264 



MILITARY TACTICS. 



Rarly pro- 

 gress of the 

 art of war. 



Persians, 

 Egyptians, 

 Greeks, and 

 Macedoni- 

 ans. 



History, J. HI art of war may be considered as coeval with the 

 ^"""Y"** 1 ' history of the world. The evil passions inherent in hu- 

 man nature, hatred, envy, covetousness, ambition, and 

 revenge, first gave birth to this destructive art, which, 

 however rude in its commencement, has, in the course 

 of time, gradually advanced to the importance and dig- 

 nity of a science. 



At first, the art was probably limited to the display of 

 individual strength, courage, and address, in wrestling, 

 boxing, and the employment of the most simple offensive 

 arms. But as civilization advanced, and societies became 

 more extensive, larger bodies of men were employed in 

 warlike enterprizes ; the advantages of a certain degree of 

 order and combination soon became obvious ; and ex- 

 perience gradually suggested the use of various instru- 

 ments, to render more efficient the natural force and ac- 

 tivity of the limbs in close conflict, or to annoy the ene- 

 my from a distance. The art of war now attained to 

 that state nearly, in which it is still found among the 

 Asiatic tribes, consisting of a mass of rude principles, 

 which could scarcely yet be honoured with the name of 

 science. Meanwhile, there arose men of great talents 

 and ambition, who, being occupied during the greater 

 part of their lives in warlike enterprizes, brought the 

 art to a greater state of perfection, and made use of it 

 as the instrument of their glory and aggrandisement. 



Guibert distinguishes five or six great epochs, in 

 which important changes were effected in the principles 

 of military tactics. It was among the Asiatic nations, 

 and particularly among the Persians, that the art ap- 

 pears to have first assumed a systematic form. The 

 Egyptians, attached to the peaceful sciences, made lit- 

 tle progress in the military art ; and excepting under 

 Sesostris, they never were a conquering people. After 

 the death of Cyrus, the military art passed to the 

 Greeks ; and this brave and ingenious people reduced 

 it to systematic principles, and brought it to a great de- 

 gree of perfection. Alexander extended it still farther ; 

 and, in his time, the Macedonian phalanx was esteem- 

 ed the most perfect order of battle which had ever 

 been invented by military science. 



The Pha- . The principal weapon of the Greeks was the spear 

 Jnx. er pike, which they used with great skill and dexterity. 



When in order of battle, the Greeks and Macedonians 

 were frequently drawn up on a depth of sixteen, and 

 even thirty-two men, placed in files, one behind ano- 

 ther. This deep and dense order, while it could be 

 perfectly preserved, enabled them not only to resist the 

 most vigorous attacks of their enemies, but to penetrate 

 and lay open whatever opposed them. 



The Ho- f ^ e Romans adopted other arms, and a different mode 



mans. of fighting. Their favourite weapon was a short cut- 

 and-thrust sword, easily manageable in the hand, and 

 admirably adapted to give effect to the courage and 

 activity of their soldiers in close conflict. They reject- 

 ed the dense order of the Greeks, as incompatible with 

 the use of that weapon, and drew up in long full lines 

 ef three men in depth, much the same as in our pre- 

 sent European armies ; with this difference, that the 

 men were arranged not in files one behind another, as 

 is now done, but each man in the succeeding rank was 

 placed diagonally, so as to coyer the interval between 

 the two men in the rank before them. Besides, the 

 lioinau soldier, in order to have the full play of his short 



sword and buckler, required a great deal more room in History. 



all directions than either the Macedonian or modern >1 ~'Y"*' 



European soldier. Such were the arms and discipline 



of the Romans, which, seconded by their courage and 



skill, enabled them to triumph over the Grecian pha- 



lanx, and to maintain for ages the sovereignty of the 



wqrld. 



During the decline of the Roman empire, the science Decline of 

 of military tactics was almost entirely neglected, and Military 

 the empire itself gradually became a prey to those nit- Tactics. 

 nierous swarms of barbarians whom the hopes of plun- 

 der invited to its conquest. For along period, the mi- 

 litary history of Europe only presents to our view ar- 

 mies with little discipline and less science ; battles gain- 

 ed by numbers, by valour, or by chance ; and conquests 

 equally rapid and destructive. Even the invention of 

 gunpowder, although it necessarily occasioned consi- 

 derable changes in the mode' of fighting, does not ap- 

 pear to have immediately led to any very important 

 improvements in tactics. 



Maurice, Prince of Orange-Nassau, and Gustavus Their re- 

 Adolphus of Sweden, are justly considered as the fa- vival by 

 thers of modern military science. Both were men of Mam-ice of 

 learning and research, as well as of genius ; and both O| 'ange- 

 carefully studied the art of war in the writings of the Nassau - 

 Greeks and Romans. Their admiration of the ancients, " 



indeed, was perhaps carried to excess, and led them to 

 the servile adoption of principles, which were no longer 

 suited to the times, or to the arms then in use. But 

 there is no doubt, that we are chiefly indebted to them 

 1'or the revival of military tactics and discipline. They 

 kept up the prejudice in favour of the dense order of 

 battle, and the use of the pike ; but, on the other hand, 

 they shewed the advantages of the oblique order, and 

 invented the present grand basis of military operations, 

 a triangle resting on a chain of magazines ; besides in- 

 troducing many other minor improvements in the dis- 

 cipline and disposition of the troops. 



. After the death of Gustavus, Bernhard, Duke of D| sc ; p | eS c f 

 Weimar, Horn, Banner, Torstensohn, Turenne, Monte- Gustavus. ' 

 cuculi, and others, fought with success according to the 

 principles of their master ; and the art of war continued 

 in certain respects to improve. This, as Guibert ob- 

 serves, was the age of great generals, commanding 

 small armies, and doing great tilings. Some circum- 

 stances, however, still concurred to retard the progress 

 of military science: among which may be reckoned the 

 servile adherence to the ancient tactics, the prejudice in 

 favour of the dense order, and the continued use of the 

 pike, which even the celebrated Montecuculi used to 

 call the queen of arms. 



Towards the end of the seventeenth, and' the begin- Further 

 ning of the eighteenth century, great improvements progress of 

 were made in certain branches of military science, while the rniliia- 

 others were almost entirely neglected. Coehorn and "* art m 

 Vauban brought the art of attacking fortified places to 

 a state of perfection wholly unknown to the ancients. 

 The art of defence, however, *vas far from making equal 

 progress. In the wean time armies became much more 

 numerous ; and the quantity of artillery was prodigi- 

 ously increased. Louis XIV. gave the example, which 

 was soon imitated by the rest of Europe. Armies so 

 numerous, and with "such immense trains, Were less 

 easily supplied and put in motion ; and the duties of 





