470 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
field—the one with Luckner's, the other with Lafayette's army. 1 2 Lafayette 
was at first undecided as to the proper armament of the horse artillery, but 
a month's experience in the field convinced him that there are limits to 
mobility as well as to weight of metal, and that the gun best suited for the 
purpose was the 8-pr. 3 The wisdom of this decision was proved ere long, for 
the Trench 8-pr. showed its superiority over the Prussian 6-pr. almost 
immediately. 3 
Although the Trench had adopted the detachment system, they were far 
from being blind to its inherent defects, and three years after the introduction 
of the flying artillery appeared a pamphlet, written with almost judicial calm¬ 
ness, in which an artillery officer discusses the relative merits of the detachment 
and wagon systems, and sums up in favour of the latter. 4 Colonel Durtubie's 
pamphlet in Trance forms the complete counterpart of the memorandum 
sent in to the Master-General of the Ordnance, three years previously, by the 
Woolwich Committee in England; with this difference,that while the Trench 
officer only discussed the relative advantages of two systems—the detachment 
and the wagon—the English officers balanced the advantages of three—the 
detachment, the wagon, and the gun-carriage. 
The state of the artillery in England on the close of the Seven Years' War was 
as bad, if not worse, than in Trance. 5 The English field artillery had taken 
a part, and a most distinguished part, in the final campaigns of that war, under 
the four celebrated captains, Phillips, Drummond, Toy, and Macbean— 
Phillips being one of the ablest officers that ever led a battery of British 
artillery into action ; 6 and on their return to England they exerted themselves 
1 “ Memoires du Gen. Lafayette,” Tom. III. p. 297. 
2 “ Je balan 9 ais d’abord entre des pieces de 8 et de 4; mais j’ai reconnu par 1’experience que 
celles de 8 et les obusiers sont tres-preferable.”—Ibid. p. 440. 
3 (L’Artillerie a cheval) “ est notre seul point de superiority sur les Prussiens.”—Ibid. Lafayette 
says (Memoires, Tom. III. p. 430) that the Prussian horse artillery was armed with 3-prs.; but it 
is probable that he is mistaken, as Gen. von Strotha positively states that it was armed with 6-prs., 
“ Die koniglich preussische reitende Artillerie,” p. 28. To the best of my belief, the only 3-prs. 
ever possessed by the Prussian horse artillery were those belonging to the Potsdam Horse Artillery 
Depot in 1772. See von Strotha, p. 14. 
4 “ Memoire et Observations sur PArtillerie a cheval, et Remarque sur PInnovation des machines 
proposees pour F equipages de cette Artillerie,” par T. Durtubie, Chef-de-Brigade d’Artillerie, Paris. 
L’an troisieme de la Republique. “Notre opinion,” says the author, when expressing his preference 
for the wagon system, “ est toujours subordonne a Pexperience de la guerre.”—p. 10. 
5 The train of artillery which served in Germany during these campaigns, under General 
Belford, consisted of 32 guns, 2 howitzers, and 6 "small mortars. For the draught of these 40 pieces 
of ordnance 1415 horses were employed, in the following proportions:— 
For each 12-pr. 15 horses. 
a u 9-pr. 11 // 
/, /, 6-pr. (long) . 7 // 
n n 6-pr. (short). 2 u 
n the flag gun (a 12-pr.) . 17 n 
The number of horses in the teams is odd, because the horses drew in pairs, with the exception 
of the shaft horse, who drew single.—See Muller’s “Treatise on Artillery,” London, 1780, Vol. I. 
p. 192. These figures show that, as far as mobility was concerned, the field artillery of the Seven 
Years’ "War was certainly not a century in advance of that of the Thirty Years’ War. 
6 “ Superlative practice on our right by Capt. Phillips,” says Mr. T. Carlyle, describing the 
effect of the British artillery at Minden, 1759.—“Hist, of Fred, the Great,” Yol. V. pp. 451,452. 
At the battle of Warbourg the following year, Gen. Mostyn was obliged to trot the English cavalry 
