FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188  
189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   >>   >|  
think, therefore, that under our conditions, as well as in all similar ones, the superiority at the decisive point is a matter of capital importance, and that this subject, in the generality of cases, is decidedly the most important of all. The strength at the decisive point depends on the absolute strength of the Army, and on skill in making use of it. The first rule is therefore to enter the field with an Army as strong as possible. This sounds very like a commonplace, but still it is really not so. In order to show that for a long time the strength of forces was by no means regarded as a chief point, we need only observe, that in most, and even in the most detailed histories of the Wars in the eighteenth century, the strength of the Armies is either not given at all, or only incidentally, and in no case is any special value laid upon it. Tempelhof in his history of the Seven Years' War is the earliest writer who gives it regularly, but at the same time he does it only very superficially. Even Massenbach, in his manifold critical observations on the Prussian campaigns of 1793-94 in the Vosges, talks a great deal about hills and valleys, roads and footpaths, but does not say a syllable about mutual strength. Another proof lies in a wonderful notion which haunted the heads of many critical historians, according to which there was a certain size of an Army which was the best, a normal strength, beyond which the forces in excess were burdensome rather than serviceable.(*) (*) Tempelhof and Montalembert are the first we recollect as examples--the first in a passage of his first part, page 148; the other in his correspondence relative to the plan of operations of the Russians in 1759. Lastly, there are a number of instances to be found, in which all the available forces were not really brought into the battle,(*) or into the War, because the superiority of numbers was not considered to have that importance which in the nature of things belongs to it. (*) The Prussians at Jena, 1806. Wellington at Waterloo. If we are thoroughly penetrated with the conviction that with a considerable superiority of numbers everything possible is to be effected, then it cannot fail that this clear conviction reacts on the preparations for the War, so as to make us appear in the field with as many troops as possible, and either to give us ourselves the superiority, or at least to guard against the enemy o
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188  
189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

strength

 

superiority

 

forces

 
critical
 

Tempelhof

 
numbers
 

importance

 

conviction

 

decisive

 

Montalembert


serviceable

 

recollect

 

examples

 

burdensome

 

troops

 
passage
 

haunted

 

notion

 
wonderful
 

historians


excess

 

normal

 

operations

 

things

 

Another

 

belongs

 

effected

 
nature
 

Prussians

 

Waterloo


Wellington
 

considerable

 
considered
 

Lastly

 

number

 

instances

 
Russians
 

relative

 

penetrated

 

reacts


preparations

 

battle

 

brought

 

correspondence

 
commonplace
 

strong

 

sounds

 
detailed
 

histories

 

observe