SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
SUMMARY OF THE ART OF WAR.
My Summary of the Art of War, published in 1836, to assist in the
military instruction of the Hereditary Grand Duke of Russia, contained a
concluding article that was never printed. I deem it expedient to give
it now in the form of a supplement, and add a special article upon the
means of acquiring a certain and ready strategic _coup-d’oeil_.
It is essential for the reader of my Summary to understand clearly that
in the military science, as in every other, the study of details is easy
for the man who has learned how to seize the fundamental features to
which all others are secondary. I am about to attempt a development of
these elements of the art; and my readers should endeavor to apprehend
them clearly and to apply them properly.
I cannot too often repeat that the theory of the great combinations of
war is in itself very simple, and requires nothing more than ordinary
intelligence and careful consideration. Notwithstanding its simplicity,
many learned military men have difficulty in grasping it thoroughly.
Their minds wander off to accessory details, in place of fixing
themselves on first causes, and they go a long way in search of what is
just within their reach if they only would think so.
Two very different things must exist in a man to make him a general: _he
must know how to arrange a good plan of operations, and how to carry it
to a successful termination_. The first of these talents may be a
natural gift, but it may also be acquired and developed by study. The
second depends more on individual character, is rather a personal
attribute, and cannot be created by study, although it may be improved.
It is particularly necessary for a monarch or the head of a government
to possess the first of these talents, because in such case, although he
may not have the ability to execute, he can arrange plans of operations
and decide correctly as to the excellence or defects of those submitted
to him by others. He is thus enabled to estimate properly the capacity
of his generals, and when he finds a general producing a good plan, and
having firmness and coolness, such a man may be safely trusted with the
command of an army.
If, on the other hand, the head of a state is a man of executive
ability, but not possessing the faculty of arranging wise military
combinations, he will be likely to commit all the faults that have
characterized the campaigns of many celebrated warriors who were only
brave soldiers without being at all improved by study.
From the principles which I have laid down, and their application to
several famous campaigns, my readers will perceive that the theory of
the great combinations of war may be summed up in the following truths.
The science of strategy consists, in the first place, in knowing how to
choose well a theater of war and to estimate correctly that of the
enemy. To do this, a general must accustom himself to decide as to the
importance of decisive points,–which is not a difficult matter when he
is aided by the hints I have given on the subject, particularly in
Articles from XVIII. to XXII.
The art consists, next, in a proper employment of the troops upon the
theater of operations, whether offensive or defensive. (See Article
XVII.) This employment of the forces should be regulated by two
fundamental principles: the first being, _to obtain by free and rapid
movements the advantage of bringing the mass of the troops against
fractions of the enemy; the second, to strike in the most decisive
direction_,–that is to say, in that direction where the consequences of
his defeat may be most disastrous to the enemy, while at the same time
his success would yield him no great advantages.
The whole science of great military combination is comprised in these
two fundamental truths. Therefore, all movements that are disconnected
or more extended than those of the enemy would be grave faults; so also
would the occupation of a position that was too much cut up, or sending
out a large detachment unnecessarily. On the contrary, every
well-connected, compact system of operations would be wise; so also with
central strategic lines, and every strategic position less extended than
the enemy’s.
The application of these fundamental principles is also very simple. If
you have one hundred battalions against an equal number of the enemy’s,
you may, by their mobility and by taking the initiative, bring eighty of
them to the decisive point while employing the remaining twenty to
observe and deceive half of the opposing army. You will thus have eighty
battalions against fifty at the point where the important contest is to
take place. You will reach this point by rapid marches, by interior
lines, or by a general movement toward one extremity of the hostile
line. I have indicated the cases in which one or the other of these
means is to be preferred. (See pages 114 and following.)
In arranging a plan of operations, it is important to remember _”that a
strategic theater, as well as every position occupied by an army, has a
center and two extremities.”_ A theater has usually three zones,–a
right, a left, and a central.
In choosing a zone of operations, select one,–1, that will furnish a
safe and advantageous base; 2, in which the least risk will be run by
yourself, while the enemy will be most exposed to injury; 3, bearing in
mind the antecedent situations of the two parties, and, 4, the
dispositions and inclinations of the powers whose territories are near
the theater of war.
One of the zones will always be decidedly bad or dangerous, while the
other two will be more or less suitable according to circumstances.
The zone and base being fixed upon, the object of the first attempts
must be selected. This is choosing an objective of operations. There are
two very different kinds: some, that are called _territorial or
geographical objectives_, refer simply to an enemy’s line of defense
which it is desired to get possession of, or a fortress or intrenched
camp to be captured; _the others, on the contrary, consist entirely in
the destruction or disorganization of the enemy’s forces, without giving
attention to geographical points of any kind_. This was the favorite
objective of Napoleon.[53]
I can profitably add nothing to what I have already written on this
point, (page 86;) _and, as the choice of the objective is by far the
most important thing in a plan of operations_, I recommend the whole of
Article XIX., (pages 84 and following.)
The objective being determined upon, the army will move toward it by one
or two lines of operations, care being taken to conform to the
fundamental principle laid down, and to avoid double lines, unless the
character of the theater of war makes it necessary to use them, or the
enemy is very inferior either in the number or the quality of his
troops. Article XXI. treats this subject fully. If two geographical
lines are used, it is essential to move the great mass of the forces
along the most important of them, and to occupy the secondary line by
detachments having a concentric direction, if possible, with the main
body.
The army, being on its way toward the objective, before arriving in
presence of the enemy and giving battle, occupies daily or temporary
strategic positions: the front it embraces, or that upon which the enemy
may attack, is its front of operations. There is an important
consideration with reference to the direction of the front of operations
and to changes it may receive, which I have dwelt upon in Article XX.,
(page 93.)
The fundamental principle requires, even when the forces are equal, that
the front be less extensive than the enemy’s,–especially if the front
remains unchanged for some time. If your strategic positions are more
closely connected than the enemy’s, you can concentrate more rapidly and
more easily than he can, and in this way the fundamental principle will
be applied. If your positions are interior and central, the enemy cannot
concentrate except by passing by the mass of your divisions or by moving
in a circle around them: he is then exactly in a condition not to be
able to apply the fundamental principle, while it is your most obvious
measure.
But if you are very weak and the enemy very strong, a central position,
that may be surrounded on all sides by forces superior at every point,
is untenable, unless the enemy’s corps are very far separated from each
other, as was the case with the allied armies in the Seven Years’ War;
or unless the central zone has a natural barrier on one or two of its
sides, like the Rhine, the Danube, or the Alps, which would prevent the
enemy from using his forces simultaneously. In case of great numerical
inferiority it is, nevertheless, wiser to maneuver upon one of the
extremities than upon the center of the enemy’s line, especially if his
masses are sufficiently near to be dangerous to you.
It was stated above that strategy, besides indicating the decisive
points of a theater of war, requires two things:–1st, that the
principal mass of the force be moved against fractions of the enemy’s,
to attack them in succession; 2d, that the best direction of movement be
adopted,–that is to say, one leading straight to the decisive points
already known, and afterward upon secondary points.
To illustrate these immutable principles of strategy, I will give a
sketch of the operations of the French at the close of 1793. (See Plate
III.)
It will be recollected that the allies had ten principal corps on the
frontier of France from the Rhine to the North Sea.
The Duke of York was attacking Dunkirk. (No. 1.)
Marshal Freytag was covering the siege. (No. 2.)
The Prince of Orange was occupying an intermediate position at Menin.
(No. 3.)
The Prince of Coburg, with the main army, was attacking Maubeuge, and
was guarding the space between that place and the Scheldt by strong
detachments. (No. 4.)
Clairfayt was covering the siege. (No. 5.)
Benjouski was covering Charleroi and the Meuse, toward Thuin and
Charleroi, the fortifications of which were being rebuilt. (No. 6.)
Another corps was covering the Ardennes and Luxembourg. (No. 7.)
The Prussians were besieging Landau. (No. 8.)
The Duke of Brunswick was covering the siege in the Vosges. (No. 9.)
General Wurmser was observing Strasbourg and the army of the Rhine. (No.
10.)
The French, besides the detachments in front of each of the hostile
corps, had five principal masses in the camps of Lille, Douai, Guise,
Sarre Louis, and Strasbourg, (a, b, c, d, e.) A strong reserve, (g,)
composed of the best troops drawn from the camps of the northern
frontier, was intended to be thrown upon all the points of the enemy’s
line in succession, assisted by the troops already in the neighborhood,
(i, k, l, m.)
This reserve; assisted by the divisions of the camp of Cassel near
Dunkirk, commenced its operations by beating corps 1 and 2, under the
Duke of York; then that of the Dutch, (No. 3,) at Menin; next that of
Clairfayt, (5,) before Maubeuge; finally, joining the army of the
Moselle toward Sarre Louis, it beat the Duke of Brunswick in the Vosges,
and, with the assistance of the army of the Rhine, (f,) drove Wurmser
from the lines of Wissembourg.
The general principle was certainly well applied, and every similar
operation will be praiseworthy. But, as the Austrians composed half the
allied forces, and they had their lines of retreat from the points 4, 5,
and 6 upon the Rhine, it is evident that if the French had collected
three of their large corps in order to move them against Benjouski at
Thuin, (No. 6,) and then fallen upon the Prince of Coburg’s left by the
Charleroi road, they would have thrown the imperial army upon the North
Sea, and would have obtained immense results.
The Committee of Public Safety deemed it a matter of great importance
that Dunkirk should not be permitted to fell into the hands of the
English. Besides this, York’s corps, encamped on the downs, might be
cut off and thrown upon the sea; and the disposable French masses for
this object were at Douai, Lille, and Cassel: so that there were good
reasons for commencing operations by attacking the English. The
principal undertaking failed, because Houchard did not appreciate the
strategic advantage he had, and did not know how to act on the line of
retreat of the Anglo-Hanoverian army. He was guillotined, by way of
punishment, although he saved Dunkirk; yet he failed to cut off the
English as he might have done.
It will be observed that this movement of the French reserve along the
whole front was the cause of five victories, neither of which had
decisive results, _because the attacks were made in front_, and because,
when the cities were relieved, the allied armies not being cut through,
and the French reserve moving on to the different points in succession,
none of the victories was pushed to its legitimate consequences. If the
French had based themselves upon the five fortified towns on the Meuse,
had collected one hundred thousand men by bold and rapid marches, had
fallen upon the center of those separated corps, had crushed Benjouski,
assailed the Prince of Coburg in his rear, beaten him, and pursued him
vigorously as Napoleon pursued at Ratisbon, and as he wished to do at
Ligny in 1815, the result would have been very different.
I have mentioned this example, as it illustrates very well the two
important points to be attended to in the strategic management of masses
of troops; that is, their employment at different points in succession
and at decisive points.[54]
Every educated military man will be impressed by the truths educed, and
will be convinced that the excellence of maneuvers will depend upon
their conforming to the principle already insisted upon; that is to say,
the great part of the force must be moved against one wing or the
center, according to the position of the enemy’s masses. It is of
importance in battles to calculate distances with still greater
accuracy; for the results of movements on the battle-field following
them more rapidly than in the case of strategic maneuvers, every
precaution must be taken to avoid exposing any part of the line to a
dangerous attack from the enemy, especially if he is compactly drawn up.
Add to these things calmness during the action; the ability to choose
positions for fighting battles in the manner styled the defensive with
_offensive returns_, (Art. XXX.;) the simultaneous employment of the
forces in striking the decisive blow, (see pages from 202 to 204;) the
faculty of arousing the soldiers and moving them forward at opportune
moments; and we have mentioned every thing which can assist, as far as
the general is concerned, in assuring victories, and every thing which
will constitute him a skillful tactician.
It is almost always easy to determine the decisive point of a field of
battle, but not so with the decisive moment; and it is precisely here
that genius and experience are every thing, and mere theory of little
value.
It is important, also, to consider attentively Article XLII., which
explains how a general may make a small number of suppositions as to
what the enemy may or can do, and as to what course of conduct he shall
himself pursue upon those hypotheses. He may thus accustom himself to be
prepared for any eventuality.
I must also call attention to Article XXVIII., upon great detachments.
These are necessary evils, and, if not managed with great care, may
prove ruinous to the best armies. The essential rules on this point are,
to make as few detachments as possible, _to have them readily movable_,
to draw them back to the main body as soon as practicable, and to give
them good instructions for avoiding disasters.
I have nothing to say relative to the first two chapters on military
policy; for they are themselves nothing more than a brief summary of
this part of the art of war, which chiefly concerns statesmen, but
should be thoroughly understood by military men. I will, however,
invite special attention to Article XIV., relating to the command of
armies or to the choice of generals-in-chief,–a subject worthy the most
anxious care upon the part of a wise government; for upon it often
depends the safety of the nation.
We may be confident that a good strategist will make a good chief of
staff for an army; but for the command in chief is required a man of
tried qualities, of high character and known energy. The united action
of two such men as commander-in-chief and chief of staff, when a great
captain of the first order cannot be had, may produce the most brilliant
results.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 53: The objective may be in some degree
_political_,--especially in cases of wars of intervention in the affairs
of another country; but it then really becomes geographical.]
[Footnote 54: The operations mentioned show the advantage of employing
masses at the decisive point, not because it was done in 1793, but
because it was not done. If Napoleon had been in Carnot's place, he
would have fallen with all his force upon Charleroi, whence be would
have attacked the left of the Prince of Coburg and cut his line of
retreat. Let any one compare the results of Carnot's half-skillful
operations with the wise maneuvers of Saint-Bernard and Jena, and be
convinced.]
NOTE
UPON
THE MEANS OF ACQUIRING A GOOD STRATEGIC COUP-D’OEIL.
The study of the principles of strategy can produce no valuable
practical results if we do nothing more than keep them in remembrance,
never trying to apply them, with map in hand, to hypothetical wars, or
to the brilliant operations of great captains. By such exercises may be
procured a rapid and certain strategic _coup-d’oeil_,–the most valuable
characteristic of a good general, without which he can never put in
practice the finest theories in the world.
When a military man who is a student of his art has become fully
impressed by the advantages procured by moving a strong mass against
successive fractions of the enemy’s force, and particularly when he
recognizes the importance of constantly directing the main efforts upon
decisive points of the theater of operations, he will naturally desire
to be able to perceive at a glance what are these decisive points. I
have already, in Chapter III., page 70, of the preceding Summary,
indicated the simple means by which this knowledge may be obtained.
There is, in fact, one truth of remarkable simplicity which obtains in
all the combinations of a methodical war. It is this:–_in every
position a general may occupy, he has only to decide whether to operate
by the right, by the left, or by the front_.
To be convinced of the correctness of this assertion, let us first take
this general in his private office at the opening of the war. His first
care will be to choose that zone of operations which will give him the
greatest number of chances of success and be the least dangerous for him
in case of reverse. As no theater of operations can have more than three
zones, (that of the right, that of the center, and that of the left,)
and as I have in Articles from XVII. to XXII. pointed out the manner of
perceiving the advantages and dangers of these zones, the choice of a
zone of operations will be a matter of no difficulty.
When the general has finally chosen a zone within which to operate with
the principal portion of his forces, and when these forces shall be
established in that zone, the army will have a front of operations
toward the hostile army, which will also have one. Now, these fronts of
operations will each have its right, left, and center. It only remains,
then, for the general to decide upon which of these directions he can
injure the enemy most,–for this will always be the best, especially if
he can move upon it without endangering his own communications. I have
dwelt upon this point also in the preceding Summary.
Finally, when the two armies are in presence of each other upon the
field of battle where the decisive collision is to ensue, and are upon
the point of coming to blows, they will each have a right, left, and
center; and it remains for the general to decide still between these
three directions of striking.
Let us take, as an illustration of the truths I have mentioned, the
theater of operations, already referred to, between the Rhine and the
North Sea. (See Fig. 39.)
Although this theater presents, in one point of view, four geographical
sections,–viz.: the space between the Rhine and the Moselle, that
between the Moselle and the Meuse, that between the Meuse and the
Scheldt, and that between the last river and the sea,–it is
nevertheless true that an army of which A A is the base and B B the
front of operations will have only three general directions to choose
from; for the two spaces in the center will form a single central zone,
as it will always have one on the right and another on the left.
[Illustration: Fig. 39.]
The army B B, wishing to take the offensive against the army CC, whose
base was the Rhine, would have three directions in which to operate. If
it maneuvered by the extreme right, descending the Moselle, (toward D,)
it would evidently threaten the enemy’s line of retreat toward the
Rhine; but he, concentrating the mass of his forces toward Luxembourg,
might fall upon the left of the army D and compel it to change front and
fight a battle with its rear toward the Rhine, causing its ruin if
seriously defeated.
If, on the contrary, the army B wished to make its greatest effort upon
the left, (toward E,) in order to take advantage of the finely-fortified
towns of Lille and Valenciennes, it would be exposed to inconveniences
still more serious than before. For the army CC, concentrating in force
toward Audenarde, might fall on the right of B, and, outflanking this
wing in the battle, might throw it upon the impassable country toward
Antwerp between the Scheldt and the sea,–where there would remain but
two things for it to do: either to surrender at discretion, or cut its
way through the enemy at the sacrifice of half its numbers.
It appears evident, therefore, that the left zone would be the most
disadvantageous for army B, and the right zone would be inconvenient,
although somewhat favorable in a certain point of view. The central zone
remains to be examined. This is found to possess all desirable
advantages, because the army B might move the mass of its force toward
Charleroi with a view of cutting through the immense front of operations
of the enemy, might overwhelm his center, and drive the right back upon
Antwerp and the Lower Scheldt, without seriously exposing its own
communications.
When the forces are chiefly concentrated upon the most favorable zone,
they should, of course, have that direction of movement toward the
enemy’s front of operations which is in harmony with the chief object in
view. For example, if you shall have operated by your right against the
enemy’s left, with the intention of cutting off the greater portion of
his army from its base of the Rhine, you should certainly continue to
operate in the same direction; for if you should make your greatest
effort against the right of the enemy’s front, while your plan was to
gain an advantage over his left, your operations could not result as you
anticipated, no matter how well they might be executed. If, on the
contrary, you had decided to take the left zone, with the intention of
crowding the enemy back upon the sea, you ought constantly to maneuver
by your right in order to accomplish your object; for if you maneuvered
by the left, yourself and not the enemy would be the party thrown back
upon the sea in case of a reverse.
Applying these ideas to the theaters of the campaigns of Marengo, Ulm,
and Jena, we find the same three zones, with this difference, that in
those campaigns the central direction was not the best. In 1800, the
direction of the left led straight to the left bank of the Po, on the
line of retreat of Mélas; in 1805, the left zone was the one which led
by the way of Donauwerth to the extreme right, and the line of retreat
of Mack; in 1806, however, Napoleon could reach the Prussian line of
retreat by the right zone, filing off from Bamberg toward Gera.
In 1800, Napoleon had to choose between a line of operations on the
right, leading to the sea-shore toward Nice and Savona, that of the
center, leading by Mont-Cenis toward Turin, and that of the left,
leading to the line of communications of Mélas, by way of Saint-Bernard
or the Simplon. The first two directions had nothing in their favor, and
the right might have been very dangerous,–as, in fact, it proved to
Massena, who was forced back to Genoa and there besieged. The decisive
direction was evidently that by the left.
I have said enough to explain my ideas on this point.
The subject of battles is somewhat more complicated; for in the
arrangements for these there are both strategical and tactical
considerations to be taken into account and harmonized. A position for
battle, being necessarily connected with the line of retreat and the
base of operations, must have a well-defined strategic direction; but
this direction must also depend somewhat upon the character of the
ground and the stations of the troops of both parties to the engagement:
these are tactical considerations. Although an army usually takes such a
position for a battle as will keep its line of retreat behind it,
sometimes it is obliged to assume a position parallel to this line. In
such a case it is evident that if you fall with overwhelming force upon
the wing nearest the line of retreat, the enemy may be cut off or
destroyed, or, at least, have no other chance of escape than in forcing
his way through your line.
I will here mention as illustrations the celebrated battle of Leuthen
in 1757, of which I have given an account in the history of Frederick’s
wars, and the famous days of Krasnoi, in the retreat from Moscow in
1812.
[Illustration: Fig. 40.]
The annexed figure (40) explains the combination at Krasnoi. The line A
A is Napoleon’s line of retreat toward C. He took the position B B to
cover his line. It is evident that the principal mass of Koutousoff’s
army D D should have moved to E E in order to fall on the right of the
French, whose army would have been certainly destroyed if it had been
anticipated at C; for everybody knows in what a state it was while thus
fifteen hundred miles from its true base.
There was the same combination at Jemmapes, where Dumouriez, by
outflanking the Austrian left, instead of attacking their right, would
have entirely cut them off from the Rhine.
At the battle of Leuthen Frederick overwhelmed the Austrian left, which
was in the direction of their line of retreat; and for this reason the
right wing was obliged to take refuge in Breslau, where it capitulated a
few days later.
In such cases there is no cause for hesitation. The decisive point is
that wing of the enemy which is nearest his line of retreat, and this
line you must seize while protecting your own.
When an enemy has one or two lines of retreat perpendicular to and
behind his position of battle, it will generally be best to attack the
center, or that wing where the obstacles of the ground shall be the
least favorable for the defense; for in such a case the first
consideration is to gain the battle, without having in view the total
destruction of the enemy. That depends upon the relative numerical
strength, the _morale_ of the two armies, and other circumstances, with
reference to which no fixed rules can be laid down.
Finally, it happens sometimes that an army succeeds in seizing the
enemy’s line of retreat before fighting a battle, as Napoleon did at
Marengo, Ulm, and Jena. The decisive point having in such case been
secured by skillful marches before fighting, it only remains to prevent
the enemy from forcing his way through your line. You can do nothing
better than fight a parallel battle, as there is no reason for
maneuvering against one wing more than the other. But for the enemy who
is thus cut off the case is very different. He should certainly strike
most heavily in the direction of that wing where he can hope most
speedily to regain his proper line of retreat; and if he throws the mass
of his forces there, he may save at least a large portion of them. All
that he has to do is to determine whether this decisive effort shall be
toward the right or the left.
It is proper for me to remark that the passage of a great river in the
presence of a hostile army is sometimes an exceptional case to which the
general rules will not apply. In these operations, which are of an
exceedingly delicate character, the essential thing is to keep the
bridges safe. If, after effecting the passage, a general should throw
the mass of his forces toward the right or the left with a view of
taking possession of some decisive point, or of driving his enemy back
upon the river, whilst the latter was collecting all his forces in
another direction to seize the bridges, the former army might be in a
very critical condition in case of a reverse befalling it. The battle of
Wagram is an excellent example in point,–as good, indeed, as could be
desired. I have treated this subject in Article XXXVII., (pages 224 and
following.)
A military man who clearly perceives the importance of the truths that
have been stated will succeed in acquiring a rapid and accurate
_coup-d’oeil_. It will be admitted, moreover, that a general who
estimates them at their true value, and accustoms himself to their use,
either in reading military history, or in hypothetical cases on maps,
will seldom be in doubt, in real campaigns, what he ought to do; and
even when his enemy attempts sudden and unexpected movements, he will
always be ready with suitable measures for counteracting them, by
constantly bearing in mind the few simple fundamental principles which
should regulate all the operations of war.
Heaven forbid that I should pretend to lessen the dignity of the sublime
art of war by reducing it to such simple elements! I appreciate
thoroughly the difference between the directing principles of
combinations arranged in the quiet of the closet, and that special
talent which is indispensable to the individual who has, amidst the
noise and confusion of battle, to keep a hundred thousand men
co-operating toward the attainment of one single object. I know well
what should be the character and talents of the general who has to make
such masses move as one man, to engage them at the proper point
simultaneously and at the proper moment, to keep them supplied with
arms, provisions, clothing, and munitions. Still, although this special
talent, to which I have referred, is indispensable, it must be granted
that the ability to give wise direction to masses upon the best
strategic points of a theater of operations is the most sublime
characteristic of a great captain. How many brave armies, under the
command of leaders who were also brave and possessed executive ability,
have lost not only battles, but even empires, because they were moved
imprudently in one direction when they should have gone in the other!
Numerous examples might be mentioned; but I will refer only to Ligny,
Waterloo, Bautzen, Dennewitz, Leuthen.
I will say no more; for I could only repeat what has already been said.
To relieve myself in advance of the blame which will be ascribed to me
for attaching too much importance to the application of the few maxims
laid down in my writings, I will repeat what I was the first to
announce:–”_that war is not an exact science, but a drama full of
passion_; that the moral qualities, the talents, the executive foresight
and ability, the greatness of character, of the leaders, and the
impulses, sympathies, and passions of the masses, have a great influence
upon it.” I may be permitted also, after having written the detailed
history of thirty campaigns and assisted in person in twelve of the most
celebrated of them, to declare that I have not found a single case where
these principles, correctly applied, did not lead to success.
As to the special executive ability and the well-balanced penetrating
mind which distinguish the practical man from the one who knows only
what others teach him, I confess that no book can introduce those things
into a head where the germ does not previously exist by nature. I have
seen many generals–marshals, even–attain a certain degree of
reputation by talking largely of principles which they conceived
incorrectly in theory and could not apply at all. I have seen these men
intrusted with the supreme command of armies, and make the most
extravagant plans, because they were totally deficient in good judgment
and were filled with inordinate self-conceit. My works are not intended
for such misguided persons as these, but my desire has been to
facilitate the study of the art of war for careful, inquiring minds, by
pointing out directing principles. Taking this view, I claim credit for
having rendered valuable service to those officers who are really
desirous of gaining distinction in the profession of arms.
Finally, I will conclude this short summary with one last truth:–
“The first of all the requisites for a man’s success as a leader is,
that he be perfectly brave. When a general is animated by a truly
martial spirit and can communicate it to his soldiers, he may commit
faults, but he will gain victories and secure deserved laurels.”
[Blank Page]
SECOND APPENDIX
TO THE
SUMMARY OF THE ART OF WAR.
ON THE FORMATION OF TROOPS FOR BATTLE.
Happening to be in Paris, near the end of 1851, a distinguished person
did me the honor to ask my opinion as to whether recent improvements in
fire-arms would cause any great modifications in the manner of making
war.
I replied that they would probably have an influence upon the details of
tactics, but that, in great strategic operations and the grand
combinations of battles, victory would, now as ever, result from the
application of the principles which had led to the success of great
generals in all ages,–of Alexander and Cæsar as well as of Frederick
and Napoleon. My illustrious interlocutor seemed to be completely of my
opinion.
The heroic events which have recently occurred near Sebastopol have not
produced the slightest change in my opinion. This gigantic contest
between two vast intrenched camps, occupied by entire armies and
mounting two thousand guns of the largest caliber, is an event without
precedent, which will have no equal in the future; for the circumstances
which produced it cannot occur again.
Moreover, this contest of cannon with ramparts, bearing no resemblance
to regular pitched battles fought in the center of a continent, cannot
influence in any respect the great combinations of war, nor even the
tactics of battles.
The bloody battles of the Alma and Inkermann, by giving evidence of the
murderous effect of the new fire-arms, naturally led me to investigate
the changes which it might be necessary to make on this account in the
tactics for infantry.
I shall endeavor to fulfill this task in a few words, in order to
complete what was published on this point twenty years ago in the
Summary of the Art of War.
The important question of the influence of musketry-fire in battles is
not new: it dates from the reign of Frederick the Great, and
particularly from the battle of Mollwitz, which he gained (it was said)
because his infantry-soldiers, by the use of cylindrical rammers in
loading their muskets, were able to fire three shots per minute more
than their enemies.[55] The discussion which arose at this epoch between
the partisans of the shallow and deep orders of formation for troops is
known to all military students.
The system of deployed lines in three ranks was adopted for the
infantry; the cavalry, formed in two ranks, and in the order of battle,
was deployed upon the wings, or a part was held in reserve.
The celebrated regulation for maneuvers of 1791 fixed the deployed as
the only order for battle: it seemed to admit the use of
battalion-columns doubled on the center only in partial combats,–such
as an attack upon an isolated post, a village, a forest, or small
intrenchments.[56]
The insufficient instruction in maneuvers of the troops of the Republic
forced the generals, who were poor tacticians, to employ in battle the
system of columns supported by numerous skirmishers. Besides this, the
nature of the countries which formed the theaters of operations–the
Vosges, Alps, Pyrenees, and the difficult country of La Vendée–rendered
this the only appropriate system. How would it have been possible to
attack the camps of Saorgio, Figueras, and Mont-Cenis with deployed
regiments?
In Napoleon’s time, the French generally used the system of columns, as
they were nearly always the assailants.
In 1807, I published, at Glogau in Silesia, a small pamphlet with the
title of “Summary of the General Principles of the Art of War,” in which
I proposed to admit for the attack the system of lines formed of columns
of battalions by divisions of two companies; in other words, to march to
the attack in lines of battalions closed in mass or at half-distance,
preceded by numerous skirmishers, and the columns being separated by
intervals that may vary between that necessary for the deployment of a
battalion and the minimum of the front of one column.
What I had recently seen in the campaigns of Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, and
Eylau had convinced me of the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of
marching an army in deployed lines in either two or three ranks, to
attack an enemy in position. It was this conviction which led me to
publish the pamphlet above referred to. This work attracted some
attention, not only on account of the treatise on strategy, but also on
account of what was said on tactics.
The successes gained by Wellington in Spain and at Waterloo with troops
deployed in lines of two ranks were generally attributed to the
murderous effect of the infantry-fire, and created doubt in some minds
as to the propriety of the use of small columns; but it was not till
after 1815 that the controversies on the best formation for battle wore
renewed by the appearance of a pamphlet by the Marquis of Chambray.
In these discussions, I remarked the fatal tendency of the clearest
minds to reduce every system of war to absolute forms, and to cast in
the same mold all the tactical combinations a general may arrange,
without taking into consideration localities, moral circumstances,
national characteristics, or the abilities of the commanders. I had
proposed to use lines of small columns, especially in the attack: I
never intended to make it an exclusive system, particularly for the
defense.
I had two opportunities of being convinced that this formation was
approved of by the greatest generals of our times. The first was at the
Congress of Vienna, in the latter part of 1814: the Archduke Charles
observed “that he was under great obligations for the summary I had
published in 1807, which General Walmoden had brought to him in 1808
from Silesia.” At the beginning of the war of 1809, the prince had not
thought it possible to apply the formation which I had proposed; but at
the battle of Essling the contracted space of the field induced him to
form a part of his army in columns by battalions, (the landwehr
particularly,) and they resisted admirably the furious charges of the
cuirassiers of General d’Espagne, which, in the opinion of the archduke,
they could not have done if they had been deployed.
At the battle of Wagram, the greater part of the Austrian line was
formed in the same way as at Essling, and after two days of terrible
fighting the archduke abandoned the field of battle, not because his
army was badly beaten, but because his left was outflanked and thrown
back so as to endanger his line of retreat on Hungary. The prince was
satisfied that the firm bearing of his troops was in part due to this
mixture of small columns with deployed battalions.
The second witness is Wellington; although his evidence is, apparently,
not so conclusive. Having been presented to him at the Congress of
Verona in 1823, I had occasion to speak to him on the subject of the
controversies to which his system of formation for battle (a system to
which a great part of his success had been attributed) had given rise.
He remarked that he was convinced the manner of the attack of the French
upon him, in columns more or less deep, was very dangerous against a
solid, well-armed infantry having confidence in its fire and well
supported by artillery and cavalry. I observed to the duke that these
deep columns were very different from the small columns which I
proposed,–a formation which insures in the attack steadiness, force,
and mobility, while deep masses afford no greater mobility and force
than a deployed line, and are very much more exposed to the ravages of
artillery.
I asked the illustrious general if at Waterloo he had not formed the
Hanoverian, Brunswick, and Belgian troops in columns by battalions. He
answered, “Yes; because I could not depend upon them so well as upon the
English.” I replied that this admission proved that he thought a line
formed of columns by battalions was more firm than long deployed lines.
He replied, “They are certainly good, also; but their use always depends
upon the localities and the spirit of the troops. A general cannot act
in the same manner under all circumstances.”
To this illustrious evidence I might add that Napoleon himself, in the
campaign of 1813, prescribed for the attack the formation of the
infantry in columns by divisions of two companies in two ranks, as the
most suitable,–which was identically what I had proposed in 1807.
The Duke of Wellington also admitted that the French columns at
Waterloo, particularly those of their right wing, were not small columns
of battalions, but enormous masses, much more unwieldy and much deeper.
If we can believe the Prussian accounts and plans of the battle, it
would seem that Ney’s four divisions were formed in but four columns, at
least in their march to the attack of La Haye Sainte and the line
extending from this farm to the Papelotte. I was not present; but
several officers have assured me that at one time the troops were formed
in columns by divisions of two brigades each, the battalions being
deployed behind each other at six paces’ interval.
This circumstance demonstrates how much is wanting in the military terms
of the French. We give the same name of _division_ to masses of four
regiments and to fractions of a battalion of two companies each,–which
is absurd. Let us suppose, for example, that Napoleon had directed on
the 18th of June, 1815, the formation of the line in columns by
divisions and by battalions, intending that the regulation of 1813
should be followed. His lieutenants might naturally have understood it
very differently, and, according to their interpretation of the order,
would have executed one of the following formations:–
1. Either the four divisions of the right wing would have been formed in
four large masses, each one of eight or twelve battalions, (according to
the strength of the regiments,) as is indicated in this figure for eight
battalions.[57]
2. Or each division would have been formed in eight or twelve columns of
battalions by divisions of two platoons or companies, according to the
system I have proposed, as in this figure, viz.:–
I do not mean to assert positively that this confusion of words led to
the deep masses at Waterloo; but it might have done so; and it is
important that in every language there should be two different terms to
express two such different things as a _division_ of twelve battalions
and a _division_ of a quarter of a battalion.
Struck with what precedes, I thought it proper to modify my Summary
already referred to, which was too concise, and in my revision of it I
devoted a chapter to the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages
of the different formations for battle. I also added some considerations
relative to a mixed system used at Eylau by General Benningsen, which
consisted in forming a regiment of three battalions by deploying the
central one, the other two being in column on the wings.
* * * * *
After these discussions, I drew the conclusions:–
1. That Wellington’s system was certainly good for the defensive.
2. That the system of Benningsen might, according to circumstances, be
as good for the offensive as for the defensive, since it was
successfully used by Napoleon at the passage of the Tagliamento.
3. That the most skillful tactician would experience great difficulty in
marching forty or fifty deployed battalions in two or three ranks over
an interval of twelve or fifteen hundred yards, preserving sufficient
order to attack an enemy in position with any chance of success, the
front all the while being played upon by artillery and musketry.
I have never seen any thing of the kind in my experience. I regard it as
impossible, and am convinced that such a line could not advance to the
attack in sufficiently good order to have the force necessary for
success.
Napoleon was in the habit of addressing his marshals in these
terms:–”Take your troops up in good order, and make a vigorous assault
upon the enemy.” I ask, what means is there of carrying up to the
assault of an enemy forty or fifty deployed battalions as a whole in
good order? They will reach the enemy in detachments disconnected from
each other, and the commander cannot exercise any control over the mass
as a whole.
I saw nothing of this kind either at Ulm, Jena, Eylau, Bautzen, Dresden,
Culm, or Leipsic; neither did it occur at Austerlitz, Friedland,
Katzbach, or Dennewitz.
I am not aware that Wellington, in any of his battles, ever marched in
deployed lines to the attack of an enemy in position. He generally
awaited the attack. At Vittoria and Toulouse he gained the victory by
maneuvers against the flanks; and at Toulouse Soult’s right wing was
beaten while descending the heights to attack. Even at Waterloo, what
fate would have befallen the English army if, leaving the plateau of
Mont Saint-Jean, it had marched in deployed order to attack Napoleon in
position on the heights of La Belle Alliance?
I will be pardoned for these recapitulations, as they seem to be
necessary to the solution of a question which has arisen since my
Summary of the Art of War was written.
Some German generals, recognizing fully the advantages derived in 1813
from the system of columns of battalions, have endeavored to add to its
value by dividing up the columns and increasing their number, so as to
make them more shallow and to facilitate their deployment. With this
view, they propose, instead of forming four divisions or companies one
behind the other, to place them beside each other, not deployed, but in
small columns. That is, if the battalion consists of four companies of
two hundred and forty men each, each company is to be divided into four
sections of sixty each: one of these sections will be dispersed as
skirmishers, and the other three, in two ranks, will form a small
column; so that the battalion, instead of forming one column, will form
four, and the regiment of three battalions will form twelve small
columns instead of three–
[Illustration:
3d Battalion. 2d Battalion. 1st Battalion. --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ---]
It is certain that it would be easier to march such a line against the
enemy than if deployed; but these diminutive columns of sixty
skirmishers and one hundred and eighty men in the ranks would never
present the same order and solidity as a single column of a battalion.
Still as the system has some advantages, it deserves a trial; and,
indeed, it has already been practiced in Prussia and Austria.
The same formation applies equally to battalions of six or eight
companies. In this case the battalion would not be formed by companies,
but by divisions of two companies,–that is, in three or four columns,
according to the number of companies.
Two serious inconveniences appear to me to attach to each of these
formations. If vigorously charged by cavalry, these small subdivisions
would be in great danger; and even in attacking the enemy’s line, if
driven back and pursued, disorder would be more likely to occur than in
the columns of battalions. Still, either of them may be employed,
according to circumstances, localities, and the _morale_ of the troops.
Experience alone can assign to each its proper value. I am not aware
whether the Austrians applied these columns of companies at Custozza and
Novara, or whether these maneuvers have only been practiced in their
camps of instruction.
Be that as it may, there is another not less important question to be
considered:–
“Will the adoption of the rifled small-arms and improved balls bring
about any important changes in the formation for battle and the now
recognized principles of tactics?”
If these arms aided the allies at the Alma and Inkermann, it was because
the Russians were not provided with them; and it must not be forgotten
that in a year or two all armies will alike be furnished with them, so
that in future the advantage will not be confined to one side.
What change will it make in tactics?
Will whole armies be deployed as skirmishers, or will it not still be
necessary to preserve either the formation of lines deployed in two or
three ranks, or lines of battalions in columns?
Will battles become mere duels with the rifle, where the parties will
fire upon each other, without maneuvering, until one or the other shall
retreat or be destroyed?
What military man will reply in the affirmative?
It follows, therefore, that, to decide battles, maneuvers are necessary,
and victory will fall to the general who maneuvers most skillfully; and
he cannot maneuver except with deployed lines or lines of columns of
battalions, either whole or subdivided into columns of one or two
companies. To attempt to prescribe by regulation under what
circumstances either of these systems is to be applied would be absurd.
If a general and an army can be found such that he can march upon the
enemy in a deployed line of forty or fifty battalions, then let the
shallow order be adopted, and the formation in columns be confined to
the attack of isolated posts; but I freely confess that I would never
accept the command of an army under this condition. The only point for a
regulation for the formation for battle is to forbid the use of very
deep columns, because they are heavy, and difficult to move and to keep
in order. Besides, they are so much exposed to artillery that their
destruction seems inevitable, and their great depth does not increase in
any respect their chances of success.
If the organization of an army were left to me, I would adopt for
infantry the formation in two ranks, and a regimental organization
according with the formation for battle. I would then make each regiment
of infantry to consist of three battalions and a depot. Each battalion
should consist of six companies, so that when in column by division the
depth would be three divisions or six ranks.
This formation seems most reasonable, whether it is desired to form the
battalion in columns of attack by divisions on the center of each
battalion, or on any other division.
The columns of attack, since the depth is only six ranks, would not be
so much exposed to the fire of artillery, but would still have the
mobility necessary to take the troops up in good order and launch them
upon the enemy with great force. The deployment of these small columns
could be executed with great ease and promptitude; and for the forming
of a square a column of three divisions in depth would be preferable in
several respects to one of four or six divisions.
In the Russian service each battalion consists of four companies of two
hundred and fifty men each; each company being as strong as a division
in the French organization. The maneuver of double column on the center
is not practicable, since the center is here merely an interval
separating the second and third companies. Hence the column must be
simple, not on the center, but on one of the four companies. Something
analogous to the double column on the center would be attained by
forming the first and fourth companies behind the second and third
respectively; but then the formation would be in two lines rather than
in column; and this is the reason why I would prefer the organization of
the battalion in six companies or three divisions.
By dividing each of the four companies into two platoons, making eight
in all, the formation of _double column on the center_ might be made on
the fourth and fifth platoons as the leading division; but then each
division would be composed of two platoons belonging to different
companies, so that each captain would have half of the men of his
company under the command of another officer, and half of his own
division would be made up of another company.
Such an arrangement in the attack would be very inconvenient; for, as
the captain is the real commander, father, and judge of the men of his
own company, he can always obtain more from them in the way of duty than
any stranger. In addition, if the double column should meet with a
decided repulse, and it should be necessary to reform it in line, it
would be difficult to prevent disorder, the platoons being obliged to
run from one side to the other to find their companies. In the French
system, where each battalion consists of eight companies, forming as
many platoons at drill, this objection does not exist, since each
company is conducted by its own captain. It is true that there will be
two captains of companies in each division; but this will be rather an
advantage than the reverse, since there will be a rivalry and emulation
between the two captains and their men, which will lead to greater
display of bravery: besides, if necessary, the senior captain is there,
to command the division as a whole.
It is time to leave these secondary details and return to the important
question at issue.
Since I have alluded to the system adopted by Wellington, it is proper
to explain it so that it can be estimated at its true value in the light
of historical events.
In Spain and Portugal, particularly, Wellington had under his command a
mass of troops of the country, in which he placed but little confidence
in regular formation in a pitched battle, on account of their want of
instruction and discipline, but which were animated by a lively hatred
of the French and formed bodies of skirmishers useful in harassing the
enemy. Having learned by experience the effects of the fury and
impetuosity of the French columns when led by such men as Massena and
Ney, Wellington decided upon wise means of weakening this impetuosity
and afterward securing a triumph over it. He chose positions difficult
to approach, and covered all their avenues by swarms of Spanish and
Portuguese riflemen, who were skilled in taking advantage of the
inequalities of the ground; he placed a part of his artillery on the
tactical crest of his position, and a part more to the rear, and riddled
the advancing columns with a murderous artillery and musketry fire,
while his excellent English infantry, sheltered from the fire, were
posted a hundred paces in rear of the crest, to await the arrival of
these columns; and when the latter appeared on the summit, wearied, out
of breath, decimated in numbers, they were received with a general
discharge of artillery and musketry and immediately charged by the
infantry with the bayonet.
This system, which was perfectly rational and particularly applicable to
Spain and Portugal, since he had there great numbers of this kind of
troops and there was a great deal of rough ground upon which they could
be useful as marksmen, needed some modifications to make it applicable
to Belgium. At Waterloo the duke took his position on a plateau with a
gentle slope like a glacis, where his artillery had a magnificent field
of fire, and where it produced a terrible effect: both flanks of this
plateau were well protected. Wellington, from the crest of the plateau,
could discover the slightest movement in the French army, while his own
were hidden; but, nevertheless, his system would not have prevented his
losing the battle if a number of other circumstances had not come to his
aid.
Every one knows more or less correctly the events of this terrible
battle, which I have elsewhere impartially described. I demonstrated
that its result was due neither to the musketry-fire nor to the use of
deployed lines by the English, but to the following accidental causes,
viz.:–
1. To the mud, which rendered the progress of the French in the attack
painful and slow, and caused their first attacks to be less effective,
and prevented their being properly sustained by the artillery.
2. To the original formation of very deep columns on the part of the
French, principally on the right wing.
3. To the want of unity in the employment of the three arms: the
infantry and cavalry made a number of charges alternating with each
other, but they were in no case simultaneous.
4. Finally and chiefly, to the unexpected arrival of the whole Prussian
army at the decisive moment on the right flank, if not the rear, of the
French.
Every experienced military man will agree that, in spite of the mud and
the firmness of the English infantry, if the mass of the French infantry
had been thrown on the English in columns of battalions immediately
after the great charge of cavalry, the combined army would have been
broken and forced back on Antwerp. Independently of this, if the
Prussians had not arrived, the English would have been compelled to
retreat; and I maintain that this battle cannot justly be cited as proof
of the superiority of musketry-fire over well-directed attacks in
columns.
From all these discussions we may draw the following conclusions,
viz.:–
1. That the improvements in fire-arms will not introduce any important
change in the manner of taking troops into battle, but that it would be
useful to introduce into the tactics of infantry the formation of
columns by companies, and to have a numerous body of good riflemen or
skirmishers, and to exercise the troops considerably in firing. Those
armies which have whole regiments of light infantry may distribute them
through the different brigades; but it would be preferable to detail
sharp-shooters alternately in each company as they are needed, which
would be practicable when the troops are accustomed to firing: by this
plan the light-infantry regiments could be employed in the line with the
others; and should the number of sharp-shooters taken from the companies
be at any time insufficient, they could be reinforced by a battalion of
light infantry to each division.
2. That if Wellington’s system of deployed lines and musketry-fire be
excellent for the defense, it would be difficult ever to employ it in an
attack upon an enemy in position.
3. That, in spite of the improvements of fire-arms, two armies in a
battle will not pass the day in firing at each other from a distance: it
will always be necessary for one of them to advance to the attack of the
other.
4. That, as this advance is necessary, success will depend, as formerly,
upon the most skillful maneuvering according to the principles of grand
tactics, which consist in this, viz.: in knowing how to direct the great
mass of the troops at the proper moment upon the decisive point of the
battle-field, and in employing for this purpose the simultaneous action
of the three arms.
5. That it would be difficult to add much to what has been said on this
subject in Chapters IV. and V.; and that it would be unreasonable to
define by regulation an absolute system of formation for battle.
6. That victory may with much certainty be expected by the party taking
the offensive when the general in command possesses the talent of taking
his troops into action in good order and of boldly attacking the enemy,
adopting the system of formation best adapted to the ground, to the
spirit and quality of his troops, and to his own character.
Finally, I will terminate this article with the following remark: That
war, far from being an exact science, is a terrible and impassioned
drama, regulated, it is true, by three or four general principles, but
also dependent for its results upon a number of moral and physical
complications.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 55: It is probable that Baron Jomini here refers to iron,
instead of cylindrical, ramrods. Before 1730, all European troops used
wooden ramrods; and the credit of the invention of iron ones is
attributed by some to the Prince of Anhalt, and by others to Prince
Leopold of Dessau. The Prussians were the first to adopt the iron
ramrod, and at the date of the battle of Mollwitz (1741) it had not been
introduced into the Austrian service.
Frederick did not adopt the cylindrical ramrod till 1777, thirty-six
years after the battle of Mollwitz. The advantage of the cylindrical
ramrod consisted in this,--that the soldier in loading saved the time
necessary to turn the ramrod; but obviously this small economy of time
could never have enabled him to load three times while the enemy loaded
once,--all other things being equal.--Translators.]
[Footnote 56: Columns by battalions closed in mass seemed only to be
intended to use in long columns on the march, to keep them closed, in
order to facilitate their deployment.]
[Footnote 57: We suppose each regiment to consist of two battalions: if
there should be three in each regiment, the deep column would then
consist of twelve lines of either twenty-four or thirty-six ranks, while
in the next figure there would be twelve battalions on the line instead
of eight, the depth not being increased.]
SKETCH OF THE PRINCIPAL MARITIME EXPEDITIONS.
I have thought it proper to give here an account of the principal
maritime expeditions, to be taken in connection with maxims on descents.
The naval forces of Egypt, Phoenicia, and Rhodes are the earliest
mentioned in history, and of them the account is confused. The Persians
conquered these nations, as well as Asia Minor, and became the most
formidable power on both land and sea.
About the same time the Carthaginians, who were masters of the coast of
Mauritania, being invited by the inhabitants of Cadiz, passed the
straits, colonized Boetica and took possession of the Balearic Isles and
Sardinia, and finally made a descent on Sicily.
The Greeks contended against the Persians with a success that could not
have been expected,–although no country was ever more favorably
situated for a naval power than Greece, with her fifty islands and her
great extent of coast.
The merchant marine of Athens produced her prosperity, and gave her the
naval power to which Greece was indebted for her independence. Her
fleets, united with those of the islands, were, under Themistocles, the
terror of the Persians and the rulers of the East. They never made grand
descents, because their land-forces were not in proportion to their
naval strength. Had Greece been a united government instead of a
confederation of republics, and had the navies of Athens, Syracuse,
Corinth, and Sparta been combined instead of fighting among each other,
it is probable that the Greeks would have conquered the world before the
Romans.
If we can believe the exaggerated traditions of the old Greek
historians, the famous army of Xerxes had not less than four thousand
vessels; and this number is astonishing, even when we read the account
of them by Herodotus. It is more difficult to believe that at the same
time, and by a concerted movement, five thousand other vessels landed
three hundred thousand Carthaginians in Sicily, where they were totally
defeated by Gelon on the same day that Themistocles destroyed the fleet
of Xerxes at Salamis. Three other expeditions, under Hannibal, Imilcon,
and Hamilcar, carried into Sicily from one hundred to one hundred and
fifty thousand men: Agrigentum and Palermo were taken, Lilybæum was
founded, and Syracuse besieged twice. The third time Androcles, with
fifteen thousand men, landed in Africa, and made Carthage tremble. This
contest lasted one year and a half.
Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont with only fifty thousand men:
his naval force was only one hundred and sixty sail, while the Persians
had four hundred; and to save his fleet Alexander sent it back to
Greece.
After Alexander’s death, his generals, who quarreled about the division
of the empire, made no important naval expedition.
Pyrrhus, invited by the inhabitants of Tarentum and aided by their
fleet, landed in Italy with twenty-six thousand infantry, three thousand
horses, and the first elephants which had been seen in Italy. This was
two hundred and eighty years before the Christian era.
Conqueror of the Romans at Heraclea and Ascoli, it is difficult to
understand why he should have gone to Sicily at the solicitation of the
Syracusans to expel the Carthaginians. Recalled, after some success, by
the Tarentines, he recrossed the straits, harassed by the Carthaginian
fleet: then, reinforced by the Samnites or Calabrians, he, a little too
late, concluded to march on Rome. He in turn was beaten and repulsed on
Beneventum, when he returned to Epirus with nine thousand men, which was
all that remained of his force.
Carthage, which had been prospering for a long time, profited by the
ruin of Tyre and the Persian empire.
The Punic wars between Carthage and Rome, now the preponderating power
in Italy, were the most celebrated in the maritime annals of antiquity.
The Romans were particularly remarkable for the rapidity with which they
improved and increased their marine. In the year 264 B.C. their boats or
vessels were scarcely fit to cross to Sicily; and eight years after
found Regulus conqueror at Ecnomos, with three hundred and forty large
vessels, each with three hundred rowers and one hundred and twenty
combatants, making in all one hundred and forty thousand men. The
Carthaginians, it is said, were stronger by twelve to fifteen thousand
men and fifty vessels.
The victory of Ecnomos–perhaps more extraordinary than that of
Actium–was the first important step of the Romans toward universal
empire. The subsequent descent in Africa consisted of forty thousand
men; but the greater part of this force being recalled to Sicily, the
remainder was overthrown, and Regulus, being made prisoner, became as
celebrated by his death as by his famous victory.
The great fleet which was to avenge him was successful at Clypea, but
was destroyed on its return by a storm; and its successor met the same
fate at Cape Palinuro. In the year 249 B.C. the Romans were defeated at
Drepanum, and lost twenty-eight thousand men and more than one hundred
vessels. Another fleet, on its way to besiege Lilybæum, in the same
year, was lost off Cape Pactyrus.
Discouraged by this succession of disasters, the Senate at first
resolved to renounce the sea; but, observing that the power of Sicily
and Spain resulted from their maritime superiority, it concluded to arm
its fleets again, and in the year 242 Lutatius Catullus set out with
three hundred galleys and seven hundred transports for Drepanum, and
gained the battle in the Ægates Islands, in which the Carthaginians lost
one hundred and twenty vessels. This victory brought to a close the
first Punic war.
The second, distinguished by Hannibal’s expedition to Italy, was less
maritime in its character. Scipio, however, bore the Roman eagles to
Cartagena, and by its capture destroyed forever the empire of the
Carthaginians in Spain. Finally, he carried the war into Africa with a
force inferior to that of Regulus; but still he succeeded in gaining the
battle of Zama, imposing a shameful peace on Carthage and burning five
hundred of her ships. Subsequently Scipio’s brother crossed the
Hellespont with twenty-five thousand men, and at Magnesia gained the
celebrated victory which surrendered to the mercy of the Romans the
kingdom of Antiochus and all Asia. This expedition was aided by a
victory gained at Myonnesus in Ionia, by the combined fleets of Rome and
Rhodes, over the navy of Antiochus.
From this time Rome had no rival, and she continued to add to her power
by using every means to insure to her the empire of the sea. Paulus
Emilius in the year 168 B.C. landed at Samothrace at the head of
twenty-five thousand men, conquered Perseus, and brought Macedonia to
submission.
Twenty years later, the third Punic war decided the fate of Carthage.
The important port of Utica having been given up to the Romans, an
immense fleet was employed in transporting to this point eighty thousand
foot-soldiers and four thousand horses; Carthage was besieged, and the
son of Paulus Emilius and adopted son of the great Scipio had the glory
of completing the victory which Emilius and Scipio had begun, by
destroying the bitter rival of his country.
After this triumph, the power of Rome in Africa, as well as in Europe,
was supreme; but her empire in Asia was for a moment shaken by
Mithridates. This powerful king, after seizing in succession the small
adjacent states, was in command of not less than two hundred and fifty
thousand men, and of a fleet of four hundred vessels, of which three
hundred were decked. He defeated the three Roman generals who commanded
in Cappadocia, invaded Asia Minor and massacred there at least eighty
thousand Roman subjects, and even sent a large army into Greece.
Sylla landed in Greece with a reinforcement of twenty-five thousand
Romans, and retook Athens; but Mithridates sent in succession two large
armies by the Bosporus and the Dardanelles: the first, one hundred
thousand strong, was destroyed at Chæronea, and the second, of eighty
thousand men, met a similar fate at Orchomenus. At the same time,
Lucullus, having collected all the maritime resources of the cities of
Asia Minor, the islands, and particularly of Rhodes, was prepared to
transport Sylla’s army from Sestos to Asia; and Mithridates, from fear,
made peace.
In the second and third wars, respectively conducted by Murena and
Lucullus, there were no descents effected. Mithridates, driven step by
step into Colchis, and no longer able to keep the sea, conceived the
project of turning the Black Sea by the Caucasus, in order to pass
through Thrace to assume the offensive,–a policy which it is difficult
to understand, in view of the fact that he was unable to defend his
kingdom against fifty thousand Romans.
Cæsar, in his second descent on England, had six hundred vessels,
transporting forty thousand men. During the civil wars he transported
thirty-five thousand men to Greece. Antony came from Brundusium to join
him with twenty thousand men, and passed through the fleet of
Pompey,–in which act he was as much favored by the lucky star of Cæsar
as by the arrangements of his lieutenants.
Afterward Cæsar carried an army of sixty thousand men to Africa; they
did not, however, go in a body, but in successive detachments.
The greatest armament of the latter days of the Roman republic was that
of Augustus, who transported eighty thousand men and twelve thousand
horses into Greece to oppose Antony; for, besides the numerous
transports required for such an army, there were two hundred and sixty
vessels of war to protect them. Antony was superior in force on land,
but trusted the empire of the world to a naval battle: he had one
hundred and seventy war-vessels, in addition to sixty of Cleopatra’s
galleys, the whole manned by twenty-two thousand choice troops, besides
the necessary rowers.
Later, Germanicus conducted an expedition of one thousand vessels,
carrying sixty thousand men, from the mouths of the Rhine to the mouths
of the Ems. Half of this fleet was destroyed on its return by a storm;
and it is difficult to understand why Germanicus, controlling both banks
of the Rhine, should have exposed his army to the chances of the sea,
when he could have reached the same point by land in a few days.
When the Roman authority extended from the Rhine to the Euphrates,
maritime expeditions were rare; and the great contest with the races of
the North of Europe, which began after the division of the empire, gave
employment to the Roman armies on the sides of Germany and Thrace. The
eastern fraction of the empire still maintained a powerful navy, which
the possession of the islands of the Archipelago made a necessity, while
at the same time it afforded the means.
The first five centuries of the Christian era afford but few events of
interest in maritime warfare. The Vandals, having acquired Spain, landed
in Africa, eighty thousand strong, under Genseric. They were defeated by
Belisarius; but, holding the Balearic Isles and Sicily, they controlled
the Mediterranean for a time.
At the very epoch when the nations of the East invaded Europe, the
Scandinavians began to land on the coast of England. Their operations
are little better known than those of the barbarians: they are hidden in
the mysteries of Odin.
The Scandinavian bards attribute two thousand five hundred vessels to
Sweden. Less poetical accounts assign nine hundred and seventy to the
Danes and three hundred to Norway: these frequently acted in concert.
The Swedes naturally turned their attention to the head of the Baltic,
and drove the Varangians into Russia. The Danes, more favorably situated
with respect to the North Sea, directed their course toward the coasts
of France and England.
If the account cited by Depping is correct, the greater part of these
vessels were nothing more than fishermen’s boats manned by a score of
rowers. There were also _snekars_, with twenty banks or forty rowers.
The largest had thirty-four banks of rowers. The incursions of the
Danes, who had long before ascended the Seine and Loire, lead us to
infer that the greater part of these vessels were very small.
However, Hengist, invited by the Briton Vortigern, transported five
thousand Saxons to England in eighteen vessels,–which would go to show
that there were then also large vessels, or that the marine of the Elbe
was superior to that of the Scandinavians.
Between the years 527 and 584, three new expeditions, under Ida and
Cridda, gained England for the Saxons, who divided it into seven
kingdoms; and it was not until three centuries had elapsed (833) that
they were again united under the authority of Egbert.
The African races, in their turn, visited the South of Europe. In 712,
the Moors crossed the Straits of Gibraltar, under the lead of Tarik.
They came, five thousand strong, at the invitation of Count Julian; and,
far from meeting great resistance, they were welcomed by the numerous
enemies of the Visigoths. This was the happy era of the Caliphs, and the
Arabs might well pass for liberators in comparison with the tyrants of
the North. Tarik’s army, soon swelled to twenty thousand men, defeated
Rodrigo at Jerez and reduced the kingdom to submission. In time, several
millions of the inhabitants of Mauritania crossed the sea and settled in
Spain; and if their numerous migrations cannot be regarded as descents,
still, they form one of the most curious and interesting scenes in
history, occurring between the incursions of the Vandals in Africa and
the Crusades in the East.
A revolution not less important, and one which has left more durable
traces, marked in the North the establishment of the vast empire now
known as Russia. The Varangian princes, invited by the Novgorodians, of
whom Rurik was the chief, soon signalized themselves by great
expeditions.
In 902, Oleg is said to have embarked eighty thousand men in two
thousand boats on the Dnieper: they passed the falls of the river and
debouched in the Black Sea, while their cavalry followed the banks. They
proceeded to Constantinople, and forced Leo the Philosopher to pay
tribute.
Forty years subsequently, Igor took the same route with a fleet said to
have consisted of ten thousand boats. Near Constantinople his fleet,
terrified by the effects of the Greek fire, was driven on the coast of
Asia, where the force was disembarked. It was defeated, and the
expedition returned home.
Not discouraged, Igor re-established his fleet and army and descended to
the mouths of the Danube, where the Emperor Romanus I. sent to renew the
tribute and ask for peace, (943.)
In 967, Svatoslav, favored by the quarrel of Nicephorus with the King of
Bulgaria, embarked sixty thousand men, debouched into the Black Sea,
ascended the Danube, and seized Bulgaria. Recalled by the Petchenegs,
who were menacing Kiew, he entered into alliance with them and returned
into Bulgaria, broke his alliance with the Greeks, and, being reinforced
by the Hungarians, crossed the Balkan and marched to attack Adrianople.
The throne of Constantine was held by Zimisces, who was worthy of his
position. Instead of purchasing safety by paying tribute, as his
predecessors had done, he raised one hundred thousand men, armed a
respectable fleet, repulsed Svatoslav at Adrianople, obliged him to
retreat to Silistria, and took by assault the capital of the Bulgarians.
The Russian prince marched to meet him, and gave battle not far from
Silistria, but was obliged to re-enter the place, where he sustained one
of the most memorable sieges recorded in history.
In a second and still more bloody battle, the Russians performed
prodigies of valor, but were again compelled to yield to numbers.
Zimisces, honoring courage, finally concluded an advantageous treaty.
About this period the Danes were attracted to England by the hope of
pillage; and we are told that Lothaire called their king, Ogier, to
France to be avenged of his brothers. The first success of these pirates
increased their fondness for this sort of adventure, and for five or six
years their bands swarmed on the coasts of France and Britain and
devastated the country. Ogier, Hastings, Regner, and Sigefroi conducted
them sometimes to the mouths of the Seine, sometimes to the mouths of
the Loire, and finally to those of the Garonne. It is even asserted that
Hastings entered the Mediterranean and ascended the Rhone to Avignon;
but this is, to say the least, doubtful. The strength of their fleets is
not known: the largest seems to have been of three hundred sail.
In the beginning of the tenth century, Rollo at first landed in England,
but, finding little chance of success against Alfred, he entered into
alliance with him, landed in Neustria in 911, and advanced from Rouen on
Paris: other bodies marched from Nantes on Chartres. Repulsed here,
Rollo overran and ravaged the neighboring provinces. Charles the Simple
saw no better means of delivering his kingdom of this ever-increasing
scourge than to offer Rollo the fine province of Neustria on condition
that he would marry his daughter and turn Christian,–an offer which was
eagerly accepted.
Thirty years later, Rollo’s step-son, annoyed by the successors of
Charles, called to his aid the King of Denmark. The latter landed in
considerable force, defeated the French, took the king prisoner, and
assured Rollo’s son in the possession of Normandy.
During the same interval (838 to 950) the Danes exhibited even greater
hostility toward England than to France, although they were much more
assimilated to the Saxons than to the French in language and customs.
Ivar, after pillaging the kingdom, established his family in
Northumberland. Alfred the Great, at first beaten by Ivar’s successors,
succeeded in regaining his throne and in compelling the submission of
the Danes.
The aspect of affairs changes anew: Sweyn, still more fortunate than
Ivar, after conquering and devastating England, granted peace on
condition that a sum of money should be paid, and returned to Denmark,
leaving a part of his army behind him.
Ethelred, who had weakly disputed with Sweyn what remained of the Saxon
power, thought he could not do better to free himself from his
importunate guests than to order a simultaneous massacre of all the
Danes in the kingdom, (1002.) But Sweyn reappeared in the following
year at the head of an imposing force, and between 1003 and 1007 three
successive fleets effected disembarkations on the coast, and unfortunate
England was ravaged anew.
In 1012, Sweyn landed at the mouth of the Humber and again swept over
the land like a torrent, and the English, tired of obedience to kings
who could not defend them, recognized him as king of the North. His son,
Canute the Great, had to contend with a rival more worthy of him,
(Edmund Ironside.) Returning from Denmark at the head of a considerable
force, and aided by the perfidious Edric, Canute ravaged the southern
part of England and threatened London. A new division of the kingdom
resulted; but, Edmund having been assassinated by Edric, Canute was
finally recognized as king of all England. Afterward he sailed to
conquer Norway, from which country he returned to attack Scotland. When
he died, he divided the kingdom between his three children, according to
the usage of the times.
Five years after Canute’s death, the English assigned the crown to their
Anglo-Saxon princes; but Edward, to whom it fell, was better fitted to
be a monk than to save a kingdom a prey to such commotions. He died in
1066, leaving to Harold a crown which the chief of the Normans settled
in France contested with him, and to whom, it is said, Edward had made a
cession of the kingdom. Unfortunately for Harold, this chief was a great
and ambitious man.
The year 1066 was marked by two extraordinary expeditions. While William
the Conqueror was preparing in Normandy a formidable armament against
Harold, the brother of the latter, having been driven from
Northumberland for his crimes, sought support in Norway, and, with the
King of Norway, set out with thirty thousand men on five hundred
vessels, and landed at the mouth of the Humber. Harold almost entirely
destroyed this force in a bloody battle fought near York; but a more
formidable storm was about to burst upon his head. William took
advantage of the time when the Anglo-Saxon king was fighting the
Norwegians, to sail from St. Valery with a very large armament. Hume
asserts that he had three thousand transports; while other authorities
reduce the number to twelve hundred, carrying from sixty to seventy
thousand men. Harold hastened from York, and fought a decisive battle
near Hastings, in which he met an honorable death, and his fortunate
rival soon reduced the country to submission.
At the same time, another William, surnamed Bras-de-fer, Robert
Guiscard, and his brother Roger, conquered Calabria and Sicily with a
handful of troops,(1058 to 1070.)
Scarcely thirty years after these memorable events, an enthusiastic
priest animated Europe with a fanatical frenzy and precipitated large
forces upon Asia to conquer the Holy Land.
At first followed by one hundred thousand men, afterward by two hundred
thousand badly-armed vagabonds who perished in great part under the
attacks of the Hungarians, Bulgarians, and Greeks, Peter the Hermit
succeeded in crossing the Bosporus, and arrived before Nice with from
fifty to sixty thousand men, who were either killed or captured by the
Saracens.
An expedition more military in its character succeeded this campaign of
religious pilgrims. One hundred thousand men, composed of French,
Burgundians, Germans, and inhabitants of Lorraine, under Godfrey of
Bouillon, marched through Austria on Constantinople; an equal number,
under the Count of Toulouse, marched by Lyons, Italy, Dalmatia, and
Macedonia; and Bohemond, Prince of Tarentum, embarked with a force of
Normans, Sicilians, and Italians, and took the route by Greece on
Gallipolis.
This extensive migration reminds us of the fabulous expeditions of
Xerxes. The Genoese, Venetian, and Greek fleets were chartered to
transport these swarms of Crusaders by the Bosporus or Dardanelles to
Asia. More than four hundred thousand men were concentrated on the
plains of Nice, where they avenged the defeat of their predecessors.
Godfrey afterward led them across Asia and Syria as far as Jerusalem,
where he founded a kingdom.
All the maritime resources of Greece and the flourishing republics of
Italy were required to transport these masses across the Bosporus and in
provisioning them during the siege of Nice; and the great impulse thus
given to the coast states of Italy was perhaps the most advantageous
result of the Crusades.
This temporary success of the Crusaders became the source of great
disasters. The Mussulmans, heretofore divided among themselves, united
to resist the infidel, and divisions began to appear in the Christian
camps. A new expedition was necessary to aid the kingdom which the brave
Noureddin was threatening. Louis VII. and the Emperor Conrad, each at
the head of one hundred thousand Crusaders, marched, as their
predecessors had done, by the route of Constantinople, (1142.) But the
Greeks, frightened by the recurring visits of these menacing guests,
plotted their destruction.
Conrad, who was desirous of being first, fell into the traps laid for
him by the Turks, and was defeated in detachments in several battles by
the Sultan of Iconium. Louis, more fortunate, defeated the Turks on the
banks of the Mender; but, being deprived of the support of Conrad, and
his army being annoyed and partially beaten by the enemy in the passage
of defiles, and being in want of supplies, he was confined to Attalia,
on the coast of Pamphylia, where he endeavored to embark his army. The
means furnished by the Greeks were insufficient, and not more than
fifteen or twenty thousand men arrived at Antioch with the king: the
remainder either perished or fell into the hands of the Saracens.
This feeble reinforcement soon melted away under the attacks of the
climate and the daily contests with the enemy, although they were
continually aided by small bodies brought over from Europe by the
Italian ships; and they were again about to yield under the attacks of
Saladin, when the court of Rome succeeded in effecting an alliance
between the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and the Kings of France and
England to save the Holy Land.
The emperor was the first to set out. At the head of one hundred
thousand Germans, he opened a passage through Thrace in spite of the
formal resistance of the Greeks, now governed by Isaac Angelus. He
marched to Gallipolis, crossed the Dardanelles, and seized Iconium. He
died in consequence of an imprudent bath in a river, which, it has been
pretended, was the Cydnus. His son, the Duke of Swabia, annoyed by the
Mussulmans and attacked by diseases, brought to Ptolemais scarcely six
thousand men.
At the same time, Richard Coeur-de-Lion[58] and Philip Augustus more
judiciously took the route over the sea, and sailed from Marseilles and
Genoa with two immense fleets,(1190.) The first seized Cyprus, and both
landed in Syria,–where they would probably have triumphed but for the
rivalry which sprang up between them, in consequence of which Philip
returned to France.
Twelve years later, a new Crusade was determined upon, (1203.) Part of
the Crusaders embarked from Provence or Italy; others, led by the Count
of Flanders and the Marquis of Montferrat, proceeded to Venice, with the
intention of embarking there. The party last mentioned were persuaded by
the skillful Dandolo to aid him in an attack upon Constantinople, upon
the pretext of upholding the rights of Alexis Angelus, the son of Isaac
Angelus, who had fought the Emperor Frederick and was the successor of
those Comnenuses who had connived at the destruction of the armies of
Conrad and Louis VII.
Twenty thousand men had the boldness to attack the ancient capital of
the world, which had at least two hundred thousand defenders. They
assailed it by sea and land, and captured it. The usurper fled, and
Alexis was replaced upon the throne, but was unable to retain his seat:
the Greeks made an insurrection in favor of Murzupha, but the Latins
took possession of Constantinople after a more bloody assault than the
first, and placed upon the throne their chief, Count Baldwin of
Flanders. This empire lasted a half-century. The remnant of the Greeks
took refuge at Nice and Trebizond.
A sixth expedition was directed against Egypt by John of Brienne, who,
notwithstanding the successful issue of the horrible siege of Damietta,
was obliged to give way before the constantly-increasing efforts of the
Mussulman population. The remains of his splendid army, after a narrow
escape from drowning in the Nile, deemed themselves very fortunate in
being able to purchase permission to re-embark for Europe.
The court of Rome, whose interest it was to keep up the zeal of
Christendom in these expeditions, of which it gathered all the fruits,
encouraged the German princes to uphold the tottering realm at
Jerusalem. The Emperor Frederick and the Landgrave of Hesse embarked at
Brundusium in 1227, at the head of forty thousand chosen soldiers. The
landgrave, and afterward Frederick himself, fell sick, and the fleet put
in at Tarentum, from which port the emperor, irritated by the
presumption of Gregory IX., who excommunicated him because he was too
slow in the gratification of his wishes, at a later date proceeded with
ten thousand men, thus giving way to the fear inspired by the pontifical
thunders.
Louis IX., animated by the same feeling of fear, or impelled, if we may
credit Ancelot, by motives of a higher character, set out from
Aigues-Mortes, in 1248, with one hundred and twenty large vessels, and
fifteen hundred smaller boats, hired from the Genoese, the Venetians and
the Catalans; for France was at that time without a navy, although
washed by two seas. This king proceeded to Cyprus, and, having there
collected a still larger force, set out, according to Joinville’s
statement, with more than eighteen hundred vessels, to make a descent
into Egypt. His army must have numbered about eighty thousand men; for,
although half of the fleet was scattered and cast away upon the coast of
Syria, he marched upon Cairo a few months later with sixty thousand
fighting-men, twenty thousand being mounted. It should be stated that
the Count of Poictiers had arrived also with troops from France.
The sad fortune experienced by this splendid army did not prevent the
same king from engaging in a new Crusade, twenty years later,(1270.) He
disembarked upon that occasion at the ruins of Carthage, and besieged
Tunis. The plague swept off half his army in a few months, and himself
was one of its victims. The King of Sicily, having arrived with powerful
reinforcements at the time of Louis’s death, and desiring to carry back
the remains of the army to his island of Sicily, encountered a tempest
which caused a loss of four thousand men and twenty large ships. This
prince was not deterred by this misfortune from desiring the conquest of
the Greek empire and of Constantinople, which seemed a prize of greater
value and more readily obtained. Philip, the son and successor of Saint
Louis, being anxious to return to France, would have nothing to do with
that project. This was the last effort. The Christians who were
abandoned in Syria were destroyed in the noted attacks of Tripoli and
Ptolemais: some of the remnants of the religious orders took refuge at
Cyprus and established themselves at Rhodes.
The Mussulmans, in their turn, crossed the Dardanelles at Gallipolis in
1355, and took possession, one after the other, of the European
provinces of the Eastern Empire, to which the Latins had themselves
given the fatal blow.
Mohammed II., while besieging Constantinople in 1453, is said to have
had his fleet transported by land with a view to placing it in the canal
and closing the port: it is stated to have been large enough to be
manned by twenty thousand select foot-soldiers. After the capture of
this capital, Mohammed found his means increased by all those of the
Greek navy, and in a short time his empire attained the first rank of
maritime powers. He ordered an attack to be made upon Rhodes and upon
Otranto on the Italian main, whilst he proceeded to Hungary in search of
a more worthy opponent (Hunniades.) Repulsed and wounded at Belgrade,
the sultan fell upon Trebizond with a numerous fleet, brought that city
to sue for terms, and then proceeded with a fleet of four hundred sail
to make a landing upon the island of Negropont, which he carried by
assault. A second attempt upon Rhodes, executed, it is stated, at the
head of a hundred thousand men, by one of his ablest lieutenants, was a
failure, with loss to the assailants. Mohammed was preparing to go to
that point himself with an immense army assembled on the shores of
Ionia, which Vertot estimates at three hundred thousand men; but death
closed his career, and the project was not carried into effect.
About the same period England began to be formidable to her neighbors on
land as well as on the sea; the Dutch also, reclaiming their country
from the inroads of the sea, were laying the foundations of a power more
extraordinary even than that of Venice.
Edward III. landed in France and besieged Calais with eight hundred
ships and forty thousand men.
Henry V. made two descents in 1414 and 1417: he had, it is stated,
fifteen hundred vessels and only thirty thousand men, of whom six
thousand were cavalry.
All the events we have described as taking place, up to this period, and
including the capture of Constantinople, were before the invention of
gunpowder; for if Henry V. had cannon at Agincourt, as is claimed by
some writers, they were certainly not used in naval warfare. From that
time all the combinations of naval armaments were entirely changed; and
this revolution took place–if I may use that expression–at the time
when the invention of the mariner’s compass and the discovery of America
and of the Cape of Good Hope were about to turn the maritime commerce of
the world into new channels and to establish an entirely new system of
colonial dependencies.
I shall not mention in detail the expeditions of the Spaniards to
America, or those of the Portuguese, Dutch, and English to India by
doubling the Cape of Good Hope. Notwithstanding their great influence
upon the commerce of the world,–notwithstanding the genius of Gama,
Albuquerque, and Cortez,–these expeditions, undertaken by small bodies
of two or three thousand men against tribes who knew nothing of
fire-arms, are of no interest in a military point of view.
The Spanish navy, whose fame had been greatly increased by this
discovery of a new world, was at the height of its splendor in the reign
of Charles V. However, the glory of the expedition to Tunis, which was
conquered by this prince at the head of thirty thousand fine soldiers
transported in five hundred Genoese or Spanish vessels, was balanced by
the disaster which befell a similar expedition against Algiers, (1541,)
undertaken when the season was too far advanced and in opposition to the
wise counsels of Admiral Doria. The expedition was scarcely under way
when the emperor saw one hundred and sixty of his ships and eight
thousand men swallowed up by the waves: the remainder was saved by the
skill of Doria, and assembled at Cape Metafuz, where Charles V. himself
arrived, after encountering great difficulties and peril.
While these events were transpiring, the successors of Mohammed were not
neglecting the advantages given them by the possession of so many fine
maritime provinces, which taught them at once the importance of the
control of the sea and furnished means for obtaining it. At this period
the Turks were quite as well informed with reference to artillery and
the military art in general as the Europeans. They reached the apex of
their greatness under Solyman I., who besieged and captured Rhodes
(1552) with an army stated to have reached the number of one hundred and
forty thousand men,–which was still formidable even upon the
supposition of its strength being exaggerated by one-half.
In 1565, Mustapha and the celebrated Dragut made a descent upon Malta,
where the Knights of Rhodes had made a new establishment; they carried
over thirty-two thousand Janissaries, with one hundred and forty ships.
John of Valetta, as is well known, gained an enduring fame by repulsing
them.
A more formidable expedition, consisting of two hundred vessels and
fifty-five thousand men, was sent in 1527 to the isle of Cyprus, where
Nicosia was taken and Famagosta besieged. The horrible cruelties
practiced by Mustapha increased the alarm occasioned by his progress.
Spain, Venice, Naples, and Malta united their naval forces to succor
Cyprus; but Famagosta had already surrendered, notwithstanding the
heroic defense of Bragadino, who was perfidiously flayed alive by
Mustapha’s order, to avenge the death of forty thousand Turks that had
perished in the space of two years spent on the island.
The allied fleet, under the orders of two heroes, Don John of Austria,
brother of Philip II., and Andrea Doria, attacked the Turkish fleet at
the entrance of the Gulf of Lepanto, near the promontory of Actium,
where Antony and Augustus once fought for the empire of the world. The
Turkish fleet was almost entirely destroyed: more than two hundred
vessels and thirty thousand Turks were captured or perished, (1571.)
This victory did not put an end to the supremacy of the Turks, but was a
great check in their career of greatness. However, they made such
vigorous efforts that as large a fleet as the former one was sent to sea
during the next year. Peace terminated this contest, in which such
enormous losses were sustained.
The bad fortune of Charles V. in his expedition against Algiers did not
deter Sebastian of Portugal from wishing to attempt the conquest of
Morocco, where he was invited by a Moorish prince who had been deprived
of his estates. Having disembarked upon the shores of Morocco at the
head of twenty thousand men, this young prince was killed and his army
cut to pieces at the battle of Alcazar by Muley Abdulmalek, in 1578.
Philip II., whose pride had increased since the naval battle of Lepanto
on account of the success he had gained in France by his diplomacy and
by the folly of the adherents of the League, deemed his arms
irresistible. He thought to bring England to his feet. The invincible
Armada intended to produce this effect, which has been so famous, was
composed of an expeditionary force proceeding from Cadiz, including,
according to Hume’s narrative, one hundred and thirty-seven vessels,
armed with two thousand six hundred and thirty bronze cannon, and
carrying twenty thousand soldiers, in addition to eleven thousand
sailors. To these forces was to be added an army of twenty-five thousand
men which the Duke of Parma was to bring up from the Netherlands by way
of Ostend. A tempest and the efforts of the English caused the failure
of this expedition, which, although of considerable magnitude for the
period when it appeared, was by no means entitled to the high-sounding
name it received: it lost thirteen thousand men and half the vessels
before it even came near the English coast.
After this expedition comes in chronological order that of Gustavus
Adolphus to Germany,(1630.) The army contained only from fifteen to
eighteen thousand men: the fleet was quite large, and was manned by nine
thousand sailors; M. Ancillon must, however, be mistaken in stating that
it carried eight thousand cannon. The debarkation in Pomerania received
little opposition from the Imperial troops, and the King of Sweden had a
strong party among the German people. His successor was the leader of a
very extraordinary expedition, which is resembled by only one other
example mentioned in history: I refer to the march of Charles X. of
Sweden across the Belt upon the ice, with a view of moving from Sleswick
upon Copenhagen by way of the island of Funen,(1658.) He had twenty-five
thousand men, of whom nine thousand were cavalry, and artillery in
proportion. This undertaking was so much the more rash because the ice
was unsafe, several pieces of artillery and even the king’s own carriage
having broken through and been lost.
After seventy-five years of peace, the war between Venice and the Turks
recommenced in 1645. The latter transported an army of fifty-five
thousand men, in three hundred and fifty vessels, to Candia, and gained
possession of the important post of Canea before the republic thought of
sending succor. Although the people of Venice began to lose the spirit
which made her great, she still numbered among her citizens some noble
souls: Morosini, Grimani, and Mocenigo struggled several years against
the Turks, who derived great advantages from their numerical superiority
and the possession of Canea. The Venetian fleet had, nevertheless,
gained a marked ascendency under the orders of Grimani, when a third of
it was destroyed by a frightful tempest, in which the admiral himself
perished.
In 1648, the siege of Candia began. Jussuf attacked the city furiously
at the head of thirty thousand men: after being repulsed in two
assaults, he was encouraged to attempt a third by a large breach being
made. The Turks entered the place: Mocenigo rushed to meet them,
expecting to die in their midst. A brilliant victory was the reward of
his heroic conduct: the enemy were repulsed and the ditches filled with
their dead bodies.
Venice might have driven off the Turks by sending twenty thousand men to
Candia; but Europe rendered her but feeble support, and she had already
called into active service all the men fit for war she could produce.
The siege, resumed some time after, lasted longer than that of Troy, and
each campaign was marked by fresh attempts on the part of the Turks to
carry succor to their army and by naval victories gained by the
Venetians. The latter people had kept up with the advance of naval
tactics in Europe, and thus were plainly superior to the Mussulmans, who
adhered to the old customs, and were made to pay dearly for every
attempt to issue from the Dardanelles. Three persons of the name of
Morosini, and several Mocenigos, made themselves famous in this
protracted struggle.
Finally, the celebrated Coprougli, placed by his merits at the head of
the Ottoman ministry, resolved to take the personal direction of this
war which had lasted so long: he accordingly proceeded to the island,
where transports had landed fifty thousand men, at whose head he
conducted the attack in a vigorous manner.(1667.)
In this memorable siege the Turks exhibited more skill than previously:
their artillery, of very heavy caliber, was well served, and, for the
first time, they made use of trenches, which were the invention of an
Italian engineer.
The Venetians, on their side, greatly improved the methods of defense by
mines. Never had there been seen such furious zeal exhibited in mutual
destruction by combats, mines, and assaults. Their heroic resistance
enabled the garrison to hold out during winter: in the spring, Venice
sent reinforcements and the Duke of Feuillade brought a few hundreds of
French volunteers.
The Turks had also received strong reinforcements, and redoubled their
efforts. The siege was drawing to a close, when six thousand Frenchmen
came to the assistance of the garrison under the leadership of the Duke
of Beaufort and Navailles,(1669.) A badly-conducted sortie discouraged
these presumptuous young men, and Navailles, disgusted with the
sufferings endured in the siege, assumed the responsibility, at the end
of two months, of carrying the remnant of his troops back to France.
Morosini, having then but three thousand exhausted men to defend a place
which was open on all sides, finally consented to evacuate it, and a
truce was agreed upon, which led to a formal treaty of peace. Candia had
cost the Turks twenty-five years of efforts and more than one hundred
thousand men killed in eighteen assaults and several hundred sorties. It
is estimated that thirty-five thousand Christians of different nations
perished in the glorious defense of the place.
The struggle between Louis XIV., Holland, and England gives examples of
great maritime operations, but no remarkable descents. That of James II.
in Ireland (1690) was composed of only six thousand Frenchmen, although
De Tourville’s fleet contained seventy-three ships of the line, carrying
five thousand eight hundred cannon and twenty-nine thousand sailors. A
grave fault was committed in not throwing at least twenty thousand men
into Ireland with such means as were disposable. Two years later, De
Tourville had been conquered in the famous day of La Hogue, and the
remains of the troops which had landed were enabled to return through
the instrumentality of a treaty which required their evacuation of the
island.
At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Swedes and Russians
undertook two expeditions very different in character.
Charles XII., wishing to aid the Duke of Holstein, made a descent upon
Denmark at the head of twenty thousand men, transported by two hundred
vessels and protected by a strong squadron. He was really assisted by
the English and Dutch navies, but the expedition was not for that reason
the less remarkable in the details of the disembarkation. The same
prince effected a descent into Livonia to aid Narva, but he landed his
troops at a Swedish port.
Peter the Great, having some cause of complaint against the Persians,
and wishing to take advantage of their dissensions, embarked (in 1722)
upon the Volga: he entered the Caspian Sea with two hundred and seventy
vessels, carrying twenty thousand foot-soldiers, and descended to
Agrakhan, at the mouths of the Koisou, where he expected to meet his
cavalry. This force, numbering nine thousand dragoons and five thousand
Cossacks, joined him after a land-march by way of the Caucasus. The czar
then seized Derbent, besieged Bakou, and finally made a treaty with one
of the parties whose dissensions at that time filled with discord the
empire of the Soofees: he procured the cession of Astrabad, the key of
the Caspian Sea and, in some measure, of the whole Persian empire.
The time of Louis XV. furnished examples of none but secondary
expeditions, unless we except that of Richelieu against Minorca, which
was very glorious as an escalade, but less extraordinary as a descent.
[In 1762, an English fleet sailed from Portsmouth: this was joined by a
portion of the squadron from Martinico. The whole amounted to nineteen
ships of the line, eighteen smaller vessels of war, and one hundred and
fifty transports, carrying ten thousand men. The expedition besieged and
captured Havana.--TRS.]
The Spaniards, however, in 1775, made a descent with fifteen or sixteen
thousand men upon Algiers, with a view of punishing those rovers of the
sea for their bold piracies; but the expedition, for want of harmonious
action between the squadron and the land-forces, was unsuccessful, on
account of the murderous fire which the troops received from the
Turkish and Arab musketeers dispersed among the undergrowth surrounding
the city. The troops returned to their vessels after having two thousand
men placed _hors de combat_.
The American war (1779) was the epoch of the greatest maritime efforts
upon the part of the French. Europe was astonished to see this power
send Count d’Estaing to America with twenty-five ships of the line,
while at the same time M. Orvilliers, with a Franco-Spanish fleet of
sixty-five ships of the line, was to cover a descent to be effected with
three hundred transports and forty thousand men, assembled at Havre and
St. Malo.
This new armada moved back and forth for several months, but
accomplished nothing: the winds finally drove it back to port.
D’Estaing was more fortunate, as he succeeded in getting the superiority
in the Antilles and in landing in the United States six thousand
Frenchmen under Rochambeau, who were followed, at a later date, by
another division, and assisted in investing the English army under
Cornwallis at Yorktown, (1781:) the independence of America was thus
secured. France would perhaps have gained a triumph over her implacable
rival more lasting in its effects, had she, in addition to the display
made in the English Channel, sent ten ships and seven or eight thousand
men more to India with Admiral Suffren.
During the French Revolution, there were few examples of descents: the
fire at Toulon, emigration, and the battle of Ushant had greatly injured
the French navy.
Hoche’s expedition against Ireland with twenty-five thousand men was
scattered by the winds, and no further attempts in that quarter were
made. (1796.)
At a later date, Bonaparte’s expedition to Egypt, consisting of
twenty-three thousand men, thirteen ships, seventeen frigates, and four
hundred transports, obtained great successes at first, which were
followed by sad reverses. The Turks, in hopes of expelling him, landed
fifteen thousand men at Aboukir, but were all captured or driven into
the sea, notwithstanding the advantages this peninsula gave them of
intrenching themselves and waiting for reinforcements. This is an
excellent example for imitation by the party on the defensive under
similar circumstances.
The expedition of considerable magnitude which was sent out in 1802 to
St. Domingo was remarkable as a descent, but failed on account of the
ravages of yellow fever.
Since their success against Louis XIV., the English have given their
attention more to the destruction of rival fleets and the subjugation of
colonies than to great descents. The attempts made in the eighteenth
century against Brest and Cherbourg with bodies of ten or twelve
thousand men amounted to nothing in the heart of a powerful state like
France. The remarkable conquests which procured them their Indian empire
occurred in succession. Having obtained possession of Calcutta, and then
of Bengal, they strengthened themselves gradually by the arrival of
troops in small bodies and by using the Sepoys, whom they disciplined to
the number of one hundred and fifty thousand.
The Anglo-Russian expedition to Holland in 1799 was composed of forty
thousand men, but they were not all landed at once: the study of the
details of the operations is, however, quite interesting.
In 1801, Abercrombie, after threatening Ferrol and Cadiz, effected a
descent into Egypt with twenty thousand Englishmen. The results of this
expedition are well known.
General Stuart’s expedition to Calabria, (1806,) after some successes at
Maida, was for the purpose of regaining possession of Sicily. That
against Buenos Ayres was more unfortunate in its results, and was
terminated by a capitulation.
In 1807, Lord Cathcart attacked Copenhagen with twenty-five thousand
men, besieged and bombarded the city, and gained possession of the
Danish fleet, which was his object.
In 1808, Wellington appeared in Portugal with fifteen thousand men.
After gaining the victory of Vimeira, and assisted by the general rising
of the Portuguese, he forced Junot to evacuate the kingdom. The same
army, increased in numbers to twenty-five thousand and placed under
Moore’s command, while making an effort to penetrate into Spain with a
view of relieving Madrid, was forced to retreat to Corunna and there
re-embark, after suffering severe losses. Wellington, having effected
another landing in Portugal with reinforcements, collected an army of
thirty thousand Englishmen and as many Portuguese, with which he avenged
Moore’s misfortunes by surprising Soult at Oporto, (May, 1809,) and then
beating Joseph at Talavera, under the very gates of his capital.
The expedition to Antwerp in the same year was one of the largest
England has undertaken since the time of Henry V. It was composed of not
less than seventy thousand men in all,–forty thousand land-forces and
thirty thousand sailors. It did not succeed, on account of the
incapacity of the leader.
A descent entirely similar in character to that of Charles X. of Sweden
was effected by thirty Russian battalions passing the Gulf of Bothnia on
the ice in five columns, with their artillery. Their object was to take
possession of the islands of Aland and spread a feeling of apprehension
to the very gates of Stockholm. Another division passed the gulf to
Umeå, (March, 1809.)
General Murray succeeded in effecting a well-planned descent in the
neighborhood of Tarragona in 1813, with the intention of cutting Suchet
off from Valencia: however, after some successful operations, he thought
best to re-embark.
The expedition set on foot by England against Napoleon after his return
from Elba in 1815 was remarkable on account of the great mass of
_matériel_ landed at Ostend and Antwerp. The Anglo-Hanoverian army
contained sixty thousand men, but some came by land and others were
disembarked at a friendly port.
The English engaged in an undertaking in the same year which may be
regarded as very extraordinary: I refer to the attack on the capital of
the United States. The world was astonished to see a handful of seven or
eight thousand Englishmen making their appearance in the midst of a
state embracing ten millions of people, taking possession of its
capital, and destroying all the public buildings,–results unparalleled
in history. We would be tempted to despise the republican and unmilitary
spirit of the inhabitants of those states if the same militia had not
risen, like those of Greece, Rome, and Switzerland, to defend their
homes against still more powerful attacks, and if, in the same year, an
English expedition more extensive than the other had not been entirely
defeated by the militia of Louisiana and other states under the orders
of General Jackson.
If the somewhat fabulous numbers engaged in the irruption of Xerxes and
the Crusades be excepted, no undertaking of this kind which has been
actually carried out, especially since fleets have been armed with
powerful artillery, can at all be compared with the gigantic project and
proportionate preparations made by Napoleon for throwing one hundred and
fifty thousand veterans upon the shores of England by the use of three
thousand launches or large gun-boats, protected by sixty ships of the
line[59].
From the preceding narrative the reader will perceive what a difference
there is in point of difficulty and probability of success between
descents attempted across a narrow arm of the sea, a few miles only in
width, and those in which the troops and _matériel_ are to be
transported long distances over the open sea. This fact gives the reason
why so many operations of this kind have been executed by way of the
Bosporus.
* * * * *
[The following paragraphs have been compiled from authentic data:–
In 1830, the French government sent an expedition to Algiers, composed
of an army of thirty-seven thousand five hundred men and one hundred and
eighty pieces of artillery. More than five hundred vessels of war and
transports were employed. The fleet sailed from Toulon.
In 1838, France sent a fleet of twenty-two vessels to Vera Cruz. The
castle of San Juan d’Ulloa fell into their hands after a short
bombardment. A small force of about one thousand men, in three columns,
took the city of Vera Cruz by assault: the resistance was slight.
In 1847, the United States caused a descent to be made upon the coast of
Mexico, at Vera Cruz, with an army of thirteen thousand men, under the
command of General Scott. One hundred and fifty vessels were employed,
including men-of-war and transports. The city of Vera Cruz and the
castle of San Juan d’Ulloa speedily fell into the possession of the
forces of the United States. This important post became the secondary
base of operations for the brilliant campaign which terminated with the
capture of the city of Mexico.
In 1854 commenced the memorable and gigantic contest between Russia on
the one side and England, France, Sardinia, and Turkey on the other.
Several descents were made by the allied forces at different points of
the Russian coast: of these the first was in the Baltic Sea. An English
fleet sailed from Spithead, under the command of Sir Charles Napier, on
the 12th of March, and a French fleet from Brest, under the command of
Vice-Admiral Parseval Deschênes, on the 19th of April. They effected a
junction in the Bay of Barosund on the 11th of June. The allied fleet
numbered thirty ships and fifty frigates, corvettes, and other vessels.
The naval commanders wished to attack the defenses of Bomarsund, on one
of the Aland Isles, but, after a reconnoissance, they came to the
conclusion that it was necessary to have land-forces. A French corps of
ten thousand men was at once dispatched to Bomarsund under General
Baraguay-d’Hilliers, and the place was speedily reduced.
Later in the same year, the great expedition to the Crimea was executed;
and with reference to it the following facts are mentioned, in order to
give an idea of its magnitude:–
September 14, 1854, an army of fifty-eight thousand five hundred men and
two hundred pieces of artillery was landed near Eupatoria, composed of
thirty thousand French, twenty-one thousand five hundred English, and
seven thousand Turks. They were transported from Varna to the place of
landing by three hundred and eighty-nine ships, steamers, and
transports. This force fought and gained the battle of the Alma,
(September 20,) and thence proceeded to Sebastopol. The English took
possession of the harbor of Balaklava and the French of Kamiesch: these
were the points to which subsequent reinforcements and supplies for the
army in the Crimea were sent.
November 5, at the battle of Inkermann, the allied army numbered
seventy-one thousand men.
At the end of January, 1855, the French force was seventy-five thousand
men and ten thousand horses. Up to the same time, the English had sent
fifty-four thousand men to the Crimea, but only fifteen thousand were
alive, present, and fit for duty.
February 4, the French numbered eighty-five thousand; the English,
twenty-five thousand fit for duty; the Turks, twenty-five thousand.
May 8, 1855, General La Marmora arrived at Balaklava with fifteen
thousand Sardinians.
In the latter part of May, an expedition of sixteen thousand men was
sent to Kertch.
In August, the French force at Sebastopol had risen to one hundred and
twenty thousand men.
September 8, the final assault took place, which resulted in the
evacuation of the place by the Russians. The allies had then in battery
more than eight hundred pieces of artillery.
The fleet which co-operated with the land-forces in the artillery attack
of October 17, 1854, consisted of twenty-five ships. There were present
and prepared to attack in September, 1855, thirty-four ships.
October, 1855, an expeditionary force of nine thousand men was sent to
Kinburn, which place was captured.
Marshal Vaillant, in his report, as Minister of War, to the French
emperor, says there were sent from France and Algeria three hundred and
ten thousand men and forty thousand horses, of which two hundred and
twenty-seven thousand men returned to France and Algeria.
The marshal’s report gives the following striking facts, (he refers only
to French operations:-)
The artillery _matériel_ at the disposal of the Army of the East
comprised one thousand seven hundred guns, two thousand gun-carriages,
two thousand seven hundred wagons, two millions of projectiles, and nine
million pounds of powder. There were sent to the army three thousand
tons of powder, seventy millions of infantry-cartridges, two hundred and
seventy thousand rounds of fixed ammunition, and eight thousand
war-rockets.
On the day of the final assault there were one hundred and eighteen
batteries, which during the siege had consumed seven million pounds of
powder. They required one million sand-bags and fifty thousand gabions.
Of engineer materials, fourteen thousand tons were sent. The engineers
executed fifty miles of trenches, using eighty thousand gabions, sixty
thousand fascines, and one million sand-bags.
Of subsistence, fuel, and forage, five hundred thousand tons were sent.
Of clothing, camp-equipage, and harness, twelve thousand tons.
Hospital stores, six thousand five hundred tons.
Provision-wagons, ambulances, carts, forges, &c, eight thousand tons.
In all, about six hundred thousand tons.
It is not thought necessary to add similar facts for the English,
Sardinian, and Turkish armies.
In 1859, the Spaniards made a descent upon Morocco with a force of forty
thousand infantry, eleven squadrons of cavalry, and eighty pieces of
artillery, using twenty-one vessels of war with three hundred and
twenty-seven guns, besides twenty-four gun-boats and numerous
transports.
In 1860, a force of English and French was landed on the coast of China,
whence they marched to Pekin and dictated terms of peace. This
expedition is remarkable for the smallness of the numbers which
ventured, at such a great distance from their sources of supply and
succor, to land upon a hostile shore and penetrate into the midst of the
most populous empire in the world.
The French expedition to Syria in 1860 was small in numbers, and
presented no remarkable features.
Toward the close of the year 1861, the government of the United States
sent an expedition of thirteen thousand men to Port Royal, on the coast
of South Carolina, one of the seceding States. The fleet of war-vessels
and transports sailed from Hampton Roads, under command of Captain
Dupont, and was dispersed by a violent gale: the losses of men and
_matériel_ were small, however, and the fleet finally reached the
rendezvous. The defenses of the harbor having been silenced by the naval
forces, the disembarkation of the land-troops took place, General
Sherman being in command.
England, France, and Spain are now (January 16, 1862) engaged in an
expedition directed against Mexico. The first operations were the
capture, by the Spanish forces, of Vera Cruz and its defenses: the
Mexicans offered no resistance at that point. The future will develop
the plans of the allies; but the ultimate result of a struggle (if,
indeed, one be attempted by the Mexicans) cannot be doubted, when three
of the most powerful states of Europe are arrayed against the feeble and
tottering republic of Mexico.
