
influence in fixing the point of passage, there is still another
consideration, connected with the locality itself. The best position is
that where the army after crossing can take its front of operations and
line of battle perpendicular to the river, at least for the first
marches, without being forced to separate into several corps moving upon
different lines. This advantage will also save it the danger of fighting
a battle with a river in rear, as happened to Napoleon at Essling.
Enough has been said with reference to the strategical considerations
influencing the selection of the point of crossing a river. We will now
proceed to speak of the passage itself. History is the best school in
which to study the measures likely to insure the success of such
operations. The ancients deemed the passage of the Granicus–which is a
small stream–a wonderful exploit. So far as this point is concerned,
the people of modern days can cite much greater.
The passage of the Rhine at Tholhuys by Louis XIV. has been greatly
lauded; and it was really remarkable. In our own time, General Dedon has
made famous the two passages of the Rhine at Kehl and of the Danube at
Hochstadt in 1800. His work is a model as far as concerns the details;
and in these operations minute attention to details is every thing. More
recently, three other passages of the Danube, and the ever-famous
passage of the Beresina, have exceeded every thing of the kind
previously seen. The two first were executed by Napoleon at Essling and
at Wagram, in presence of an army of one hundred and twenty thousand men
provided with four hundred pieces of cannon, and at a point where the
bed of the stream is broadest. General Pelet’s interesting account of
them should be carefully read. The third was executed by the Russian
army at Satounovo in 1828, which, although not to be compared with the
two just mentioned, was very remarkable on account of the great local
difficulties and the vigorous exertions made to surmount them. The
passage of the Beresina was truly wonderful. My object not being to give
historical details on this subject, I direct my readers to the special
narratives of these events. I will give several general rules to be
observed.
1. It is essential to deceive the enemy as to the point of
passage, that he may not accumulate an opposing force there. In
addition to the strategic demonstrations, false attacks must be
made near the real one, to divide the attention and means of the
enemy. For this purpose half of the artillery should be employed to
make a great deal of noise at the points where the passage is not
to be made, whilst perfect silence should be preserved where the
real attempt is to be made.
2. The construction of the bridge should be covered as much as
possible by troops sent over in boats for the purpose of dislodging
the enemy who might interfere with the progress of the work; and
these troops should take possession at once of any villages, woods,
or other obstacles in the vicinity.
3. It is of importance also to arrange large batteries of heavy
caliber, not only to sweep the opposite bank, but to silence any
artillery the enemy might bring up to batter the bridge while
building. For this purpose it is convenient to have the bank from
which the passage is made somewhat higher than the other.
4. The proximity of a large island near the enemy’s bank gives
great facilities for passing over troops in boats and for
constructing the bridge. In like manner, a smaller stream emptying
into the larger near the point of passage is a favorable place for
collecting and concealing boats and materials for the bridge.
5. It is well to choose a position where the river makes a
re-entering bend, as the batteries on the assailant’s side can
cross their fire in front of the point where the troops are to land
from the boats and where the end of the bridge is to rest, thus
taking the enemy in front and flank when he attempts to oppose the
passage.
6. The locality selected should be near good roads on both banks,
that the army may have good communications to the front and rear on
both banks of the river. For this reason, those points where the
banks are high and steep should be usually avoided.
The rules for preventing a passage follow as a matter of course from
those for effecting it, as the duty of the defenders is to counteract
the efforts of the assailants. The important thing is to have the
course of the river watched by bodies of light troops, without
attempting to make a defense at every point. Concentrate rapidly at the
threatened point, in order to overwhelm the enemy while a part only of
his army shall have passed. Imitate the Duke of Vendôme at Cassano, and
the Archduke Charles at Essling in 1809,–the last example being
particularly worthy of praise, although the operation was not so
decidedly successful as might have been expected.
In Article XXI. attention was called to the influence that the passage
of a river, in the opening of a campaign, may have in giving direction
to the lines of operations. We will now see what connection it may have
with subsequent strategic movements.
One of the greatest difficulties to be encountered after a passage is to
cover the bridge against the enemy’s efforts to destroy it, without
interfering too much with the free movement of the army. When the army
is numerically very superior to the enemy, or when the river is passed
just after a great victory gained, the difficulty mentioned is trifling;
but when the campaign is just opening, and the two opposing armies are
about equal, the case is very different.
If one hundred thousand Frenchmen pass the Rhine at Strasbourg or at
Manheim in presence of one hundred thousand Austrians, the first thing
to be done will be to drive the enemy in three directions,–first,
before them as far as the Black Forest, secondly, by the right in order
to cover the bridges on the Upper Rhine, and thirdly, by the left to
cover the bridges of Mayence and the Lower Rhine. This necessity is the
cause of an unfortunate division of the forces; but, to make the
inconveniences of this subdivision as few as possible, the idea must be
insisted on that it is by no means essential for the army to be
separated into three equal parts, nor need these detachments remain
absent longer than the few days required for taking possession of the
natural point of concentration of the enemy’s forces.
The fact cannot be concealed, however, that the case supposed is one in
which the general finds his position a most trying one; for if he
divides his army to protect his bridges he may be obliged to contend
with one of his subdivisions against the whole of the enemy’s force, and
have it overwhelmed; and if he moves his army upon a single line, the
enemy may divide his army and reassemble it at some unexpected point,
the bridges may be captured or destroyed, and the general may find
himself compromised before he has had time or opportunity to gain a
victory.
The best course to be pursued is to place the bridges near a city which
will afford a strong defensive point for their protection, to infuse all
possible vigor and activity into the first operations after the passage,
to fall upon the subdivisions of the enemy’s army in succession, and to
beat them in such a way that they will have no further desire of
touching the bridges. In some cases eccentric lines of operations may be
used. If the enemy has divided his one hundred thousand men into several
corps, occupying posts of observation, a passage may be effected with
one hundred thousand men at a single point near the center of the line
of posts, the isolated defensive corps at this position may be
overwhelmed, and two masses of fifty thousand men each may then be
formed, which, by taking diverging lines of operations, can certainly
drive off the successive portions of the opposing army, prevent them
from reuniting, and remove them farther and farther from the bridges.
But if, on the contrary, the passage be effected at one extremity of the
enemy’s strategic front, by moving rapidly along this front the enemy
may be beaten throughout its whole extent,–in the same manner that
Frederick tactically beat the Austrian line at Leuthen throughout its
length,–the bridges will be secure in rear of the army, and remain
protected during all the forward movements. It was in this manner that
Jourdan, having passed the Rhine at Dusseldorf in 1795, on the extreme
right of the Austrians, could have advanced in perfect safety toward the
Main. He was driven away because the French, having a double and
exterior line of operations, left one hundred and twenty thousand men
inactive between Mayence and Basel, while Clairfayt repulsed Jourdan
upon the Lahn. But this cannot diminish the importance of the advantages
gained by passing a river upon one extremity of the enemy’s strategic
front. A commander-in-chief should either adopt this method, or that
previously explained, of a central mass at the moment of passage, and
the use of eccentric lines afterward, according to the circumstances of
the case, the situation of the frontiers and bases of operations, as
well as the positions of the enemy. The mention of these combinations,
of which something has already been said in the article on lines of
operations, does not appear out of place here, since their connection
with the location of bridges has been the chief point under discussion.
It sometimes happens that, for cogent reasons, a double passage is
attempted upon a single front of operations, as was the case with
Jourdan and Moreau in 1796. If the advantage is gained of having in case
of need a double line of retreat, there is the inconvenience, in thus
operating on the two extremities of the enemy’s front, of forcing him,
in a measure, to concentrate on his center, and he may be placed in a
condition to overwhelm separately the two armies which have crossed at
different points. Such an operation will always lead to disastrous
results when the opposing general has sufficient ability to know how to
take advantage of this violation of principles.
In such a case, the inconveniences of the double passage may be
diminished by passing over the mass of the forces at one of the points,
which then becomes the decisive one, and by concentrating the two
portions by interior lines as rapidly as possible, to prevent the enemy
from destroying them separately. If Jourdan and Moreau had observed this
rule, and made a junction of their forces in the direction of
Donauwerth, instead of moving eccentrically, they would probably have
achieved great successes in Bavaria, instead of being driven back upon
the Rhine.
ARTICLE XXXVIII.
Retreats and Pursuits.
Retreats are certainly the most difficult operations in war. This remark
is so true that the celebrated Prince de Ligne said, in his usual
piquant style, that he could not conceive how an army ever succeeded in
retreating. When we think of the physical and moral condition of an army
in full retreat after a lost battle, of the difficulty of preserving
order, and of the disasters to which disorder may lead, it is not hard
to understand why the most experienced generals have hesitated to
attempt such an operation.
What method of retreat shall be recommended? Shall the fight be
continued at all hazards until nightfall and the retreat executed under
cover of the darkness? or is it better not to wait for this last chance,
but to abandon the field of battle while it can be done and a strong
opposition still made to the pursuing army? Should a forced march be
made in the night, in order to get as much start of the enemy as
possible? or is it better to halt after a half-march and make a show of
fighting again? Each of these methods, although entirely proper in
certain cases, might in others prove ruinous to the whole army. If the
theory of war leaves any points unprovided for, that of retreats is
certainly one of them.
If you determine to fight vigorously until night, you may expose
yourself to a complete defeat before that time arrives; and if a forced
retreat must begin when the shades of night are shrouding every thing in
darkness and obscurity, how can you prevent the disintegration of your
army, which does not know what to do, and cannot see to do any thing
properly? If, on the other hand, the field of battle is abandoned in
broad daylight and before all possible efforts have been made to hold
it, you may give up the contest at the very moment when the enemy is
about to do the same thing; and this fact coming to the knowledge of the
troops, you may lose their confidence,–as they are always inclined to
blame a prudent general who retreats before the necessity for so doing
may be evident to themselves. Moreover, who can say that a retreat
commenced in the daylight in presence of an enterprising enemy may not
become a rout?
When the retreat is actually begun, it is no less difficult to decide
whether a forced march shall be made to get as much the start of the
enemy as possible,–since this hurried movement might sometimes cause
the destruction of the army, and might, in other circumstances, be its
salvation. All that can be positively asserted on this subject is that,
in general, with an army of considerable magnitude, it is best to
retreat slowly, by short marches, with a well-arranged rear-guard of
sufficient strength to hold the heads of the enemy’s columns in check
for several hours.
Retreats are of different kinds, depending upon the cause from which
they result. A general may retire of his own accord before fighting, in
order to draw his adversary to a position which he prefers to his
present one. This is rather a prudent maneuver than a retreat. It was
thus that Napoleon retired in 1805 from Wischau toward Brunn to draw the
allies to a point which suited him as a battle-field. It was thus that
Wellington retired from Quatre-Bras to Waterloo. This is what I proposed
to do before the attack at Dresden, when the arrival of Napoleon was
known. I represented the necessity of moving toward Dippoldiswalde to
choose a favorable battle-field. It was supposed to be a retreat that I
was proposing; and a mistaken idea of honor prevented a retrograde
movement without fighting, which would have been the means of avoiding
the catastrophe of the next day, (August 26, 1813.)
A general may retire in order to hasten to the defense of a point
threatened by the enemy, either upon the flanks or upon the line of
retreat. When an army is marching at a distance from its depots, in an
exhausted country, it may be obliged to retire in order to get nearer
its supplies. Finally, an army retires involuntarily after a lost
battle, or after an unsuccessful enterprise.
These are not the only causes having an influence in retreats. Their
character will vary with that of the country, with the distances to be
passed over and the obstacles to be surmounted. They are specially
dangerous in an enemy’s country; and when the points at which the
retreats begin are distant from the friendly country and the base of
operations, they become painful and difficult.
From the time of the famous retreat of the Ten Thousand, so justly
celebrated, until the terrible catastrophe which befell the French army
in 1812, history does not make mention of many remarkable retreats. That
of Antony, driven out of Media, was more painful than glorious. That of
the Emperor Julian, harassed by the same Parthians, was a disaster. In
more recent days, the retreat of Charles VIII. to Naples, when he passed
by a corps of the Italian army at Fornovo, was an admirable one. The
retreat of M. de Bellisle from Prague does not deserve the praises it
has received. Those executed by the King of Prussia after raising the
siege of Olmutz and after the surprise at Hochkirch were very well
arranged; but they were for short distances. That of Moreau in 1796,
which was magnified in importance by party spirit, was creditable, but
not at all extraordinary. The retreat of Lecourbe from Engadin to
Altorf, and that of Macdonald by Pontremoli after the defeat of the
Trebbia, as also that of Suwaroff from the Muttenthal to Chur, were
glorious feats of arms, but partial in character and of short duration.
The retreat of the Russian army from the Niemen to Moscow–a space of
two hundred and forty leagues,–in presence of such an enemy as Napoleon
and such cavalry as the active and daring Murat commanded, was certainly
admirable. It was undoubtedly attended by many favorable circumstances,
but was highly deserving of praise, not only for the talent displayed by
the generals who directed its first stages, but also for the admirable
fortitude and soldierly bearing of the troops who performed it. Although
the retreat from Moscow was a bloody catastrophe for Napoleon, it was
also glorious for him and the troops who were at Krasnoi and the
Beresina,–because the skeleton of the army was saved, when not a single
man should have returned. In this ever-memorable event both parties
covered themselves with glory.
The magnitude of the distances and the nature of the country to be
traversed, the resources it offers, the obstacles to be encountered, the
attacks to be apprehended, either in rear or in flank, superiority or
inferiority in cavalry, the spirit of the troops, are circumstances
which have a great effect in deciding the fate of retreats, leaving out
of consideration the skillful arrangements which the generals may make
for their execution.
A general falling back toward his native land along his line of
magazines and supplies may keep his troops together and in good order,
and may effect a retreat with more safety than one compelled to subsist
his army in cantonments, finding it necessary to occupy an extended
position. It would be absurd to pretend that a French army retiring from
Moscow to the Niemen without supplies of provisions, in want of cavalry
and draft horses, could effect the movement in the same good order and
with the same steadiness as a Russian army, well provided with every
thing necessary, marching in its own country, and covered by an immense
number of light cavalry.
There are five methods of arranging a retreat:–
The first is to march in a single mass and upon one road.
The second consists in dividing the army into two or three corps,
marching at the distance of a day’s march from each other, in order
to avoid confusion, especially in the _matériel_.
The third consists in marching upon a single front by several roads
nearly parallel and having a common point of arrival.
The fourth consists in moving by constantly converging roads.
The fifth, on the contrary, consists in moving along diverging
roads.
I have nothing to say as to the formation of rear-guards; but it is
taken for granted that a good one should always be prepared and well
sustained by a portion of the cavalry reserves. This arrangement is
common to all kinds of retreats, but has nothing to do with the
strategic relations of these operations.
An army falling back in good order, with the intention of fighting as
soon as it shall have received expected reinforcements or as soon as it
shall have reached a certain strategic position, should prefer the first
method, as this particularly insures the compactness of the army and
enables it to be in readiness for battle almost at any moment, since it
is simply necessary to halt the heads of columns and form the remainder
of the troops under their protection as they successively arrive. An
army employing this method must not, however, confine itself to the
single main road, if there are side-roads sufficiently near to be
occupied which may render its movements more rapid and secure.
When Napoleon retired from Smolensk, he used the second method, having
the portions of his army separated by an entire march. He made therein a
great mistake, because the enemy was not following upon his rear, but
moving along a lateral road which brought him in a nearly perpendicular
direction into the midst of the separated French corps. The three fatal
days of Krasnoi were the result. The employment of this method being
chiefly to avoid incumbering the road, the interval between the
departure of the several corps is sufficiently great when the artillery
may readily file off. Instead of separating the corps by a whole march,
the army would be better divided into two masses and a rear-guard, a
half-march from each other. These masses, moving off in succession with
an interval of two hours between the departure of their several
army-corps, may file off without incumbering the road, at least in
ordinary countries. In crossing the Saint-Bernard or the Balkan, other
calculations would doubtless be necessary.
I apply this idea to an army of one hundred and twenty thousand or one
hundred and fifty thousand men, having a rear-guard of twenty thousand
or twenty-five thousand men distant about a half-march in rear. The army
may be divided into two masses of about sixty thousand men each,
encamped at a distance of three or four leagues from each other. Each of
these masses will be subdivided into two or three corps, which may
either move successively along the road or form in two lines across the
road. In either case, if one corps of thirty thousand men moves at five
A.M. and the other at seven, there will be no danger of interference
with each other, unless something unusual should happen; for the second
mass being at the same hours of the day about four leagues behind the
first, they can never be occupying the same part of the road at the same
time.
When there are practicable roads in the neighborhood, suitable at least
for infantry and cavalry, the intervals may be diminished. It is
scarcely necessary to add that such an order of march can only be used
when provisions are plentiful; and the third method is usually the best,
because the army is then marching in battle-order. In long days and in
hot countries the best times for marching are the night and the early
part of the day. It is one of the most difficult problems of logistics
to make suitable arrangements of hours of departures and halts for
armies; and this is particularly the case in retreats.
Many generals neglect to arrange the manner and times of halts, and
great disorder on the march is the consequence, as each brigade or
division takes the responsibility of halting whenever the soldiers are a
little tired and find it agreeable to bivouac. The larger the army and
the more compactly it marches, the more important does it become to
arrange well the hours of departures and halts, especially if the army
is to move at night. An ill-timed halt of part of a column may cause as
much mischief as a rout.
If the rear-guard is closely pressed, the army should halt in order to
relieve it by a fresh corps taken from the second mass, which will halt
with this object in view. The enemy seeing eighty thousand men in
battle-order will think it necessary to halt and collect his columns;
and then the retreat should recommence at nightfall, to regain the space
which has been lost.
The third method, of retreating along several parallel roads, is
excellent when the roads are sufficiently near each other. But, if they
are quite distant, one wing separated from the center and from the other
wing may be compromised if the enemy attacks it in force and compels it
to stand on the defensive. The Prussian army moving from Magdeburg
toward the Oder, in 1806, gives an example of this kind.
The fourth method, which consists in following concentric roads, is
undoubtedly the best if the troops are distant from each other when the
retreat is ordered. Nothing can be better, in such a case, than to unite
the forces; and the concentric retreat is the only method of effecting
this.
The fifth method indicated is nothing else than the famous system of
eccentric lines, which I have attributed to Bulow, and have opposed so
warmly in the earlier editions of my works, because I thought I could
not be mistaken either as to the sense of his remarks on the subject or
as to the object of his system. I gathered from his definition that he
recommended to a retreating army, moving from any given position, to
separate into parts and pursue diverging roads, with the double object
of withdrawing more readily from the enemy in pursuit and of arresting
his march by threatening his flanks and his line of communications. I
found great fault with the system, for the simple reason that a beaten
army is already weak enough, without absurdly still further dividing its
forces and strength in presence of a victorious enemy.
Bulow has found defenders who declare that I mistake his meaning, and
that by the term _eccentric retreat_ he did not understand a retreat
made on several diverging roads, but one which, instead of being
directed toward the center of the base of operations or the center of
the country, should be eccentric to that focus of operations, and along
the line of the frontier of the country.
I may possibly have taken an incorrect impression from his language, and
in this case my criticism falls to the ground; for I have strongly
recommended that kind of a retreat to which I have given the name of the
parallel retreat. It is my opinion that an army, leaving the line which
leads from the frontiers to the center of the state, with a view of
moving to the right or the left, may very well pursue a course nearly
parallel to the line of the frontiers, or to its front of operations and
its base. It seems to me more rational to give the name of parallel
retreat to such a movement as that described, designating as eccentric
retreat that where diverging roads are followed, all leading from the
strategic front.
However this dispute about words may result, the sole cause of which was
the obscurity of Bulow’s text, I find fault only with those retreats
made along several diverging roads, under pretense of covering a greater
extent of frontier and of threatening the enemy on both flanks.
By using these high-sounding words _flanks_, an air of importance may be
given to systems entirely at variance with the principles of the art. An
army in retreat is always in a bad state, either physically or morally;
because a retreat can only be the result of reverses or of numerical
inferiority. Shall such an army be still more weakened by dividing it? I
find no fault with retreats executed in several columns, to increase the
ease of moving, when these columns can support each other; but I am
speaking of those made along diverging lines of operations. Suppose an
army of forty thousand men retreating before another of sixty thousand.
If the first forms four isolated divisions of about ten thousand men,
the enemy may maneuver with two masses of thirty thousand men each. Can
he not turn his adversary, surround, disperse, and ruin in succession
all his divisions? How can they escape such a fate? _By concentration_.
This being in direct opposition to a divergent system, the latter falls
of itself.
I invoke to my support the great lessons of experience. When the leading
divisions of the army of Italy were repulsed by Wurmser, Bonaparte
collected them all together at Roverbella; and, although he had only
forty thousand men, he fought and beat sixty thousand, because he had
only to contend against isolated columns. If he had made a divergent
retreat, what would have become of his army and his victories? Wurmser,
after his first check, made an eccentric retreat, directing his two
wings toward the extremities of the line of defense. What was the
result? His right, although supported by the mountains of the Tyrol, was
beaten at Trent. Bonaparte then fell upon the rear of his left, and
destroyed that at Bassano and Mantua.
When the Archduke Charles gave way before the first efforts of the
French armies in 1796, would he have saved Germany by an eccentric
movement? Was not the salvation of Germany due to his concentric
retreat? At last Moreau, who had moved with a very extended line of
isolated divisions, perceived that this was an excellent system for his
own destruction, if he stood his ground and fought or adopted the
alternative of retreating. He concentrated his scattered troops, and all
the efforts of the enemy were fruitless in presence of a mass which it
was necessary to watch throughout the whole length of a line of two
hundred miles. Such examples must put an end to further discussion.[31]
There are two cases in which divergent retreats are admissible, and then
only as a last resource. First, when an army has experienced a great
defeat in its own country, and the scattered fragments seek protection
within the walls of fortified places. Secondly, in a war where the
sympathies of the whole population are enlisted, each fraction of the
army thus divided may serve as a nucleus of assembly in each province;
but in a purely methodical war, with regular armies, carried on
according to the principles of the art, divergent retreats are simply
absurd.
There is still another strategical consideration as to the direction of
a retreat,–to decide when it should be made perpendicularly to the
frontier and toward the interior of the country, or when it should be
parallel to the frontier. For example, when Marshal Soult gave up the
line of the Pyrenees in 1814, he had to choose one of two directions for
his retreat,–either by way of Bordeaux toward the interior of France,
or by way of Toulouse parallel to the frontier formed by the Pyrenees.
In the same way, when Frederick retired from Moravia, he marched toward
Bohemia instead of returning to Silesia.
These parallel retreats are often to be preferred, for the reason that
they divert the enemy from a march upon the capital of the state and the
center of its power. The propriety of giving such a direction to a
retreat must be determined by the configuration of the frontiers, the
positions of the fortresses, the greater or less space the army may
have for its marches, and the facilities for recovering its direct
communications with the central portions of the state.
Spain is admirably suited to the use of this system. If a French army
penetrates by way of Bayonne, the Spaniards may base themselves upon
Pampeluna and Saragossa, or upon Leon and the Asturias; and in either
case the French cannot move directly to Madrid, because their line of
operations would be at the mercy of their adversary.
The frontier of the Turkish empire on the Danube presents the same
advantages, if the Turks knew how to profit by them.
In France also the parallel retreat may be used, especially when the
nation itself is not divided into two political parties each of which is
striving for the possession of the capital. If the hostile army
penetrates through the Alps, the French can act on the Rhone and the
Saône, passing around the frontier as far as the Moselle on one side, or
as far as Provence on the other. If the enemy enters the country by way
of Strasbourg, Mayence, or Valenciennes, the same thing can be done. The
occupation of Paris by the enemy would be impossible, or at least very
hazardous, so long as a French army remained in good condition and based
upon its circle of fortified towns. The same is the case for all
countries having double fronts of operations.[32]
Austria is perhaps not so fortunately situated, on account of the
directions of the Rhetian and Tyrolean Alps and of the river Danube.
Lloyd, however, considers Bohemia and the Tyrol as two bastions
connected by the strong curtain of the river Inn, and regards this
frontier as exceedingly well suited for parallel movements. This
assertion was not well sustained by the events of the campaigns of 1800,
1805, and 1809; but, as the parallel method has not yet had a fair trial
on that ground, the question is still an open one.
It seems to me that the propriety of applying the parallel method
depends mainly upon the existing and the antecedent circumstances of
each case. If a French army should approach from the Rhine by way of
Bavaria, and should find allies in force upon the Lech and the Iser, it
would be a very delicate operation to throw the whole Austrian army into
the Tyrol and into Bohemia, with the expectation of arresting in this
way the forward movement to Vienna. If half the Austrian army is left
upon the Inn to cover the approaches to the capital, an unfortunate
division of force is the consequence; and if it is decided to throw the
whole army into the Tyrol, leaving the way to Vienna open, there would
be great danger incurred if the enemy is at all enterprising. In Italy,
beyond the Mincio, the parallel method would be of difficult application
on the side of the Tyrol, as well as in Bohemia against an enemy
approaching from Saxony, for the reason that the theater of operations
would be too contracted.
In Prussia the parallel retreat may be used with great advantage against
an army debouching from Bohemia upon the Elbe or the Oder, whilst its
employment would be impossible against a French army moving from the
Rhine, or a Russian army from the Vistula, unless Prussia and Austria
were allies. This is a result of the geographical configuration of the
country, which allows and even favors lateral movements: in the
direction of its greatest dimension, (from Memel to Mayence;) but such a
movement would be disastrous if made from Dresden to Stettin.
When an army retreats, whatever may be the motive of the operation, a
pursuit always follows.
A retreat, even when executed in the most skillful manner and by an army
in good condition, always gives an advantage to the pursuing army; and
this is particularly the case after a defeat and when the source of
supplies and reinforcements is at a great distance; for a retreat then
becomes more difficult than any other operation in war, and its
difficulties increase in proportion to the skill exhibited by the enemy
in conducting the pursuit.
The boldness and activity of the pursuit will depend, of course, upon
the character of the commanders and upon the _physique_ and _morale_ of
the two armies. It is difficult to prescribe fixed rules for all cases
of pursuits, but the following points must be recollected:–
1. It is generally better to direct the pursuit upon the flank of
the retreating columns, especially when it is made in one’s own
country and where no danger is incurred in moving perpendicularly
or diagonally upon the enemy’s line of operations. Care must,
however, be taken not to make too large a circuit; for there might
then be danger of losing the retreating enemy entirely.
2. A pursuit should generally be as boldly and actively executed as
possible, especially when it is subsequent to a battle gained;
because the demoralized army may be wholly dispersed if vigorously
followed up.
3. There are very few cases where it is wise to make a bridge of
gold for the enemy, no matter what the old Roman proverb may say;
for it can scarcely ever be desirable to pay an enemy to leave a
country, unless in the case when an unexpected success shall have
been gained over him by an army much inferior to his in numbers.
Nothing further of importance can be added to what has been said on the
subject of retreats, as far as they are connected with grand
combinations of strategy. We may profitably indicate several tactical
measures which may render them more easy of execution.
One of the surest means of making a retreat successfully is to
familiarize the officers and soldiers with the idea that an enemy may be
resisted quite as well when coming on the rear as on the front, and that
the preservation of order is the only means of saving a body of troops
harassed by the enemy during a retrograde movement. Rigid discipline is
at all times the best preservative of good order, but it is of special
importance during a retreat. To enforce discipline, subsistence must be
furnished, that the troops may not be obliged to straggle off for the
purpose of getting supplies by marauding.
It is a good plan to give the command of the rear-guard to an officer
of great coolness, and to attach to it staff officers who may, in
advance of its movements, examine and select points suitable for
occupation to hold the enemy temporarily in check. Cavalry can rally so
rapidly on the main body that it is evidently desirable to have
considerable bodies of such troops, as they greatly facilitate the
execution of a slow and methodical retreat, and furnish the means of
thoroughly examining the road itself and the neighborhood, so as to
prevent an unexpected onset of the enemy upon the flanks of the
retreating columns.
It is generally sufficient if the rear-guard keep the enemy at the
distance of half a day’s march from the main body. The rear-guard would
run great risk of being itself cut off, if farther distant. When,
however, there are defiles in its rear which are held by friends, it may
increase the sphere of its operations and remain a full day’s march to
the rear; for a defile, when held, facilitates a retreat in the same
degree that it renders it more difficult if in the power of the enemy.
If the army is very numerous and the rear-guard proportionally large, it
may remain a day’s march in rear. This will depend, however, upon its
strength, the nature of the country, and the character and strength of
the pursuing force. If the enemy presses up closely, it is of importance
not to permit him to do so with impunity, especially if the retreat is
made in good order. In such a case it is a good plan to halt from time
to time and fall unexpectedly upon the enemy’s advanced guard, as the
Archduke Charles did in 1796 at Neresheim, Moreau at Biberach, and
Kleber at Ukerath. Such a maneuver almost always succeeds, on account of
the surprise occasioned by an unexpected offensive return upon a body of
troops which is thinking of little else than collecting trophies and
spoils.
Passages of rivers in retreat are also operations by no means devoid of
interest. If the stream is narrow and there are permanent bridges over
it, the operation is nothing more than the passage of a defile; but when
the river is wide and is to be crossed upon a temporary military bridge,
it is a maneuver of extreme delicacy. Among the precautions to be
taken, a very important one is to get the parks well advanced, so that
they may be out of the way of the army; for this purpose it is well for
the army to halt a half-day’s march from the river. The rear-guard
should also keep at more than the usual distance from the main body,–as
far, in fact, as the locality and the respective forces opposed will
permit. The army may thus file across the bridge without being too much
hurried. The march of the rear-guard should be so arranged that it shall
have reached a position in front of the bridge just as the last of the
main body has passed. This will be a suitable moment for relieving the
rear-guard by fresh troops strongly posted. The rear-guard will pass
through the intervals of the fresh troops in position and will cross the
river; the enemy, coming up and finding fresh troops drawn up to give
him battle, will make no attempt to press them too closely. The new
rear-guard will hold its position until night, and will then cross the
river, breaking the bridges after it.
It is, of course, understood that as fast as the troops pass they form
on the opposite bank and plant batteries, so as to protect the corps
left to hold the enemy in check.
The dangers of such a passage in retreat, and the nature of the
precautions which facilitate it, indicate that measures should always be
taken to throw up intrenchments at the point where the bridge is to be
constructed and the passage made. Where time is not allowed for the
construction of a regular _tête de pont_, a few well-armed redoubts will
be found of great value in covering the retreat of the last troops.
If the passage of a large river is so difficult when the enemy is only
pressing on the rear of the column, it is far more so when the army is
threatened both in front and rear and the river is guarded by the enemy
in force.
The celebrated passage of the Beresina by the French is one of the most
remarkable examples of such an operation. Never was an army in a more
desperate condition, and never was one extricated more gloriously and
skillfully. Pressed by famine, benumbed with cold, distant twelve
hundred miles from its base of operations, assailed by the enemy in
front and in rear, having a river with marshy banks in front, surrounded
by vast forests, how could it hope to escape? It paid dearly for the
honor it gained. The mistake of Admiral Tschitchagoff doubtless helped
its escape; but the army performed heroic deeds, for which due praise
should be given. We do not know whether to admire most the plan of
operations which brought up the Russian armies from the extremities of
Moldavia, from Moscow, and from Polotzk to the Beresina as to a
rendezvous arranged in peace,–a plan which came near effecting the
capture of their formidable adversary,–or the wonderful firmness of the
lion thus pursued, who succeeded in opening a way through his enemies.
The only rules to be laid down are, not to permit your army to be
closely pressed upon, to deceive the enemy as to the point of passage,
and to fall headlong upon the corps which bars the way before the one
which is following the rear of your column can come up. Never place
yourself in a position to be exposed to such danger; for escape in such
a case is rare.
If a retreating army should strive to protect its bridges either by
regular _têtes de font_, or at least by lines of redoubts to cover the
rear-guard, it is natural, also, that the enemy pursuing should use
every effort to destroy the bridges. When the retreat is made down the
bank of a river, wooden houses may be thrown into the stream, also
fire-ships and mills,–a means the Austrians used in 1796 against
Jourdan’s army, near Neuwied on the Rhine, where they nearly compromised
the army of the Sambre and the Meuse. The Archduke Charles did the same
thing at Essling in 1809. He broke the bridge over the Danube, and
brought Napoleon to the brink of ruin.
It is difficult to secure a bridge against attacks of this character
unless there is time for placing a stockade above it. Boats may be
anchored, provided with ropes and grappling-hooks to catch floating
bodies and with means for extinguishing fire-boats.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 31: Ten years after this first refutation of Bulow's idea, the
concentric retreat of Barclay and Bagration saved the Russian army.
Although it did not prevent Napoleon's first success, it was, in the
end, the cause of his ruin.]
[Footnote 32: In all these calculations I suppose the contending forces
nearly equal. If the invading army is twice as strong as the defensive,
it may be divided into two equal parts, one of which may move directly
upon the capital, while the other may follow the army retiring along the
frontier. If the armies are equal, this is impossible.]
ARTICLE XXXIX.
Of Cantonments, either when on the March, or when established in Winter
Quarters.
So much has been written on this point, and its connection with my
subject is so indirect, that I shall treat it very briefly.
To maintain an army in cantonments, in a war actively carried on, is
generally difficult, however connected the arrangement may be, and there
is almost always some point exposed to the enemy’s attacks. A country
where large towns abound, as Lombardy, Saxony, the Netherlands, Swabia,
or old Prussia, presents more facilities for the establishment of
quarters than one where towns are few; for in the former case the troops
have not only convenient supplies of food, but shelters which permit the
divisions of the army to be kept closely together. In Poland, Russia,
portions of Austria and France, in Spain and in Southern Italy, it is
more difficult to put an army into winter quarters.
Formerly, it was usual for each party to go into winter quarters at the
end of October, and all the fighting after that time was of a partisan
character and carried on by the advanced troops forming the outposts.
The surprise of the Austrian winter quarters in Upper Alsace in 1674, by
Turenne, is a good example, from which may be learned the best method of
conducting such an enterprise, and the precautions to be taken on the
other side to prevent its success.
The best rules to be laid down on this subject seem to me to be the
following. Establish the cantonments very compactly and connectedly and
occupying a space as broad as long, in order to avoid having a too
extended line of troops, which is always easily broken through and
cannot be concentrated in time; cover them by a river, or by an outer
line of troops in huts and with their position strengthened by
field-works; fix upon points of assembly which may be reached by all the
troops before the enemy can penetrate so far; keep all the avenues by
which an enemy may approach constantly patrolled by bodies of cavalry;
finally, establish signals to give warning if an attack is made at any
point.
In the winter of 1807, Napoleon established his army in cantonments
behind the Passarge in face of the enemy, the advanced guard alone being
hutted near the cities of Gutstadt, Osterode, &c. The army numbered more
than one hundred and twenty thousand men, and much skill was requisite
in feeding it and keeping it otherwise comfortable in this position
until June. The country was of a favorable character; but this cannot be
expected to be the case everywhere.
An army of one hundred thousand men may find it not very difficult to
have a compact and well-connected system of winter quarters in countries
where large towns are numerous. The difficulty increases with the size
of the army. It must be observed, however, that if the extent of country
occupied increases in proportion to the numbers in the army, the means
of opposing an irruption of the enemy increase in the same proportion.
The important point is to be able to assemble fifty thousand or sixty
thousand men in twenty-four hours. With such an army in hand, and with
the certainty of having it rapidly increased, the enemy may be held in
check, no matter how strong he may be, until the whole army is
assembled.
It must be admitted, however, that there will always be a risk in going
into winter quarters if the enemy keeps his army in a body and seems
inclined to make offensive movements; and the conclusion to be drawn
from this fact is, that the only method of giving secure repose to an
army in winter or in the midst of a campaign is to establish it in
quarters protected by a river, or to arrange an armistice.
In the strategic positions taken up by an army in the course of a
campaign, whether marching, or acting as an army of observation, or
waiting for a favorable opportunity of taking the offensive, it will
probably occupy quite compact cantonments. The selection of such
positions requires great experience upon the part of a general, in order
that he may form correct conclusions as to what he may expect the enemy
to do. An army should occupy space enough to enable it to subsist
readily, and it should also keep as much concentrated as possible, to be
ready for the enemy should he show himself; and these two conditions are
by no means easily reconciled. There is no better arrangement than to
place the divisions of the army in a space nearly a square, so that in
case of need the whole may be assembled at any point where the enemy may
present himself. Nine divisions placed in this way, a half-day’s march
from each other, may in twelve hours assemble on the center. The same
rules are to be observed in these cases as were laid down for winter
quarters.
ARTICLE XL.
Descents.
These are operations of rare occurrence, and may be classed as among the
most difficult in war when effected in presence of a well-prepared
enemy.
Since the invention of gunpowder and the changes effected by it in
navies, transports are so helpless in presence of the monstrous
three-deckers of the present day, armed as they are with a hundred
cannon, that an army can make a descent only with the assistance of a
numerous fleet of ships of war which can command the sea, at least until
the debarkation of the army takes place.
Before the invention of gunpowder, the transports were also the ships of
war; they were moved along at pleasure by using oars, were light, and
could skirt along the coasts; their number was in proportion to the
number of troops to be embarked; and, aside from the danger of tempests,
the operations of a fleet could be arranged with almost as much
certainty as those of an army on land. Ancient history, for these
reasons, gives us examples of more extensive debarkations than modern
times.
Who does not recall to mind the immense forces transported by the
Persians upon the Black Sea, the Bosporus, and the Archipelago,–the
innumerable hosts landed in Greece by Xerxes and Darius,–the great
expeditions of the Carthaginians and Romans to Spain and Sicily, that of
Alexander into Asia Minor, those of Cæsar to England and Africa, that
of Germanicus to the mouths of the Elbe,–the Crusades,–the expeditions
of the Northmen to England, to France, and even to Italy?
Since the invention of cannon, the too celebrated Armada of Philip II.
was the only enterprise of this kind of any magnitude until that set on
foot by Napoleon against England in 1803. All other marine expeditions
were of no great extent: as, for example, those of Charles V. and of
Sebastian of Portugal to the coast of Africa; also the several descents
of the French into the United States of America, into Egypt and St.
Domingo, of the English to Egypt, Holland, Copenhagen, Antwerp,
Philadelphia. I say nothing of Hoche’s projected landing in Ireland; for
that was a failure, and is, at the same time, an example of the
difficulties to be apprehended in such attempts.
The large armies kept on foot in our day by the great states of the
world prevent descents with thirty or forty thousand men, except against
second-rate powers; for it is extremely difficult to find transportation
for one hundred or one hundred and fifty thousand men with their immense
trains of artillery, munitions, cavalry, &c.
We were, however, on the point of seeing the solution of the vast
problem of the practicability of descents in great force, if it is true
that Napoleon seriously contemplated the transportation of one hundred
and sixty thousand veterans from Boulogne to the British Isles:
unfortunately, his failure to execute this gigantic undertaking has left
us entirely in the dark as to this grave question.
It is not impossible to collect fifty French ships-of-the-line in the
Channel by misleading the English; this was, in fact, upon the point of
being done; it is then no longer impossible, with a favorable wind, to
pass over the flotilla in two days and effect a landing. But what would
become of the army if a storm should disperse the fleet of ships of war
and the English should return in force to the Channel and defeat the
fleet or oblige it to regain its ports?
Posterity will regret, as the loss of an example to all future
generations, that this immense undertaking was not carried through, or
at least attempted. Doubtless, many brave men would have met their
deaths; but were not those men mowed down more uselessly on the plains
of Swabia, of Moravia, and of Castile, in the mountains of Portugal and
the forests of Lithuania? What man would not glory in assisting to bring
to a conclusion the greatest trial of skill and strength ever seen
between two great nations? At any rate, posterity will find in the
preparations made for this descent one of the most valuable lessons the
present century has furnished for the study of soldiers and of
statesmen. The labors of every kind performed on the coasts of France
from 1803 to 1805 will be among the most remarkable monuments of the
activity, foresight, and skill of Napoleon. It is recommended to the
careful attention of young officers. But, while admitting the
possibility of success for a great descent upon a coast so near as the
English to Boulogne, what results should be expected if this armada had
had a long sea-voyage to make? How could so many small vessels be kept
moving, even for two days and nights? To what chances of ruin would not
so many frail boats be exposed in navigating the open seas! Moreover,
the artillery, munitions of war, equipments, provisions, and fresh water
that must be carried with this multitude of men require immense labor in
preparation and vast means of transportation.
Experience has shown clearly the difficulties attending such an
expedition, even for thirty thousand men. From known facts, it is
evident that a descent can be made with this number of men in four
cases:–1st, against colonies or isolated possessions; 2d, against
second-rate powers which cannot be immediately supported from abroad;
3d, for the purpose of effecting a temporary diversion, or to capture a
position which it is important to hold for a time; 4th, to make a
diversion, at once political and military, against a state already
engaged in a great war, whose troops are occupied at a distance from the
point of the descent.
It is difficult to lay down rules for operations of this character.
About the only recommendations I can make are the following. Deceive
the enemy as to the point of landing; choose a spot where the vessels
may anchor in safety and the troops be landed together; infuse as much
activity as possible into the operation, and take possession of some
strong point to cover the development of the troops as they land; put on
shore at once a part of the artillery, to give confidence and protection
to the troops that have landed.
A great difficulty in such an operation is found in the fact that the
transports can never get near the beach, and the troops must be landed
in boats and rafts,–which takes time and gives the enemy great
advantages. If the sea is rough, the men to be landed are exposed to
great risks; for what can a body of infantry do, crowded in boats,
tossed about by the waves, and ordinarily rendered unfit by sea-sickness
for the proper use of their arms?
I can only advise the party on the defensive not to divide his forces
too much by attempting to cover every point. It is an impossibility to
line the entire coast with batteries and battalions for its defense; but
the approaches to those places where large establishments are to be
protected must be closed. Signals should be arranged for giving prompt
notice of the point where the enemy is landing, and all the disposable
force should be rapidly concentrated there, to prevent his gaining a
firm foothold.
The configuration of coasts has a great influence upon descents and
their prosecution. There are countries where the coasts are steep and
present few points of easy access for the ships and the troops to be
landed: these few places may be more readily watched, and the descent
becomes more difficult.
Finally, there is a strategical consideration connected with descents
which may be usefully pointed out. The same principle which forbids a
continental army from interposing the mass of its forces between the
enemy and the sea requires, on the contrary, that an army landing upon a
coast should always keep its principal mass in communication with the
shore, which is at once its line of retreat and its base of supplies.
For the same reason, its first care should be to make sure of the
possession of one fortified harbor/ or at least of a tongue of land
which is convenient to a good anchorage and may be easily strengthened
by fortifications, in order that in case of reverse the troops may be
re-embarked without hurry and loss.
