458 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
necessity did lie consider it to commence these changes without delay, that on 
the 11th Aug. 1741, only four months after Molwitz, he communicated to 
Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau a scheme for the re-organisation of the field 
artillery. The king proposed to suppress 6-prs, altogether, and to supply 
their place with 3-prs., because the latter were easy of draught and could be fired 
rapidly. 1 2 Prom the king^s letter it is evident that he had been revolving in 
his mind the whole question of the equipment, if not the organisation, of 
field artillery, and the most natural and reasonable solution of this profound 
problem, viewed from his standing point, was undoubtedly the adoption of 
3-prs. In our days, when we can read the present by the light of the past, 
and when the field artillery question has been discussed again and again, it 
would be easy to criticise with a remorseless criticism the proposals of 
Frederick. Let us remember, however, that in his time military history can 
scarcely be said to have existed, and that field artillery was still in a state of 
puling infancy; that the organisation of the means of draught—the drivers, 
the horses, and the harness—was so bad that even the lightest guns had to 
be moved by hand when under fire; and that the field artillery question is at 
once so extensive, so complicated, and so variable, that a final solution of it 
is impossible. It may be solved to suit particular times, and particular 
places; but, I repeat, it can never be solved generally and finally. Por the 
state of artillery at any given period is ultimately dependent upon the state 
of chemistry and metallurgy at that period; and who can fix the bounds, or 
determine the course, of the arts and sciences ? 
The first point to be settled in organising a system of field artillery, is the 
means of draught available for the guns. There are but five known-means of 
draught for artillery purposes—men, oxen, elephants, traction engines, and 
horses. If the guns are to be of any effective calibre, the accumulated 
experience of ages proves that men are too feeble for the work; and if the 
guns are to move at a rapid pace, it is no less certain that oxen are too 
slow. Elephants are too timid, 3 and the question of traction engines is still 
in embryo. 3 The horse, therefore, remains as the last and best means of 
draught at the present time. 
The nature of the means of draught being settled, the next question to be 
determined is the greatest number of horses that can work together effec¬ 
tively at the three paces available for draught which the horse possesses—the 
walk, the trot, and the gallop. 4 On such matters as these there will always 
1 “Ich bin gesonnen . . . dass solche aus 60 3-pfiindern bestehen soil, hingegen ich 
alle die 6-pfunder abschaffen und umgiessen lassen will, weil erstere besser zu traktiren sind und 
damit gescbwinder gefeuert werden kann.”—Fred, to Prince Leopold, in Troschke, p. 22. 
2 It is said that the difficulty of bringing elephants under fire arises as much from the un- . 
willingness of the drivers as from the timidity of the elephants; and I am informed that during the 
action of Meeah Gunj, in Oudh, 1858, where the drivers were threatened with instant death unless 
the guns were brought up without delay, the elephants showed little signs of reluctance. 
3 See Mr. H. Bessemer’s letter, in the “ Railway Times” of the 15th Oct. 1870, and an account 
of experiments carried on at Lincoln on the 30th Nov. 1870, in the Dublin “Daily Express” of the 
26th Dec. 1870. Mr. I. Brunei concludes a lengthened comparison of the horse and traction 
engines with the following words :—“ There is not at present any substitute for horse power on 
common roads, and, as far as the public ‘is concerned, nothing has yet been done.”—“ Essay on 
Draught,” in Youatt on “ The Horse,” 1859, p. 543. I believe the introduction of traction engines 
for heavy field artillery to be merely a question of time. 
4 “ The canter is a pace of ease, quite inconsistent with any exertion of draught.”—Brunei’s 
“ Essay on Draught,” p. 547, 
