CHAPTER VII.
OF THE FORMATION OF TROOPS FOR BATTLE, AND THE SEPARATE OR COMBINED USE
OF THE THREE ARMS.
ARTICLE XLIII.
Posting Troops in Line of Battle.
Having explained in Article XXX. what is to be understood by the term
_line of battle_, it is proper to add in what manner it is to be formed,
and how the different troops are to be distributed in it.
Before the French Revolution, all the infantry, formed in regiments and
brigades, was collected in a single battle-corps, drawn up in two lines,
each of which had a right and a left wing. The cavalry was usually
placed upon the wings, and the artillery–which at this period was very
unwieldy–was distributed along the front of each line. The army camped
together, marching by lines or by wings; and, as there were two cavalry
wings and two infantry wings, if the march was by wings four columns
were thus formed. When they marched by lines, (which was specially
applicable to flank movements,) two columns were formed, unless, on
account of local circumstances, the cavalry or a part of the infantry
had camped in a third line,–which was rare.
This method simplified logistics very much, since it was only necessary
to give such orders as the following:–”The army will move in such
direction, by lines or by wings, by the right or by the left.” This
monotonous but simple formation was seldom deviated from; and no better
could have been devised as war was carried on in those days.
The French attempted something new at Minden, by forming as many columns
as brigades, and opening roads to bring them to the front in line,–a
simple impossibility.
If the labor of staff officers was diminished by this method of camping
and marching by lines, it must be evident that if such a system were
applied to an army of one hundred thousand or one hundred and fifty
thousand men, there would be no end to the columns, and the result would
be the frequent occurrence of routs like that of Rossbach.
The French Revolution introduced the system of divisions, which broke up
the excessive compactness of the old formation, and brought upon the
field fractions capable of independent movement on any kind of ground.
This change was a real improvement,–although they went from one extreme
to the other, by returning nearly to the legionary formation of the
Romans. These divisions, composed usually of infantry, artillery, and
cavalry, maneuvered and fought separately. They were very much extended,
either to enable them to subsist without the use of depots, or with an
absurd expectation of prolonging the line in order to outflank that of
the enemy. The seven or eight divisions of an army were sometimes seen
marching on the same number of roads, ten or twelve miles distant from
each other; the head-quarters was at the center, with no other support
than five or six small regiments of cavalry of three hundred or four
hundred men each, so that if the enemy concentrated the mass of his
forces against one of these divisions and beat it, the line was pierced,
and the general-in-chief, having no disposable infantry reserve, could
do nothing but order a retreat to rally his scattered columns.
Bonaparte in his first Italian campaign remedied this difficulty, partly
by the mobility of his army and the rapidity of his maneuvers, and
partly by concentrating the mass of his divisions upon the point where
the decisive blow was to fall. When he became the head of the
government, and saw the sphere of his means and his plans constantly
increasing in magnitude, he readily perceived that a stronger
organization was necessary: he avoided the extremes of the old system
and the new, while still retaining the advantages of the divisional
system. Beginning with the campaign of 1800, he organized corps of two
or three divisions, which he placed under the command of
lieutenant-generals, and formed of them the wings, the center, and the
reserve of his army.[40]
This system was finally developed fully at the camp of Boulogne, where
he organized permanent army corps under the command of marshals, who had
under their orders three divisions of infantry, one of light cavalry,
from thirty-six to forty pieces of cannon, and a number of sappers. Each
corps was thus a small army, able at need to act independently as an
army. The heavy cavalry was collected in a single strong reserve,
composed of two divisions of cuirassiers, four of dragoons, and one of
light cavalry. The grenadiers and the guard formed an admirable infantry
reserve. At a later period–1812–the cavalry was also organized into
corps of three divisions, to give greater unity of action to the
constantly-increasing masses of this arm. This organization was as near
perfection as possible; and the grand army, that brought about such
great results, was the model which all the armies of Europe soon
imitated.
Some military men, in their attempts to perfect the art, have
recommended that the infantry division, which sometimes has to act
independently, should contain three instead of two brigades, because
this number will allow one for the center and each wing. This would
certainly be an improvement; for if the division contains but two
brigades there is an open space left in the center between the brigades
on the wings: these brigades, having no common central support, cannot
with safety act independently of each other. Besides this, with three
brigades in a division, two may be engaged while the third is held in
reserve,–a manifest advantage. But, if thirty brigades formed in ten
divisions of three brigades are better than when formed in fifteen
divisions of two brigades, it becomes necessary, in order to obtain this
perfect divisional organization, to increase the numbers of the infantry
by one-third, or to reduce the divisions of the army-corps from three to
two,–which last would be a serious disadvantage, because the army-corps
is much more frequently called upon to act independently than a
division, and the subdivision into three parts is specially best for
that[41].
What is the best organization to be given an army just setting out upon
a campaign will for a long time to come be a problem in logistics;
because it is extremely difficult to maintain the original organization
in the midst of the operations of war, and detachments must be sent out
continually.
The history of the grand army of Boulogne, whose organization seemed to
leave nothing farther to be desired, proves the assertion just made. The
center under Soult, the right under Davoust, the left under Ney, and the
reserve under Lannes, formed together a regular and formidable
battle-corps of thirteen divisions of infantry, without counting those
of the guard and the grenadiers. Besides these, the corps of Bernadotte
and Marmont detached to the right, and that of Augereau to the left,
were ready for action on the flanks. But after the passage of the Danube
at Donauwerth every thing was changed. Ney, at first reinforced to five
divisions, was reduced to two; the battle-corps was divided partly to
the right and partly to the left, so that this fine arrangement was
destroyed.
It will always be difficult to fix upon a stable organization. Events
are, however, seldom so complicated as those of 1805; and Moreau’s
campaign of 1800 proves that the original organization may sometimes be
maintained, at least for the mass of the army. With this view, it would
seem prudent to organize an army in four parts,–two wings, a center,
and a reserve. The composition of these parts may vary with the strength
of the army; but in order to retain this organization it becomes
necessary to have a certain number of divisions out of the general line
in order to furnish the necessary detachments. While these divisions are
with the army, they may be attached to that part which is to receive or
give the heaviest blows; or they may be employed on the flanks of the
main body, or to increase the strength of the reserve. Bach of the four
great parts of the army may be a single corps of three or four
divisions, or two corps of two divisions each. In this last case there
would be seven corps, allowing one for the reserve; but this last corps
should contain three divisions, to give a reserve to each wing and to
the center.
With seven corps, unless several more are kept out of the general line
in order to furnish detachments, it may happen that the extreme corps
may be detached, so that each wing might contain but two divisions, and
from these a brigade might be occasionally detached to flank the march
of the army, leaving but three brigades to a wing. This would be a weak
order of battle.
These facts lead me to conclude that an organization of the line of
battle in four corps of three divisions of infantry and one of light
cavalry, with three or four divisions for detachments, would be more
stable than one of seven corps, each of two divisions.
But, as every thing depends upon the strength of the army and of the
units of which it is composed, as well as upon the character of the
operations in which it may be engaged, the arrangement may be greatly
varied. I cannot go into these details, and shall simply exhibit the
principal combinations that may result from forming the divisions in two
or three brigades and the corps in two or three divisions. I have
indicated the formation of two infantry corps in two lines, either one
behind the other, or side by side. (See Figures from 17 to 28
inclusive.)
_Different Formations of Lines of Battle for Two Corps of Infantry._
[Illustration: Fig. 17. Two Corps deployed, One behind the Other.]
First Corps.
—– —– ^ —– —–
2d Division. | 1st Division.
Second Corps.
—– —– ^ —– —–
2d Division. | 1st Division.
[Illustration: Fig. 18. Two Corps formed Side by Side.]
Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
—– —– | —– —–
1st Division. | 1st Division.
|
—– —– | —– —–
2d Division. | 2d Division.
[Illustration: Fig. 19. Two Corps of 2 Divisions of 3 Brigades each.]
First Corps.
—– —– —– ^ —– —– —–
2d Division. | 1st Division.
Second Corps.
—– —– —– ^ —– —– —–
2d Division. | 1st Division.
[Illustration: Fig. 20. Two Corps Side by Side.]
Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
—– —– —– | —– —– —–
1st Division. | 1st Division.
|
—– —– —– | —– —– —–
2d Division. | 2d Division.
[Illustration: Fig. 21. 2 Corps of 2 Divisions of 3 Brigades each.]
First Corps.
2d Division. 1st Division.
—– —– —– —–
—– —–
Second Corps.
2d Division. 1st Division.
—– —– —– —–
—– —–
[Illustration: Fig. 22. 2 Corps of 2 Divisions of 3 Brigades each,
placed Side by Side.]
Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
1st Division. | 1st Division.
—– —– | —– —–
—– | —–
|
2d Division. | 2d Division.
—– —– | —– —–
—– | —–
_Formation of Two Corps of Three Divisions of Two Brigades each._
[Illustration: Fig. 23.]
First Corps.
—- —- ^ —- —- ^ —- —-
3d Division. | 2d Division. | 1st Division.
Second Corps.
—- —- ^ —- —- ^ —- —-
3d Division. | 2d Division. | 1st Division.
[Illustration: Fig. 24.]
Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
—- —- ^ —- —- | —- —- ^ —- —-
2d Division. | 1st Division | 2d Division. | 1st Division
|
—- —- | —- —-
3d Division. | 3d Division.
[Illustration: Fig. 25.]
2d Corps. ^ 1st Corps.
|
—- —- | —- —-
1st Division.| 1st Division.
|
—- —- | —- —-
2d Division. | 2d Division.
|
—- —- | —- —-
3d Division. | 3d Division.
* * * * *
_Two Corps of Three Divisions of Three Brigades each._
[Illustration: Fig. 26. Two Divisions in the 1st Line, and one in the
2d Line.]
First Corps.
^
—- —- —- | —- —- —-
2d Division. | 1st Division.
—- —- —-
3d Division.
Second Corps.
^
—- —- —- | —- —- —-
2d Division. | 1st Division.
—- —- —-
3d Division.
[Illustration: Fig. 27. Same Order with 3d Brigade as Reserve, and the
2 Corps Side by Side.]
Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
2d Division. ^ 1st Division. | 2d Division. ^ 1st Division.
—- —- | —- —- | —- —- | —- —-
—- | —- | —- | —-
|
|
—- —- —- | —- —- —-
3d Division. | 3d Division.
[Illustration: _Shallower Formation: Twelve Brigades in the First Line,
and Six in the Second Line._
Fig. 28.]
Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
2d Division. ^ 1st Division. | 2d Division. ^ 1st Division.
—- —- —- | —- —- —- | —- —- —- | —- —- —-
|
—- —- —- | —- —- —-
3d Division. | 3d Division.
* * * * *
Note.–In all these formations the unit is the brigade in line; but
these lines may be formed of deployed battalions, or of battalions in
columns of attack by divisions of two companies. The cavalry attached to
the corps will be placed on the flanks. The brigades might be so drawn
up as to have one regiment in the first line and one in the second.
The question here presents itself, whether it is ever proper to place
two corps one behind the other, as Napoleon often did, particularly at
Wagram. I think that, except for the reserves, this arrangement may be
used only in a position of expectation, and never as an order of battle;
for it is much better for each corps to have its own second line and its
reserve than to pile up several corps, one behind the other, under
different commanders. However much one general may be disposed to
support a colleague, he will always object to dividing up his troops for
that purpose; and when in the general of the first line he sees not a
colleague, but a hated rival, as too frequently happens, it is probable
he will be very slow in furnishing the assistance which may be greatly
needed. Moreover, a commander whose troops are spread out in a long line
cannot execute his maneuvers with near so much facility as if his front
was only half as great and was supported by the remainder of his own
troops drawn up in rear.
The table below[42] will show that the number of men in an army will
have great influence in determining the best formation for it, and that
the subject is a complicated one.
In making our calculations, it is scarcely necessary to provide for the
case of such immense masses being in the field as were seen from 1812 to
1815, when a single army contained fourteen corps varying in strength
from two to five divisions. With such large numbers nothing better can
be proposed than a subdivision into corps of three divisions each. Of
these corps, eight would form the main body, and there would remain six
for detachments and for strengthening any point of the main line that
might require support. If this system be applied to an army of one
hundred and fifty thousand men, it would be hardly practicable to employ
divisions of two brigades each where Napoleon and the allies used corps.
If nine divisions form the main body,–that is, the wings and the
center,–and six others form the reserve and detachments, fifteen
divisions would be required, or thirty brigades,–which would make one
hundred and eighty battalions, if each regiment contains three
battalions. This supposition brings our army up to one hundred and
forty-five thousand foot-soldiers and two hundred thousand in all. With
regiments of two battalions there would be required one hundred and
twenty battalions, or ninety-six thousand infantry; but if each regiment
contains but two battalions, each battalion should be one thousand men
strong, and this would increase the infantry to one hundred and twenty
thousand men and the entire army to one hundred and sixty thousand men.
These calculations show that the strength of the minor subdivisions must
be carefully considered in arranging into corps and divisions. If an
army does not contain more than one hundred thousand men, the formation
by divisions is perhaps better than by corps. An example of this was
Napoleon’s army of 1800.
Having now endeavored to explain the best method of giving a somewhat
permanent organization to the main body of an army, it will not be out
of place for me to inquire whether this permanency is desirable, and if
it is not advantageous to deceive the enemy by frequently changing the
composition of corps and their positions.
I admit the advantage of thus deceiving the enemy; but it may be gained
while still retaining a quite constant organization of the main body. If
the divisions intended for detachments are joined to the wings and the
center,–that is, if those parts contain each four divisions instead of
three,–and if one or two divisions be occasionally added to the wing
which is likely to bear the brunt of an engagement, each wing will be a
corps properly of four divisions; but detachments will generally reduce
it to three, and sometimes two, while it might, again, be reinforced by
a portion of the reserve until it reached five divisions. The enemy
would thus never know exactly the strength of the different parts of the
line.
But I have dwelt sufficiently on these details. It is probable that,
whatever be the strength and number of the subdivisions of an army, the
organization into corps will long be retained by all the great powers of
Europe, and calculations for the arrangement of the line of battle must
be made upon that basis.
The distribution of the troops in the line of battle has changed in
recent times, as well as the manner of arranging the line. Formerly it
was usually composed of two lines, but now of two lines and one or more
reserves. In recent[43] conflicts in Europe, when the masses brought
into collision were very large, the corps were not only formed in two
lines, but one corps was placed behind another, thus making four lines;
and, the reserve being drawn up in the same manner, six lines of
infantry were often the result, and several of cavalry. Such a formation
may answer well enough as a preparatory one, but is by no means the best
for battle, as it is entirely too deep.
The classical formation–if I may employ that term–is still two lines
for the infantry. The greater or less extent of the battle-field and the
strength of an army may necessarily produce greater depth at times; but
these cases are the exceptions, because the formation of two lines and
the reserves gives sufficient solidity, and enables a greater number of
men to be simultaneously engaged.
When an army has a permanent advanced guard, it may be either formed in
front of the line of battle or be carried to the rear to strengthen the
reserve;[44] but, as has been previously stated, this will not often
happen with the present method of forming and moving armies. Each wing
has usually its own advanced guard, and the advanced guard of the main
or central portion of the army is naturally furnished by the leading
corps: upon coming into view of the enemy, these advanced bodies return
to their proper positions in line of battle. Often the cavalry reserve
is almost entirely with the advanced guard; but this does not prevent
its taking, when necessary, the place fixed for it in the line of battle
by the character of the position or by the wishes of the commanding
general.
From what has been stated above, my readers will gather that very great
changes of army organization took place from the time of the revival of
the art of war and the invention of gunpowder to the French Revolution,
and that to have a proper appreciation of the wars of Louis XIV., of
Peter the Great, and of Frederick II., they should consider them from
the stand-point of those days.
One portion of the old method may still be employed; and if, by way of
example, it may not be regarded as a fundamental rule to post the
cavalry on the wings, it may still be a very good arrangement for an
army of fifty or sixty thousand men, especially when the ground in the
center is not so suitable for the evolutions of cavalry as that near the
extremities. It is usual to attach one or two brigades of light cavalry
to each infantry corps, those of the center being placed in preference
to the rear, whilst those of the wings are placed upon the flanks. If
the reserves of cavalry are sufficiently numerous to permit the
organization of three corps of this arm, giving one as reserve to the
center and one to each wing, the arrangement is certainly a good one. If
that is impossible, this reserve may be formed in two columns, one on
the right of the left wing and the other on the left of the right wing.
These columns may thus readily move to any point of the line that may be
threatened.[45]
The artillery of the present day has greater mobility, and may, as
formerly, be distributed along the front, that of each division
remaining near it. It may be observed, moreover, that, the organization
of the artillery having been greatly improved, an advantageous
distribution of it may be more readily made; but it is a great mistake
to scatter it too much. Few precise rules can be laid down for the
proper distribution of artillery. Who, for example, would dare to advise
as a rule the filling up of a large gap in a line of battle with one
hundred pieces of cannon in a single battery without adequate support,
as Napoleon did successfully at Wagram? I do not desire to go here into
much detail with reference to the use of this arm, but I will give the
following rules:–
1. The horse-artillery should be placed on such ground that it can move
freely in every direction.
2. Foot-artillery, on the contrary, and especially that of heavy
caliber, will be best posted where protected by ditches or hedges from
sudden charges of cavalry. It is hardly necessary for me to add–what
every young officer should know already–that too elevated positions are
not those to give artillery its greatest effect. Flat or gently-sloping
ground is better.
3. The horse-artillery usually maneuvers with the cavalry; but it is
well for each army-corps to have its own horse-artillery, to be readily
thrown into any desired position. It is, moreover, proper to have
horse-artillery in reserve, which may be carried as rapidly as possible
to any threatened point. General Benningsen had great cause for
self-congratulation at Eylau because he had fifty light guns in reserve;
for they had a powerful influence in enabling him to recover himself
when his line had been broken through between the center and the left.
4. On the defensive, it is well to place some of the heavy batteries in
front, instead of holding them in reserve, since it is desirable to
attack the enemy at the greatest possible distance, with a view of
checking his forward movement and causing disorder in his columns.
5. On the defensive, it seems also advisable to have the artillery not
in reserve distributed at equal intervals in batteries along the whole
line, since it is important to repel the enemy at all points. This must
not, however, be regarded as an invariable rule; for the character of
the position and the designs of the enemy may oblige the mass of the
artillery to move to a wing or to the center.
6. In the offensive, it is equally advantageous to concentrate a very
powerful artillery-fire upon a single point where it is desired to make
a decisive stroke, with a view of shattering the enemy’s line to such a
degree that he will be unable to withstand an attack upon which the fate
of the battle is to turn. I shall at another place have more to say as
to the employment of artillery in battles.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 40: Thus, the army of the Rhine was composed of a right wing
of three divisions under Lecourbe, of a center of three divisions under
Saint-Cyr, and of a left of two divisions under Saint-Suzanne, the
general-in-chief having three divisions more as a reserve under his own
immediate orders.]
[Footnote 41: Thirty brigades formed in fifteen divisions of two
brigades each will have only fifteen brigades in the first line, while
the same thirty brigades formed in ten divisions of three brigades each
may have twenty brigades in the first line and ten in the second. But it
then becomes necessary to diminish the number of divisions and to have
but two in a corps,--which would be a faulty arrangement, because the
corps is much more likely to be called upon for independent action than
the division.]
[Footnote 42: Every army has two wings, a center, and a reserve,--in
all, four principal subdivisions,--besides accidental detachments.
Below are some of the different formations that may be given to
infantry.
1st. In regiments of two battalions of eight hundred men each:--
Div's. Brig's. Batt'ns. Men. Four corps of two divisions each, and
three divisions for detachments.................. 11 = 22 = 88 =
72,000
Four corps of three divisions each, and three divisions for
detachments................... 15 = 30 = 120 = 96,000
Seven corps of two divisions each, and one corps for
detachments....................... 16 = 32 = 128 = 103,000
2d. In regiments of three battalions, brigades of six battalions:--
Div's. Brig's. Batt'ns. Men. Four corps of two divisions each,
besides detachments,............................... 11 = 22 = 132
105,000
Four corps of three divisions each, besides
detachments................................ 15 = 30 = 180 = 144,000
Eight corps of two divisions each............ 16 = 32 = 192 =
154,000
If to these numbers we add one-fourth for cavalry, artillery, and
engineers, the total force for the above formations may be known.
It is to be observed that regiments of two battalions if eight hundred
men each would become very weak at the end of two or three months'
campaigning. If they do not consist of three battalions, then each
battalion should contain one thousand men.]
[Footnote 43: The term _recent_ here refers to the later wars of
Napoleon I.--Translators.]
[Footnote 44: As the advanced guard is in presence of the enemy every
day, and forms the rear-guard in retreat, it seems but fair at the hour
of battle to assign it a position more retired than that in front of the
line of battle.]
[Footnote 45: This disposition of the cavalry, of course, is made upon
the supposition that the ground is favorably situated for it. This is
the essential condition of every well-arranged line of battle.]
ARTICLE XLIV.
Formation and Employment of Infantry.
Infantry is undoubtedly the most important arm of the service, since it
forms four-fifths of an army and is used both in the attack and defense
of positions. If we must admit that, next to the genius of the general,
the infantry arm is the most valuable instrument in gaining a victory,
it is no less true that most important aid is given by the cavalry and
artillery, and that without their assistance the infantry might at times
be very seriously compromised, and at others could achieve only partial
success.
We shall not here introduce those old discussions about the shallow and
the deep formations, although the question, which was supposed decided,
is far from being settled absolutely. The war in Spain and the battle of
Waterloo have again given rise to disputes as to the relative advantages
of fire and the shallow order, and of columns of attack and the deep
order. I will give my own opinion farther on.
There must, however, be no misconception on this subject. The question
now is not whether Lloyd was right in wishing to add a fourth rank,
armed with pikes, to the infantry formation, with the expectation of
producing more effect by the shock when attacking, or opposing a greater
resistance when attacked. Every officer of experience knows the
difficulty of moving in an orderly manner several deployed battalions in
three ranks at close order, and that a fourth rank would increase the
disorder without adding any advantage. It is astonishing that Lloyd, who
had seen service, should have insisted so much upon the material
advantage to be gained by thus increasing the mass of a battalion; for
it very rarely happens that such a collision between opposing troops
takes place that mere weight decides the contest. If three ranks turn
their backs to the enemy, the fourth will not check them. This increase
in the number of ranks diminishes the front and the number of men firing
upon the defensive, whilst in the offensive there is not near so much
mobility as in the ordinary column of attack. It is much more difficult
to move eight hundred men in line of battle in four ranks than in three:
although in the former case the extent of front is less, the ranks
cannot be kept properly closed.
Lloyd’s proposal for remedying this diminution of front is so absurd
that it is wonderful how a man of talents could have imagined it. He
wishes to deploy twenty battalions, and leave between them one hundred
and fifty yards, or an interval equal to their front. We may well ask
what would befall those battalions thus separated. The cavalry may
penetrate the intervals and scatter them like dust before the whirlwind.
But the real question now is, shall the line of battle consist of
deployed battalions depending chiefly upon their fire, or of columns of
attack, each battalion being formed in column on the central division
and depending on its force and impetuosity?
I will now proceed to sum up the particulars bearing upon a decision of
the question in hand.
There are, in fact, only five methods of forming troops to attack an
enemy:–l, as skirmishers; 2, in deployed lines, either continuous or
checkerwise; 3, in lines of battalions formed in column on the central
divisions; 4, in deep masses; 5, in small squares.
The skirmishing-order is an accessory; for the duties of skirmishers
are, not to form the line of battle, but to cover it by taking advantage
of the ground, to protect the movements of columns, to fill up
intervals, and to defend the skirts of a position.
These different manners of formation are, therefore, reducible to four:
the shallow order, where the line is deployed in three ranks; the
half-deep order, formed of a line of battalions in columns doubled on
the center or in battalion squares; the mixed order, where regiments are
partly in line and partly in column; finally, the deep order, composed
of heavy columns of battalions deployed one behind the other.
[Illustration: Fig. 29.[46]
Deployed order in two lines.
—– —– —– —– —– —–
—– —– —– —– —– —–
]
The formation into two deployed lines with a reserve was formerly used
to a great extent: it is particularly suitable on the defensive. These
deployed lines may either be continuous, (Fig. 29,) or checkerwise, or
in echelons.
[Illustration: Fig. 30.
Twelve battalions in columns of attack in two lines, with skirmishers in
the intervals.
-----...-----...-----...-----...-----...-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----...-----...-----...-----...-----...-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
]
A more compact order is shown in Fig. 30, where each battalion is formed
into a column of attack, being by divisions upon the central division.
It is really a line of small columns
In the three-rank formation, a battalion with four divisions[47] will
have twelve ranks in such a column as shown above: there are in this way
too many non-combatants, and the column presents too good a mark for the
artillery. To remedy in part these inconveniences, it has been proposed,
whenever infantry is employed in columns of attack, to form it in two
ranks, to place only three divisions of a battalion one behind the
other, and to spread out the fourth as skirmishers in the intervals of
the battalions and upon the flanks: when the cavalry charges, these
skirmishers may rally behind the other three divisions. (See Fig. 31.)
Each battalion would thus have two hundred more men to fire, besides
those thrown into the two front ranks from the third. There would be,
also, an increase of the whole front. By this arrangement, while having
really a depth of but six men, there would be a front of one hundred
men, and four hundred men who could discharge their fire-arms, for each
battalion. Force and mobility would both be obtained.[48] A battalion of
eight hundred men, formed in the ordinary manner in a column of four
divisions, has about sixty files in each division, of which the first
alone–and only two ranks of that–discharge their pieces. Bach
battalion would deliver, therefore, one hundred and twenty shots at a
volley, whilst formed in the manner shown in Fig. 31 it would deliver
four hundred.
[Illustration: Fig. 31.]
While searching after methods of obtaining more fire when necessary, we
must not forget that a column of attack is not intended to fire, and
that its fire should be reserved until the last; for if it begins to
fire while marching, the whole impulsive effect of its forward movement
is lost. Moreover, this shallower order would only be advantageous
against infantry, as the column of four divisions in three
ranks–forming a kind of solid square–would be better against cavalry.
The Archduke Charles found it advantageous at Essling, and particularly
at Wagram, to adopt this last order, which was proposed by myself in my
chapter on the General Principles of War, published in 1807. The brave
cavalry of Bessières could make no impression upon these small masses.
To give more solidity to the column proposed, the skirmishers might, it
is true, be recalled, and the fourth division reformed; but this would
be a two-rank formation, and would offer much less resistance to a
charge than the three-rank formation,–particularly on the flanks. If to
remedy this inconvenience it is proposed to form squares, many military
men believe that when in two ranks squares would not resist so well as
columns. The English squares at Waterloo were, however, only in two
ranks, and, notwithstanding the heroic efforts of the French cavalry,
only one battalion was broken. I will observe, in conclusion, that, if
the two-rank formation be used for the columns of attack, it will be
difficult to preserve that in three ranks for deployed lines, as it is
scarcely possible to have two methods of formation, or, at any rate, to
employ them alternately in the same engagement. It is not probable that
any European army, except the English, will undertake to use deployed
lines in two ranks. If they do, they should never move except in columns
of attack.
I conclude that the system employed by the Russians and Prussians, of
forming columns of four divisions in three ranks, of which one may be
employed as skirmishers when necessary, is more generally applicable
than any other; whilst the other, of which mention has been made, would
be suitable only in certain cases and would require a double formation.
[Illustration: Fig. 32.]
There is a mixed order, which was used by Napoleon at the Tagliamento
and by the Russians at Eylau, where, in regiments of three battalions,
one was deployed to form the first line, and two others to the rear in
columns. (See Fig. 32.) This arrangement–which belongs also to the
half-deep order–is suitable for the offensive-defensive, because the
first line pours a powerful fire upon the enemy, which must throw him
into more or less confusion, and the troops formed in columns may
debouch through the intervals and fall with advantage upon him while in
disorder. This arrangement would probably be improved by placing the
leading divisions of the two battalions of the wings upon the same line
with the central deployed battalion. There would thus be a
half-battalion more to each regiment in the first line,–a by no means
unimportant thing for the delivery of fire. There may be reason to fear
that, these divisions becoming actively engaged in firing, their
battalions which are formed in column to be readily launched against the
enemy may not be easily disengaged for that purpose. The order may be
useful in many cases. I have therefore indicated it.
[Illustration: Fig 33.]
[Illustration: Fig 34.]
The order in very deep masses (see Figs. 33 and 34) is certainly the
most injudicious. In the later wars of Napoleon, twelve battalions were
sometimes deployed and closed one upon the other, forming thirty-six
ranks closely packed together. Such masses are greatly exposed to the
destructive effects of artillery, their mobility and impulsion are
diminished, while their strength is not increased. The use of such
masses at Waterloo was one cause of the French being defeated.
Macdonald’s column was more fortunate at Wagram, but at a great
sacrifice of life; and it is not probable that this column would have
been victorious had it not been for the successes of Davoust and
Oudinot on the left of the archduke’s line.
When it is decided to risk such a mass, the precaution should certainly
be taken of placing on each flank a battalion marching in file, so that
if the enemy should charge the mass in flank it need not be arrested in
its progress. (See Fig. 33.) Under the protection of these battalions,
which may face toward the enemy, the column may continue its march to
the point it is expected to reach: otherwise, this large mass, exposed
to a powerful converging fire which it has no means of returning, will
be thrown into confusion like the column at Fontenoy, or broken as was
the Macedonian phalanx by Paulus Emilius.
Squares are good in plains and to oppose an enemy who has a superiority
in cavalry. It is agreed that the regimental square is best for the
defensive, and the battalion square for the offensive. (See Figs. 35,
36, 37.)
[Illustration: Fig. 35.
Division in battalion squares.]
[Illustration: Fig. 36.
The same division in long battalion squares.]
[Illustration: Fig. 37.
Squared of regiments of three battalions.]
The figures may be perfect squares, or elongated to give a large front
and pour a heavier column of fire in the direction of the enemy. A
regiment of three battalions will thus form a long square, by wheeling
the center battalion half to the right and half to the left.
In the Turkish wars squares were almost exclusively used, because
hostilities were carried on in the vast plains of Bessarabia, Moldavia,
or Wallachia, and the Turks had an immense force of cavalry. But if the
seat of war be the Balkan Mountains or beyond them, and their irregular
cavalry be replaced by an army organized according to the proportions
usual in Europe, the importance of the square will disappear, and the
Russian infantry will show its superiority in Rumelia.
However this may be, the order in squares by regiments or battalions
seems suitable for every kind of attack, when the assailant has not the
superiority in cavalry and maneuvers on level ground advantageous for
the enemy’s charges. The elongated square, especially when applied to a
battalion of eight companies, three of which would march in front and
one on each side, would be much better to make an attack than a deployed
battalion. It would not be so good as the column proposed above; but
there would be less unsteadiness and more impulsion than if the
battalion marched in a deployed line. It would have the advantage, also,
of being prepared to resist cavalry.
Squares may also be drawn up in echelons, so as entirely to unmask each
other. All the orders of battle may be formed of squares as well as with
deployed lines.
It cannot be stated with truth that any one of the formations described
is always good or always bad; but there is one rule to the correctness
of which every one will assent,–that a formation suitable for the
offensive must possess the characteristics of _solidity, mobility_, and
_momentum_, whilst for the defensive _solidity_ is requisite, and also
the power of delivering _as much fire as possible_.
This truth being admitted, it remains yet to be decided whether the
bravest troops, formed in columns but unable to fire, can stand long in
presence of a deployed line firing twenty thousand musket-balls in one
round, and able to fire two hundred thousand or three hundred thousand
in five minutes. In the later wars in Europe, positions have often been
carried by Russian, French, and Prussian columns with their arms at a
shoulder and without firing a shot. This was a triumph of _momentum_ and
the moral effect it produces; but under the cool and deadly fire of the
English infantry the French columns did not succeed so well at Talavera,
Busaco, Fuentes-de-Onore, Albuera, and Waterloo.
We must not, however, necessarily conclude from these facts that the
advantage is entirely in favor of the shallow formation and firing; for
when the French formed their infantry in those dense masses, it is not
at all wonderful that the deployed and marching battalions of which they
were composed, assailed on all sides by a deadly fire, should have been
repulsed. Would the same result have been witnessed if they had used
columns of attack formed each of a single battalion doubled on the
center? I think not. Before deciding finally as to the superiority of
the shallow order, with its facility for firing, over the half-deep
order and its momentum, there should be several trials to see how a
deployed line would stand an assault from a formation like Fig. 31,
(page 293.) These small columns have always succeeded wherever I have
seen them tried.
Is it indeed an easy matter to adopt any other order when marching to
attack a position? Can an immense deployed line be moved up into action
while firing? I think no one will answer affirmatively. Suppose the
attempt made to bring up twenty or thirty battalions in line, while
firing either by file or by company, to the assault of a well-defended
position: it is not very probable they would ever reach the desired
point, or, if they did, it would be in about as good order as a flock of
sheep.
What conclusions shall be drawn from all that has been said? 1. If the
deep order is dangerous, the half-deep is excellent for the offensive.
2. The column of attack of single battalions is the best formation for
carrying a position by assault; but its depth should be diminished as
much as possible, that it may when necessary be able to deliver as heavy
a column of fire as possible, and to diminish the effect of the enemy’s
fire: it ought also to be well covered by skirmishers and supported by
cavalry. 3. The formation having the first line deployed and the second
in columns is the best-suited to the defensive. 4. Either of them may be
successful in the hands of a general of talent, who knows how to use
his troops properly in the manner indicated in Articles XVI. and XXX.
Since this chapter was first written, numerous improvements have been
made in the arms both of infantry and artillery, making them much more
destructive. The effect of this is to incline men to prefer the
shallower formations, even in the attack. We cannot, however, forget the
lessons of experience; and, notwithstanding the use of rocket-batteries,
shrapnel-shot, and the Perkins musket, I cannot imagine a better method
of forming infantry for the attack than in columns of battalions. Some
persons may perhaps desire to restore to infantry the helmets and
breastplates of the fifteenth century, before leading them to the attack
in deployed lines. But, if there is a general return to the deployed
system, some better arrangement must be devised for marching to the
attack than long, continuous lines, and either columns must be used with
proper distances for deployment upon arriving near the enemy’s position,
or lines drawn up checkerwise, or the march must be by the flanks of
companies,–all of which maneuvers are hazardous in presence of an enemy
who is capable of profiting by the advantages on his side. A skillful
commander will use either, or a combination of all, of these
arrangements, according to circumstances.
Experience long ago taught me that one of the most difficult tactical
problems is that of determining the best formation of troops for battle;
but I have also learned that to solve this problem by the use of a
single method is an impossibility.
In the first place, the topography of different countries is very
various. In some, as Champagne, two hundred thousand men might be
maneuvered in deployed lines. In others, as Italy, Switzerland, the
valley of the Rhine, half of Hungary, it is barely possible to deploy a
division of ten battalions. The degree of instruction of the troops, and
their national characteristics, may also have an influence upon the
system of formation.
Owing to the thorough discipline of the Russian army and its instruction
in maneuvers of every kind, it may maintain in movements in long lines
so much order and steadiness as to enable it to adopt a system which
would be entirely out of the question for the French or Prussian armies
of the present day. My long experience has taught me to believe that
nothing is impossible; and I do not belong to the class of men who think
that there can be but one type and one system for all armies and all
countries.
To approximate as nearly as we can to the solution of the problem, it
seems to me, we ought to find out:–1. The best method of moving when in
sight of the enemy, but beyond his reach; 2. The best method of coming
to close quarters with him; 3. The best defensive order.
In whatever manner we may settle these points, it seems desirable in all
cases to exercise the troops–1. In marching in columns of battalions
doubled on the center, with a view to deployment, if necessary, when
coming into musket-range, or even to attack in column; 2. In marching in
continuous deployed lines of eight or ten battalions; 3. In marching in
deployed battalions arranged checkerwise,–as these broken lines are
more easily moved than continuous lines; 4. In moving to the front by
the flanks of companies; 5. In marching to the front in small squares,
either in line or checkerwise; 6. In changing front while using these
different methods of marching; 7. In changes of front executed by
columns of companies at full distance, without deployment,–a more
expeditious method than the others of changing front, and the one best
suited to all kinds of ground.
Of all the methods of moving to the front, that by the flanks of
companies would be the best if it was not somewhat dangerous. In a plain
it succeeds admirably, and in broken ground is very convenient. It
breaks up a line very much; but by accustoming the officers and privates
to it, and by keeping the guides and color-bearers well aligned, all
confusion can be avoided. The only objection to it is the danger to
which the separated companies are exposed of being ridden down by
cavalry. This danger may be avoided by having good cavalry scouts, and
not using this formation too near the enemy, but only in getting over
the first part of the large interval separating the two armies. At the
least sign of the enemy’s proximity the line could be reformed
instantly, since the companies can come into line at a run. Whatever
precautions may be taken, this maneuver should only be practiced with
well-disciplined troops, never with militia or raw troops. I have never
seen it tried in presence of an enemy,–but frequently at drills, where
it has been found to succeed well, especially in changing front.
I have also seen attempts made to march deployed battalions in
checkerwise order. They succeeded well; whilst marches of the same
battalions in continuous lines did not. The French, particularly, have
never been able to march steadily in deployed lines. This checkered
order would be dangerous in case of an unexpected charge of cavalry. It
may be employed in the first stages of the movement forward, to make it
more easy, and the rear battalions would then come into line with the
leading ones before reaching the enemy. Moreover, it is easy to form
line at the moment of the charge, by leaving a small distance only
between the leading and following battalions; for we must not forget
that in the checkered order there are not two lines, but a single one,
which is broken, to avoid the wavering and disorder observed in the
marches of continuous lines.
It is very difficult to determine positively the best formation for
making a serious and close attack upon an enemy. Of all the methods I
have seen tried, the following seemed to succeed best. Form twenty-four
battalions in two lines of battalions in columns doubled on the center
ready for deployment: the first line will advance at charging-pace
toward the enemy’s line to within twice musket-range, and will then
deploy at a run; the voltigeur-companies of each battalion will spread
out in skirmishing-order, the remaining companies forming line and
pouring in a continued fire by file; the second line of columns follows
the first, and the battalions composing it pass at charging-step through
the intervals of the first line. This maneuver was executed when no
enemy was present; but it seems to me an irresistible combination of the
advantages of firing and of the column.
Besides these lines of columns, there are three other methods of
attacking in the half-deep order.
The first is that of lines composed of deployed battalions with others
in column on the wings of those deployed, (Fig. 32, page 295.) The
deployed battalions and the leading divisions of those in column would
open fire at half musket-range, and the assault would then be made. The
second is that of advancing a deployed line and firing until reaching
half musket-range, then throwing forward the columns of the second line
through the intervals of the first. The third is the order in echelons,
mentioned on page 193, and shown in Fig. 15 on that page.
Finally, a last method is that of advancing altogether in deployed
lines, depending on the superiority of fire alone, until one or the
other party takes to its heels,–a case not likely to happen.
I cannot affirm positively which of these methods is the best; for I
have not seen them used in actual service. In fact, in real combats of
infantry I have never seen any thing but battalions deployed commencing
to fire by company, and finally by file, or else columns marching firmly
against the enemy, who either retired without awaiting the columns, or
repulsed them before an actual collision took place, or themselves moved
out to meet the advance. I have seen _mêlées_ of infantry in defiles and
in villages, where the heads of columns came in actual bodily collision
and thrust each other with the bayonet; but I never saw such a thing on
a regular field of battle.
In whatever manner these discussions terminate, they are useful, and
should be continued. It would be absurd to discard as useless the fire
of infantry, as it would be to give up entirely the half-deep formation;
and an army is ruined if forced to adhere to precisely the same style of
tactical maneuvers in every country it may enter and against every
different nation. It is not so much the mode of formation as the proper
combined use of the different arms which will insure victory. I must,
however, except very deep masses, as they should be entirely abandoned.
I will conclude this subject by stating that a most vital point to be
attended to in leading infantry to the combat is to protect the troops
as much as possible from the fire of the enemy’s artillery, not by
withdrawing them at inopportune moments, but by taking advantage of all
inequalities and accidents of the ground to hide them from the view of
the enemy. When the assaulting troops have arrived within musket-range,
it is useless to calculate upon sheltering them longer: the assault is
then to be made. In such cases covers are only suitable for skirmishers
and troops on the defensive.
It is generally quite important to defend villages on the front of a
position, or to endeavor to take them when held by an enemy who is
assailed; but their importance should not be overestimated; for we must
never forget the noted battle of Blenheim, where Marlborough and Eugene,
seeing the mass of the French infantry shut up in the villages, broke
through the center and captured twenty-four battalions which were
sacrificed in defending these posts.
For like reasons, it is useful to occupy clumps of trees or brushwood,
which may afford cover to the party holding them. They shelter the
troops, conceal their movements, cover those of cavalry, and prevent the
enemy from maneuvering in their neighborhood. The case of the park of
Hougoumont at the battle of Waterloo is a fine example of the influence
the possession of such a position, well chosen and strongly defended,
may have in deciding the fate of a battle. At Hochkirch and Kolin the
possession of the woods was very important.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 46: In this and subsequent figures we suppose a division of
twelve battalions.]
[Footnote 47: The word _division_ being used to designate four or five
regiments, as well as two companies of a battalion, there is danger of
confusion in its use.]
[Footnote 48: In the Russian army the skirmishers are taken from the
third rank of each division,--which makes the column eight men in depth,
instead of twelve, and gives more mobility. To facilitate rallying the
skirmishers on the columns, it would be, perhaps, better to take the
whole fourth division for that purpose, thus giving nine ranks, or three
divisions of three ranks, against infantry, while against cavalry there
would be twelve ranks.]
ARTICLE XLV.
Cavalry.
The use a general should make of his cavalry depends, of course,
somewhat upon its numerical strength as compared with that of the whole
army, and upon its quality. Even cavalry of an inferior character may be
so handled as to produce very great results, if set in action at proper
moments.
The numerical proportion of cavalry to infantry in armies has varied
greatly. It depends on the natural tastes of nations making their
people more or less fit for good troopers. The number and quality of
horses, also, have something to do with it. In the wars of the
Revolution, the French cavalry, although badly organized and greatly
inferior to the Austrian, performed wonders. In 1796 I saw what was
pompously called the cavalry reserve of the army of the Rhine,–a weak
brigade of barely fifteen hundred horses! Ten years later I saw the same
reserve consisting of fifteen thousand or twenty thousand horses,–so
much had ideas and means changed.
As a general rule, it may be stated that an army in an open country
should contain cavalry to the amount of one-sixth its whole strength; in
mountainous countries one-tenth will suffice.
The principal value of cavalry is derived from its rapidity and ease of
motion. To these characteristics may be added its impetuosity; but we
must be careful lest a false application be made of this last.
Whatever may be its importance in the _ensemble_ of the operations of
war, cavalry can never defend a position without the support of
infantry. Its chief duty is to open the way for gaining a victory, or to
render it complete by carrying off prisoners and trophies, pursuing the
enemy, rapidly succoring a threatened point, overthrowing disordered
infantry, covering retreats of infantry and artillery. An army deficient
in cavalry rarely obtains a great victory, and finds its retreats
extremely difficult.
The proper time and manner of bringing cavalry into action depend upon
the ideas of the commander-in-chief, the plan of the battle, the enemy’s
movements, and a thousand other circumstances which cannot be mentioned
here. I can only touch upon the principal things to be considered in its
use.
All are agreed that a general attack of cavalry against a line in good
order cannot be attempted with much hope of success, unless it be
supported by infantry and artillery. At Waterloo the French paid dearly
for having violated this rule; and the cavalry of Frederick the Great
fared no better at Kunnersdorf. A commander may sometimes feel obliged
to push his cavalry forward alone, but generally the best time for
charging a line of infantry is when it is already engaged with opposing
infantry. The battles of Marengo, Eylau, Borodino, and several others
prove this.
There is one case in which cavalry has a very decided superiority over
infantry,–when rain or snow dampens the arms of the latter and they
cannot fire. Augereau’s corps found this out, to their sorrow, at Eylau,
and so did the Austrian left at Dresden.
Infantry that has been shaken by a fire of artillery or in any other way
may be charged with success. A very remarkable charge of this kind was
made by the Prussian cavalry at Hohenfriedberg in 1745. A charge against
squares of good infantry in good order cannot succeed.
A general cavalry charge is made to carry batteries of artillery and
enable the infantry to take the position more easily; but the infantry
must then be at hand to sustain the cavalry, for a charge of this
character has only a momentary effect, which must be taken advantage of
before the enemy can return offensively upon the broken cavalry. The
beautiful charge of the French upon Gosa at the battle of Leipsic,
October 16, is a fine example of this kind. Those executed at Waterloo
with the same object in view were admirable, but failed because
unsupported. The daring charge of Ney’s weak cavalry upon Prince
Hohenlohe’s artillery at Jena is an example of what may be done under
such circumstances.
General charges are also made against the enemy’s cavalry, to drive it
from the field of battle and return more free to act against his
infantry.
Cavalry may be successfully thrown against the flank or rear of an
enemy’s line at the moment of its being attacked in front by the
infantry. If repulsed, it may rally upon the army at a gallop, and, if
successful, it may cause the loss of the enemy’s army. This operation is
rarely attempted, but I see no reason why it should not be very good;
for a body of cavalry well handled cannot be cut off even if it gets in
rear of the enemy. This is a duty for which light cavalry is
particularly fitted.
In the defensive, cavalry may also produce very valuable results by
opportune dashes at a body of the enemy which has engaged the opposing
line and either broken it through or been on the point of doing so. It
may regain the advantages lost, change the face of affairs, and cause
the destruction of an enemy flushed and disordered by his own success.
This was proved at Eylau, where the Russians made a fine charge, and at
Waterloo by the English cavalry. The special cavalry of a corps d’armée
may charge at opportune moments, either to co-operate in a combined
attack, or to take advantage of a false movement of the enemy, or to
finish his defeat by pressing him while in retreat.
It is not an easy matter to determine the best mode of attacking, as it
depends upon the object in view and other circumstances. There are but
four methods of charging,–in columns, in lines at a trot, in lines at a
gallop, and in open order,–all of which may be successfully used. In
charges in line, the lance is very useful; in _mêlées_, the saber is
much better: hence comes the idea of giving the lance to the front rank,
which makes the first onslaught, and the saber to the second rank, which
finishes the encounter usually in individual combats. Pistol-firing is
of very little use except for outpost-duty, in a charge as foragers, or
when light cavalry desires to annoy infantry and draw its fire previous
to a charge. I do not know what the carbine is good for; since a body of
cavalry armed with it must halt if they wish to fire with any accuracy,
and they are then in a favorable condition for the enemy to attack.
There are few marksmen who can with any accuracy fire a musket while on
horseback and in rapid motion.
I have just said that all the methods of charging may be equally good.
It must not be understood, however, that impetuosity always gives the
advantage in a shock of cavalry against cavalry: the fast trot, on the
contrary, seems to me the best gait for charges in line, because every
thing depends, in such a case, upon the _ensemble_ and good order of the
movement,–things which cannot be obtained in charges at a fast gallop.
Galloping is proper against artillery when it is important to get over
the ground as rapidly as possible. In like manner, if the cavalry is
armed with sabers, it may take the gallop at two hundred yards from the
enemy’s line if it stands firmly to receive the attack. But if the
cavalry is armed with the lance, the fast trot is the proper gait, since
the advantageous use of that weapon depends upon the preservation of
good order: in a _mêlée_ the lance is almost useless.
If the enemy advances at a fast trot, it does not seem prudent to gallop
to meet him; for the galloping party will be much disordered, while the
trotting party will not. The only advantage of the gallop is its
apparent boldness and the moral effect it produces; but, if this is
estimated at its true value by the enemy, it is reasonable to expect his
firm and compact mass to be victorious over a body of horsemen galloping
in confusion.
In their charges against infantry the Turks and Mamelukes showed the
small advantage of mere impetuosity. No cavalry will penetrate where
lancers or cuirassiers at a trot cannot. It is only when infantry is
much disordered, or their fire poorly maintained, that there is any
advantage in the impetuous gallop over the steady trot. To break good
squares, cannon and lancers are required, or, better still, cuirassiers
armed with lances. For charges in open order there are no better models
for imitation than the Turks and the Cossacks.
Whatever method be adopted in charging, one of the best ways of using
cavalry is to throw several squadrons opportunely upon the flanks of an
enemy’s line which is also attacked in front. That this maneuver may be
completely successful, especially in charges of cavalry against cavalry,
it should be performed at the very moment when the lines come in
collision; for a minute too soon or too late its effect may be lost. It
is highly important, therefore, that a cavalry commander should have a
quick eye, sound judgment, and a cool head.
Much discussion has taken place about the proper manner of arming and
organizing cavalry. The lance is the best arm for offensive purposes
when a body of horsemen charge in line; for it enables them to strike an
enemy who cannot reach them; but it is a very good plan to have a
second rank or a reserve armed with sabers, which are more easily
handled than the lance in hand-to-hand fighting when the ranks become
broken. It would be, perhaps, better still to support a charge of
lancers by a detachment of hussars, who can follow up the charge,
penetrate the enemy’s line, and complete the victory.
The cuirass is the best defensive armor. The lance and the cuirass of
strong leather doubled seem to me the best armament for light cavalry,
the saber and iron cuirass the best for heavy cavalry. Some military men
of experience are inclined even to arm the cuirassiers with lances,
believing that such cavalry, resembling very much the men-at-arms of
former days, would bear down every thing before them. A lance would
certainly suit them better than the musketoon; and I do not see why they
should not have lances like those of the light cavalry.
Opinions will be always divided as to those amphibious animals called
dragoons. It is certainly an advantage to have several battalions of
mounted infantry, who can anticipate an enemy at a defile, defend it in
retreat, or scour a wood; but to make cavalry out of foot-soldiers, or a
soldier who is equally good on horse or on foot, is very difficult. This
might have been supposed settled by the fate of the French dragoons when
fighting on foot, had it not been seen that the Turkish cavalry fought
quite as well dismounted as mounted. It has been said that the greatest
inconvenience resulting from the use of dragoons consists in the fact of
being obliged at one moment to make them believe infantry squares cannot
resist their charges, and the next moment that a foot-soldier armed with
his musket is superior to any horseman in the world. This argument has
more plausibility than real force; for, instead of attempting to make
men believe such contradictory statements, it would be much more
reasonable to tell them that if brave cavalry may break a square, brave
foot-soldiers may resist such a charge; that victory does not always
depend upon the superiority of the arm, but upon a thousand other
things; that the courage of the troops, the presence of mind of the
commanders, the opportuneness of maneuvers, the effect of artillery and
musketry fire, rain,–mud, even,–have been the causes of repulses or of
victories; and, finally, that a brave man, whether on foot or mounted,
will always be more than a match for a coward. By impressing these
truths upon dragoons, they will believe themselves superior to their
adversaries whether they fight on foot or on horseback. This is the case
with the Turks and the Circassians, whose cavalry often dismount to
fight on foot in a wood or behind a cover, musket in hand, like
foot-soldiers.
It requires, however, fine material and fine commanders to bring
soldiers to such perfection in knowledge of their duties.
The conviction of what brave men can accomplish, whether on foot or
mounted, doubtless induced the Emperor Nicholas to collect the large
number of fourteen or fifteen thousand dragoons in a single corps, while
he did not consider Napoleon’s unfortunate experiment with French
dragoons, and was not restrained by the fear of often wanting a regiment
of these troops at some particular point. It is probable that this
concentration was ordered for the purpose of giving uniformity to the
instruction of the men in their duties as foot and mounted soldiers, and
that in war they were to be distributed to the different grand divisions
of the army. It cannot be denied, however, that great advantages might
result to the general who could rapidly move up ten thousand men on
horseback to a decisive point and bring them into action as infantry. It
thus appears that the methods of concentration and of distribution have
their respective advantages and disadvantages. A judicious mean between
the extremes would be to attach a strong regiment to each wing of the
army and to the advanced guard, (or the rear-guard in a retreat,) and
then to unite the remaining troops of this arm in divisions or corps.
Every thing that was said with reference to the formation of infantry is
applicable to cavalry, with the following modifications:–
1. Lines deployed checkerwise or in echelons are much better for cavalry
than full lines; whilst for infantry lines drawn up checkerwise are too
much disconnected, and would be in danger if the cavalry should succeed
in penetrating and taking the battalions in flank. The checkerwise
formation is only advantageous for infantry in preparatory movements
before reaching the enemy, or else for lines of columns which can defend
themselves in every direction against cavalry. Whether checkered or full
lines be used, the distance between them ought to be such that if one is
checked and thrown into confusion the others may not share it. It is
well to observe that in the checkered lines the distance may be less
than for full lines. In every case the second line should not be full.
It should be formed in columns by divisions, or at least there should be
left the spaces, if in line, of two squadrons, that may be in column
upon the flank of each regiment, to facilitate the passage through of
the troops which have been brought up.
2. When the order of columns of attack doubled on the center is used,
cavalry should be formed in regiments and infantry only in battalions.
The regiments should contain six squadrons, in order that, by doubling
on the center into divisions, three may be formed. If there are only
four squadrons, there can be but two lines.
3. The cavalry column of attack should never be formed _en masse_ like
that of infantry; but there should always be full or half squadron
distance, that each may have room to disengage itself and charge
separately. This distance will be so great only for those troops
engaged. When they are at rest behind the line of battle, they may be
closed up, in order to cover less ground and diminish the space to be
passed over when brought into action. The masses should, of course, be
kept beyond cannon-range.
4. A flank attack being much more to be apprehended by cavalry than in a
combat of infantry with infantry, several squadrons should be formed in
echelons by platoons on the flanks of a line of cavalry, which may form
to the right or left, to meet an enemy coming in that direction.
5. For the same reason, it is important to throw several squadrons
against the flanks of a line of cavalry which is attacked in front.
Irregular cavalry is quite as good as the regular for this purpose, and
it may be better.
6. It is also of importance, especially in cavalry, that the
commander-in-chief increase the depth rather than the extent of the
formation. For example, in a deployed division of two brigades it would
not be a good plan for one brigade to form in a single line behind the
other, but each brigade should have one regiment in the first line and
one in the second. Each unit of the line will thus have its own proper
reserve behind it,–an advantage not to be regarded as trifling; for in
a charge events succeed each other so rapidly that it is impossible for
a general to control the deployed regiments.
By adopting this arrangement, each general of brigade will be able to
dispose of his own reserve; and it would be well, also, to have a
general reserve for the whole division. This consideration leads me to
think that five regiments would make a good division. The charge may
then be made in line by brigades of two regiments, the fifth serving as
a general reserve behind the center. Or three regiments may form the
line, and two may be in column, one behind each wing. Or it may be
preferable to use a mixed order, deploying two regiments and keeping the
others in column. This is a good arrangement, because the three
regiments, formed in columns by divisions behind the center and flanks
of the line, cover those points, and can readily pass the line if it is
beaten back. (See Fig. 38.)
[Illustration: Fig. 38. Cavalry division of five regiments.
Cavalry deployed should be in checkered order rather than in full
lines.]
7. Two essential points are regarded as generally settled for all
encounters of cavalry against cavalry. One is that the first line must
sooner or later be checked; for, even upon the supposition of the first
charge being entirely successful, it is always probable that the enemy
will bring fresh squadrons to the contest, and the first line must at
length be forced to rally behind the second. The other point is that,
with troops and commanders on both sides equally good, the victory will
remain with the party having the last squadrons in reserve in readiness
to be thrown upon the flank of the enemy’s line while his front is also
engaged.
Attention to these truths will bring us to a just conclusion as to the
proper method of forming a large mass of cavalry for battle.
Whatever order be adopted, care must be taken to avoid deploying large
cavalry corps in full lines; for a mass thus drawn up is very
unmanageable, and if the first line is checked suddenly in its career
the second is also, and that without having an opportunity to strike a
blow. This has been demonstrated many times. Take as an example the
attack made by Nansouty in columns of regiments upon the Prussian
cavalry deployed in front of Chateau-Thierry.
In opposing the formation of cavalry in more than two lines, I never
intended to exclude the use of several lines checkerwise or in echelons,
or of reserves formed in columns. I only meant to say that when cavalry,
expecting to make a charge, is drawn up in lines one behind the other,
the whole mass will be thrown into confusion as soon as the first line
breaks and turns.[49]
With cavalry still more than with infantry the _morale_ is very
important. The quickness of eye and the coolness of the commander, and
the intelligence and bravery of the soldier, whether in the _mêlée_ or
in the rally, will oftener be the means of assuring a victory than the
adoption of this or that formation. When, however, a good formation is
adopted and the advantages mentioned above are also present, the
victory is more certain; and nothing can excuse the use of a vicious
formation.
The history of the wars between 1812 and 1815 has renewed the old
disputes upon the question whether regular cavalry will in the end get
the better over an irregular cavalry which will avoid all serious
encounters, will retreat with the speed of the Parthians and return to
the combat with the same rapidity, wearing out the strength of its enemy
by continual skirmishing. Lloyd has decided in the negative; and several
exploits of the Cossacks when engaged with the excellent French cavalry
seem to confirm his opinion. (When I speak of excellent French cavalry,
I refer to its impetuous bravery, and not to its perfection; for it does
not compare with the Russian or German cavalry either in horsemanship,
organization, or in care of the animals.) We must by no means conclude
it possible for a body of light cavalry deployed as skirmishers to
accomplish as much as the Cossacks or other irregular cavalry. They
acquire a habit of moving in an apparently disorderly manner, whilst
they are all the time directing their individual efforts toward a common
object. The most practiced hussars can never perform such service as the
Cossacks, Tscherkesses, and Turks do instinctively.
Experience has shown that irregular charges may cause the defeat of the
best cavalry in partial skirmishes; but it has also demonstrated that
they are not to be depended upon in regular battles upon which the fate
of a war may depend. Such charges are valuable accessories to an attack
in line, but alone they can lead to no decisive results.
From the preceding facts we learn that it is always best to give cavalry
a regular organization, and furnish them long weapons, not omitting,
however, to provide, for skirmishing, &c., an irregular cavalry armed
with pistols, lances, and sabers.
Whatever system of organization be adopted, it is certain that a
numerous cavalry, whether regular or irregular, must have a great
influence in giving a turn to the events of a war. It may excite a
feeling of apprehension at distant parts of the enemy’s country, it can
carry off his convoys, it can encircle his army, make his
communications very perilous, and destroy the _ensemble_ of his
operations. In a word, it produces nearly the same results as a rising
_en masse_ of a population, causing trouble on the front, flanks, and
rear of an army, and reducing a general to a state of entire uncertainty
in his calculations.
Any system of organization, therefore, will be a good one which provides
for great enlargement of the cavalry in time of war by the incorporation
of militia; for they may, with the aid of a few good regular squadrons,
be made excellent partisan soldiers. These militia would certainly not
possess all the qualities of those warlike wandering tribes who live on
horseback and seem born cavalry-soldiers; but they could in a measure
supply the places of such. In this respect Russia is much better off
than any of her neighbors, both on account of the number and quality of
her horsemen of the Don, and the character of the irregular militia she
can bring into the field at very short notice.
Twenty years ago I made the following statements in Chapter XXXV. of the
Treatise on Grand Military Operations, when writing on this subject:–
“The immense advantages of the Cossacks to the Russian army are not to
be estimated. These light troops, which are insignificant in the shock
of a great battle, (except for falling upon the flanks,) are terrible in
pursuits and in a war of posts. They are a most formidable obstacle to
the execution of a general’s designs,–because he can never be sure of
the arrival and carrying out of his orders, his convoys are always in
danger, and his operations uncertain. If an army has had only a few
regiments of these half-regular cavalry-soldiers, their real value has
not been known; but when their number increases to fifteen thousand or
twenty thousand, their usefulness is fully recognized,–especially in a
country where the population is not hostile to them.
“When they are in the vicinity, every convoy must be provided with a
strong escort, and no movement can be expected to be undisturbed. Much
unusual labor is thus made necessary upon the part of the opponent’s
regular cavalry, which is soon broken down by the unaccustomed fatigue.
“Volunteer hussars or lancers, raised at the time of war breaking out,
may be nearly as valuable as the Cossacks, if they are well officered
and move freely about from point to point.”
In the Hungarians, Transylvanians, and Croats, Austria has resources
possessed by few other states. The services rendered by mounted militia
have proved, however, that this kind of cavalry may be very useful, if
for no other purpose than relieving the regular cavalry of those
occasional and extra duties to be performed in all armies, such as
forming escorts, acting as orderlies, protecting convoys, serving on
outposts, &c. Mixed corps of regular and irregular cavalry may often be
more really useful than if they were entirely composed of cavalry of the
line,–because the fear of compromising a body of these last often
restrains a general from pushing them forward in daring operations where
he would not hesitate to risk his irregulars, and he may thus lose
excellent opportunities of accomplishing great results.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 49: To disprove my statement, M. Wagner cites the case of the
battle of Ramillies, where Marlborough, by a general charge of cavalry
in fall lines, succeeded in beating the French drawn up checkerwise.
Unless my memory deceives me, the allied cavalry was at first formed
checkered in two lines; but the real cause of Marlborough's success was
his seeing that Villeroi had paralyzed half his army behind Anderkirch
and Gette, and his having the good sense to withdraw thirty-eight
squadrons from this wing to reinforce his left, which in this way had
twice as many cavalry as the French, and outflanked them. But I
cheerfully admit that there may be many exceptions to a rule which I
have not laid down more absolutely than all others relating to cavalry
tactics,--a tactics, by the way, as changeable as the arm itself.]
ARTICLE XLVI.
Employment of Artillery.
Artillery is an arm equally formidable both in the offensive and
defensive. As an offensive means, a great battery well managed may break
an enemy’s line, throw it into confusion, and prepare the way for the
troops that are to make an assault. As a defensive means, it doubles the
strength of a position, not only on account of the material injury it
inflicts upon the enemy while at a distance, and the consequent moral
effect upon his troops, but also by greatly increasing the peril of
approaching near, and specially within the range of grape. It is no less
important in the attack and defense of fortified places or intrenched
camps; for it is one of the main reliances in modern systems of
fortification.
I have already in a former portion of this book given some directions as
to the distribution of artillery in a line of battle; but it is
difficult to explain definitely the proper method of using it in the
battle itself. It will not be right to say that artillery can act
independently of the other arms, for it is rather an accessory. At
Wagram, however, Napoleon threw a battery of one hundred pieces into the
gap left by the withdrawal of Massena’s corps, and thus held in check
the Austrian center, notwithstanding their vigorous efforts to advance.
This was a special case, and should not be often imitated.
I will content myself with laying down a few fundamental rules,
observing that they refer to the present state of artillery service,
(1838.) The recent discoveries not yet being fully tested, I shall say
little with reference to them.
1. In the offensive, a certain portion of the artillery should
concentrate its fire upon the point where a decisive blow is to be
struck. Its first use is to shatter the enemy’s line, and then it
assists with its fire the attack of the infantry and cavalry.
2. Several batteries of horse-artillery should follow the offensive
movements of the columns of attack, besides the foot-batteries intended
for the same purpose. Too much foot-artillery should not move with an
offensive column. It may be posted so as to co-operate with the column
without accompanying it. When the cannoneers can mount the boxes, it may
have greater mobility and be advanced farther to the front.
3. It has already been stated that half of the horse-artillery should be
held in reserve, that it may be rapidly moved to any required point.[50]
For this purpose it should be placed upon the most open ground, whence
it can move readily in every direction. I have already indicated the
best positions for the heavy calibers.
4. The batteries, whatever may be their general distribution along the
defensive line, should give their attention particularly to those points
where the enemy would be most likely to approach, either on account of
the facility or the advantage of so doing. The general of artillery
should therefore know the decisive strategic and tactical points of the
battle-field, as well as the topography of the whole space occupied. The
distribution of the reserves of artillery will be regulated by these.
5. Artillery placed on level ground or ground sloping gently to the
front is most favorably situated either for point-blank or ricochet
firing: a converging fire is the best.
6. It should be borne in mind that the chief office of all artillery in
battles is to overwhelm the enemy’s troops, and not to reply to their
batteries. It is, nevertheless, often useful to fire at the batteries,
in order to attract their fire. A third of the disposable artillery may
be assigned this duty, but two-thirds at least should be directed
against the infantry and cavalry of the enemy.
7. If the enemy advance in deployed lines, the batteries should endeavor
to cross their fire in order to strike the lines obliquely. If guns can
be so placed as to enfilade a line of troops, a most powerful effect is
produced.
8. When the enemy advance in columns, they may be battered in front. It
is advantageous also to attack them obliquely, and especially in flank
and reverse. The moral effect of a reverse fire upon a body of troops is
inconceivable; and the best soldiers are generally put to flight by it.
The fine movement of Ney on Preititz at Bautzen was neutralized by a few
pieces of Kleist’s artillery, which took his columns in flank, checked
them, and decided the marshal to deviate from the excellent direction he
was pursuing. A few pieces of light artillery, thrown at all hazards
upon the enemy’s flank, may produce most important results, far
overbalancing the risks run.
9. Batteries should always have supports of infantry or cavalry, and
especially on their flanks. Cases may occur where the rule may be
deviated from: Wagram is a very remarkable example of this.
10. It is very important that artillerists, when threatened by cavalry,
preserve their coolness. They should fire first solid shot, next shells,
and then grape, as long as possible. The infantry supports should, in
such a case, form squares in the vicinity, to shelter the horses, and,
when necessary, the cannoneers. When the infantry is drawn up behind
the pieces, large squares of sufficient size to contain whatever they
should cover are best; but when the infantry is on the flanks, smaller
squares are better. Rocket-batteries may also be very efficient in
frightening the horses.
11. When infantry threatens artillery, the latter should continue its
fire to the last moment, being careful not to commence firing too soon.
The cannoneers can always be sheltered from an infantry attack if the
battery is properly supported. This is a case for the co-operation of
the three arms; for, if the enemy’s infantry is thrown into confusion by
the artillery, a combined attack upon it by cavalry and infantry will
cause its destruction.
12. The proportions of artillery have varied in different wars. Napoleon
conquered Italy in 1800 with forty or fifty pieces,–whilst in 1812 he
invaded Russia with one thousand pieces thoroughly equipped, and failed.
These facts show that any fixed rule on the subject is inadmissible.
Usually three pieces to a thousand combatants are allowed; but this
allowance will depend on circumstances.
The relative proportions of heavy and light artillery vary also between
wide limits. It is a great mistake to have too much heavy artillery,
whose mobility must be much less than that of the lighter calibers. A
remarkable proof of the great importance of having a strong
artillery-armament was given by Napoleon after the battle of Eylau. The
great havoc occasioned among his troops by the numerous guns of the
Russians opened his eyes to the necessity of increasing his own. With
wonderful vigor, he set all the Prussian arsenals to work, those along
the Rhine, and even at Metz, to increase the number of his pieces, and
to cast new ones in order to enable him to use the munitions previously
captured. In three months he doubled the _matériel_ and _personnel_ of
his artillery, at a distance of one thousand miles from his own
frontiers,–a feat without a parallel in the annals of war.
13. One of the surest means of using the artillery to the best advantage
is to place in command of it a general who is at once a good strategist
and tactician. This chief should be authorized to dispose not only of
the reserve artillery, but also of half the pieces attached to the
different corps or divisions of the army. He should also consult with
the commanding general as to the moment and place of concentration of
the mass of his artillery in order to contribute most to a successful
issue of the day, and he should never take the responsibility of thus
massing his artillery without previous orders from the commanding
general.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 50: Greater mobility is now given to foot-artillery by
mounting the men on the boxes.]
ARTICLE XLVII.
Of the Combined Use of the Three Arms.
To conclude this Summary in a proper manner, I ought to treat of the
combined use of the three arms; but I am restrained from so doing by
considering the great variety of points necessary to be touched upon if
I should attempt to go into an examination of all the detailed
operations that would arise in the application of the general rules laid
down for each of the arms.
Several authors–chiefly German–have treated this subject very
extensively, and their labors are valuable principally because they
consist mainly of citations of numerous examples taken from the actual
minor engagements of the later wars. These examples must indeed take the
place of rules, since experience has shown that fixed rules on the
subject cannot be laid down. It seems a waste of breath to say that the
commander of a body of troops composed of the three arms should employ
them so that they will give mutual support and assistance; but, after
all, this is the only fundamental rule that can be established, for the
attempt to prescribe for such a commander a special course of conduct in
every case that may arise, when these cases may be infinitely varied,
would involve him in an inextricable labyrinth of instructions. As the
object and limits of this Summary do not allow me to enter upon the
consideration of such details, I can only refer my readers to the best
works which do treat of them.
I have said all I can properly say when I advise that the different arms
be posted in conformity with the character of the ground, according to
the object in view and the supposed designs of the enemy, and that they
be used simultaneously in the manner best suited to them, care being
taken to enable them to afford mutual support. A careful study of the
events of previous wars, and especially experience in the operations of
war, will give an officer correct ideas on these points, and the ability
to use, at the right time and place, his knowledge of the properties of
the three arms, either single or combined.
CONCLUSION.
I am constrained to recapitulate the principal facts which may be
regarded as fundamental in war. War in its _ensemble_ is not a science,
but an art. Strategy, particularly, may indeed be regulated by fixed
laws resembling those of the positive sciences, but this is not true of
war viewed as a whole. Among other things, combats may be mentioned as
often being quite independent of scientific combinations, and they may
become essentially dramatic, personal qualities and inspirations and a
thousand other things frequently being the controlling elements. The
passions which agitate the masses that are brought into collision, the
warlike qualities of these masses, the energy and talent of their
commanders, the spirit, more or less martial, of nations and
epochs,[51]–in a word, every thing that can be called the poetry and
metaphysics of war,–will have a permanent influence on its results.
Shall I be understood as saying that there are no such things as
tactical rules, and that no theory of tactics can be useful? What
military man of intelligence would be guilty of such an absurdity? Are
we to imagine that Eugene and Marlborough triumphed simply by
inspiration or by the superior courage and discipline of their
battalions? Or do we find in the events of Turin, Blenheim, and
Ramillies maneuvers resembling those seen at Talavera, Waterloo, Jena,
or Austerlitz, which were the causes of the victory in each case? When
the application of a rule and the consequent maneuver have procured
victory a hundred times for skillful generals, and always have in their
favor the great probability of leading to success, shall their
occasional failure be a sufficient reason for entirely denying their
value and for distrusting the effect of the study of the art? Shall a
theory be pronounced absurd because it has only three-fourths of the
whole number of chances of success in its favor?
The _morale_ of an army and its chief officers has an influence upon the
fate of a war; and this seems to be due to a certain physical effect
produced by the moral cause. For example, the impetuous attack upon a
hostile line of twenty thousand brave men whose feelings are thoroughly
enlisted in their cause will produce a much more powerful effect than
the attack of forty thousand demoralized or apathetic men upon the same
point.
Strategy, as has already been explained, is the art of bringing the
greatest part of the forces of an army upon the important point of the
theater of war or of the zone of operations.
Tactics is the art of using these masses at the points to which they
shall have been conducted by well-arranged marches; that is to say, the
art of making them act at the decisive moment and at the decisive point
of the field of battle. When troops are thinking more of flight than of
fight, they can no longer be termed active masses in the sense in which
I use the term.
A general thoroughly instructed in the theory of war, but not possessed
of military _coup-d’oeil_, coolness, and skill, may make an excellent
strategic plan and be entirely unable to apply the rules of tactics in
presence of an enemy: his projects will not be successfully carried out,
and his defeat will be probable. If he be a man of character, he will be
able to diminish the evil results of his failure, but if he lose his
wits he will lose his army.
The same general may, on the other hand, be at once a good tactician and
strategist, and have made all the arrangements for gaining a victory
that his means will permit: in this case, if he be only moderately
seconded by his troops and subordinate officers, he will probably gain a
decided victory. If, however, his troops have neither discipline nor
courage, and his subordinate officers envy and deceive him,[52] he will
undoubtedly see his fine hopes fade away, and his admirable combinations
can only have the effect of diminishing the disasters of an almost
unavoidable defeat.
No system of tactics can lead to victory when the _morale_ of an army is
bad; and even when it may be excellent the victory may depend upon some
occurrence like the rupture of the bridges over the Danube at Essling.
Neither will victories be necessarily gained or lost by rigid adherence
to or rejection of this or that manner of forming troops for battle.
These truths need not lead to the conclusion that there can be no sound
rules in war, the observance of which, the chances being equal, will
lead to success. It is true that theories cannot teach men with
mathematical precision what they should do in every possible case; but
it is also certain that they will always point out the errors which
should be avoided; and this is a highly-important consideration, for
these rules thus become, in the hands of skillful generals commanding
brave troops, means of almost certain success.
The correctness of this statement cannot be denied; and it only remains
to be able to discriminate between good rules and bad. In this ability
consists the whole of a man’s genius for war. There are, however,
leading principles which assist in obtaining this ability. Every maxim
relating to war will be good if it indicates the employment of the
greatest portion of the means of action at the decisive moment and
place. In Chapter III. I have specified all the strategic combinations
which lead to such a result. As regards tactics, the principal thing to
be attended to is the choice of the most suitable order of battle for
the object in view. When we come to consider the action of masses on the
field, the means to be used may be an opportune charge of cavalry, a
strong battery put in position and unmasked at the proper moment, a
column of infantry making a headlong charge, or a deployed division
coolly and steadily pouring upon the enemy a fire, or they may consist
of tactical maneuvers intended to threaten the enemy’s flanks or rear,
or any other maneuver calculated to diminish the confidence of the
adversary. Each of these things may, in a particular case, be the cause
of victory. To define the cases in which each should be preferred is
simply impossible.
If a general desires to be a successful actor in the great drama of war,
his first duty is to study carefully the theater of operations, that he
may see clearly the relative advantages and disadvantages it presents
for himself and his enemies. This being done, he can understandingly
proceed to prepare his base of operations, then to choose the most
suitable zone of operations for his main efforts, and, in doing so, keep
constantly before his mind the principles of the art of war relative to
lines and fronts of operations. The offensive army should particularly
endeavor to cut up the opposing army by skillfully selecting objective
points of maneuver; it will then assume, as the objects of its
subsequent undertakings, geographical points of more or less importance,
depending upon its first successes.
The defensive army, on the contrary, should endeavor, by all means, to
neutralize the first forward movement of its adversary, protracting
operations as long as possible while not compromising the fate of the
war, and deferring a decisive battle until the time when a portion of
the enemy’s forces are either exhausted by labors, or scattered for the
purpose of occupying invaded provinces, masking fortified places,
covering sieges, protecting the line of operations, depots, &c.
Up to this point every thing relates to a first plan of operations; but
no plan can provide with certainty for that which is uncertain
always,–the character and the issue of the first conflict. If your
lines of operations have been skillfully chosen and your movements well
concealed, and if on the other hand your enemy makes false movements
which permit you to fall on fractions of his army, you maybe successful
in your campaign, without fighting general battles, by the simple use of
your strategic advantages. But if the two parties seem about equally
matched at the time of conflict, there will result one of those
stupendous tragedies like Borodino, Wagram, Waterloo, Bautzen, and
Dresden, where the precepts of grand tactics, as indicated in the
chapter on that subject, must have a powerful influence.
If a few prejudiced military men, after reading this book and carefully
studying the detailed and correct history of the campaigns of the great
masters of the art of war, still contend that it has neither principles
nor rules, I can only pity them, and reply, in the famous words of
Frederick, that “a mule which had made twenty campaigns under Prince
Eugene would not be a better tactician than at the beginning.”
Correct theories, founded upon right principles, sustained by actual
events of wars, and added to accurate military history, will form a true
school of instruction for generals. If these means do not produce great
men, they will at least produce generals of sufficient skill to take
rank next after the natural masters of the art of war.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 51: The well-known Spanish proverb, _He was brave on such a
day_, may be applied to nations as to individuals. The French at
Rossbach were not the same people as at Jena, nor the Prussians at
Prentzlow as at Dennewitz.]
[Footnote 52: The unskillful conduct of a subordinate who is incapable
of understanding the merit of a maneuver which has been ordered, and who
will commit grave faults in its execution, may produce the same result
of causing the failure of the plans of an excellent commander.]
