ARMS, COATS OF. 



ARMY, THE ENGLISH. 



The Jt+ntt. Sir Samuel Meyrick obaerre*, that u the sweyne*- 

 featber was bid aside when the rest which contained it was rrlin- 

 ouiahed, the m*fc*4Mr* wcra reduced to the came inconvenience u 

 wey experienced before it had beta invented. To raume the ample 

 i mjue* feather WM not deemed expedient, u from its length it was 

 extremely awkward to manage, and pikemen were a specie* of troop* 

 that had become disuaed. Thi* induced such soldier* a* were armed 

 with daggers to (tick them into the muzzle* of their pieoee after baring 

 L Kthi 



i thi* practice we hare the origin of the bayonet, which wo* 

 to termed from baring been fin* made at Bayonne. The French 

 called them bayonet a marohe, and first introduced them into their 

 army in 1871. Theee were formed with plain handle*, formed to fit 

 tight into the muzzle*, rather enlarging towards the blade to prevent 

 their entering too far into the piece. Subsequently a ring wu added, 

 by which it waa placed on the muzzle, in which way the French used 

 it in the reign of William 111., to the astonishment of the 26th 

 regiment of foot, on whom they poured a volley, halting in their 



The arm* at present used will be described under their respective 

 bead* MCSKET ; RIFLE ; ftc., and the arming of the various branches 

 of the Mi-rice under INFANTRY ; CAVALRY ; ftc. 



Beside* the authorities quoted in this article, Grose'* 'Military 

 History ;' Stnitt's ' Manners and Customs,' and the various authors 

 quoted by them, may be referred to. 



ARMS, COATS OF. [HERALDRY.] 



ARMS, STAND OF, mean* the complete set of arms for one man, 

 namely, musket and bayonet, belt*, cartridge-box, Ac. 



ARMY, THE ENGLISH. The word army is derived from the 

 French armtt, from which language many of our military terms are 

 taken. It is applied to an armed, and more or leas disciplined, body of 

 men. An army is denned by Locke to be a collection of armed men 

 obliged to obey one man. There are, however, various definitions 

 given by writers on the Law of Nations. 



The word army is not used to designate a single regiment or battalion, 

 or any small body of armed men. An army is a large body of troops 

 of all arms, accompanied by their trains of stores and materiel, divided 

 for the purpose* of organisation into division*, brigade*, and regiment*, 

 each under it* own special commander, and having officers of various 

 descriptions to attend to all that is necessary to make the troops 

 eflVtive when in action ; the whole body being under the direction of 

 some one commander, and moving according to hi* orders. This officer 

 U called the Commander-in-chief, the general, and sometimes, a* when 

 two or more allied armies are under the chief direction of one of the 

 general*, the generalissimo. 



We may briefly explain why we limit this article to a sketch of the 

 origin of the English army, without including, as is sometimes done in 

 similar work*, an historical sketch of the armies of ancient imtiuiiH. 

 The armies of Greece, Rome, and the ancient Oriental nations, were, 

 owing to various causes, different from those of modern Europe, and 

 the consideration of their true character belongs to the history of those 

 nation*. From the impossibility of saying anything satisfactory within 

 reasonable limit*, and also from a desire to avoid the errors whirli we 

 observe in all short sketches of this description, we have, under mioh 

 bead* a* GREEKS, ROMAXB, EGYPTIANS, &c., noticed their military 

 system, to far a* it poasossos a distinct character. 



The history of the armies of continental Europe, as, for instance, 

 that of Prussia, is inseparably connected with the political history 

 of each state, and ha* been treated under those heads in the GEOU. 

 Drr. of Eso. CYCL. For other particulars connected with the 

 formation of an army, see ENLISTMENT, RicRi'irnro, SOLDIER, and 

 also MILITIA. 



The whole military force of a nation, comprising ita regular or 

 standing army, militia, and volunteers, is sometimes called its army, 

 though generally this term is confined to ita standing army. In 

 another sense, an army i* a detachment from the whole collected force ; 

 a number of regiment* sent forth on a particular expedition under the 

 command of some one person who is the general for that especial 

 purpose. Instance* of this latter sense of the word occur in the ox- 

 preadons 'Army of Italy,' 'the Army of Spain,' &c., as formed by 

 Napoleon. Such a detachment may be a large or a small army ; and 

 should it return with it* ranks greatly thinned and without many 

 of iu officer*, it would still be an army, if the distribution into 

 division* and regiment* remained, though actually consisting of not 

 more than a single regiment with it* rail complement of men and 

 officers. In this tatc it is sometimes not inaptly called the skeleton of 

 an army. 



An army Is the great Instrument supported by a nation and placed 

 in the hands of its government, by which in the last extremity it 

 maintain* the constitution at home by enforcing obedience to its laws, 

 and support* the honour of the country abroad, by defending its rights 

 against any powers which may show a disposition to encroach on them. 

 When the effort* of the ministers of peace and justice are inadequate 

 to enforce submission to the laws ; when the correspondence of cabmet 

 sad the conference* of ambassador* fail in composing dispute* which 

 ariae among nation*, the army i* that hand of power which i* then 

 legitimately put forth. Thi* powerful engine has, however, but too 

 often been used for baser purposes ; not only for aggression and unpro- 

 voked attack* against the liberties of other countries, but, when in the 



hand* of unprincipled men, for the subversion of the constitution and 

 liberties of their own countries Thus was it in Rome in ancient, and 

 France in modern, time* ; and thus will it always be, when the ranks, 

 from which its officers are recruited, hare no stake in the country, and 

 being dependent solely on their profession, become a separate oast* 

 without community of interest with the rest of the nation. 



The legitimate purposes for which an army is maintained are mani- 

 festly so important to the well-being of a state, that att. 

 hare been directed to thi* subject in the very beginning of political 

 society. But to hare an army always appointed and always ready for 

 the field can only be effected in a comparatively high state of < 

 tion, when the whole machinery of state i* well organised, by main- 

 taining a regular or standing army as distinguished from a militia 

 which is capable of being called out merely for a temporary exigency. 

 No better proof can be afforded of the high civilisation of Egypt and 

 other countries in early times than the well-appointed and powerful 

 armies which they were able to bring into the field. This was effected 

 in Egypt by having a particular caste or class of soldiers, corresponding 

 pretty nearly to the Kshatriyaa of India. (See Herod, ii. 164, *<.) The 

 army raised by Sesostris seventeen centuries before our era, whi.-li if 

 the earliest military establishment of which we have any record, is 

 stated by Diodorus Siculus, to have been composed of 600,000 infantry, 

 24,000 cavalry, and 27 war chariot*, though this is probably an ex- 

 aggerated estimate, if one may judge from the size and popul.ii 

 the country. The armies of the Greek*, especially in the post-Alex- 

 andrine period, those of Carthage under the command of Hannibal, 

 and the armies of Rome in the best days of the Republic and the 

 Empire, were not inferior to any of modern times in numbers, appoint- 

 menu, discipline, or the military skill of their commanders, and were 

 essentially standing armies. It U not, however, to them that we are 

 to trace the origin or the history of our modern armies. 



An army, meaning by that term a body of men distinct from the rest 

 of the nation, constantly armed and disciplined, wag unknown to the 

 remote fathers of the English and the other modern European nations. 

 The whole male population was the army ; that is, every person learned 

 the use of arms, was ready to defend himself, his family, an.i hi- 

 posaesaions ; and in time of common danger, to go out to more lasting 

 warfare under the command of some one chief chosen from amongst 

 the heads of the tribes. Such was the nature of the vast armior > 

 presented themselves from time to time on the Roman front! 

 contended against Ctcsar when he made his conquest of Gaul ; and 

 such was the power which, on no short a wanting, was arrayed against 

 him on the British coast under the command of G'ambelaunu - . when In- 

 made that descent from which neither honour accrued to the Roman 

 arms, nor benefit to the Roman state. In all these nations the warlike 

 spirit was kept up by the sense of danger, not so much from foreign 

 invaders, as from neighbouring and kindred tribes. 



In the writings of Camar and of Tacitus, the two authors from whom 

 we derive our beet acquaintance with the manners and habit* of the 

 Germanic and the western nations of Europe, we see the warlike 

 character of those nations, and the principles on which their military 

 affairs were conducted. A whole male population trained to aniiM ; 

 confederating in time of common danger under some one chief ; with 

 littie defensive armour, and none offensive but dart*, spears, and 

 arrow* ; throwing up occasionally earth- works to strengthen a p- 

 this i the outline of their military proceeding*. (Tacit. ' Atmal.' ii. 

 14.) There is little peculiar in the military system of the ancient 

 Britons ; yet it must have been by long practice and perseverance that 

 the warriors attained that skill which attracted the .v (Vcsar. 



His description of one of their chariot*, driven by a charioteer whose 

 attention wa* solely directed to the management of tin- ehaiiot, while 

 in it stood the painted warrior dealing hisdarta around him. or running 

 along the beam while the chariot was in its swiftest motion, presents 

 an object at once picturesque and terrible. 



\\ li.-n Britain was reduced to the form of a Roman provi- 

 regular army was introduced and permanently nettled in tin- H .m.l. f.,i 

 the purpose of enforcing submission, and of defence against i 

 invaders. Almost all the remains of Roman authority in Brit 

 roads, walls, encampments, and inscriptions, are military. In 

 curious relic of Roman time, the 'Notiliu,' which is referred to tli.. 

 age of the Roman emperors, Arcadius and Honorius, we hare a <! 

 account of the distribution of the whole Roman army, and we see, in 

 (until ular, how Britain was then divided for military purposes, and 

 what were the fixed stations of the various portions of the Roman 

 legions. 



It was the policy of Rome to recruit her legions from among the 

 barbarous nation*, but to employ such soldiers in countries to 

 they were foreign. Thu*, in the inscriptions relating to military 

 affairs which have been found in England, many trilves of Gaul, of 

 Spain, and Portugal, are named a* those to which particular > 

 or particular bodies of troop* belonged. And *o in foreign inscrii 

 the names of British tribe* are sometimes found. The grounds of 

 this policy are apparent. The military portion of these nations was 

 thus drawn away. There remained only the quiet and the peaceable, 

 or the female*, the young, the infirm, and the aged. As long as the 

 Roman army wu sufficient for their protection, it was well. But 

 when that army was withdrawn, we ace, as in the case of Britain, 

 that a people so weakened easily fell a prey to nations which had 



