ACHIEVEMENTS OF FIELD ARTILLERY. 
453 
less brilliant.” St. Germain, writing of it afterwards, declares The 
first common salvo decided our rout and our shame.” Surely Ross- 
bach may be quoted as an example of a brilliant artillery achievement, 
even though the arm was then first feeling its strength, and its efforts 
were but the struggles of a vigorous child chafing at its swaddling 
clothes ? The much lauded deeds of Seydlitz’s cavalry are, however, 
chiefly associated with this victory, and admiration for their splendid 
discipline, the perfection of their training and the genius of their 
General has blended men to performances which went far to render 
their success possible, and they have been allowed to ride away with all 
the credit. 
At Leuthen, where Frederick’s system of tactics receive their best 
illustration, the artillery, if they did not accomplish any such brilliant 
feat of arms as deserves commemoration in these pages, played a part 
in strict accordance with the principles which should govern their 
action, and their weight was thrown into the scale in masses at the 
decisive points in a manner at which the most exacting tactician of to¬ 
day could scarcely cavil. 
At Zorndorf also, in the following year, a great mass of 60 guns 
brought a concentrated and most destructive fire to bear on the faces 
of the great square in which the Russians were drawn up at the com¬ 
mencement of the battle, and 57 guns likewise prepared the attack 
later in the day on the Russian left. 
If, however, we pass on to the battle of Kunersdorf we shall find 
the resisting power or latent inertia of guns especially well illustrated, 
just as at Rossbach their offensive force was displayed. And here 
it is not on Frederick’s side that we shall look for artillery successes. 
No genius directed the tactics of the artillery on that day, no brilliant 
manoeuvre, no stroke of luck assisted them. But a sort of lethal force 
and impassiveness, such as has ever distinguished Russian infantry, 
characterised their gunners too, and with stubborn, remorseless, weight 
of blow they stood their ground, and shivered every attempt of the 
other arms to close with them. Moreover, while the capacity of the 
arm in self-defence, when judiciously placed, shines brightly through 
the story of the close of the fight, we are reminded at the com¬ 
mencement by the fate of a portion of this very artillery force which 
was eventually so to distinguish itself that the lie of the ground must 
be studied if guns are to do all they may. A double lesson, therefore, 
is conveyed, and while at one period of the fight we are shown the 
strength of the arm, at another we are taught how greatly its power 
depends on its position. 
On the morning of the 12th of August, 1759, Frederick marched to 
attack the Russians and Austrians who were drawn up on the hills 
round Kunersdorf in a strongly intrenched position. The Prussian 
army rendezvoused at Bischofsee, and the main body was to march in 
two lines round the enemy’s right through a thickly wooded country, 
while a portion under Finck made a demonstration through Trettin 
to deceive him as to the true point of attack. The Russian right 
on the Muhlenberg was to be cannonaded from the north by Finck, 
and from the east by the King, and then the whole force of the 
