Weapons of war.—Artillery.—Train of artillery.—Chevaux-de-frise.—Bows
and arrows.—The old archer.—The musket.—The bayonet.—Captain Von
Selmnitz.—Broad-swords.—Highlanders.—Artillery and stores sent to
Spain.—James II. of Scotland.—Buonaparte and Colonel Evain.—Wooden
cannon.—Brass twenty-four-pounder from the wreck of the Royal
George.—The brass sixty-eight-pounder in the Tower, called the
‘Great Harry,’ a beautiful mortar.—The new destructive power.
“Can you tell us something about the artillery, uncle? There must be a
great many pieces of cannon used in an army?”
“There are; and if you never know more about them than the information
you get from me, so much the better; better to hear of them than to be
among them. I will say a little about the weapons of war generally, but
can only glance at the subject: it would take me a week to tell you
everything, if I had it all at the tip of my tongue.”
“Well, so that your account is not too short, we must be satisfied.”
“As the world turns round, the weapons in use among soldiers and sailors
and the customs of warfare change.
“When the twang of the bow is heard no more,
Then muskets rattle and cannons roar.
I need not dwell on the clubs, the spears, the bills, and battle-axes of
former times; the slings, the bows and arrows, the cross-bows and the
maces, that were accustomed to deal death around, are unknown to modern
warfare, nor are the scythe-armed chariot, the battering-ram, the
balista, or the catapulta, now ever used in the sea or land service of
Old England.”
“Ay! gunpowder has put them all aside.”
“Artillery does not mean cannon only, but all the huge weapons,
apparatus, and stores used in the field, or in garrisons and sieges. A
train of artillery comprehends cannon, mortars, and howitzers of all
kinds, properly mounted; with horses, carriages, mortar-beds, block-
carriages, ammunition-waggons, stores, shells, shot, bullets, powder,
and cartridges.”
“What a deal of room a train of artillery must take up!”
“Indeed it does, for beside what I have told you, it includes
artificers’ tools, intrenching tools, and miners’ tools, with forges,
capstans and gins, pontoons, pontoon-carriages, tumbrels, chevaux-de-
frise, palisades, drag-ropes, platforms, harness, flints, powder-
measures, fuze-engines, and tents, to say nothing of a hundred other
things that I cannot remember.”
“What is meant by chevaux-de-frise?”
“Chevaux-de-frise are pieces of timber, about ten or a dozen feet long,
stuck all over with wooden pins, six feet long, shod with iron. They are
used to stop up a breach, or a pass, or to secure a camp, and are
sometimes rolled down on the enemy in an assault. The sword, the musket,
the pike, and the bayonet, the cannon, the howitzer, and the mortar,
with granades, rockets, and shells, are the principal weapons of our
present wars. There are some who still entertain the opinion that bows
and arrows in English hands have been more destructive than muskets
bristling with bayonets, and this seems to me to be very like the truth.
The difference between the long-bow and the cross-bow, is this: the
long-bow is only a bow and string, and its force depends on the power of
the arm that draws it. The cross-bow, is a bow fastened on a stock, so
that when it is once drawn ready to be let off, it has the same power
whether let off by a strong man or a weak one.”
[Illustration]
“Why, boys shoot with bows and arrows.”
“They do, but they must be men to draw an arrow to the head on the
string of the long-bow of old times. Topham, one of the strongest men
ever known, laughed to scorn an old archer, who boasted that he could
draw a cloth-yard arrow to the head on the long-bow. Topham tried to do
this, but could only half draw it, while the old archer, taking up the
bow, performed the feat adroitly. But a word as to the power of the bow.
A military man of experience says, ‘The accuracy and range of the arrow
fully equalled the present most perfect practice of the rifle, and it
greatly exceeded it with respect to rapidity of discharge.’ In the early
part of the reign of Henry VIII. it was still the opprobrium of an
archer if he shot a single shaft during a battle without killing or
disabling his enemy. Some have compared this with Marshal Saxe’s
calculations upon the efficacy of the musket. Marshal Saxe estimated
that in no case did more than one ball in eighty-five take effect, and
that at the battle of Tournay, not more than one half in four hundred
was calculated to have killed an enemy; it must be left to military men
to say whether the lead ‘shot from the deadly level of a gun,’ has been
made more deadly since the tactics of Marshal Saxe. The disuse of the
long-bow is hardly to be accounted for. An archer was deemed
disqualified for service if he could not fire twelve unerring shafts in
one minute. This, if we take the accuracy of their fire, for we must be
allowed the term, into consideration, will make the practice of musketry
very inferior.”
“Do you think bows and arrows will ever be used again by soldiers?”
“I think not, for the archer is not so well provided for close fighting
as he who carries a musket: the ball on the inside, and the bayonet on
the out, render the musket a most formidable weapon.”
“How dreadful it must be to charge with the bayonet! but, indeed, the
sword must be dreadful too.”
“As I have undertaken to answer your questions, and to tell you about
war and warlike weapons, I suppose that you must know all that I happen
to remember. About a dozen years ago Captain Von Selmnitz projected a
new mode of employing the bayonet, and afterwards paid such attention to
it that it became very popular; and many officers in the service of
other countries resorted to Dresden to study under him. It was thought
by many, that under this system a single foot soldier, of common
strength and of moderately good eye and limb, would be able to resist
two horsemen. It was the dexterous use made of the cudgel among the
common people in Brittany and Normandy, that led Selmnitz to reflect on
the matter, and to apply it to the bayonet.”
“Which is the worst, the bayonet or the sword?”
“There is a difference of opinion respecting swords and bayonets as
weapons of destruction, or, in other words, between the power of
infantry armed with swords, and infantry armed with muskets and
bayonets. An officer describes the bayonet as a rickety, zigzag, unhandy
instrument, and says that, ‘at Preston-Pans two thousand highlanders,
armed only with broad-swords and targets, overthrew, at the very first
onset, nearly two thousand British infantry, and completed their defeat
in about a quarter of an hour. The same was the case at Falkirk, and
even at Culloden: every point of the line that the highlanders reached
in their charge was completely overthrown! The destruction made by
musketry is certainly not so great as we might expect from so formidable
a weapon.’”
“One would think that almost every bullet would kill a man.”
“That is not the case by a great deal, as you shall hear. The same
officer goes on to reason the matter thus: ‘Supposing that twenty
thousand French were killed and wounded at Waterloo, and allowing five
thousand of these to have fallen by the fire of the artillery and the
sabres of the cavalry, it leaves fifteen thousand to the share of the
infantry; and counting the latter at thirty thousand only, though the
number present was certainly greater, it required an entire day’s hard
fighting before the thirty thousand had disabled fifteen thousand
adversaries; that is, all the exertions of two men, during an entire
day, only brought down one enemy! We must not here think of two fencers,
who by equal skill and courage foil each other’s exertions. There is no
such thing as parrying a musket-ball when properly aimed, nor is there
any defensive power in modern armies beyond what they derive from their
offensive strength; for with modern arms all fighting is purely
offensive. The above estimate of the efficiency of modern tactics may,
indeed, be considered as highly overrated, because it applies only to
the most sanguinary battles fought during the war, such as that of
Marengo, Talavera, Boradino, and others, but by no means to actions of
minor note: at Rolica only a few hundred French were put hors-de-combat,
and at Vimiera sixteen thousand British only killed and wounded two
thousand French, in what was called a smart action.’
“It is, however, maintained by others, to be impossible for the sword to
contend generally with success against the musket and bayonet, for that
the latter, to say nothing of the advantage of the fire, are more than a
match for the sword in themselves; but this is a subject that we had
better leave. My own opinion is, from what I have seen, that soldiers
armed with swords alone would on very few occasions wait the issue of a
charge of fixed bayonets. May the sword never be drawn in a bad cause,
and the bayonet never be used as an instrument of oppression.”
“Which are the strongest, cavalry or infantry?”
“That depends much on circumstances. I remember no instance at the
battle of Waterloo of the French cuirassiers—certainly some of the
bravest and best cavalry in the world—breaking the British squares,
though cavalry may, in other instances, have had the advantage.”
“Why, there must be no end to the guns and swords required by an army,
hundreds of thousands must be wanted.”
“Within one year from the beginning of the war in Spain against the
French, England sent over to the Spanish armies, money to the amount of
two million pounds; a hundred and fifty pieces of field-artillery,
forty-two thousand rounds of ammunition, two hundred thousand muskets,
sixty-one thousand swords, seventy-nine thousand pikes, twenty-three
million ball-cartridges, six million loaded balls, fifteen thousand
barrels of gunpowder, ninety-two thousand suits of clothing, three
hundred and fifty six thousand sets of accoutrements and pouches, three
hundred and ten thousand pairs of shoes, forty tents, two hundred and
fifty thousand yards of cloth, ten thousand sets of camp-equipage, a
hundred and eighteen thousand yards of linen, fifty thousand great
coats, fifty thousand canteens, fifty thousand havresacs, and a great
variety of other stores.”
“If England sent two hundred thousand muskets over to Spain and
thousands of barrels of gunpowder, what a many muskets must have been
used in all! and what a deal of powder!”
“From 1803 to 1816 England put in circulation more than three million
muskets, without reckoning those sent out of the country on private
accounts. Eighty thousand barrels of gunpowder were used up every year;
but after 1812, to the conclusion of peace, more than three times this
quantity of powder was used. If you want to see field-pieces and stores,
you must go to Woolwich, and there you will see enough. Cannon are cast
solid, and bored out after. James II. of Scotland, in the year 1460, led
on an army to besiege Roxburgh, and being more curious than wise, he
stood near the gunners, when a cannon, not properly made, burst and
broke his thigh-bone—he died immediately.”
“Ay! that was a sad accident; but he should have kept at a greater
distance. It must take a long time to make a cannon.”
“I will tell you in how short a time Buonaparte provided himself with
cannon, after losing all that he had taken with him to the campaign in
Russia, for I have an account of it here in print, and will read it:—‘At
the period of the disastrous campaign of Moscow Colonel Evain was at
Paris, where he had been directed to remain, in order to organize and
forward the immense supplies of artillery and ordnance stores, that were
required for the grand army.’ The celebrated 29th bulletin, from
Smorgonj, had scarcely reached Paris, and had been made public but a few
hours, when a messenger from the Tuileries came to Colonel Evain’s
officer, and, to his utter surprise, informed him the Emperor had just
arrived, and forthwith demanded his presence at the Tuileries. Though
thunderstruck at the unexpected intelligence, which at once demonstrated
the terrible misfortunes of the French army, Evain hastened to the
palace, and was instantly ushered into the presence of his imperial
master, whom he found in his travelling dress, pale, fatigued, with a
beard of several days’ growth, and in an evident state of great mental
suffering. He had scarcely time to make his bow or utter a word, ere
Napoleon advanced towards him, and abruptly exclaimed, ‘Well, Evain! you
have read my 29th bulletin; it does not tell the worst; it would have
been impossible to have alarmed France. We have not a gun or a caisson
remaining! But our resources are immense—our losses can be repaired.’
Then, after a pause, he added—‘By the first of March I must have six
hundred pieces of cannon, horsed and equipped. I know your zeal and
activity; you know I must be obeyed.’ Then approaching close to Evain,
Napoleon took hold of his arm, and with a smile, added—‘If I have my
guns on the appointed day you shall receive the brevet of Major-general;
if not, I will hang you.’ Without being disconcerted, Colonel Evain
replied: ‘Sire, the time is limited, but our arsenals are well-stored.
If your majesty will inform me where I can procure money to purchase
horses, your orders shall be obeyed.’—‘Is that the only difficulty?’
rejoined the Emperor. Then, sitting down to his bureau, he wrote an
order for three millions of francs on his private treasury, the contents
of which were in the vaults beneath the Tuileries—and Evain took his
leave. On the 1st of March, Evain kept his word, and the Emperor
fulfilled his promise.”
“Both Buonaparte and Colonel Evain must have been in right earnest.”
“That is very true; and Buonaparte was not a man to be trifled with. If
you should ever go to the Tower of London you will see weapons of war in
abundance, though very many were destroyed by the late great fire on the
premises. Among the stores were, a wooden cannon called ‘Policy,’ used
at the siege of Bologne to induce the governor to suppose that the
English were well supplied with artillery; a brass twenty-four pounder,
from the wreck of the Royal George, having lain under water fifty-two
years; a fine brass twenty-four pounder, bearing a Persian inscription;
and a sixty-eight pounder, of brass, called the ‘Great Harry.’ Whether
all, or any of these were destroyed, I cannot tell.”
“A wooden cannon must be an odd kind of thing.”
“There is in St. James’s Park, London, a mortar that is worth going a
long way to see. This mortar is a beautiful specimen of workmanship,
surrounded with pikes, intersecting each other, and forming a barrier
which protects it from injury on the part of the public. The mortar
bears the following inscription.
[Illustration:
‘TO COMMEMORATE
The raising of the siege of Cadiz, in consequence of the glorious
victory gained by the Duke of Wellington over the French, near
Salamanca, on the 22nd July, 1812. This mortar, cast for the
destruction of that great fort, with powers surpassing all others,
and abandoned by the besiegers on their retreat, was presented, as a
token of respect and gratitude, by the Spanish Nation, to his Royal
Highness the Prince Regent.’
]
“I might tell you of Perkins’s steam-gun, of Shrapnel’s shells, of
Congreve’s rockets, and of Cochrane’s bomb-cannon, but I want to speak
of _a new power_, that is more destructive than all these put together.”
“What can that be, uncle? Why, it must be wonderful!”
“It was on Saturday, the 20th of February, 1841, that Sir Robert Peel,
Sir George Murray, Sir Henry Hardinge, Sir Francis Burdett, Lord
Ingestre, Colonel Gurwood, Captain Britten, Captain Webster, and others,
met together to witness an experiment about to be tried. A boat, twenty-
three feet long and seven broad, had been placed on a sheet of water, in
the grounds of Mr. Boyd, in Essex, a few miles only from London. The
boat had been filled up with solid timber, four and a half feet deep,
crossed every way, and clamped together as closely as possible, with
eight-inch spike nails, so that it was almost as firm as a solid tree.
The boat was set in motion, and then struck by the new power just abaft
her starboard-bow. The effect was terrible. The water parted and
appeared like a huge bowl, with lightning playing on its surface. The
boat was scattered into a thousand pieces. A column of water, resembling
a huge fountain, threw the fragments of the boat some hundred feet into
the air, and many of these fell at a distance of two or three hundred
yards.”
“What a dreadful explosion!”
“Dreadful indeed, boys! The eight-inch spike nails that I spoke of, were
snapped in pieces like so many carrots, and the mast of the boat
resembled a tree riven by the lightning. The boat weighed perhaps two
tons and a half, and the timber in her five tons and a half more; the
weight of water displaced by the explosion could hardly be less than
fourteen or fifteen tons, and yet the instrument of destruction that
effected all this mischief was only eighteen pounds in weight.”
“What, was it gunpowder!”
“That I cannot tell. Fearful as it was when exploded, it was harmless
enough before, for one of the captains kicked it about like a foot-ball.
The inventor said that he could carry enough on a single mule to destroy
the strongest fortress in Europe.”
“Terrible! Terrible! Why, it would destroy a ship directly.”
“Yes. A small craft with this power on board would tear to pieces the
largest ship that ever was built. Muskets, cannon, bombshells, rockets,
and explosions of every kind are not to be compared to it; and, most
likely, should it ever come into general use, it will make a complete
change in naval and military tactics all over the world.”
[Illustration]