460 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
The matter again enters within the sphere of mobility at this point, and 
now must be arranged the means of conveying the gunners with their guns 
and ammunition, and of thus combining into one whole the three elements 
of whicli field artillery is composed ; x for though, the gun be never so light, 
and though the horses be never so swift, the arm possesses no real mobility 
unless the guns, gunners, and ammunition are bound together by indissoluble 
bonds. 
There are but five modes of establishing a connecting link between the 
guns and ammunition and the gunners :—First, by mounting the gunners on 
horses, or the detachment system; secondly, by mounting them on the off- 
horses of the gun and wagon teams, or the off-horse system; thirdly, by 
mounting them on the gun-carriage and limber, or the gun-carriage system; 
fourthly, by mounting them on carriages specially constructed for their con¬ 
veyance, or the car system; and fifthly, by mounting them on the ammunition 
wagons, or the w r agon system. 1 2 3 
Such is a rough outline of the formidable problem, or group of problems, 
with which Frederick suddenly found himself face to face, and which he 
endeavoured to solve practically by adopting an equipment of 3-prs. He 
proposed 3-prs. for the reasons I have already mentioned, and his scheme 
certainly fulfilled the two conditions which the best writers of the day con¬ 
sidered essential to the success of the arm. “Un Commandant d'Artillerie/' > 
says the Marquis de Quincy, “ doit avoir deux buts principaux dans une 
bataille. Le premier est de rendre son artillerie si legere qu'il puisse 
la conduire partout avec diligence. Le second, de pouvoir s'en servir 
frequemment et vivement." 3 The Prussian king and the French marquis 
alike fell into the double error of mistaking lightness for mobility and 
rapidity of fire for efficacy of fire; and further, they confined their attention 
to one head only of that Hydra-headed monster, field artillery. We shall 
judge their errors with the more lenity if we consider that they have been 
carefully perpetuated, and may be met with, not only in our daily newspapers, 
but in some standard Works on artillery. 
Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau was an able man, and his answer to the 
king's letter proposing the adoption of 3-prs. and the suppression of 6-prs. 
was at once reasonable and firm. The 3-prs., the prince thought, might be 
doubled in number; but no train of artillery, in his opinion, would be 
complete without two or four howitzers, six 12-prs., and ten 6-prs. 4 
The king's correspondence on artillery matters, which thus began with 
Prince Leopold, w r as not only continued with him, but gradually extended 
itself to other officers, and as time passed on and the king's desire to improve 
his artillery became more generally known, changes were proposed by many of 
them in the materiel of the arm, and a series of experiments was set on foot. 
These discussions and experiments finally resulted in the entire separation of 
1 This question, it is almost needless to say, arises only in the medium and light field artillery, 
where the rate of motion of the gun and ammunition exceeds that of men on foot. Dismounted 
gunners can keep pace with heavy, or position artillery. 
2 There are, of course, innumerable combinations of these five systems; hut in a paper of limited 
length, like the present, it would be impossible to descend into such details. I venture to do 
nothing more than state the question broadly and generally. 
3 “ Maximes et Instructions sur l’Art Militaire.” Paris, 1726, p. 323. 
4 Von Troschke, p. 22. 
