SYNOPTICAL CHARTS. 
481 
older student evolve those philosophic deductions without which the 
study of history is wholly unprofitable. But the particular chart which 
has gained my personal admiration is the extremely ingenious one con¬ 
structed by the Lecturer, showing six centuries of simultaneous evolu¬ 
tion of Artillery and Fortification. In the records of eternally 
recurring duels a mort between men and men with weapons of war the 
three most interesting epochs of the highest import are scheduled in 
that chart under the sections devoted to “ Fortifications and General 
History/’ and those that come next are under “ Artillery.” In the first 
epoch, if we ask the question “ When and how came it that Defence, 
whether by the individual fortressed mobilely in armour or by numbers 
enclosed by fixed fortifications, began to disappear before unarmoured 
attack ” The chart replies, in 1346, through gunpowder, which, as we 
all know, ultimately laid the prince in his impregnable fortress of 
mail at the mercy of the peasant in his shirt sleeves. But when we come 
to the second epoch and ask the question “ How and when came it that 
equilibrium was established between defensive masonry and attack¬ 
ing siege artillery ?” I imagine the chart has to speak with two tongues, 
somewhat contradictory, if the author will permit me to say so, because 
it determines the equilibrium epoch at the year 1500, while it shows 
that the bastion was introduced only in 1550. It is universally admitted 
that Fortification versus Gunnery were in equilibrio when the bastion 
superseded the early mediaeval wall with towers, and it has always vexed 
the soul of the military archaeologist to determine, amid conflicting 
claims, the crucial date and author of the bastion, I should like to ask 
the Lecturer whether the vertical column of the “ bastion ” should not 
be continued down from 1550 to 1500, so as to coincide with equilibrium 
or vice versa. 
When we come to the third epoch and ask the question “ When and 
how did Attack establish its superiority over Defence ?” the chart replies 
in 1690, when Vauban introduced system into Attack and Fortification 
(those are the words of the answer) and ten years later the superiority 
of Attack over Defence was established by Vauban. Royal 
Engineers have legitimate and just ground for magnifying Vauban. 
Vauban and his Fortification and System, however, have long since 
been discarded ; and it would be of more than academic interest if some 
Artilleryman were to enquire (which time does not now permit) how 
Marlborough, malgre Vauban himself and his fortifications and system, 
in every instance overthrew both, and established the superiority of 
Attack over Defence by resuscitating the arm of Spinola with the tactics 
of Turenne. The subject has been only faintly broached in the “ Pro¬ 
ceedings ” of our Institution, and our so-called histories of Artillery 
deal not with the evolution of Artillery materiel and tactics. 
Turning to the sections of ARTILLERY ; after the most minute ex¬ 
amination, I can only now suggest that the heading “Shell fire from 
guns ” might read Shell fire from guns by ships of war.” The vertical 
column will be seen to relate only to one item in 1826 when Colonel 
Paixhans introduced shell fire from guns in the French Navy from 
ships of war as distinguished from mortars in bomb vessels. The land 
33 ■ 
