nditions of country, in certain relative degrees of
numerical strength, under certain political conditions--for it is a
grave mistake to think that military and political considerations can
be dissevered practically, as they can logically--an inferior force
can contest {p.185} step by step, content to delay only, not to
arrest. It is, for instance, evident that, politically, one may more
readily thus abandon hostile country than uncover one's own
territory--as in Natal--even though the military conditions in the two
cases be identical. But, under different circumstances of position or
of numbers, such dilatory field operations may be impracticable. If
the country through which retreat is to be made be open, if numbers be
so small that the enemy can overlap--that is outflank--if the ground
does not afford positions where the flanks may be protected by natural
obstacles that make outflanking impossible or exceedingly arduous, if
the enemy be greatly superior in mobility, in such conditions retreat
from each successive stand is apt to be precipitate--dependent less
upon one's own will than upon the enemy's energy--and the retiring
army may reach its ultimate goal under an accumulation of retrograde
impulse not far distinguishable from rout, deteriorated in _morale_
and diminished in numbers.

Where such unfavourable conditions obtain, the principle which
dominates all correct defensive action {p.186} receives a special
application. The principle is that every defensive disposition should
look to offensive action--or at the least to offensive effect. Mere
defence is ultimate ruin. "In the long run," said Napoleon, "no
position whatever can be defended if it does not threaten the
enemy."[15] Consequently, the force that for any, or several, of the
reasons above given cannot safely keep the field must establish itself
solidly in some place where, for whatsoever advantages, it is as far
as possible itself secure; but whence at the same time--and this is
the more important of the two considerations--it most effectually
menaces the enemy. This it does by applying again, but in another
manner, the flanking, or turning, idea--by placing itself across or to
one side of the line of communications upon which the enemy will
depend, if he ventures to advance in the direction which the defendant
has not felt himself strong enough otherwise to contest. Of {p.187}
such offensive-defensive positions there are many historical examples.
Amo