THE EOYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
469 
the century—limber-boxes and horse artillery. 1 2 His system thus failed to 
fuse into one whole the three elements of which field artillery consists—the 
guns, the gunners, and the ammunition—and its mobility was, consequently, 
of necessity limited; but, taken all in all, the changes effected by Gribeauval 
were a gigantic stride in the right direction, and his system, which forms the 
sixth landmark in the history of the mobility of field artillery, remains to the 
present day the most important and the most conspicuous of all. 3 
But three short years had passed away after the death of the great reformer, 
when France found herself at war with Europe, single-handed and without 
an ally ; and the imperious necessities of the case compelled the French to 
adopt that light field artillery which the senseless, unpatriotic, and odious 
opposition of a faction had prevented Gribeauval from introducing. The 
hand of the age was upon these.evil councillors, and they could no longer 
resist. They could not turn back the stream of reform; they could not even 
stop it; they could not prevent it from rushing onwards and overwhelming 
them in its irresistible course. They were struck down, and humbled, and 
silenced; they were cast into outer darkness; and the work of reform was 
recommenced by a man who was equal to the occasion. 
On the 21 st April, 1792, General Lafayette addressed a letter to M. de 
Grave, the French War Minister, urging in strong terms the importance of 
introducing horse artillery into the French service. 3 The minister lost no 
time in carrying into effect the recommendations of the general, and during 
the month of May two batteries of horse artillery were equipped and took the 
1 “ Erx 1762, M. de Clausen, campe vers Wolfenbuttel, ayant une expedition a faire qui exigeait 
une grande celerite, se plaignit a M. de Vregille . . . de la pesanteur de 1’artillerie, et lui 
demanda de la seconder dans son operation, qui devait etre executee rapidement. M. de Vregille, 
officier d’artillerie distingue, ne prit qu’un caisson par piece, doubla ses attelages, fit monter Sur 
les cbevaux les cannoniers, partit, arriva a dix heures du matin, fut trois heures en batterie et 
revint ayant fait seize lieues dans la journee. L’Artillerie a cheval la mieux exercisee ne serait pas 
plus ceRre. Cet officier parla depuis cette operation au General Gribeauval, et du projet d’organiser 
une artillerie a cheval en consequence. Ce general lui repondit; ‘vous voyez la peine quej’ai 
k detruire d’anciens prejuges, et les ennemis que m’ont suscites les changements que j’ai operes; 
un jour nous exdeuterons votre projet, prepared-le; pour le present ce serait trop vouloir!’”— 
“ Aide-Memoire de l’Officier d’Artillerie,” par Gassendi. 
Colonel Durtubie refers to the unreasonable opposition raised against the introduction of limber- 
boxes, in his “ Memoire, &c., sur I’Artillerie a cheval,” p. 6, note—an essay which has only one 
fault, its shortness. 
Limber-boxes do not appear to have been adopted in France as late as 1825. See “ Traite 
Elementaire d’Artillerie,” par E. Decker. Traduit de l’Allemand, par Col. R. de Peretsdorf et 
Capti Nancy. Paris, 1825, pp. 315, 337. 
2 For a full account of Gribeauval’s system, see the Emperor Napoleon III.’s “ Etude sur le 
passe et 1’avenir de 1’Artillerie,” Tom. IV.; Favd’s “ Hist, et Tact, des Trois Armes,” pp. 145-155; 
“ Conference sur TArtillerie de Campagne,” Paris, 1869, pp. 14—19. 
3 “Permettez, Monsieur, a unhomme qui a cause sur cet objet” (the formation of horse artillery) 
“ avec le feu roi de Prusse” (Frederick the Great), “le Prince Henri, le Due de Brunswick, le 
General Miillendorf, avec les Marechaux de Landon et de Lasey, enfin avec les principaux 
generaux de Prusse, d’Autriche, et d’Allemagne, qui a bien examine et bien reflechi sur cette 
institution; permettez lui de representer que le prompte formation d’une artillerie a cheval est 
un des plus grands service que le ministre de la guerre puisse rendre a l’armee fran^aise.”— 
“ Memorres du Gen. Lafayette,” Tom; III. p. 430. 
The question was laid before a committee by M. de Narbonne, and it was decided that the horse 
artillery was only to differ from the rest of the field artillery by the rapidity of its movements.-^ 
Grose’s “Military Antiquities,” Vol. II. p. 197. 
