474 
SYNOPTICAL CHARTS. 
firing of the musketeers of the period that an archer could shoot six 
arrows in the time occupied in loading and discharging one musket. 
(' Encyclopaedia Britannica,” Art. ‘'Archery,” Vol. 2, p. 373). A reference 
to Colonel Hime’s “Stray Military Papers,” p. 44, reminds us of the fact 
that “The Rifle Corps” raised in 1800, and now known as “The Rifle 
Brigade,” was armed during the Peninsular War with a weapon which 
was sighted to IOO yards, with a folding sight for 200 yards. 
The extreme range of the Peninsular rifle was, therefore, well within 
the 16 score or 320 yards, which was for over 200 yards the minimum 
range at which archery practice was carried out. In view of this fact, 
the wonder rather is that the musket superseded the bow so soon. 
The fact is, however, capable of easy explanation. Colonel Hime 
thus puts the case for the musket in his “ Stray Military Papers,” page 
14. " The arrow glanced harmlessly off armour which was unable to 
resist ' the furie of the fire-shot.’ ” The musket, too, was better adap¬ 
ted for general use, in as much as *' the weakest (might) use guns as 
well as the strongest,” whereas “ your lusty and strong yeomen were 
chosen for the bow.” Further, “the bow (required) more practice to 
skilful use than any other instrument of offense.” 
The fire-arm, in fact, though it by no means put the awkward upon 
a level with the skilful, put him more nearly so than he ever was 
before. 
Even so late as the reign of Charles I., the Earl of Essex raised a 
company of archers for the service of the King, but the predominance 
of the archer was by that time a thing of the past. The fact that in 
London in 1590, a work was published by Sir John Smythe, entitled 
“ Certain Discourses concerning divers sorts of weapons ”—the said 
work constituting an attack on fire-arms; and that a pamphlet by H. 
Barwick, entitled “ Brief Discourse concerning weapons of fire,” con¬ 
stituting a defence of fire-arms, in reply to Smythe, was published in 
London, in 1594, prove that even in England, the home of the archer, 
the bow was at the close of the sixteenth century giving place to the 
weapons of the musketeer and his assistant, the pikeman. 
The supremacy of the musketeer and pikeman was challenged by 
Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Years’ War, and “ so successful was 
he in the employment of his cuirassiers and dragoons—into which two 
divisions his horsemen were classed—that all other European nations 
began to imitate him, and adopted his formation in three ranks.”— 
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, Art. Cav., Vol. 5, p. 262.) 
Oliver Cromwell has lately been re-discovered for us in England as 
a great cavalry leader by Captain Hoenig. He successfully demon¬ 
strates that the great Englishman was the real originator of the 
“ shock tactics ” of cavalry, that in his use of cavalry he anticipated 
Napoleon and Blucher in the pursuit, and that he was the precursor of 
Von Moltke in his employment of the cavalry screen. 
Probably in this matter Cromwell was a student of the taetics of 
Gustavus. “We have no actual record,” writes General Maurice in his 
essay on “ Military Literature,” of Cromwell’s studies of any kind 
during the years which preceeded the Civil War. Knowing, as he 
did, for some years before the wax began, that it was clearly coming, 
