REFORM
I.—STUDY.
“Trust thyself. Every heart vibrates to that iron string.”
I venture to address my first recommendation to professional soldiers,
volunteer soldiers, and civilians alike. Study your own great war. Shut
your ears to those who say it is abnormal. Study it with an open mind,
forming your own opinion, and remembering that this is _your_
experience.
With the facts and conditions of your own modern war thoroughly in your
head, re-study other wars, including the last great war in Manchuria.
Note the progress made during the last fifty years in the precision,
range, and smokelessness of the firearm, compared with the unimprovable
nature of the steel weapon. Ask yourself if the professional Cavalries
in these various wars were alive to the lesson of this revolution, and
whether their successors, judged by their own writings, are alive now to
the lesson. And do not, I beseech, when you hear it said (with truth)
that the “principles of war” never change, be misled into imagining that
the steel weapon for horsemen is one of the “principles of war.”
Picture past wars, such as the Franco-German War, by the light of the
knowledge actually then in existence, but unused, as to the
possibilities of the rifle in the hands of mounted men. Reckon the
opportunities lost, and ask yourself if the successes gained by the
steel might not have been gained equally well even in those days by
first-class mounted riflemen.
Remember all the while in constructing out of precedents this “case law”
that there is a “common law” behind, a physical principle, which is
independent in the last resort of all psychological and historical
associations. Follow it out, as I have often suggested in terms of
vulnerability and mobility, constantly using the foot-riflemen as an
analogy. But realize that the bayonet, which is used as the climax of a
fire-fight on foot, is not the analogue of the sword or lance, which are
used from horse-back only, on a system impossible to associate with
fire. Superimpose the moral and psychological factors—in one word, the
_spirit_—bearing in mind that the best weapon will promote the best
spirit, and inspire the most fear in the enemy. Lastly, take training,
and reflect whether it be possible for a hybrid type to attain
perfection in two highly exacting and, under modern conditions,
profoundly antagonistic methods of fighting. Weigh the terrible cost of
not reaching perfection, the humiliation of being impotent even against
inferior Infantry, and doubly impotent against superior mounted
riflemen.
In studying the functions of mounted troops with the aid of the Official
“Training Books,” constantly distinguish weapons from mobility, the
combat phase from the pre-combat phase. Do not be enticed into assuming
that men armed with steel weapons can ride, drill, scout or manœuvre
better, by virtue of those weapons. On the contrary, observe how steel
weapons, not only by their mere weight in metal and leather, but by
their manifold corollaries, react harmfully on mobility and
intelligence, and in the case of the lance on visibility as well.
Remember that in war every ounce and every inch tells, and that there is
no other weapon on which to save weight. Nobody as yet suggests dropping
the rifle. That is admittedly indispensable.
II.—NOMENCLATURE.
The grand distinction between the foot-soldier and the horse-soldier is
the horse. The link which unites them is the rifle. We need some
classification which emphasizes both the distinction and the link. All
our terms, as at present used, are misleading. Those ancient and simple
names, Cavalry and Infantry, are really all we want, but their
significance is blurred by the modern intrusion of Mounted Infantry and
its unofficial synonym, Mounted Riflemen, and Yeomanry.
“Mounted Infantry” is a very bad name, because, though accurate in a
sense, it suppresses the common element, the rifle, and emphasizes the
horse, which is the distinguishing element, by a sort of contradiction
in terms, as though one were to say, horse-foot-soldiers. And in the
very act of emphasizing the horse it belittles both that noble animal
and its rider. It seems to say, “mount by all means, but above all
dismount”; “continually get off your horse”—"ignore the horse," to adapt
expressions now familiar to the reader.
“Mounted Riflemen,” though far better than “Mounted Infantry,” is also
unsatisfactory (1) because it suggests a non-existent distinction
between foot riflemen and Infantry, (2) because it suggests a
non-existent class of mounted troops who are not riflemen.
Of course, the source of all this confusion is the retention of the
steel weapon for our existing regular Cavalry, and the hybrid type which
results.
I myself should strongly advocate the total abolition of all the modern
jargon, and a return to the primitive simplicity of Cavalry and
Infantry. Those names will live; nothing can extirpate them, and if they
stood alone their very isolation would force into prominence the really
fundamental points of similarity and dissimilarity in the troops they
represent. Of course, there will always be different qualities of
Cavalry, as of Infantry, corresponding to length and continuity of
training, and the most difficult and exacting functions will naturally
be allotted to the best-trained troops. But do not let us make the sword
or lance the criterion of excellence. Let us select any other criterion
but that, paying at least so much of a compliment to modern war
experience. Do not let us tell the relievers of Mafeking or De Wet that
they cannot engage in a strategical raid; the Australians that they
cannot pursue; De la Rey, the New Zealanders, and the riflemen of the
Rand that they cannot charge. Do not let us impress upon our Mounted
Infantry, with their South African traditions, that because they have no
sword or lance, they cannot play the big, fast game they played in South
Africa. By all means, if it is convenient, give them the limited
functions of divisional Cavalry, but do not put it on the ground of
defective armament. Give them a chance to realize their own worth, and
do not commit the crowning folly—crime it might well be called—of
singling them out from all the army for what is in effect a lecture on
the “terror of cold steel.”
III.—ARMAMENT OF CAVALRY.
I now come to the central object of my volume. My own belief is that
reform here must be radical. If it were possible, as the United States
Cavalry find it possible, to place the sword in a thoroughly subordinate
position, and keep it there, accepting whole-heartedly all the logical
consequences of its subordination, there would be little objection to
its retention. Nobody can deny that it can be useful on very rare
occasions, though I hope to have proved that the rifle, in expert hands,
can do better, even on those rare occasions.
But experience proves that in this country it is utterly impossible to
keep the sword or lance subordinate. Their fascination seems to be
irresistible. They laugh at facts and feed men on seductive fictions. We
know what the course of reaction has been. For a brief space after the
South African War it was in fact made officially subordinate. Then the
sword regained its old domination. Now the lance, from the cold shades
of “ceremony,” has become a combative weapon, also dominant, and in the
case of Lancer regiments, sharing its supremacy with the sword, so that
we have now what I venture to call the preposterous spectacle of
horsemen armed with no less than three weapons, one of which, when at
rest, adds several feet vertically to visibility. Of the respective
value of the lance and sword in combat, where combat takes place, I say
nothing, but on every other ground the lance is utterly indefensible. At
the combined army manœuvres of 1909, for example, Lancers were
operating in hedge-bound country, like that which covers so large a part
of England, and where lances constantly make just the difference between
concealment and exposure. They are incompatible with effective
fire-action.
But that after all is a secondary matter. What makes compromise
impossible is the fact that the steel weapon carries with it logically
the whole theory of shock. Add the firearm and you are faced with
dilemmas from which there is no escape. You cannot even take the
elementary step of attaching it to the man, instead of to the saddle,
without prejudice to the idea of shock. You cannot, as “Cavalry
Training” tacitly admits, carry sufficient ammunition. Drop shock, and
logic would tear aside the veil, and leave the steel weapon discredited.
It could not live on “extended formations,” eight-yard intervals and
thin makeshifts of that sort. There plainly it would be trenching on the
legitimate sphere of the rifle, and throwing its own inferiority into
prominence. The steel involves shock, and shock involves a whole
structure of drill, training and equipment, which are not only
antithetical to fire-action, but prejudicial to general mobility.
Splendid troops, with keen commanders and careful training, like our
regular Cavalry, manage to attain a fairly high standard in both
fire-action and shock-action; no one can doubt that who witnessed the
manœuvres of 1909. But reconnaissance was admittedly imperfect, and
the conditions were peace conditions. Time spent in training for the
steel is time robbed from other training. None know better than General
French and other Cavalry officers with war experience how tremendously
exacting is the standard of excellence required of the mounted rifleman,
and how vital the importance of saving weight. War teaches us that only
by exclusive and unremitting attention to the use of the horse and rifle
in combination is it possible to make good mounted riflemen.
They can never know enough, never practise enough. And, when the last
word is said, there remain those “out-of-door habits and sporting
instincts” which are so difficult to imitate artificially, and for whose
absence it is so difficult to compensate by drill and discipline.
But surely no better material exists in any European country than in
this for the production of good mounted riflemen. We have the men, and
we have the experience. We are leagues ahead of Germany, where steps are
only now being taken to provide the Cavalry with a carbine equal in
power to the Infantry rifle; leagues ahead of Austria and France;
leagues ahead of Russia, unless since 1905 she has revolutionized her
training. And yet we are blind to our good fortune; not only blind but
enviously imitative of the errors of foreigners, who in turn are
ignorant of our elements of strength. Colonel Repington, our ablest
military publicist, and one of the best friends the Cavalry or the army
at large ever had, warns the Cavalry that their shock-action needs
improvement, by comparison with Continental standards, while Bernhardi
and de Negrier passionately exhort their countrymen, to wake up to the
efficacy of the rifle. But Bernhardi cannot bring himself to give up the
steel, so, as the most reputable exponent of compromise we can find, we
copy into our drill-book those of his maxims on fire which can safely be
quoted without fatally injuring the case for the steel. It is enough to
make angels weep! Observe once more that we are courting failure in
neglecting our own aptitudes. Our Cavalry school believes in the
inevitable shock duel, and prophesies “negative” results for fire in the
encounters of rival Cavalries. Continental schools believe the same, so
that both Cavalries in a European war, oblivious, as of old, of their
real battle duties, will seek the shock duel if level ground can be
found for it. If our single division is beaten in a brute contest of
weight we shall be reaping the fruits of compromise. But the more likely
contingency is that the same old cruel and pointless censure will be
meted out to both Cavalries, for “mutual paralysis” and “idleness” on
the battle-field.
All this proves, I submit, that compromise is impossible. Sword and
lance should be abolished, and the training book rewritten in the light
of that abolition. With nothing but the rifle to depend on, a new, pure,
equality magnificent, and far more fruitful spirit would at once
permeate the whole force. There can be no such thing as a hybrid spirit,
and the Cavalry know it; hence the re-enthronement of the steel spirit.
But inculcate unreservedly the true aggressive fire-spirit, or rather
the horse-and fire spirit, and you will get it in a form which would
astonish the old European Cavalries.
From “Cavalry Training,” even as it now stands, extract and marshal
lucidly all the functions which Cavalry are now supposed to perform with
the rifle, whether in offence or defence.[85] Realize the tremendous
responsibilities involved, and remember that in any even of these
functions to pit half-trained riflemen against first-class riflemen,
whether Infantry or mounted, is to court failure, and possibly
humiliating and disastrous failure—for the sake of what? Of obtaining
not even perfection, but mediocrity in a class of tactics whose value
rests on no proofs from any war since the invention of the smokeless
modern rifle.
-----
Footnote 85:
See p. 318.
-----
Dismiss these distracting and meaningless distinctions between the
“Cavalry fight” and other fights, between “mounted action” and
“dismounted action,” which are now treated as though they had no
connection with one another, and as though in the swift and various
vicissitudes of war it were possible to sort troops into classes or to
foresee from moment to moment which tactics to employ. Realize that
under present arrangements there is, and can be, no provision whatever
for that rapid transition from one to the other which battle conditions
demand if Cavalry are to play the fast, confident game they should play.
A man with a horse is a man with a horse. Make him feel it at all times.
Do not tell him that a wound inflicted from the saddle counts in some
mysterious way more than one inflicted on foot. Explain that mounted
action and dismounted action may alternate with lightning rapidity, and
merge in one another in a thousand ways. In teaching the charge with the
rifle do not make the subaltern refer to two distinct chapters, one
dealing with the ride into decisive range, another with his action when
he dismounts—perhaps only a few yards from the objective—for the
fire-climax. And for very shame avoid such puerilities as the direction
that before embarking on dismounted action additional ammunition is to
be served out.
Make the mere mention of “Cavalry ground” an offence punishable by fine.
Tell Cavalry that all ground which a horse can approach at all is ground
for them, and all equally honourable and fruitful ground. Tell them to
welcome inequalities as the indispensable condition of surprise, not to
hanker after open plains, where surprise is impossible. Get rid, too, of
the equally demoralizing notion that in order to fulfil their supreme
function in action their horses must perpetually be in a condition to
gallop fast.
Saddle-fire for mounted troops is optional, according to capacity. But
it should certainly be adopted by professional Cavalry, and practised
regularly. I need not discuss the difficulty of learning saddle-fire.
The mere fact that it is officially enjoined for picked Mounted Infantry
in a three months’ training proves its feasibility, to say nothing of
its combat-value. Obviously it cannot be regarded as an absolutely
essential concomitant of mounted action. A vast amount was accomplished
without it in South Africa, and our own men, even in their best work,
never used it. Nor was it used by either side in Manchuria, because
neither side came near the South African standard of mounted
rifle-tactics. But that it may be, if used at the right moment,
skilfully, and for certain definite ends, of very great value, we know
both from our own experience and from American history. It has genuine
moral effect, and may have material effects of an importance out of all
proportion to the actual loss of life inflicted, whether in horse or
men. A few random bullets may stampede a crowd of led horses, or throw
into disorder a regiment massed for shock. In the pursuit of mounted men
by mounted men, in the running mêlée, so to speak, experience shows that
skilled shots and riders can bring down men with aimed fire. A revolver
might be better for this purpose, but the multiplication of weapons is
on all accounts to be avoided. The rider must feel in every moment of
his field-life that he and his rifle are one for all purposes.
It goes without saying, therefore, that the rifle should be slung, as
even the Russians and Japanese slung it, and, as Bernhardi recommends,
on the back.
But for the _arme blanche_ there would be plenty of time to learn not
only saddle-fire, but much beside in the inexhaustible lore of the
mounted rifleman. For example, a good _first-hand_ knowledge of
entrenchment is absolutely essential, as anyone can see who looks in
“Cavalry Training” for the fire-functions allotted to Cavalry; and at
least one sharp lesson in South Africa drives home the same moral. To
allocate a small detachment of Royal Engineers is to trifle with the
subject. Entrenching tools, in the use of which the troopers themselves
have been practised, should accompany every regiment or brigade.
Remember the Cavalry at Hei-kou-tai and Pen-hse-hu. If you give men
firearms at all, you must teach them thoroughly the defensive as well as
the offensive use of firearms, for the two things are one. Men who
cannot defend cannot attack.
A truce, then, to the rhetoric about Cavalry being essentially an arm of
offence. _Ça va sans dire._ Every combatant arm is an arm of offence.
Infantry would regard such an exhortation as a poor compliment. Of
course we know and make full allowance for the reason of the
exhortation—namely, that the _arme blanche_ is by its very nature only a
weapon of offence, and that in Cavalry theory the _arme blanche_ is the
supreme source of dash. Get rid of this theory, and you get rid of all
excuse for the exhortation.
The _arme blanche_ gone, the path of progress in every department opens
out broad and clear. We want light, lithe, wiry men, and horses to
match—horses at any rate in which nothing of any moment is sacrificed to
size, and of which hardihood is the predominant characteristic. Small
horses were far the hardiest in South Africa and Manchuria. High speed
is altogether secondary; looks are nothing.
The vexed question of the weight of general equipment (apart from the
extra weight of steel weapons) I regard as outside the scope of this
volume. The margin gained by abolishing steel weapons should be used for
extra ammunition. In South Africa our men carried 130 rounds, the
Japanese in Manchuria 150 rounds.
Should the troopers carry a bayonet? That is an interesting question,
because it forces us to contrast the relative powers and duties of the
foot-rifleman and the horse-rifleman. It is an open question, not vital,
because the weight of a bayonet is small, and it does not impose a
separate system of tactics. It may be said on the one hand that mobility
and surprise are the grand advantages possessed by mounted riflemen over
foot-riflemen, and should compensate for the bayonet, which, in point of
fact, scarcely justified itself in South Africa. The Boers lost little
by the lack of it, even in storming entrenchments at night, while their
charges in the open were based directly on the idea, first of a swift
stunning ride in, then on destructive magazine fire. That is the true
idea, and we should not forget it. The bayonet suggests the slow, if
less vulnerable, approach of men on foot. Even in the case of Infantry,
critics of both the great modern wars associate over-close formations
and unskilful skirmishing with an exaggerated idea of the importance of
the cold steel. I except Port Arthur conditions, where horsemen were not
wanted.
On the other hand, all British riflemen find confidence in the bayonet,
and, as Lord Roberts truly says, it may be exceedingly useful in a
dismounted night attack. War since 1865 proves that Cavalry must have
the power to press home an assault against entrenched Infantry. As
Mishchenko discovered, they cannot make the simplest raid without it. In
strict logic, therefore, the trooper needs the bayonet if the
Infantryman needs it. Only let us be sure that the utility of the
bayonet is fully great enough to warrant the possible risk of making the
trooper forget that normally his horse gives him a great tactical
advantage over Infantry, and a range of opportunities unknown to them.
Whatever we decide, let us not act in mimicry of “potential foes.” If
the new German carbine has a bayonet, as I believe it has, let us not
make the bayonet a fourth weapon in imitation, but a second weapon to
fortify the rifle.
On manœuvre not strictly connected with any special weapon I only
wish to repeat the clear lesson of South Africa and the wise counsel of
Bernhardi, that the less Cavalry, when in free and independent movement,
are taught to rely on the support of Horse Artillery the better.
I need scarcely say that we should erase the last vestiges of the idea
that Cavalry should count on the support of mounted riflemen. If we
abolish the _arme blanche_ that distorted and unwholesome idea dies a
natural death.
The conditions of service constitute a most important point. For
officers the force should be as cheap as any other part of the army, the
career _ouverte à tous les talents_. Every stimulus should be given for
the accession of the best men, both mentally and physically, and
selection should be rigid. Cavalry is a very important arm, demands the
most varied powers, and should command the highest talent. It is a
relatively small force, it has highly specialized functions, and of all
arms it is the least easy to replace in the thick of a war. It must be a
comparatively expensive force to maintain, but the expense should fall
on the State which it serves. That perhaps is a counsel of perfection
for the State in its relation to officers of all arms, but if it softens
anywhere, it should soften in the case of the Cavalry.
And the source of the present excessive standard of expense? Analyze the
whole matter carefully, and you will find at the back of it that enemy
to progress, the _arme blanche_. Abolish that, and, with a little
friendly help from the State, the evil will cure itself.
IV.—MOUNTED INFANTRY.
We touch here special questions of finance and administration which
complicate the issue. But a clear mind on the question of armament and
tactics will help immensely to simplify the problem. Let us begin by
calling them for all purposes “Cavalry.” That ought to be a simple and
unobjectionable change, because in combined operations they are, in
fact, called Cavalry, and are allotted the duties of divisional Cavalry.
The name changed, what follows? Logically, no doubt, that they should be
merged in the Cavalry. Apart from the steel weapon, their
characteristics are the same. Apart from the shock-charge, and assuming
equal length of training, their functions and powers should be precisely
the same. They are mounted riflemen, as the Cavalry should be. On the
other hand, there is an advantage, no doubt, from the point of view of
expense and simplicity, in the plan of abstraction from Infantry
battalions for short periods of mounted service; but I suggest that the
advantage is small by comparison with the evils of the system. (1) In
war, when fresh contingents have to be raised (as they surely will have
to be raised), the abstraction, as we know to our cost, weakens the
efficacy of the Infantry battalions. (2) Though the soldier’s prior
training (presumed to be thorough) as an Infantryman is of immense help
to him in learning the work of a mounted rifleman, it is wholly
impossible for him, in the short time available, to obtain all the
trained aptitudes and instincts of a first-class mounted rifleman.
Is it not common sense that, if we go to the expense of providing
professional soldiers with horses at all, we should go a little farther,
and make them thorough professional horsemen, during their whole
training? Should we not rather add to the Cavalry than abstract from the
Infantry? I am sure it would pay us well.
But whether or no this step is taken, and whether or no the _arme
blanche_ is abolished, let us at all events revise their instruction in
the light of war-experience, abandoning all this excessive stress on
their character as Infantry, laying all the stress we will on their
character as riflemen, and equal stress on their character as horsemen.
Of course, as long as they remain, so to speak, improvised horsemen,
their responsibilities must be appropriate to their efficiency, but they
should not be taught to feel that they lose something by the lack of a
steel weapon. By all means let them act as a “pivot of manœuvre” for
regular Cavalry, where the two arms are acting together, if, as mounted
riflemen, they are less efficient than Cavalry. But away with this
absurd notion that their support on such occasions is intended to leave
Cavalry leisure and opportunity for indulging in shock. Away, above all,
with the demoralizing insinuation that if caught “in the open,” whatever
that vague and elusive phrase may mean, they are, owing to the
possession of horses, actually more vulnerable to attack by the steel
than Infantry; that to meet this contingency, they must form square, an
operation long obsolete in the case of the Infantry, except for savage
warfare. This is just the way to make them lose all confidence not only
in the very weapon which Infantry are taught to rely on so implicitly
against the steel, but in the horse itself. I wonder if the existing
Mounted Infantry believe in the suggestion after their previous training
as Infantry. If any one of them, does, I can only say to him: “Read once
more and learn by heart page 92 of ‘Infantry Training’ (‘Meeting an
Attack by Cavalry’). Remember you now have a horse; exercise your common
sense, and you will conclude that unless you are ‘surprised’ in a sense
which would be a disgrace to soldiers of any class or type, mounted or
dismounted, you have an immense advantage over Cavalry acting ‘as
such.’”
V.—YEOMANRY.
Here are volunteer mounted riflemen; a keen, vigorous force, composed of
some of the best elements in the nation, but without prior training as
Infantry, obtaining a very small amount of field exercise, with horses
specially provided for such occasions. They belong to the same type as
Mounted Infantry; but, through no fault of their own, are less
efficient. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, they are called “Cavalry,”
and receive, in an appendix to “Cavalry Training,” three special pages,
which begin with the direction that “Yeomanry should be so trained as to
be capable of performing all the duties allotted to Cavalry, except
those connected with shock action.” Let us follow out the effect which
these words are calculated to have upon the mind of an average member of
the Yeomanry. At the first blush the sentence wears an air of
simplicity. Having no lance or sword, the Yeoman clearly cannot practice
shock. But what are the “duties connected with shock action” which he
must not perform? If he were to begin by studying Bernhardi, he might
very well come to the satisfactory conclusion that the only opportunity
for shock was in the collision of huge Cavalry masses. But he need not
read Bernhardi, because Bernhardi, he is informed, inspires “Cavalry
Training.” In “Cavalry Training” he searches in vain for an exhaustive
list of these duties. He finds emphasis on the big shock duel, with its
“positive” result, but no qualification in respect of smaller duels. He
hears about the “Cavalry fight,” which is clearly a shock fight, and
also about Cavalry in “extended order,” charging Infantry, and wonders
if this, too, is shock, and presumes on the whole that it is. Eventually
he comes to the conclusion, and the very reasonable conclusion, that he
is lost without a steel weapon, irretrievably lost if he meets Cavalry,
and at the best, perhaps, weak in aggression against Infantry. If he
refers to “Mounted Infantry Training,” it is only to find that even this
arm, with its professional character and longer continuous training, is
taught to fear the steel weapon. Reverting, therefore, to his original
proposition, that the sword is absolutely essential, he appeals to be
equipped with the sword.
But what, meanwhile, of that terrifically deadly weapon, the rifle? With
his eighteen days’ field training, is he yet fit to meet on terms of
fire professional mounted riflemen, to say nothing of swordsmen and
Lancers? Is he, with his limited practice and his double function of
horseman and rifleman, fit to oppose even volunteer Infantry? He has
vague recollections of a war in which large numbers of volunteer troops
under his own appellation met small numbers of skilled mounted riflemen,
did remarkably well under the circumstances, but on the whole were
completely outmatched. But the uncomfortable memory is soon stifled.
That was an “abnormal” war. Cavalrymen say it was abnormal. He need not
study that war, and in point of fact I am afraid it is true that the
majority of our volunteer mounted officers do not study it. Why should
they, when German theorists and German battles are presented to them on
the highest authority as the best guides to education?
I am fully aware that many Yeomanry officers resent the demand for a
steel weapon, and take the line of common sense in the whole matter. But
the opinions I have represented must be reckoned with, for they will
grow, as the war fades farther into the past and the reaction to steel
in the Cavalry gathers strength. In the summer of 1909, there was a
correspondence in the _Times_ initiated by an anonymous “Squadron
Leader” of Yeomanry, who represented that to send swordless Yeomanry
into war was sheer murder; that in the face of Cavalry they were
“unarmed sheep”; that he cared nothing about the Boer War (of which,
indeed, he was evidently quite ignorant); that it was “peculiar”; that
our Cavalry and foreign Cavalries believed in the _arme blanche_, and
that for his part he pinned his faith on authorities like General von
Pelet Narbonne, the German author of “Cavalry in Action.”
Of all the many pernicious effects of the survival of the _arme
blanche_, this indirect encouragement to our volunteer horsemen to
belittle the good weapon and hanker for the bad weapon is one of the
worst. The responsibility rests absolutely on the _arme blanche_ school
of thought. There is no valid answer to the demand. They, least of all,
can combat it. Nor would there be any valid answer if the Mounted
Infantry raised the same demand. Every mounted man should have a sword,
or none. In war you cannot sort out troops so that one class need only
meet its own corresponding class. Germans, for example, have no
steel-less Cavalry. By hypothesis, therefore, our Yeomanry cannot take
the field at all against them. And how, on the same hypothesis, are our
Mounted Infantry, acting as “divisional Cavalry,” to meet German
divisional Cavalry?
Meanwhile, it is impossible to make any other recommendation to the
Yeomanry than this. Regard yourselves as belonging to the highest type
of mounted soldier—that is, to the mounted riflemen. Concentrate on the
rifle and the horse. The more you do that and the more the hybrid
professional horsemen waste their energies in compromise, or destroy
their efficacy in concentrating on the steel, the fitter you will be to
meet them in war.
VI.—IMPERIAL MOUNTED TROOPS.
It is for the Imperial General Staff to grapple with this question. We
are dealing here with men who will never really believe that a steel
weapon is the distinguishing mark of a superior Cavalry. How the steel
weapon at present is to be submitted to them in an intelligible and
natural way, I do not know. Without it the whole problem solves itself.
It will be possible then to arrange for their inclusion in an Imperial
army on some definite and reasoned basis, with functions defined
according to their capacity as mounted riflemen.
VII.—CONCLUSION.
I hope I have written nothing in this volume which does not come within
the bounds of fair criticism. I have written strongly, because I feel
strongly on a point about which every Englishman, soldier or civilian,
has a right to feel strongly. We have wasted too much energy, brains and
splendid human material on the perverse pursuit of a phantom ideal. It
is painful, at this moment, to see a great current of keenness and
ability so misdirected and misapplied.
Let us trust our own experience, shake off this crippling superstition,
and start afresh on lines which we have _proved_ to be successful.
[Blank Page]
INDEX
Abraham’s Kraal (or Driefontein), action of, 149
Acton Homes, 156
Afghan War, Cavalry in, Introduction, vi (footnote), xi
Alderson, Colonel E. A. H., 94, 180, 181, 196
American Civil War, 9, 11–14, 52, 217, 290, 330, 352
Artillery, with mounted troops, 147–9, 236–8, 364
Bernhardi on, 307
Austrian Cavalry (present day), 293, 315, 359
“Austrian Official History of the War of 1866,” 351
Austro-Prussian War (1866), 11, 111, 351, 352
Baknlaagte, action of, 244–6, 256, 265
Bank Kop, action of, 247, 248
Barberton, 206, 207, 209, 282
Barkley West, 199
Bayonet, contrast of, with lance and sword, 24, 26, 166 for Cavalry,
364, Introduction, xii
Belfast, British capture of, 205
Boer attack on, 214, 232
Belmont, action of, 76
Benson Colonel G. E., 235, 244–6
Bergendal, battle of, 205–7
Bernhardi, General von, author of “Cavalry in Future Wars” (translated
by C. S. Goldman; Introduction by General Sir J. French), 9, 13, 14,
17, 27, 28, 33, 44, 52, 128–9, 194, 266, 281, 283, 287, 352
comparison of, with “Cavalry Training,” and other writers, Chapter
XIII.
Bethune’s Mounted Infantry, 72–3, 155, 199
Beyers, General, 232
Biddulphsberg, action of, 200
Biggarsberg, 199 pursuit at, by mounted riflemen, 264
Birkbeck, Colonel W. H. (reports on Russo-Japanese War), 350–1
Block-house system, 225–6
Bloemfontein, capture of, 149 halt at, 178–84
Blood River Poort, action of, 244, 247
Boschbult, action of, 249
Boschman’s Kop, action of, 247–8, 258
Botha, General Louis, on the line of the Tugela, 151–66
on the retreat to Pretoria, 188–94
negotiations for peace, 201
from Pretoria to Komati Poort, 204–9
in guerilla war, 214, 230, 231–2, 244–5
Bothaville, action of, 212, 256, 264, 332
Bouwer’s Hoek, action of, 230, 339
Brabant’s Horse, 93, 150 Colonial Defence Force, 185, 187, 200
Brandfort, action of, 191
Brandwater Basin, Prinsloo’s surrender at, 173, 201
Briggs, Colonel C. J., 217, 240
British Officers’ Reports (Russo-Japanese War), 340, 346–51
Broadwood, Brigadier-General R. G., 100, 139, 179–83
Buffelspoort, destruction of convoy at, 214
Buller, General Sir Redvers, at Colenso, 73–4, etc.
from Colenso to the relief of Ladysmith, 151–67
onwards to Komati Poort, 184–209
use of Cavalry by, 162–3, 198–9, 283–4
Burnett, General Sir C. J., report on Cavalry in Russo-Japanese War,
347, 351
Burn-Murdoch, Colonel, 160–2
Byng, Colonel the Hon. J. H. G., 217
Cæsar’s Camp, 154
Canadian Mounted Rifles, 205
Cape Mounted Police, 56, 150
Cape Mounted Rifles, 56, 230
Carrington, General Sir F., 187
“Cavalry Training” (Official Manual) (1907), 1–3, 9, 26, 27, 35, 41,
43, 59, 233, 252, 263, 341, 345, 349, 360
comparison of, with Bernhardi’s “Cavalry in Future Wars,” Chapter
XIII.
Official Manual (1898), 51
“Cavalry in Future Wars,” by General von Bernhardi. See Bernhardi
“Cavalry in the Russo-Japanese War,” by Count Wrangel. See Wrangel
Chaotao, Japanese Cavalry at, 340
Chardeh Valley, action of, 1879, Introduction, xi
Charges, British (South African War), with the _arme blanche_, at
Talana, 62
at Elandslaagte, Chapter IV., 261–2
at Maeder’s farm, 88–9
at Klip Drift, 99–112, 261
at Diamond Hill, 197, 261
at Welgevonden, 256, 261
at Zand River, 283
Charges of mounted riflemen:
at Paardeberg, 120–2
at Vaal River, 196
at Witpoort, 205
at Victoria Nek, 213
at Wildfontein, 257
Charges, Boer (South African War), 181–2, 212–13, and Chapter XI.
summary of, and remarks on, Chapter XI. and Chapter XII.
Charges, Boer (South African War), Bernhardi on, 254, 307
Charges, Russo-Japanese War, 328, 348
Clements, General R. A. P., 93, 150–1
Colenso, battle of, 73–4
Colesberg, French’s operations round, 85–91
allusions to, 117, 167, 264, 331
Clements at, 150–1
Colvile, General Sir H., 187, 200
Convoys, attacks on, directions of “Cavalry Training” about, 318–19
Cookson, Colonel, 249
Cossacks. See Russian Cavalry
Crimean War, 11, 18, 111, 261,
Introduction, vii
Cronje, General Andries, 98
Cronje, General Piet, at battle of Magersfontein, 81
during relief of Kimberley, 91–112
at and before Paardeberg, Chapter VII., Part I.
Custozza, battle of, Introduction, viii
Delagoa Bay Railway, attacks on, 214
De la Rey, General, 81, 149, 200, 204–5, 214, 231–3, 248, 256, 357
De Lisle, Colonel, 196
Denison, Colonel, author of “History of Cavalry,” 11
De Wet, General Christian, at Nicholson’s Nek, 72
with Cronje, 89
at Waterval, 102, 119, 123
at Paardeberg, 123–5
at Poplar Grove, 130–40, 149
at Sannah’s Post, Reddersburg, Wepener, etc., 179–84
raids on railway, June, 1900, 200–1
first hunt of, 201–4
second hunt of, 211–13
third hunt of, 229–30
in guerilla war, 211–13, 231, 240
allusions to, 172, 331–2
De Wet, General Piet, 179–83, 200
Dewetsdorp, actions at, 183–4
capture of, 211, 234
Diamond Hill, battle of, 189, 193–4, 196–7, 261, 285
District Mounted Troops (Cape Colony), 218–19
Dixon, Brigadier-General H. G., 241
Drives, 225–7
Dronfield, action of, 113–16, 120, 128, 138, 148, 181, 246, 338
Dundonald, General the Earl of, 156, 160–2, 199
Du Toit, General, 113
Elandslaagte, battle of, Chapter IV., 166, 261, 275
Entrenching for Cavalry, 233, 349, 363
Faber’s Put, action of, 199
Fen-shui-ling Mountains, 341
Ferreira, General, 101, 113, 117
Forrest, General (American Civil War), 11, 255
Franco-German War (1870), 11, 111, 352
Colonel Henderson on, Introduction, vii–ix
_Francs-tireurs_, 302, Introduction, vii
Frederikstad, siege of, 211
French, General Sir John, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19, 22, 169–70
at Elandslaagte, Chapter IV.
at Lombard’s Kop, 70–2
at Colesberg operations, 86–90
relief of Kimberley, 91–112
interception of Cronje at Paardeberg, 116–18
parallel with De Wet, 124–6
at Poplar Grove, 130–46
at Karee Siding, 178–9
at Dewetsdorp, 183–4
from Bloemfontein to Pretoria, 187–204
from Pretoria to Komati Poort, 204–9
at Zand River, 193, 279–82, 286
at Doornkop (outside Johannesburg), 196
at Middelburg, 205, 282
at Bergendal, 206
in march to Barberton, 209
in Cavalry march, East Transvaal, October, 1900, 211–12, 216
on the abnormal character of the South African War, 266–8
French, General Sir John, on Cavalry work in the Russo-Japanese War,
329–34, 339, 343, 345
on von Moltke’s criticism of the Prussian Cavalry, 351
French Cavalry (present day), 293, 359
Fronemann, General, 98
Gallwey, Colonel, 243
Garratt, Colonel F. S., 257
Gatsrand, 230
Geduld, action of, 241
German Cavalry (present day), 293, 359
Glasko, General, 349
Goedvooruitzicht, action of, 235
Goldman, C. S., author of “With French in South Africa,” translator of
Bernhardi’s “Cavalry in Future Wars,” founder of the _Cavalry
Magazine_, etc., 9, 10, 17, 19, 64, 88, 109–10, 140, 142–4, 162,
174, 222, 254, 266, 301, 308, 314, 325, 333, 337
on the abnormal character of the Boer War, 270–87
Gordon, Brigadier-General J. R. P., 100, 125, 139
Graspan, action of, 76–81, 239
Grenfell, Colonel, 249–52
Grootvlei, action of, 231
Guerilla war in South Africa, 45, Chapter X.
Hamilton, General Bruce, 235
Hamilton, General Sir Ian, in South African War, 187–8, 188 (footnote),
190, 193, 197, 249
as observer of Russo-Japanese War, 348–9
Hart’s Hollow, fighting at, 164
Hei-kou-tai, battle of, 349
Heilbron, action near, 201
Helvetia, capture of, 214, 232
Henderson, the late Colonel G. F. R. (author of “Stonewall Jackson,”
“Science of War,” etc), Introduction, vi–ix, and 13, 14, 353
Hertzog, General, 211, 229
Holland, action of, 247
Horses (South African War), condition of, 95–6, 144–6, 189, 197–8,
275–7
Household Cavalry, 197
Houtnek, action of, 188
Hsin-kai-ho, destruction of bridge at, 340
Hunter, General Sir A., 187–8, 198–9, 201
Hunts of Christian de Wet, (1) 201–3; (2) 211–13; (3) 229–30
Hutton, General E. T. H., 196–7, 209
Imperial Light Horse, 56, Chapter IV. (at Elandslaagte), 73, 152,
185–8, 199, 240
Imperial Mounted Troops (present day), 4–5, 370–1
“Infantry Training” (Official Manual), 38, 197, 253, 323
Inniskilling Dragoons, 256
Itala, Fort, attack on, 232
Japanese Cavalry in the Russo-Japanese War, 323, 345–9, Chapter XIV.,
363
Johannesburg, fighting outside, 191, 196
Joubert, General, 61, 72–3, 151
Kaapsche Hoop, 209
Kalkfontein (Poplar Grove), 135–6, 140
Kanin, Prince, 340, 348
Karee Siding, action of, 178–9
Kekewich, Colonel, R. G., 231, 249
Kemp, General, 207–8, 240–3, 248, 249–52
Kimberley, siege of, 74–5
relief of, 91–112
French’s operations north of, 113–16
allusions to, 167, 275, 282, 295, 331
Kitchener, General Lord, at Paardeberg, 120–2
in guerilla war, 211, 214–29
Kitchener’s Kopje (battle of Paardeberg), 123, 130
Kleinfontein, action of, 248, 319
Klip Drift, charge at, 98–112
allusions to, 116, 117, 119, 128, 144, 146, 148, 194, 261, 274, 314
Lord Roberts on, Introduction, x
Klipfontein, pursuit at, 197
Knox, General Charles, 212
Koch, General, 61, 62
Komati Poort, advance of British army to, from Pretoria, 204–9
Komati River, action of, and Boer charge at, 212–13, 239
Koedoesberg, 91
Koodoos Drift, 116, 117
Korn Spruit. See Sannah’s Post
Kritzinger, General, 211, 229
Kroonstad, 191, 193, 281
Kruger, President, 138 (at Poplar Grove), 208 (at Komati Poort)
Kuram, operations in, 1879; Introduction, vi (footnote)
Kuroki, General, 341
Kuropatkin, General, 336–7, 340, 348, 352
Labuschagne’s Nek, action of, 151
Ladysmith, battle of (or Lombard’s Kop), 48, 70–2, 152
siege of, 72, 151–4
relief of, 155–67
Lake Chrissie, action of, 231
Lambourne Downs, manœuvres at, 1909, 323
Lancers, 9th, 230
12th, 197
16th, 213
Langerwacht, action of, 231–2
Liao-yang, battle of, 340–1
Lichtenburg, attack on, 232
Liebenberg, General, 200, 249
Lindley, actions near, 197, 200
Lombard’s Kop, battle of. See Ladysmith, battle of
Lotter, Commandant, capture of, 230, 264, 339
Lydenburg, 206–7
Lubbe, Commandant, 98
McClernand, Colonel, of the United States Cavalry, at Russo-Japanese
War, 328, 346
McCullagh, Francis (author of “With the Cossacks,”) 336, 338
Machadadorp, 282
Maeder’s farm, action of, 88–9
Mafeking, 74, 198
relief of, 199–200, 264, 357
Magersfontein, battle of, 81–3
Cronje at, February, 1900, 91–112
Mahon, Brigadier-General B. T., 199–200
Manchuria, war in (1904–5), 10, 12, 195–6, 227, 230, 242, 303, 321,
323, 353
history of Cavalry work in, Chapter XIV.
Mars la Tour, battle of, 321
Methuen, General Lord, 76–82, 91, 127, 131, 198, 203, 249
Meyer, General, 61, 151
Middleburg, capture of, 205, 282
Middlepunt (Poplar Grove), 137–9, 143
Milner, Lord, 228
Mishchenko, General, raid of, 337–9, 342
Modderfontein, capture of, 232
Modder River, battle of, 76–7
Moedwil, action of, 231
Moltke, von, 45, 336–7, 351
Mooifontein, action of, 243
Morgan, Colonel (American Civil War), 11, 255
Mounted Infantry, regular, 4, 5, 15, 17, 37–8, 53–4, 85–6, 94, 123,
165, 169, 217–18, 254–5, 263–4, 293, 308, 356–7, 366–8, also
Introduction, xvi
Training (Official Manual, 1906), 38, 263–4, 324–5
(1899), 273
Mukden, battle of, 337, 340, 341, 348–9, 351
Naganuma, Colonel, raid by, 340, 348
Natal Carbineers, 61, 152, 155 (footnote)
Natal Mounted Police, 56, 155 (footnote)
Negrier, General de, 300, 316, 325, 344, 353
New South Wales, mounted riflemen from, 56
New South Wales Lancers, 76
New Zealand, mounted riflemen from, 56
Mounted Rifles, 196
Nicholson’s Nek, fight at, 71–2, 153, 207, 234
Night attacks, South African War,
British, 81, 83, 87, 230–1
Boer, 230–3
Russo-Japanese War, 338, 340
Night raids, British, 235–6
Niu-chuang, 338
Nodzu, General, 341
Nogi, General, 341, 348
Nomenclature of mounted troops, 16–17, 88, 356–7
Nooitgedacht, action of, 214, 215, 231, 234
“Official History of the Russo-Japanese War” (British General Staff),
335, 348
“Official History of the South African War” (German General Staff),
107–9, 125–30, 158, 166, 295–7
“Official History of the South African War,” (British), 14, 60, 65, 71,
110, 118–19, 125, 141–2, 158–9, 174, 181, and references _passim_
Oku, General, 348
Paardeberg, battle of, 120–30
surrender at, 130–1
allusions to, 167, 201, 264, 285, 331
Pen-hse-hu, action of, 341, 348–9
Pepworth Hill, attack on, 154
Petrusberg, 132
Pieter’s Hill, battle of, 157–9, 162, 165
Pietersburg, 208
Pilcher, Colonel, 91
Plumer, Colonel, 74, 186, 200, 283
Pohlmann, Commandant, 207
Poplar Grove, action of, 131–149
allusions to, 161, 181, 253, 275, 338
Porter, Colonel T. C., 139
Potgieter, Commandant, 250
Pretoria, advance to, 184–204
capture of, 190–2
Prinsloo, General M., 173, 201
Prospect, Fort, attack on, 233
Protectorate Regiment, 56
Pursuit, Bernhardi on, 302, 304–6
Pursuits (South African War),
British, at Elandslaagte, 61–9
interception of Cronje, 113–20
Poplar Grove, 134–149
after Pieter’s Hill, 153–163
Klipfontein, 197
Pursuits, Boer, at Stormberg, 83
Sannah’s Post, 179–183, and Chapter XI.
Quaggafontein, action of, 231
Queensland, mounted riflemen from, 56
Raids (South African War), British, 91, 91–112 (relief of Kimberley),
199–200 (relief of Mafeking), 195, 262, 279, 282. See also Night
Raids
Raids, Boer: De Wet’s on railway, June, 1900, 201, 230
on Cape Colony: (1) November to December, 1900, 212, 229; (2) January
to March, 1901, 229–30
by Hertzog and Kritzinger, 229–30
by Smuts, 229–30
by Botha on Natal, 230, 244
Raids (Manchurian War), Russian, Mishchenko’s, 337–9
Japanese, by Naganuma and Hasegawa, 340
Raids, Bernhardi on, 282, 338, 340. See also American Civil War,
Stuart, Wilson
Ramdam, 98
Rawlinson, Colonel Sir H., 235
Reconnaissance, 59, 73, 77, 91, 203, 227, 262, 322–3
Reddersburg, action of, 183
Reitz, action near, 240
Reitzburg, 201
Rennenkampf, General, 340
Rensburg, 87, 151
Repington, Colonel A’Court, Military Correspondent of the _Times_,
292–4, 314–15, 325, 359
_Revue des deux Mondes_, article by General de Negrier, 300
Rhodesian Field Force, 186
Rhodesia Regiment, 56, 74
Ridley, Colonel C. P., 94
Rietfontein (Natal), action of, 70
Rimington, Brigadier-General M. F., 217, 256
Rimington’s Guides, 76
Roberts, Field-Marshal Earl, on the _arme blanche_ per Cavalry,
Introduction
arrival in South Africa, 85
his command up to the capture of Bloemfontein, Chapters VI., VII.
from Bloemfontein to Komati Poort, Chapter IX., 224
Preface to “Cavalry Training,” (1904), 352, Introduction, v, xi
Roodekraal, action of, 257, 264
Roodewal, action of, 249–253, 265, 305
Rundle, General Sir Leslie, 184, 187, 200
Russian Cavalry in the Russo-Japanese War, 334–7, Chapter XIV.
Russo-Japanese War. See Manchuria, War in
Russo-Turkish War (1877), Introduction, vii, 11, 352
Saddle-fire, 32, 182, 213, 243, 247, 251–2, 255, 362
Samsonoff, General, 340
Sannah’s Post, action of, 179–183
allusions to, 194, 239, 256, 259, 264, 331
Schoemann, General, 88
Scobell, Colonel, 149, 217, 230, 339
Scottish Horse, 245–6, 250
Screens, mounted, 86–90, 189–90, 262, 281
Seven Kopjes. See Poplar Grove
Sha Ho, battle of, 340
Shea, Major, 231
Shen-tan-pu, battle of. See Hei-kou-tai
Sheridan, General (American Civil War), 11, 128, 341, Introduction, vii
Shisnikoff, Colonel, 338–9
Shock, physical conditions of, 25–9
moral value of, 35–40
training for, 40–2, 358
absence of, in South Africa, 65, 145, 241, 246, 248, 260–1, 269, 277
absence of, in Russo-Japanese War 327–8
Bernhardi on, 301, 309–15, 320–4
Wrangel on, 316, 342–7
Smalldeel, 28
Smith-Dorrien, General H. L., 212, 231
Smuts, General J. C., 229–30, 231, 340
South African Constabulary, 218, 250
South African Light Horse, 73, 155
South African War, account of mounted operations in, Chapters III.-XII.
was the war “abnormal?”, 14, 15, 18–20, Chapter XII.
Spaits, Captain (author of “Mit Kosaken durch die Mandschurei,”) 336–8
Spion Kop, battle of, 155–6, 193, 234
Springhaan’s Nek, action of, 213
Stackelberg, General, 341
Steyn, President, 172, 201, 204, 207–8
Steyn, Commandant, 123–4
Stormberg, night attack on, 83
Stuart, General (American Civil War), 11, 13, 195, 340, Introduction,
vii
Sunny side, raid at, 91
Symons, General Sir W. Penn, 61
Tafel Kop, action of, 246
Tai-tse-ho River, 327, 340
Talana, battle of, 48, 62, 64, 69, 275
Telissu, battle of, 337, 348–9
Theron, Commandant, 203
Thorneycroft’s Mounted Infantry, 72–3, 155
Tigerkloof Spruit, action of, 240
Tigerpoort Hills, action at, 204–5
_Times_, leading article in (September, 1909), 292–4
_Times_ History of the South African War, 60, 100–1, 220–1, and
references _passim_
Town Guards (Cape Colony), 218
Tschondschu (or Tiessu), action of, 344
Tucker, General C., 149, 178–9
Turning movements, South Africa, 191–5
Bernhardi on, 307
Tweebosch, action of, 248–9
Tweefontein (Transvaal), action of, 199
(Orange River Colony), action of, 231
Umbulwana Mountain, 160
United States Cavalry, 316
Vaal River, crossing of, 191, 196
Vendutie Drift, 117
Ventersburg road, 280
Vet River, action of, 191, 196
Victoria, mounted riflemen from, 56
Victoria Nek, combat at, 213, 256
Viljoen, General Ben, 205, 207–8, 214, 232, 243
Vlakfontein, action of, 241–3, 245, 256, 259, 319
Von Donop, Colonel, 249
Vryheid, attack on, 232
Wagon Hill, battle of, 154, 165, 234
Warren, General Sir C., 156, 187, 198
Waterval, action of, 102, 123, 131, 264, 282
Welgevonden, action of, 256, 261
Wepener, siege of, 183
White, General Sir George, 61, 70–2, 151–4
Wildfontein, action of, 257, 264
Wilmansrust, action of, 231, 256
Wilson, General (American Civil War), 195
Witpoort, action at, 205
Woolls-Sampson, Colonel Sir A., 60, 235
Wrangel, Count, of the Austrian Cavalry, author of “Cavalry in the
Russo-Japanese War,” 10, 41, 145, 280, 300, 315–17, 325, 335, 340–8,
352
Yen-tai Mines (battle of Liao-yang), 337, 340
Yeomanry, the present, 4, 5, 15, 89, 324, 356–7, 368–9, also
Introduction, xvi
Yeomanry (South African War), first contingent of, 86, 184–8, 199, 200
second contingent, 218–19
Ying-kou, raid on, 337–8
Yzer Spruit, action of, 233, 248–9, 319
Zand River, action of, 188, 191, 193, 279–81, 283, 285–6, 307
Zarps (Transvaal Police), 149, 207
Zilikat’s Nek, action of, 205, 234
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
THE END
----------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD
Telegrams:
‘Scholarly, London.’ 41 and 43 Maddox Street,
Bond Street, London, W.
Telephone: _January, 1910._
No. 1883 Mayfair.
Mr. Edward Arnold’s
Spring List of New Books
January-March, 1910.
LIBERTY AND AUTHORITY.
By Lord HUGH CECIL, M.P.
_Crown 8vo., buckram._ 2s. 6d.
This pithy volume contains an address delivered by the author on the
occasion of his inauguration as President of the Associated Societies of
the University of Edinburgh. He does not trench upon the difficult
ground of metaphysics, but takes as his subject for discussion Political
Liberty and its Limitations and Objects. In the course of the address
the interesting thesis is evolved that Liberty consists in the power of
doing, not what others approve of, but what they disapprove of, and that
if an individual has not the right to do what others deprecate, he is
not free at all. This thesis is tested by application to several of the
political problems of our own day.
LONDON: EDWARD ARNOLD, 41 & 43 MADDOX STREET, W.
ACROSS THE SAHARA.
=From Tripoli to Bornu.</bl>
By HANNS VISCHER, M.A.
POLITICAL SERVICE, NORTHERN NIGERIA.
_With Illustrations and a Map. Demy 8vo._ =12s. 6d. net.=
In his adventurous and interesting journey, the author traversed a
region practically unexplored by any white man since the days of Barth.
Starting with a large and somewhat unruly caravan, one of his great
difficulties was to keep the peace between the Arabs and Negros who
composed it: as the expedition advanced farther south they had to
encounter terrible desert tracts where no water could be found for days,
and where oases were few and far between. At a later stage the hostility
of certain native tribes with a taste for brigandage caused serious
trouble, and some severe fighting. The author, however, accepted his
mischances with philosophy, and imparts to the reader the pleasure and
excitement that each day’s journey brought forth. The narrative is
graphic and picturesque, and much information is conveyed incidentally
as to the resources of the country and the life of its inhabitant.
WITH A PREHISTORIC PEOPLE: The A=ki=ku=yu of British East Africa.
By W. SCORESBY ROUTLEDGE, M.A., OXON, and KATHARINE ROUTLEDGE, M.A.
TRIN. COLL., DUBLIN.
_With 176 pages of Illustrations and a Map. Medium 8vo._ =21s. net.=
This is the first published account of one of the most interesting of
African peoples, previously unknown to white men, who have lately come
under British rule. The object of the authors, who have recently
returned from a prolonged sojourn amongst them, is to describe primitive
life as it really exists, and the book should be of great value to those
who are interested in our Empire and its responsibilities as well as to
those of more scientific tastes. It should also prove of material
assistance to Government officials, settlers, and travellers in the
country described, enabling them to understand native thought and
custom. ‘The great interest of the subject,’ say the authors, ‘lies in
the fact that the A-ki-kú-yu of to-day are at the point where our
ancestors stood in earliest times.’ There are nearly two hundred pages
of illustrations from the authors’ photographs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A CENTURY OF EMPIRE, 1801–1900.
VOLUME II., FROM 1833 TO 1867.
By the Right Hon. Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, Bart., P.C.,
AUTHOR OF ‘THE LIFE OF WELLINGTON,’ ETC.
_With Portraits in Photogravure. Demy 8vo., cloth._ =14s. net.=
The second of Sir Herbert Maxwell’s three volumes covers the central
period of the nineteenth century, and extends from the passing of the
first to the passing of the second Reform Bill, the latter date being,
of course, chosen not as marking the close of an epoch, but simply in
order to divide the century as nearly as possible into equal third
parts. The outstanding feature of English politics during the first
portion of this period is the disappearance of the old-time Tories and
the creation of the modern Conservative Party by Sir Robert Peel. Of the
questions which agitated the country in and out of Parliament, two are
of special interest at the present hour—namely, the reform of the
administration of the Poor Law in 1834, and the controversy between
Protection and Free Trade. With the close of the latter by the Repeal of
the Corn Laws and the disappearance of Peel from the scene, a new era
opens. The strife of parties continues under new leaders, some of whom
have only recently passed away; but it is concerned with less momentous
issues, and the interest shifts largely to external matters, the Crimean
War, the Indian Mutiny, the war in the United States, and the beginnings
of great changes in the political system of Europe, where the events of
1848 ushered in a new epoch, which witnessed the struggle for liberty in
Italy, and the sudden rise of Prussia.
It has been said with reference to Sir Herbert Maxwell’s first volume,
that he is a politician, therefore a party man, therefore disqualified
from writing history. The criticism was anticipated by the author, who
has given what is surely the sufficient and only possible answer to
it—namely, that hitherto the writing of the history of the period has
been monopolized by party men—of the other side.
WAR AND THE ARME BLANCHE.
By ERSKINE CHILDERS,
AUTHOR OF ‘THE RIDDLE OF THE SANDS’; EDITOR OF VOL. V. OF THE
‘“TIMES” HISTORY OF THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA,’ ETC.
With an Introduction by the Right Hon. Field-Marshal
EARL ROBERTS, K.G.,
AUTHOR OF ‘FORTY-ONE YEARS IN INDIA.’
_Large crown 8vo._ =7s. 6d. net.=
The writer attacks the present armament of cavalry, with whom the sword
or lance is the dominant weapon, and the rifle the subordinate weapon.
All forms of compromise being impossible, he advocates the abolition of
the steel weapon, and the conversion of cavalry into the highest and
most perfect type of Mounted Riflemen. His historical argument is based
mainly upon the South African War, in the course of which steel weapons
were abandoned altogether, and an exceedingly high type of mounted
rifleman developed; but he traces the slow revolution in mounted
methods, wrought by improved firearms, from the middle of the last
century up to the present day, culminating in the Manchurian War, where,
as in South Africa, the steel was practically of no account. The
author’s view is that the education and efficiency not only of the
cavalry, but of all our mounted troops, home or colonial, regular or
volunteer, mounted infantry, mounted riflemen, or yeomanry, depends on
clear notions as to the relative value of the rival weapons, and he
shows what confusion and obscurity the undefined functions of the steel
weapon import into any consideration of the vitally important functions
of the mounted rifleman. He advocates one pure type, under a single
name—Cavalry—for all purposes.
A HISTORY OF
THE LONDON HOSPITAL.
By E. W. MORRIS,
SECRETARY OF THE LONDON HOSPITAL.
_With 16 pages of Illustrations and several Plans. One Volume.
Large crown 8vo., cloth._ =6s. net.=
The history of this great Hospital is not only interesting on account of
the particular incidents of its long and honourable career, and the
prominent men who have been connected with it, but also provides a
typical example of the way in which our splendid medical charities have
grown and developed. Beginning with a survey of the condition of
Medicine and Surgery in 1741, the date of the foundation of the
Hospital, the author describes its early days in Goodman’s Field, the
move to Whitechapel, and the gradual growth during the last hundred and
fifty years. He then deals with the system of Administration, Finance,
and Management, the relation of the Hospital to Medical and Surgical
Science, the Medical School, and the Development of Sick Nursing. The
reader is initiated into some noteworthy customs and ceremonies of the
Hospital, and some account is given of the men whose names stand out in
its history. The author has enjoyed exceptional advantages in writing
his book, through his position as Secretary of the Hospital, and has
collected some valuable materials for illustrating it from sources not
generally accessible.
NEIGHBOURS AND FRIENDS.
By M. LOANE,
AUTHOR OF ‘AN ENGLISHMAN’S CASTLE,’ ‘THE QUEEN’S POOR,’ ETC.
_One Volume. Crown 8vo., cloth._ =6s.=
Miss Loane’s store of anecdotes and thumbnail sketches of the poor,
their ways of living, and their modes of thought and expression, are
apparently inexhaustible. Readers of her earlier works will find in
‘Neighbours and Friends’ a collection as entertaining and as full of
interest as any of its predecessors. Miss Loane never dogmatizes, and
rarely indulges in generalization, but there are few problems connected
with the Administration of Public Relief on which her pages do not throw
fresh light.
A SUMMER ON THE CANADIAN
PRAIRIE.
By GEORGINA BINNIE CLARK.
_With Illustrations. Crown 8vo._ =6s.=
This is a genial and breezy account of how two young English ladies went
out to Canada and joined their brother, who, with another young
Englishman, had taken up a grant of land in the North-West and was
trying to convert it into a farm. The story is ‘told like a novel,’ but
it is obviously founded very closely on facts, and is realistic in the
best sense of the word—a piece of actual everyday life. The sisters do
_not_ fall in love with their brother’s partner, and the young men do
_not_ display any heroic capacity for triumphing over difficulties. On
the contrary, they are rather an ordinary pair of amiable inefficient
people, and they fare accordingly. What happens is consequently very
much more amusing than if the book had been constructed to point a
moral, while there is plenty to be learned from it by those who choose
to read between the lines.
AN ENGLISH STUDENT’S
WANDER-YEAR IN AMERICA.
By A. G. BOWDEN-SMITH.
_One Volume. Crown 8vo., cloth._ =5s. net.=
The author of this book has made a study of an aspect of American life
which will be novel to most English readers. She was fortunate enough to
be able to visit representative specimens of every variety of higher
educational centre—and in America there are many varieties. Being fresh
from the life of Newnham College, she was peculiarly alert to note the
points in which they resembled and differed from the corresponding
institutions in England; and she has traced with remarkable shrewdness
the resulting effects, not only in respect to education in the narrower
sense, but on individual character, and in the form of influences,
subtle and far-reaching, on social development. She had the advantage of
meeting the students on an equal footing, and so gained many
opportunities of seeing things as they are which an ‘educational expert’
of higher standing and authority could not have enjoyed. But Miss Bowden
Smith is herself an educational expert in a very real sense, and readers
of her comprehensive and sympathetic survey will feel that they have
gained a quite new insight into the character of the American people.
THE CLERGY AND SOCIAL
SERVICE.
=Cambridge Lectures on Pastoral Theology.</bl>
By the Very Rev. W. MOORE EDE, D.D.,
DEAN OF WORCESTER.
_One Volume. Crown 8vo., cloth._ =2s. 6d. net.=
These lectures differ from others delivered on Pastoral Theology at
Cambridge in the extent to which they emphasise the opportunities of
social service which are open to the clergy, and the importance of
utilizing them—a subject in which their author has had great experience
through his intimate connection with industrial life and working-class
organizations. That this aspect of clerical life is pre-eminently the
one which needs to be brought before candidates for Holy Orders at the
present time is the general opinion of those who would see the social
re-organization which is now taking place dominated by spiritual rather
than by materialistic ideals. There are six lectures, entitled: What is
the Church and what are its Duties?—Equipment for the Work—Reading,
Preaching and Speaking—Agencies Outside the Church which are Working for
Social Redemption—The Church and Charity—The Church as Teacher and
Inspirer of Education.
--------------
THREE NEW NOVELS.
-------
FRANKLIN KANE.
By ANNE DOUGLAS SEDGWICK,
AUTHOR OF ‘VALERIE UPTON,’ ‘AMABEL CHANNICE,’ ETC.
_Crown 8vo._ =6s.=
This is the story of a _partie carrée_, two men and two women (one of
each is American, the other English), the threads of whose lives become
interwoven, owing to a chance meeting in an hotel. How will they pair
off? This is the problem: now one solution seems inevitable, now
another. As the plot develops two of the _dramatis personæ_ stand
revealed as irredeemably ordinary, weak, egoistic; two as self-reliant,
noble, and capable of clear-eyed self-sacrifice. Ultimately the
determining factor is character, which proves stronger than the chains
of circumstance. It is comedy, but serious comedy, and the situations
towards the close have a poignancy of which Miss Sedgwick alone
possesses the secret.
AN EXTREMELY INTERESTING NOVEL
BY A NEW AUTHOR.
SILVERWOOL.
=A Tale of the North Country Fells.</bl>
By EMILY JENKINSON.
_Crown 8vo., cloth._ =6s.=
Every page of this powerful and original novel is fragrant with the
fresh mountain air of the Fells. What Thomas Hardy has done for the
people of Wessex, Miss Jenkinson aims with considerable success at doing
for the Northern Dalesmen. ‘Silverwool’ is a prize ram, and the action
of the story to some extent centres round his fortunes in the
show-ground, affording the author scope for some very interesting
studies of country life and character. The situations are excellent, the
characters well-drawn, and the style literary and charming.
A STEPSON OF THE SOIL.
By MARY J. H. SKRINE.
_Crown 8vo., cloth._ =6s.=
This story deals with life in an English village of the southern
counties. It concerns itself chiefly with an old couple in an old
cottage, their ‘hidy-holes,’ their relations with each other, and with a
runaway waif, who becomes their lodger: also with the fortunes in love
and luck of handsome Robert Burn, the Warrener; and with the local wise
woman and her ‘lawful arts.’ It is impossible to do justice to the charm
and skill of the story in a mere outline. The waif, Phil White, is
admirably drawn, so are the old Dallins. There is a delicate strength in
the picture of Jane Dallin, which will be appreciated by every reader.
---------------------------------------------------------
LONDON: EDWARD ARNOLD, 41 & 43 MADDOX STREET, W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and
are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.
References to errors in the index also include the column (1 or 2).
Words that were hyphenated on a line break retain the hyphen if the
preponderance of other instances of the word support that. Otherwise,
hyphenation follows the text.
The word ‘Carbineers’ is spelled once as ‘Carabineers’, which is an
alternative form, and is left as printed.
In the Index, a reference to the Mounted Infantry Training Manual of
1898 directs the reader to the text on p. 273, which mentions the Manual
of 1899. It is assumed that the text is correct.
33.20 on page 15 of “Cavalry in Future Wars[,]” Inserted.
attack
41.23 from horseback with safe[l/t]y to themselves Replaced.
75.22 Happily the Boer[s] leaders Removed.
Boers[’]?
275.21 On the debatable point of over-weight[,] Mr. Added.
Goldman
325.19 with the British “Cavalry Training,[’/”] Replaced.
333.31 he wrote of “enterprises[”] which demanded Removed.
340.4 (described fully in our “British Officers' Removed.
Reports,” [(]vol. ii.)
373.1.40 Broadwood, Brigadie[r]-General R. G. Inserted
376.2.47 McCullagh, Francis (author of “With the Added.
Cossacks,”[)]
377.1.37 (189[8/9]), 273 Replaced.
378.2.56 Spaits, Captain (author of “Mit Kosaken Added.
durch die Mandschurei,”[)] 336–8
End of Project Gutenberg's War and the Arme Blanche, by Erskine Childers