122. 
that, his principles being founded in 
error, his deduétions could not fail to be 
mcorrect. The feverity of this attack 
is, however, foftened by complimentary 
allufions to jis talents, and experience in 
modern warfare. 
Guifchard then proceeds to exemphfy 
his text by narrating fome of the moft 
brillant actions of antiquity. He dif- 
cuffes, circumfiiantially, the whole of 
their taétics, and frequently with expla- 
nations altogether differing from the ex- 
pofition by Folard. In a differtation on 
the attack and defence of pofts, he is 
full more contradiétory in his affertions. 
Ffe maintains that, in this refpeét, our 
theory and that of the ancients is the 
fame ; but that the practice differs. This 
is a difficult point to. decide, the inven- 
tion of powder having materially chan- 
ged our exercife. His analyfis of Cefar’s 
wars in Africa explains the obfeurities of 
Hirtius, | 
In other memoirs, hiftorical and cri- 
tical, Guifchard difcuffes the campaigns 
of Cefar in Spain, when oppofed by 
Pompey’s armies. He illuftrates the 
fubject by learned notes on the Roman 
Method of confiruéting bridges for the 
paflage of their troops; on the method 
6f reconciling the calendar ufed by 
Julius Cefar with that of his predecel- 
fors; on their military views; their geo- 
graphical knowledge, &c. &c. 
This writer appears to be perfeétly 
¢onverfant with the Greek and Latin 
Janguages.* fis tranflations of Onofan- 
der, of Arrian’s Taétics, and partly of 
Julius Africanus, fupplementary to his 
Memonrs, are creditable to his pen, and 
claim the gratitude of hterary as well 
as military charaéters. 
' The Chevalier Lo-Looz takes up the 
gauntlet thrown down by Guifchard; he 
begins by afferting that war, as a fciencé, 
js founded on felt-evident propofitions, 
on theory fo demonftrative, that thofe 
whom it is iatended to inftruét fhould 
learn to move by principle, inftead of 
bemg mifled by conjecture often unfap- 
’ ported even by the appearance of pro- 
bability. He defcribes Guifchard as an 
unfieady guide, whofe ignorance of Ro- 
man tattics, added to his extravagant 
wate eae es Ue SEs ES Oe 2 
~* On this account the King of Pruffia 
ealled him 2uintus Icilius, after a Roman ge- 
neral, one of whofe moft fkilful maneuvres 
he had imitated. Frederic took him into his 
fervice, and treated him with efteem and 
sattinGion. 
Retraspective View of Historical 
[March f, 
hypothefes and bold affertions, have ef- 
tranged him from the true interpretation 
of his text. He purfues the track of his 
opponent, feizes on the fame objeéts, 
and makes them fubfervient to thie: elu- 
cidation of his own fyftem. Guifchard, 
in his reply, adds'to the proofs he had 
already given; and defeants on the fj 
tility of his adverfary’s affectedteai 
Thefe difputes, however, were very 
vicexble to the general caufe. 
{ENIL Dur.awnp, infpired with a hope 
of being able to create and mature a 
national fyftem of war, undertook the 
extention and developement of Folard’s 
plans. He ftorebades events defiined to 
raife the arms of France to an height of 
glory which thall exceed all human cal- , 
culation; and contends, that his pro- 
pofed manceuvres _are adapted to’ the 
character of his countrymen, who,- na- 
turally lively, want conftitutional phlegm 
to fuftain a continued fire unflraiken: 
whereas edged weapons would fuit their _ 
impetuofity of temper, and contribute 
materially to fuccefs. He contrafis a 
column fo armed with a battalion co- 
lumn; and infers from thenee, that by 
means of this mixture of arms (fo much 
recominended by all matters of the art), 
the tormer would poffefs a decided ad- 
vantage over the latter, by fpirited and 
active movements certainly practicable 
in the very heat of battle. With the 
columns of the ancients he is perpetu- 
ally finding fault ; but in his own, he af 
fures us, all their advantages are united, 
without any mixture of their defeéts. 
His fyftem, however, has a formidable 
opponent in the author of A Genera 
Effay on Taétics. 
The judicious Marfhal pe Purysrcur, 
a decided partifan of the ancients, has 
thrown fome important light on Mili- 
tary Evolutions. In his grand taéties, he 
appeals to the example of the Greeks, 
who had military fchools for the initrue- 
tion of youth im the theory of war; and 
afferts the pofiibility of perfecting that 
{cience without the aid of troops: for 
the pofitions being mcontrovertible, and 
the principles geometrically true, no 
other experience is, in bis opinion, 
effential to their operation than a perteét 
underftanding of the eftablithed rules, 
Puyfégur, in oppofition te Folard, is 
of opmion that a battahon, according to 
its prefent numbers, is of a proportion= 
ate confiitency to wheel without auk- 
wardnels, and manceuvre with aétivity 
and effect, He fays, the cohorts refem- 
bied 
