Infantry (1859)

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Marx received Dana’s request for the “Infantry” and “Fortification” articles in the spring of 1859 (see Note 367). Engels undertook to write both. However, he could not begin work on “Infantry” until the end of August, after finishing “Fortification” and writing articles for the London Das Volk and the New-York Daily Tribune, as well as a review of Marx’s book A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (see preserit edition, Vol. 16). In his letters to Marx of September 23-27 and of October 3 he informed him of the progress of work on “Infantry”. Marx acknowledged receipt of the article on October 10,

1859.

In writing the article Engels made extensive use of W. Rüstow’s Geschichte der Infanterie (vols. I-II, Gotha, 1857-58) and other sources, including a work by the Prussian Major Trotha on the influence of improved rifles on infantry tactics, etc. p. 340

Infantry, the foot soldiers of an army. Except among nomadic tribes, the great mass, if not the entire strength of all armies, has always consisted of foot soldiers. Thus even with the first Asiatic armies, with the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, infantry made up, numerically at least, the main body. With the Greeks at first the whole army was composed of infantry. What little we know of the composition, organization, and tactics of ancient Asiatic infantry, has already been stated in the article Army to which we refer for many details which it would be useless to repeat here. In this article, we shall restrict ourselves to the most important tactical features only in the history of the arm; we therefore at once begin with the Greeks.

I. Grecian Infantry

The creators of Grecian tactics were the Dorians; among them, the Spartans brought to perfection the ancient Doric order of battle. Originally, the whole of the classes which composed a Dorian community were subjected to military service; not only the full citizens who formed the aristocracy, but also the subject periaeci, and even the slaves. They were all formed into the same phalanx, but each in a different position. The full citizens had to appear heavily armed, with defensive armor, with helmet, cuirass, and cuissarts of brass, with a large wooden shield covered with leather, high enough to protect the whole person, and with a lance and sword. They formed, according to their numbers, the first or first and second ranks of the phalanx. Behind them stood the subjects and slaves, so that every Spartan squire had his retainers in his rear; these were without the costly defensive armor, relying on the protection afforded to them by the front ranks and their shields; their offensive weapons were slings, javelins, knives, daggers, and clubs. Thus the Doric phalanx formed a deep line, the hoplites or heavy infantry in front, the gymnetae or light infantry in the rear ranks. The hoplites had to bear down the enemy by the charge of their spears; once in the midst of the hostile body, they drew their short swords, and worked their way forward at close quarters, while the gymnetae, who first prepared the charge by throwing stones and javelins over the heads of the front ranks, now assisted the onward pressure of the hoplites by disposing of the wounded and straggling enemies. The tactics of such a body were thus very simple; tactical manoeuvring there was scarcely any; the courage, tenacity, bodily strength, and individual agility and skill of the men, especially the hoplites, decided every thing.

This patriarchal union of all classes of the nation in the same phalanx disappeared soon after the Persian wars, principally from political causes; the consequence was that the phalanx was now formed exclusively of hoplites, and that the light infantry, where it continued to exist, or where a new light infantry was formed, fought separately as skirmishers. In Sparta, the Spartan citizens along with the periaeci formed the heavy armed phalanx; the helots now followed with the baggage, or as shield-bearers (hypaspistae). For a while this phalanx was made to suffice for all the exigencies of battle; but soon the skirmishers of the Athenians, in the Peloponnesian war, compelled the Spartans to provide themselves with troops of a similar kind. They did not, however, form gymnetae of their own, but sent out the younger portion of their men on skirmishing duty. When, toward the end of that war, the number of citizens and even of periaeci had become greatly reduced, they were compelled to form phalanxes of heavily armed slaves, commanded by citizens. The Athenians, after banishing from the phalanx the gymnetae, formed of the poorer citizens, of retainers and slaves, created special corps of light infantry, consisting of gymnetae or psiles, destined for skirmishing, and armed exclusively for distant fighting, slingers (sphendonetae), archers (toxotae), and javelin-throwers (akontistae), the latter also called peltastae from the small shield (pelta) which they alone carried. This new class of light infantry, originally recruited from the poorer citizens of Athens, very soon came to be formed almost exclusively of mercenaries and the contingents of the allies of Athens.

From the moment these skirmishers were introduced, the clumsy Doric phalanx was no longer fit to act alone in battle. Its materials, too, had been constantly deteriorating; in Sparta, by the gradual extinction of the warlike aristocracy; in the other towns, by the influence of commerce and wealth, which gradually undermined the ancient contempt of death. Thus, the phalanx, formed of a not very heroic militia, lost most of its old importance. It formed the background, the reserve of the line of battle, in front of which the skirmishers fought, or behind which they retired when pressed, but which scarcely ever was expected to come itself to close quarters with the enemy. Where the phalanx was formed of mercenaries, its character was not much better. Its clumsiness made it unfit for manoeuvring, especially in ground but lightly broken, and its whole use was passive resistance. This led to two attempts at reform made by Iphicrates, a general of mercenaries.

This Grecian condottiere exchanged the old, short spears of the hoplites (from 8 to 10 feet long) for considerably longer ones, so that, with closed ranks, the lances of 3 or 4 ranks projected in front and could act against the enemy; thus, the defensive element of the phalanx was considerably strengthened. On the other hand, to create a force fit for deciding battles by close yet rapid attack, he armed his peltastae with light defensive armor and a good sword, and drilled them in the evolutions of the phalanx. When ordered to charge, they advanced at a pace unattainable by the phalanx of hoplites, gave a volley of javelins at 10 or 20 yards, and broke into the enemy with the sword. The simplicity of the ancient Doric phalanx had thus made way for a far more complicated order of battle; the action of the general had become an important element of victory; tactical manoeuvres had become possible. Epaminondas was the first to discover the great tactical principle which up to the present day decides almost all pitched battles: the unequal distribution of the troops on the line of front, in order to concentrate the main attack on one decisive point. Hitherto the battles of the Greeks had been delivered in parallel order; the strength of the front line was the same on all points; if one army was superior in numbers to the one opposed to it, either it formed a deeper order of battle, or it overlapped the other army on both wings. Epaminondas, on the contrary, destined one of his wings for attack and the other for defence; the attacking wing was composed of his best troops, and of the mass of his hoplites, formed in a deep column and followed by light infantry and by the cavalry. The other wing was of course weaker, and was kept back, while the attacking one broke through the enemy, and the column, either deploying or wheeling into line, rolled them up with the assistance of the light troops and horsemen.

The progress established by Iphicrates and Epaminondas was still further developed when Macedonia had taken the lead of the Hellenic race and led them against Persia. The long lances of the hoplites appear still further lengthened in the Macedonian sarissa. The peltastae of Iphicrates appear again in an improved form in Alexander’s hypaspistae. Finally, the economy of forces, as applied to the order of battle by Epaminondas, was extended by Alexander to a combination of the various arms such as Greece with her insignificant cavalry could never have produced. Alexander’s infantry was composed of the phalanx of hoplites, which formed the defensive strength of the order of battle; of the light skirmishing infantry, which engaged the enemy all along the front, and also contributed to the following up of the victory; and of the hypaspistae, to which belonged his own body guard, which, though lightly equipped, were still capable of regular phalangitic manoeuvring, and formed that kind of average infantry which is more or less adapted to both close and extended order. Still, neither Greece nor Macedonia had produced a movable infantry which could be relied upon when opposed to a solid phalanx. Here, Alexander brought in his cavalry. The attacking wing was formed by the mass of his heavy cavalry, chosen from the Macedonian nobility, and with them acted the hypaspistae; they followed the charge of the horsemen, and rushed into the gap they had made, securing the success obtained by them, and establishing themselves in the midst of the enemy’s position. After the conquest of the centre of the Persian empire, Alexander used his hoplites chiefly for garrisoning the conquered towns. They soon disappeared from the army which subdued by its bold and rapid marches the tribes of Asia to the Indus and Jaxartes. That army was formed chiefly of cavalry, hypaspistae, and light infantry; the phalanx, which could not have followed on such marches, became at the same time superfluous from the nature of the enemy to be conquered. Under the successors of Alexander, his infantry, as well as his cavalry and tactics, were completely and rapidly deteriorated. The two wings of the order of battle were formed exclusively of cavalry, and the centre of infantry; but the latter was so little relied on, that it was covered by elephants. In Asia, the prevailing Asiatic element soon got the upper hand, and rendered the armies of the Seleucidae all but worthless; in Europe, the Macedonian and Greek infantry regained some solidity, but with it came a return to the former exclusive phalangitic tactics. Light troops and cavalry never recovered, while much trouble and ingenuity were wasted in vain attempts to give to the phalanx that mobility which from its very nature it could never attain; until finally the Roman legion put an end to the whole system.

The tactical organization and manoeuvres of the phalanx were simple enough. Being generally 16 deep (under Alexander), a line of 16 files formed a complete square, and this, the syntagma, formed the unit of evolutions; 16 syntagmas, or 256 files, formed a phalangarchy of 4,096 men, 4 of which again were to form the complete phalanx. The phalangarchy, in order of battle, formed in line 16 deep; it passed into the order of march by facing right or left, or by wheeling into syntagmas, in each case forming a close column 16 in front. When in line, the depth could be increased and front decreased by double files, the even files placing themselves behind the odd ones; and the opposite movement was performed by double ranks, reducing the depth from 16 to 8 men per file. Countermarching by files was employed when the enemy suddenly appeared in the rear of the phalanx; the inversion caused by this (every file being in a wrong place in its own section or syntagma) was sometimes set right by a countermarch by ranks in each section. Add to this the handling of the lance, and we have enumerated the various items of the drill of the ancient hoplites. It is a matter of course that the lighter troops, though not exactly destined to fight in close order, still were exercised in the phalangitic movements.

II. Roman Infantry

The Latin word legio was originally used to express the totality of the men selected for field service, and thus was synonymous with army. Subsequently, when the extent of the Roman territory and the power of the enemies of the republic required larger armies, they were divided into several legions, each of which had a strength similar to that of the original Roman army. Up to the time of Marius, every legion was composed of both infantry and cavalry, the latter about Vio of the former in strength. Originally the infantry of the Roman legion appears to have been organized similarly to the ancient Doric phalanx, fighting in a deep line, the patricians and richer citizens in heavy armor forming the front ranks, the poorer and lighter armed plebeians behind them. But about the time of the Samnite wars the legion began to undergo a change of organization, which soon placed it in perfect contrast to the Grecian phalanx, and of which, after it had attained its full development in the Punic wars, Polybius gives us a full account.

The legion, of which 4 were generally levied for each campaign, was now composed of 4 classes of infantry, velites, hastati, principes, and triarii; the first, formed from recruits, were light infantry; the triarii, from veterans, were the reserve of the army; the other two classes, forming the main fighting body or infantry of the line, composed the remainder of the army, and differed in this, that the principes were selected from those men who, after the triarii, had seen most service. The velites wore leather caps, light round shields for defensive armor, and carried swords and a number of light javelins; the remaining 3 classes had brass helmets, leather body armor covered with brass plates, and brass cuissarts. The hastati and principes, beside a short sword, carried two pila or javelins, a light one and a very heavy one; this latter formed the specific arm of attack of the Roman infantry. It was of thick, heavy wood, with a long iron point, weighing in all at least 10 pounds, and with the point nearly 7 feet long. It could be thrown at very short distances only, say 8 or 12 yards, but from its weight its effect was formidable to the light defensive armor of those times. The triarii, beside the sword, carried lances instead of pila. Every legion contained 1,200 hastati, divided into 10 manipuli or companies of 120 men each; the same number of principes, similarly divided; 600 triarii, in 10 manipuli of 60 each; and 1,200 velites, 40 of whom were attached to each of the 30 manipuli, and formed the rear ranks unless otherwise employed. The hastati formed the first line, each manipulus being deployed in line, probably 6 deep, with an interval from the next manipulus equal to its front, which, as the room allotted for every man in a rank was 6 feet, extended about 120 feet, the whole line extending 2,400 feet. Behind them, in second line, were placed the 10 manipuli of the principes, covering the intervals of the manipuli of the first line, and behind the principes the triarii, each line at an appropriate distance from the one in front of it. The velites skirmished before the front and flanks. By doubling files, the order of battle could be reduced to one half its original extent of front, or 1,200 feet. The whole of this order of battle was calculated for attack.

Capable, by the smallness of the tactical units and by the great liberty thereby secured to all its movements, of fighting in almost any kind of ground, it was immensely superior to the Grecian phalanx, which required a level plain, and had been very soon reduced by its own clumsiness to a mere formation for defense. The legion advanced; at 8 or 12 yards the hastati, probably doubling their ranks for the occasion, threw their heavy pila into the phalanx, whose lances could not yet reach the Romans, and, having thereby broken the closed order of the phalangites, rushed upon them sword in hand. If a single manipulus got into disorder, the effect was not transmitted to the neighboring companies; if the combat continued without immediate decision, the principes marched up into the intervals, threw their pila, and broke in upon the enemy with the sword, thus giving the hastati an opportunity of disentangling themselves and reforming behind the triarii. In an extreme case, these latter advanced, either to finally decide the victory or to secure an orderly retreat. The velites, in company with the cavalry, did outpost duty, engaged the enemy in the beginning of the battle by skirmishing, and followed up the pursuit. The light pilum of the hastati and principes appears to have been principally used in defensive positions, to create disorder in the ranks of an advancing enemy before he was close enough for the heavy pilum. Marches to the front were begun from either wing, the first manipulus of hastati in front, followed by the first respectively of principes and triarii, then the 3 second manipuli in the same order, and so forth; marches to a flank were made in 3 columns, each of the 3 classes of infantry forming a column; the baggage was on the side furthest from the enemy. If the latter appeared from the side where the triarii marched, the army halted, and faced toward the enemy, the principes and hastati passing through the intervals of the manipuli of the triarii and taking up their proper positions.

When, after the second Punic war, the continued wars and extended conquests of the Romans, combined with important social changes in Rome and Italy generally, rendered the universal liability to military service almost impracticable, the Roman armies began gradually to be composed of voluntary recruits from the poorer classes, thus forming soldiers by profession instead of the old militia in which all the citizens were included. The army hereby entirely changed its character; and, the elements from which it was composed becoming deteriorated, a new organization became more and more a necessity. Marius carried out this new organization. The Roman horse ceased to exist. What little cavalry remained was composed of barbarian mercenaries or allied contingents.

The distinction of the 4 classes of infantry was done away with. The velites were replaced by allied contingents or barbarians, and the remainder of the legion formed of one and the same class of infantry of the line, armed like the hastati or principes, but without the light pilum. The manipulus was replaced, as a tactical unit, by the cohort, a body averaging 360 men, and formed originally by the fusion of 3 manipuli into one; so that the legion was now divided into 10 cohorts, which were generally disposed in 3 lines (4, 3, and 3 cohorts respectively). The cohort was formed 10 deep, with 3 to 4 feet front for each file, so that the total extent of front of the legion was very much reduced (about 1,000 feet). Thus, not only were the tactical movements much simplified, but the influence of the commander of the legion was made much more immediate and powerful. The armament and equipment of every soldier was lightened, but on the other hand he was made to carry the greater part of his baggage on wooden forks invented for the purpose by Marius {muli Mariani); the impedimenta of the army were thus considerably reduced. On the other hand, the concentration of 3 manipuli into one cohort could not but reduce the facility of manoeuvring in broken ground; the absence of the light pilum reduced the capability for defence; and the abolition of the velites, not always fully replaced by foreign auxiliaries or mercenaries, or by the antesignani (men selected from the legion for light infantry service by Caesar, but left without arms for distant fighting), diminished the chances of maintaining an engagement and still evading a decision. Rapid, resolute attack became the only form of combat fitted for these legions. Still the Roman infantry continued to consist of Romans, or at least Italians; and in spite of the decline of the empire under the Caesars, it maintained its ancient renown so long as the national character was left intact. But when Roman citizenship was no longer a necessary condition for admission into a legion, the army soon lost its standing. As early as the times of Trajan, barbarians, partly from the Roman provinces, partly from unconquered countries, formed the main force of the legions, and from that moment the character of the Roman infantry was lost. The heavy armor was thrown away; the pilum was replaced by the lance; the legion, organized into cohorts, was again fused into an unwieldy phalanx; and as a general unwillingness to come to close quarters was a characteristic of the infantry of this period, the bow and javelin were now used, not for skirmishing only, but also for the closed order of infantry of the line.

III. The Infantry Of The Middle Ages

The decline of the Roman infantry found a continuation in that of the Byzantine foot soldiers. A kind of forced levy was still maintained, but with no other result than to form the very dregs of the army. Barbarian auxiliaries and mercenaries composed its better portions, but even these were of no great value. The hierarchic and administrative organization of the troops was perfected to an almost ideal state of bureaucracy, but with the same result that we now see in Russia: a perfect organization of embezzlement and fraud at the expense of the state, with armies costing enormous sums and existing in part only on paper. The contact with the irregular horse of the East reduced both the importance and quality of the infantry more and more. Mounted archers became the favorite arm; the greater part if not all of the infantry were also equipped with the bow beside the lance and sword. Thus, fighting at a distance became the fashion, hand-tohand encounters being regarded as out of date. The infantry was considered such rubbish that it was intentionally kept away from the field of battle, and used for garrison duty principally; most of the battles of Belisarius were fought by the cavalry exclusively, and when the infantry partook in them, it was sure to run away. His tactics were entirely based upon the principle of avoiding a combat at close quarters, and of tiring out the enemy. If he succeeded in this against the Goths, who had no distance arms at all, by choosing broken ground in which their phalanx could not act, he was beaten by the Franks, whose infantry had something of the old Roman mode of fighting about them, and by the Persians, whose cavalry was certainly superior to his.

The German invaders of the Roman empire originally consisted for the greater part of infantry, and fought in a kind of Doric phalanx, the chiefs and wealthier men in the front ranks, the others behind them. Their arms were the sword and lance. The Franks, however, carried short, double-edged battle axes, which they threw, like the Roman pilum, into the hostile mass the moment before they charged sword in hand. They and the Saxons retained for some time a good and respected infantry; but gradually the Teutonic conquerors everywhere took to cavalry service, and left the duty of the foot soldiers to the conquered Roman provincials; thus the infantry service became despised as an attribute of slaves and serfs, and the character of the foot soldier necessarily sunk in proportion. By the end of the 10th century cavalry was the only arm which really decided battles all over Europe; infantry, though far more numerous in every army than cavalry, was nothing better than an ill-armed rabble with hardly any attempt at organization. A foot soldier was not even considered a soldier; the word miles became synonymous with horseman. The only chance for maintaining a respectable infantry lay with the towns, especially in Italy and Flanders. They had a militia of their own which was necessarily formed of infantry; and as its service for the protection of the towns, in the midst of the never-ending feuds among the surrounding nobles, was a permanent one, it was soon found convenient to have a force of paid mercenaries instead of a militia composed of the citizens, this latter force being reserved for extraordinary occasions. Still, we do not find that the contingents of the towns showed any marked superiority over the rabble of footmen collected by the nobles, and in battle always left to protect the baggage. This holds good, at least, for the classic period of chivalry. In the cavalry of these times, every knight appeared armed cap-à-pied, covered all over with armor, and mounting a similarly armed horse. He was accompanied by an esquire rather more lightly armed, and by sundry other mounted men without any armor and armed with bows. In order of battle, these forces were ranged upon a principle similar to that of the ancient Doric phalanx—the heavily armed knights in the first, the esquires in the second rank, the mounted archers behind them. These last, from the nature of their arm, were soon employed in dismounted fighting, which became more and more the rule with them, so that their horses were mainly used for locomotion, not for a charge. The English archers, armed with the long-bow, while those of southern Europe carried the cross-bow, especially excelled in this mode of fighting on foot, and it was very likely this circumstance which soon led to an extension, in this service, of dismounted fighting. No doubt, in their long campaigns in France, the horses of the heavily armed knights got soon knocked up and unfit to serve for more than means of transport. In this plight it was natural that the worst mounted gendarmes should dismount and form a phalanx of lances, to be filled up by the better portion of the footmen (especially the Welsh); while those whose horses were still fit for a charge, now formed the actual fighting cavalry. Such an arrangement appeared very well adapted for defensive battles, and upon it were based all the battles of the Black Prince, and, as is well known, with perfect success. The new mode of fighting was soon adopted by the French and other nations, and may be considered as almost the normal system of the 14th and 15th centuries. Thus, after 1,700 years, we are brought back almost to the tactics of Alexander; with this difference only, that with Alexander cavalry was a newly introduced arm which had to strengthen the declining capabilities of the heavy infantry, while here the heavy infantry, formed by dismounted horsemen, was a living proof that cavalry was on the decline, and that a new day had dawned for infantry.

IV. The Revival Of Infantry

From the Flemish towns, then, the first manufacturing district of the world, and from the Swiss mountains, arose the first troops which, after centuries of decline, again deserved the name of infantry. The French chivalry succumbed as much to the weavers and fullers, the goldsmiths and tanners of the Belgian cities, as the Burgundian and Austrian nobility to the peasants and cowherds of Switzerland. Good defensive positions and a light armament did the most, supported as they were in the case of the Flemish by numerous fire-arms, and in that of the Swiss by a country almost impracticable to the heavily armed knights of the time. The Swiss carried principally short halberts, which might be used as well for thrusting as for striking, and were not too long for hand-to-hand fight; subsequently they also had pikes, and cross-bows and fire-arms; but in one of their most celebrated battles, at Laupen (1339), they had no arms for distant fighting but stones. From defensive encounters in their inaccessible mountains, they soon came to offensive battles in the plain, and with these to more regular tactics. They fought in a deep phalanx; defensive armor was light, and in general confined to the front ranks and the flank files, the centre being filled up by men without armor; the Swiss phalanx, however, was always formed in 3 distinct bodies, an advanced guard, a main body, and a rear guard, so that greater mobility and the chance of varied tactical arrangements were secured. They soon became expert in taking advantage of the accidents of ground, which, coupled with the improvement in fire-arms, protected them against the onslaught of cavalry, while against infantry armed with long lances they devised various means to work an entrance somewhere through the forest of lances, after which their short heavy halberts gave them an immense advantage, even against men cased in armor. They very soon learned, especially when assisted by artillery and small fire-arms, to hold out in squares or cross-shaped bodies against the charges of cavalry; and as soon as an infantry was again capable of doing that, the days of chivalry were numbered.

About the middle of the 15th century the struggle of the cities against the feudal nobility had been everywhere taken up by the princes of the larger monarchies now consolidating, and consequently the latter had begun to form armies of mercenaries both for putting down the nobles and for carrying out independent objects of foreign policy. Beside the Swiss, the Germans, and soon after them most other European nations, began to furnish large contingents of mercenaries, raised by voluntary enlistment, and selling their services to the highest bidder without any regard to nationality. These bands formed themselves tactically upon the same principle as the Swiss; they were armed chiefly with pikes, and fought in large square battalions, as many men deep as there were in the front rank. They had to fight, however, under different circumstances from the Swiss who defended their mountains; they had to attack as well as to hold out in defensive positions; they had to encounter the enemy in the plains of Italy and France as well as in the hills; and they very soon found themselves face to face with the now rapidly improving smallarms. These circumstances caused some deviations from the old Swiss tactics, which were different according to the different nationalities; but the chief characteristics, the formation in 3 deep columns, figuring in name, if not always in reality, as advanced guard, main body, and rear guard or reserve, remained common to all. The Swiss retained their superiority until the battle of Pavia, after which the German Landsknechte, who had already for some time been nearly if not fully equal to them, were considered the first infantry of Europe. The French, whose infantry had as yet never been good for any thing, tried very hard during this period to form a serviceable national body of foot soldiers; but they succeeded with the natives of two provinces only, the Picards and the Gascons. The Italian infantry of this period never counted for any thing. The Spaniards, however, among whom Gonsalvo de Cordova during the wars with the Moors of Granada first introduced the Swiss tactics and armament, very soon rose to considerable reputation, and after the middle of the 16th century began to pass for the best infantry of Europe. While the Italians, and after them the French and Germans, extended the length of the pike from 10 to 18 feet, they retained shorter and more handy lances, and their agility made them very formidable with sword and dagger in close encounter. This reputation they upheld in western Europe—France, Italy, and the Netherlands at least—to the close of the 17th century.

The contempt of the Swiss for defensive armor, based upon traditions of a different time, was not shared by the pikemen of the 16th century. As soon as a European infantry was formed in which the different armies were becoming more and more equal to each other in military qualities, the system of lining the phalanx with a few men covered with breastplates and helmets proved to be insufficient. If the Swiss had found such a phalanx impenetrable, this was no longer the case when it was met by another phalanx quite its equal. Here a certain amount of defensive armor became of some importance; so long as it did not too much impede the mobility of the troops, it was a decided advantage. The Spaniards, moreover, had never participated in this contempt for breastplates, and they began to be respected. Accordingly, breastplates, helmets, cuissarts, brassarts, and gauntlets began again to form a part of the regular equipment of every pikeman. To it was added a sword, shorter with the Germans, longer with the Swiss, and now and then a dagger.

V. The Infantry Of The 16th And 17th Centuries

The long-bow had for some time disappeared from the continent of Europe, excepting Turkey; the cross-bow made its last appearance among the French Gascons in the first quarter of the 16th century. It was everywhere replaced by the matchlock musket, which, in different degrees of perfection, or rather imperfection, now became the second arm of the infantry. The matchlocks of the 17th century, unwieldy and defectively constructed machines, were of very heavy caliber, to secure, beside range, at least some precision, and the force to penetrate the breastplate of a pikeman. The form generally adopted about 1530 was the heavy musket fired off from a fork, as a man could not have taken aim without such a support. The musketeers carried a sword, but no defensive armor, and were used either for skirmishing or in a kind of open order, to hold defensive positions or to prepare the charge of the pikemen for the attack of such positions. They soon became very numerous in proportion to the pikemen; in the battles of Francis I in Italy they were far inferior to the pikemen in numbers, but were at least in equal numbers with them 30 years later. This increase in the number of musketeers compelled the invention of some tactical method of regularly encasing them in the order of battle. This was done in the system of tactics called the Hungarian ordinance, invented by the imperial troops in their wars with the Turks in Hungary. The musketeers, being unable to defend themselves at close quarters, were always placed so as to be able to retire behind the pikemen. Thus they were sometimes placed on either wing, sometimes on the 4 corners of the wings; very often the whole square or column of pikemen was surrounded by a rank of musketeers, who found protection under the pikes of their rear men. Finally, the plan of having the musketeers on the flanks of the pikemen got the upper hand in the new tactical system introduced by the Dutch in their war of independence.

This system is distinguished especially by the subdivision of the 3 great phalanges in which every army was formed according to both the Swiss and Hungarian tactics. Each of them was formed upon 3 lines, the middle one of which was again subdivided into a right and a left wing, separated from each other by a distance equal at least to the extent of front of the first line. The whole army being organized in half regiments, which we will call battalions, each battalion had its pikemen in the centre and its musketeers on the flanks. The advanced guard of an army, consisting of 3 regiments, would thus be formed as follows: two half regiments in contiguous line in the first line; behind each of their wings another half regiment; further to the rear, and covering the first line, the remaining two half regiments also in contiguous line. The main body and rear guard might be placed either on the flank or behind the advanced guard, but would be formed on the same plan. Here we have a return in a certain degree to the old Roman formation in 3 lines and distinct small bodies.

The imperialists, and with them the Spaniards, had found the necessity of dividing their large armies into more than the 3 masses already mentioned; but their battalions or tactical units were much larger than the Dutch, fought in column or square instead of in line, and had not had a regular formation for order of battle until during the Dutch war of independence the Spaniards began to form them in what is known as a Spanish brigade. Four of these large battalions, each consisting often of several regiments, formed in square, surrounded with a rank or two of musketeers, and having wings of musketeers at the corners, were disposed at proper intervals on the 4 corners of a square, one corner being turned toward the enemy. If the army was too large to be comprised in one brigade, two could be formed; and thus arose 3 lines, having 2 battalions in the first, 4 (sometimes only 3) in the second, and 2 in the third. As in the Dutch system, we find here the attempt to return to the old Roman system of 3 lines.

Another great change took place during the 16th century; the heavy cavalry of the knights was broken up and replaced by a mercenary cavalry, armed similarly to our modern cuirassiers, with cuirass, helmet, sword, and pistols. This cavalry, greatly superior in mobility to their predecessors, became thereby more formidable to infantry also; still the pikemen of the time were never afraid of it. By this change cavalry became a uniform arm, and entered in a far larger proportion into the composition of armies, especially during the period we now have to consider, viz., the 30 years’ war.

At this time the system of mercenary service was universal in Europe; a class of men had been formed who lived upon war and by war; and though tactics might have gained thereby, the character of the men, the material composing armies as well as their morale, had certainly suffered. Central Europe was overrun by condottieri of all kinds, who took religious and political quarrels for their pretext to plunder and devastate the whole country. The character of the individual soldier had entered upon that degradation which went on increasing until the French revolution finally swept away this system of mercenary service. The imperialists formed their battles upon the Spanish brigade system, having 4 or more brigades in line, thus forming 3 lines. The Swedes under Gustavus Adolphus formed in Swedish brigades, each consisting of 3 battalions, one in front and two a little to the rear, each deployed in line, and having the pikes in the centre and the musketeers on the wings. They were so disposed (both arms being represented in equal numbers) that by forming a contiguous line either could cover the other. Supposing the order given to form a contiguous line of musketeers, the two wings of that arm of the centre or front battalion would cover their own pikes by stepping before them, while those of the two other battalions would, each on its flank, advance into alignment with the first. If an attack of cavalry was apprehended, all the musketeers retired behind the pikemen, while the two wings of these latter advanced into alignment with the centre, and thus formed a contiguous line of pikes. The order of battle was formed of two lines of such brigades, composing the centre of the army, while the numerous cavalry was stationed on the two wings, and intermixed with small bodies of musketeers. The characteristic of this Swedish system is that the pikemen, who in the 16th century had been the great offensive arm, had now lost all capacity of attack. They had become a mere means of defence, and their office was to screen the musketeers from a charge of cavalry; it was this latter arm again which had to do all the attacking work. Thus, infantry had lost, cavalry had regained ground. But then Gustavus Adolphus put an end to the firing which had become a favorite mode of fighting for cavalry, and ordered his horse always to charge at full speed and sword in hand; and from that time to the resumption of fighting in broken ground every cavalry which adhered to these tactics was able to boast of great successes over infantry. There can be no greater condemnation of the mercenary infantry of the 17th and 18th centuries than that; and yet it was, for all purposes of battle, the most disciplined infantry of all times.

The general result of the 30 years’ war upon European tactics was that both the Swedish and the Spanish brigades disappeared, and armies were now disposed in two lines, the cavalry forming the wings and the infantry the centre. The artillery was placed before the front or in the intervals of the other arms. Sometimes a reserve of cavalry, or of cavalry and infantry, was retained. The infantry was deployed in line, 6 deep; the muskets were so much lightened that the fork could be dispensed with, and cartridges and cartridge boxes had been everywhere adopted. The mixing up of musketeers and pikemen in the same infantry battalions now gave rise to the most complicated tactical movements, all founded upon the necessity of forming what was called defensive battalions, or what we should call squares against cavalry. Even in a simple square, it was no trifle to get the 6 ranks of pikemen from the centre so drawn asunder that they completely surrounded on all sides the musketeers, who, of course, were defenceless against cavalry; but what must it have been to form in a similar way the battalion into a cross, an octagon, or other fanciful shapes! Thus it happened that the drilling system of this period was the most complicated ever seen, and nobody but a soldier for life ever had any chance of attaining even the commonest proficiency in it. At the same time, it is obvious that, before the enemy, all these attempts at forming a body capable of resisting cavalry were perfectly useless; any decent cavalry would have been in the midst of such a battalion before one fourth of the movements could have been gone through.

During the latter half of the 17th century, the number of pikemen was very much reduced in proportion to that of musketeers; for from the moment that they had lost all power of attack, the musketeers were the really active part of the infantry. Moreover, it was found that the Turkish cavalry, the most formidable of the time, very often broke into the squares of pikemen, while they were quite as often repulsed by the well aimed fire of a line of musketeers. In consequence, the imperialists did away with all pikes in their Hungarian army, and replaced them sometimes by chevaux de frise, which were put together on the field, the musketeers carrying the blades as part of their regular equipment. In other countries, too, cases occurred of armies being sent into the field without a single pikeman, the musketeers trusting to their fire and the assistance of their own cavalry when threatened with a charge of horse. Still, two inventions were required to do away entirely with the pike: the bayonet, invented in France about 1640, and improved in 1699 so far as to be the handy weapon now in use; and the flint lock, invented about 1650.

The former, though certainly an imperfect substitute for the pike, enabled the musketeer to give himself, to a certain degree, that protection which he had hitherto been supposed to find in the pikemen; the second, by simplifying the process of loading, enabled him to do much more than make up by rapid firing for the imperfections of the bayonet.

VI. The Infantry Of The 18th Century

With the superseding of the pike, all defensive armor disappeared from infantry equipment, and this arm was now composed of one class of soldiers only, armed with the flint-lock musket and bayonet. This change was accomplished in the first years of the Spanish war of succession, coinciding with the first years of the

18th century. At the same time, we now find everywhere standing armies of considerable magnitude, recruited as much as possible by voluntary enlistment coupled with kidnapping, but in case of need also by forced conscription. These armies were now regularly organized in battalions of from 500 to 700 men, as tactical units, subdivided for special purposes into companies; several battalions forming a regiment. Thus the organization of infantry now began to take a more stable and settled form. The handling of the flint lock requiring far less space than that of the old matchlock, the old open order was done away with, and the files were closed well up to each other, in order to have as many firing men as possible in the same space. For the same reason, the intervals between the various battalions in line of battle were reduced to a minimum, so that the whole front formed one stiff and uninterrupted line, the infantry, in two lines, in the centre, the cavalry on the wings.

Firing, formerly done by ranks, every rank after having fired retiring to the rear to reload, was now done by platoons or companies, the 3 front ranks of each platoon firing simultaneously as the word of command was given. Thus an uninterrupted fire could be maintained by every battalion against the enemy in front of it. Every battalion had its distinct place in this long line, and the order giving to each its place was called the order of battle. The great difficulty now was to organize the marching order of the army so that it could always with facility pass from the marching to the fighting order, every portion of the line getting at once and quickly into its proper place. Encampments within reach of the enemy were arranged with a view to the same object. Thus the art of marching and encamping armies made great progress during this epoch; still the stiffness and unwieldiness of the order of battle formed a heavy clog upon all the movements of an army. At the same time, its formality, and the impossibility of handling such a line in any but the most level plains, still more restricted the choice of ground for battle fields; but as long as both parties were bound by the same fetters, this was no disadvantage for either.

From Malplaquet to the outbreak of the French revolution, a road, a village, or a farm yard was tabooed to infantry; even a ditch or a hedge was considered almost a drawback by those who had to defend them.

The Prussian infantry is the classic infantry of the 18th century. It was principally formed by Prince Leopold of Dessau. During the war of the Spanish succession, the line of infantry had been reduced from 6 deep to 4 deep. Leopold did away with the 4th rank, and formed the Prussians 3 deep. He also introduced the iron ramrod, which enabled his troops to load and fire 5 times in a minute, while other troops scarcely fired 3 times. At the same time they were drilled to fire while advancing, but as they had to stop for firing, and as the alignment of the whole long line had to be maintained, the step was but slow—what is called the goose step. Firing began at 200 yards from the enemy; the line advanced at the goose step, stepping shorter and redoubling fire the nearer it got to the enemy, until the latter either gave way, or was so far shaken that a cavalry charge from the wings, and an advance with the bayonet of the infantry, drove him from his position. The army was always ranged on two lines, but, there being scarcely any intervals in the first line, it became very difficult for the second to come to the aid of the first when wanted. Such was the army and such were the tactics which Frederick II of Prussia found at his disposal on his accession. There appeared to be very little chance for a man of genius to improve upon this system, unless he broke through it, and that Frederick, in his position and with the material he had for soldiers, could not do. Still he contrived to organize his mode of attack and his army so that he could, with the resources of a kingdom less than Sardinia now is, and with scanty pecuniary support from England, carry on a war against almost all Europe. The mystery may be easily explained. Hitherto the battles of the 18th century had been parallel battles, both armies being deployed on lines parallel to each other, struggling in a plain, fair, stand-up fight, without any stratagems or devices of art; the only advantage accruing to the stronger party being that his wings overlapped those of his opponent. Frederick applied to the line order of battle the system of oblique attack invented by Epaminondas. He chose one wing of the enemy for the first attack, and brought against this one of his wings, overlapping that of the enemy, and part of his centre, at the same time keeping back the rest of his army. Thus not only had he the advantage of outflanking the enemy, but also of crushing by superior forces the troops exposed to his attack. The other troops of the enemy could not come to the assistance of those attacked; for not only were they tied to their places in the line, but as the attack on the one wing proved successful, the remainder of the army entered into line and engaged the hostile centre in front, while the original attacking wing fell upon its flank after disposing of the wing. This was indeed the only imaginable method by which it was possible, while maintaining the system of lines, to bring a superior force upon any one part of the enemy’s line of battle. Every thing, then, depended upon the formation of the attacking wing; and as far as the rigidity of the order of battle admitted of it, Frederick always strengthened it. He very often placed in front of the first line of infantry of the attacking wing an advanced line formed of his grenadiers or élite troops, so as to insure success as much as possible at the first onset.

The second means which Frederick took to improve his army was the reorganization of his cavalry. The teachings of Gustavus Adolphus had been forgotten; cavalry, instead of relying on the sword and the impetuosity of the charge, with rare exceptions had returned to fighting with the pistol and the carbine. The wars in the beginning of the 18th century had thus not been rich in successful charges of horsemen; the Prussian cavalry was especially neglected. But Frederick returned to the old plan of charging sword in hand and at full gallop, and formed a cavalry unequalled in history; and to this cavalry he owed a very great part of his successes. When his army became the model of Europe, Frederick, in order to blind the military men of other nations, began to complicate to an astonishing degree the system of tactical evolutions, all of them unfit for actual war, and intended only to hide the simplicity of the means which had procured him victory. He succeeded so well in this that nobody was more blinded than his own subordinates, who actually believed that these complex methods of forming line were the real essence of his tactics; and thus Frederick, beside laying the foundation for that pedantry and martinetism which have since distinguished the Prussians, actually prepared them for the unparalleled disgrace of Jena and Auerstädt.

Beside the infantry of the line, which we have so far described, and which always fought in closed ranks, there was a certain class of light infantry, but this did not appear in great battles. Its task was the war of partisans; for this the Austrian Croats were admirably adapted, while for every other purpose they were useless. Upon the model of these half savages from the military frontier against Turkey, the other European states formed their light infantry. But skirmishing in great battles, such as was practised by the light infantry of antiquity and of the middle ages, even up to the 17th century, had completely disappeared. The Prussians alone, and after them the Austrians, formed a battalion or two of riflemen, composed of gamekeepers and forest guards, all dead shots, who in battle were distributed over the whole front and fired at officers; but they were so few that they scarcely counted. The resuscitation of skirmishing is the product of the American war of independence.

While the soldiers of European armies, held together by compulsion and severe treatment, could not be trusted to fight in extended order, in America they had to contend with a population which, untrained to the regular drill of line soldiers, were good shots and well acquainted with the rifle. The nature of the ground favored them; instead of attempting manoeuvres of which at first they were incapable, they unconsciously fell into skirmishing. Thus, the engagement of Lexington and Concord marks an epoch in the history of infantry.

VII. The Infantry Of The French Revolution And Of The 19th Century

When the European coalition invaded revolutionary France, the French were in a similar position to that of the Americans a short time before, except that they had not the same advantages of ground. In order to fight the numerous armies, invading or threatening to invade the country, upon the old line principle, they would have required well drilled men, and these were scarce, while undrilled volunteers were plentiful. As far as time allowed, they were exercised in the elementary evolutions of linear tactics; but as soon as they got under fire, the battalions deployed in line dissolved themselves, unconsciously, into thick swarms of skirmishers, seeking protection against fire from all accidents of ground, while the second line formed a kind of reserve which often enough was involved in the fight from the very beginning of the engagement. The French armies, moreover, were very differently organized from those opposed to them. They were formed, not into an unbending monotonous line of battalions, but into army divisions, each of which was composed of artillery, cavalry, and infantry. The great fact was all at once rediscovered that it matters not whether a battalion fights in its “correct” place in the order of battle, so that it advances into line when ordered, and fights well. The French government being poor, tents and the immense baggage of the 18th century were done away with; bivouacking was invented, and the comforts of the officers, which in other armies formed a large portion of the impediments, were reduced to what they could carry on their backs. The army, instead of being fed from magazines, had to depend upon requisitions on the country passed through. Thus the French attained a mobility and a facility of forming order of battle quite unknown to their enemies. If beaten, they were out of the reach of pursuit in a few hours; if advancing, they could appear on unexpected points, on the flanks of the enemy, before he got notice. This mobility, and the jealousy among themselves of the chiefs of the coalition, gave them breathing time to drill their volunteers, and to elaborate the new tactical system which was rising among them.

From the year 1795 we find this new system taking the definite form of a combination of skirmishers and close columns. The formation in line was subsequently added, though not for a whole army as hitherto, but for single battalions only, which deployed in line whenever an opportunity appeared to require it. It is evident that this latter manoeuvre, requiring more steadiness of drill, was the last to be resumed by the irregular bands of the French revolution. Three battalions formed a demi-brigade, 6 a brigade; 2 or 3 brigades of infantry a division, to which were added 2 batteries of artillery and some cavalry; several such divisions formed an army. Whenever a division met the enemy, the skirmishers of its advanced guard established themselves in a defensive position, the advanced guard forming their reserve until the division came up. The brigades then formed upon two lines and a reserve, but every battalion in column, and with no stated intervals; for the protection of rents in the order of battle there was the cavalry and the reserve. The line of battle was no longer necessarily a straight and uninterrupted one; it might be bent in all directions, as the ground required, for now there was no longer a selection of naked level plains for battle fields; on the contrary, the French preferred broken ground, and their skirmishers, forming a chain in front of the whole line of battle, threw themselves into every village, farm yard, or copse that they could get hold of. If the battalions of the first line deployed, they generally all turned now soon skirmishers; those of the second line always remained in column, and generally charged in this formation against the thin lines of the enemy with great success. Thus, the tactical formation of a French army for battle gradually came to consist of two lines, each formed of battalions in close column, placed en échiquier, with skirmishers before the front, and a compact reserve in the rear.

It was at this stage of development that Napoleon found the tactics of the French revolution. As soon as his accession to political power allowed him to do so, he began to develop the system still further. He concentrated his army in the camp of Boulogne, and there gave them a regular course of drill. He especially practised them in the formation of compact reserve masses on a small space of ground, and in the quick deployment of these masses for entering into line. He formed 2 or 3 divisions into one army corps so as to simplify the command. He invented and brought to its highest perfection the new marching order, which consists in spreading the troops over so great an extent of ground that they can subsist on the stores it contains, still keeping so well together that they can be united on any given point before the part which is attacked can be crushed by the enemy. From the campaign of 1809, Napoleon began to invent new tactical formations, such as deep columns of entire brigades and divisions, which however signally failed and were never again revived. After 1813 this new French system became the common property of all nations on the continent of Europe. The old line system, and the system of recruiting mercenaries, had both been abandoned. Everywhere the liability of every citizen to military service was acknowledged, and everywhere the new tactics were introduced.

In Prussia and Switzerland every one had actually to serve; in the other states a conscription was introduced, the young men drawing lots to determine who should serve; everywhere reserve systems were introduced, by dismissing a portion of the men, when drilled, to their homes, so as to have a large number of drilled men at disposal in case of war, with little expense in peace.

Since that time several changes have occurred in the armament and organization of infantry, produced partly by the progress of the manufacture of small arms, partly by the collision of French infantry with the Arabs of Algeria. The Germans, always fond of the rifle, had increased their battalions of light riflemen; the French, driven by the necessity of having in Algeria an arm of greater range, at last in 1840 formed a battalion of riflemen armed with an improved rifle of great precision and range. These men, drilled to perform all their evolutions and even long marches in a kind of trot (pas gymnastique), soon proved themselves of such efficiency that new battalions were formed. In this manner a new light infantry was created, not from sporting shots and gamekeepers, but from the strongest and most agile men; precision of fire and long range were combined with agility and endurance, and a force was formed which, as far as it went, was certainly superior to any other infantry in existence. At the same time, the pas gymnastique was introduced into the infantry of the line, and what even Napoleon would have considered the height of folly, running, is now practised in every army as an essential part of infantry drill.

The success of the new rifle of the French riflemen (DelvignePoncharra) soon produced new improvements. The conical bullet was introduced for rifled arms. New means were invented by Minie, Lorenz, and Wilkinson, to make the bullet glide down easily into the bore, and still to expand it, when once down, so as to fill up the grooves with its lead, and thus to give it the lateral rotation and force on which the effect of the rifle depends; on the other hand, Dreyse invented the needle gun, to be loaded at the breech, and not requiring a separate priming. All these rifles were capable of hitting at 1,000 yards, and quite as easily loaded as a common smooth-bore musket. Then the idea arose of arming the whole of the infantry with such rifles. England was the first to carry out this idea; Prussia, which had prepared for this step long before, followed; then Austria and the smaller German states; at last France. Russia, and the Italian and Scandinavian states, are still behind. This new armament has completely changed the aspect of warfare, but not in the way expected by tactical theorists, and for a very simple mathematical reason. It can be easily proved, by constructing the flight of these bullets, that an error of 20 or 30 yards in the estimation of the distance of the object will destroy all chance of hitting beyond 300 or 350 yards. Now, while on the practice ground the distances are known, on the battle field they are not, and they change every moment. Infantry posted in a defensive position, and having had time to pace off the distances of the most conspicuous objects before the front, will thus have an immense advantage, at from 1,000 to 300 yards, over an attacking force. This can only be obviated by advancing rapidly and without firing, at full trot, to some 300 yards, when the fire of the two parties will be equally effective. At this distance firing will become so murderous between two well posted lines of skirmishers, and so many bullets will hit the pickets and reserves, that a plucky infantry can do no better than seize the first opportunity to make a rush at the enemy, giving a volley at 40 or 50 yards. These rules, first proved theoretically by the Prussian Major Trotha, have been practically tried by the French in their late war against the Austrians, and with success. They will, therefore, form part and parcel of modern infantry tactics, especially if they prove to be of equally good effect when tried against such a rapidly loading arm as the Prussian needle gun. The arming of all infantry with one and the same rifle gun will tend to do away with the distinctions, still existing, of light and line infantry, by forming an infantry capable of any service. In this will evidently consist the next improvement of this arm.