John Bunyan - "The Heavenly Footman"

Kuno Francke - "The German Classics of The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Vol. X."

Various - "Punch, Or The London Charivari, Vol. 99., December 13, 1890"

Herman Bang - "Det hvide hus"

Book review - When We Were Romans
Moreover Technologies - Premier purveyor of real-time news and RSS feeds from across the Web

Book review - Little Hut of Leaping Fishes
Ad -

BOOK REVIEWS: Assume A Can Opener
Extract not available.

A / B / C / D / E / F / G / H / I / J / K / L / M / N / O / P / R / S / T / U / V / W / Y / Z

The Art of War written by Baron Henri de Jomini

B >> Baron Henri de Jomini >> The Art of War




In order to make this article complete, I must state what is to be
gained by using a system of signals. Of these there are several kinds.
Telegraphic signals may be mentioned as the most important of all.
Napoleon owes his astonishing success at Ratisbon, in 1809, to the fact
of his having established a telegraphic communication between the
head-quarters of the army and France. He was still at Paris when the
Austrian army crossed the Inn at Braunau with the intention of invading
Bavaria and breaking through his line of cantonments. Informed, in
twenty-four hours, of what was passing at a distance of seven hundred
miles, he threw himself into his traveling-carriage, and a week later he
had gained two victories under the walls of Ratisbon. Without the
telegraph, the campaign would have been lost. This single fact is
sufficient to impress us with an idea of its value.

It has been proposed to use portable telegraphs. Such a telegraphic
arrangement, operated by men on horseback posted on high ground, could
communicate the orders of the center to the extremities of a line of
battle, as well as the reports of the wings to the head-quarters.
Repeated trials of it were made in Russia; but the project was given
up,--for what reason, however, I have not been able to learn. These
communications could only be very brief, and in misty weather the method
could not be depended upon. A vocabulary for such purposes could be
reduced to a few short phrases, which might easily be represented by
signs. I think it a method by no means useless, even if it should be
necessary to send duplicates of the orders by officers capable of
transmitting them with accuracy. There would certainly be a gain of
rapidity.[39] attempt of another kind was made in 1794, at the battle of
Fleurus, where General Jourdan made use of the services of a balloonist
to observe and give notice of the movements of the Austrians. I am not
aware that he found the method a very useful one, as it was not again
used; but it was claimed at the time that it assisted in gaining him the
victory: of this, however, I have great doubts.

It is probable that the difficulty of having a balloonist in readiness
to make an ascension at the proper moment, and of his making careful
observations upon what is going on below, whilst floating at the mercy
of the winds above, has led to the abandonment of this method of gaining
information. By giving the balloon no great elevation, sending up with
it an officer capable of forming correct opinions as to the enemy's
movements, and perfecting a system of signals to be used in connection
with the balloon, considerable advantages might be expected from its
use. Sometimes the smoke of the battle, and the difficulty of
distinguishing the columns, that look like liliputians, so as to know to
which party they belong, will make the reports of the balloonists very
unreliable. For example, a balloonist would have been greatly
embarrassed in deciding, at the battle of Waterloo, whether it was
Grouchy or Bluecher who was seen coming up by the Saint-Lambert road; but
this uncertainty need not exist where the armies are not so much mixed.
I had ocular proof of the advantage to be derived from such observations
when I was stationed in the spire of Gautsch, at the battle of Leipsic;
and Prince Schwarzenberg's aid-de-camp, whom I had conducted to the same
point, could not deny that it was at my solicitation the prince was
prevailed upon to emerge from the marsh between the Pleisse and the
Elster. An observer is doubtless more at his ease in a clock-tower than
in a frail basket floating in mid-air; but steeples are not always at
hand in the vicinity of battle-fields, and they cannot be transported at
pleasure.

There is still another method of signaling, by the use of large fires
kindled upon elevated points of the country. Before the invention of the
telegraph, they afforded the means of transmitting the news of an
invasion from one end of the country to the other. The Swiss have made
use of them to call the militia to arms. They have been also used to
give the alarm to winter quarters and to assemble the troops more
rapidly. The signal-fires may be made still more useful if arranged so
as to indicate to the corps of the army the direction of the enemy's
threatening movements and the point where they should concentrate to
meet him. These signals may also serve on sea-coasts to give notice of
descents.

Finally, there is a kind of signals given to troops during an action, by
means of military instruments. This method of signals has been brought
to greater perfection in the Russian army than in any other I know of.
While I am aware of the great importance of discovering a sure method of
setting in motion simultaneously a large mass of troops at the will of
the commander, I am convinced that it must be a long time before the
problem is solved. Signals with instruments are of little use except for
skirmishers. A movement of a long line of troops may be made nearly
simultaneous by means of a shout begun at one point and passed rapidly
from man to man; but these shouts seem generally to be a sort of
inspiration, and are seldom the result of an order. I have seen but two
cases of it in thirteen campaigns.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 38: I shall be accused, I suppose, of saying that no event in
war can ever occur which may not be foreseen and provided for. To prove
the falsity of this accusation, it is sufficient for me to cite the
surprises of Cremona, Berg-op-zoom, and Hochkirch. I am still of the
opinion, however, that such events even as these might always have been
anticipated, entirely or in part, as at least within the limits of
probability or possibility.]

[Footnote 39: When the above was written, the magnetic telegraph was not
known.--Translators.]




CHAPTER VII.

OF THE FORMATION OF TROOPS FOR BATTLE, AND THE SEPARATE OR COMBINED USE
OF THE THREE ARMS.




ARTICLE XLIII.

Posting Troops in Line of Battle.


Having explained in Article XXX. what is to be understood by the term
_line of battle_, it is proper to add in what manner it is to be formed,
and how the different troops are to be distributed in it.

Before the French Revolution, all the infantry, formed in regiments and
brigades, was collected in a single battle-corps, drawn up in two lines,
each of which had a right and a left wing. The cavalry was usually
placed upon the wings, and the artillery--which at this period was very
unwieldy--was distributed along the front of each line. The army camped
together, marching by lines or by wings; and, as there were two cavalry
wings and two infantry wings, if the march was by wings four columns
were thus formed. When they marched by lines, (which was specially
applicable to flank movements,) two columns were formed, unless, on
account of local circumstances, the cavalry or a part of the infantry
had camped in a third line,--which was rare.

This method simplified logistics very much, since it was only necessary
to give such orders as the following:--"The army will move in such
direction, by lines or by wings, by the right or by the left." This
monotonous but simple formation was seldom deviated from; and no better
could have been devised as war was carried on in those days.

The French attempted something new at Minden, by forming as many columns
as brigades, and opening roads to bring them to the front in line,--a
simple impossibility.

If the labor of staff officers was diminished by this method of camping
and marching by lines, it must be evident that if such a system were
applied to an army of one hundred thousand or one hundred and fifty
thousand men, there would be no end to the columns, and the result would
be the frequent occurrence of routs like that of Rossbach.

The French Revolution introduced the system of divisions, which broke up
the excessive compactness of the old formation, and brought upon the
field fractions capable of independent movement on any kind of ground.
This change was a real improvement,--although they went from one extreme
to the other, by returning nearly to the legionary formation of the
Romans. These divisions, composed usually of infantry, artillery, and
cavalry, maneuvered and fought separately. They were very much extended,
either to enable them to subsist without the use of depots, or with an
absurd expectation of prolonging the line in order to outflank that of
the enemy. The seven or eight divisions of an army were sometimes seen
marching on the same number of roads, ten or twelve miles distant from
each other; the head-quarters was at the center, with no other support
than five or six small regiments of cavalry of three hundred or four
hundred men each, so that if the enemy concentrated the mass of his
forces against one of these divisions and beat it, the line was pierced,
and the general-in-chief, having no disposable infantry reserve, could
do nothing but order a retreat to rally his scattered columns.

Bonaparte in his first Italian campaign remedied this difficulty, partly
by the mobility of his army and the rapidity of his maneuvers, and
partly by concentrating the mass of his divisions upon the point where
the decisive blow was to fall. When he became the head of the
government, and saw the sphere of his means and his plans constantly
increasing in magnitude, he readily perceived that a stronger
organization was necessary: he avoided the extremes of the old system
and the new, while still retaining the advantages of the divisional
system. Beginning with the campaign of 1800, he organized corps of two
or three divisions, which he placed under the command of
lieutenant-generals, and formed of them the wings, the center, and the
reserve of his army.[40]

This system was finally developed fully at the camp of Boulogne, where
he organized permanent army corps under the command of marshals, who had
under their orders three divisions of infantry, one of light cavalry,
from thirty-six to forty pieces of cannon, and a number of sappers. Each
corps was thus a small army, able at need to act independently as an
army. The heavy cavalry was collected in a single strong reserve,
composed of two divisions of cuirassiers, four of dragoons, and one of
light cavalry. The grenadiers and the guard formed an admirable infantry
reserve. At a later period--1812--the cavalry was also organized into
corps of three divisions, to give greater unity of action to the
constantly-increasing masses of this arm. This organization was as near
perfection as possible; and the grand army, that brought about such
great results, was the model which all the armies of Europe soon
imitated.

Some military men, in their attempts to perfect the art, have
recommended that the infantry division, which sometimes has to act
independently, should contain three instead of two brigades, because
this number will allow one for the center and each wing. This would
certainly be an improvement; for if the division contains but two
brigades there is an open space left in the center between the brigades
on the wings: these brigades, having no common central support, cannot
with safety act independently of each other. Besides this, with three
brigades in a division, two may be engaged while the third is held in
reserve,--a manifest advantage. But, if thirty brigades formed in ten
divisions of three brigades are better than when formed in fifteen
divisions of two brigades, it becomes necessary, in order to obtain this
perfect divisional organization, to increase the numbers of the infantry
by one-third, or to reduce the divisions of the army-corps from three to
two,--which last would be a serious disadvantage, because the army-corps
is much more frequently called upon to act independently than a
division, and the subdivision into three parts is specially best for
that[41].

What is the best organization to be given an army just setting out upon
a campaign will for a long time to come be a problem in logistics;
because it is extremely difficult to maintain the original organization
in the midst of the operations of war, and detachments must be sent out
continually.

The history of the grand army of Boulogne, whose organization seemed to
leave nothing farther to be desired, proves the assertion just made. The
center under Soult, the right under Davoust, the left under Ney, and the
reserve under Lannes, formed together a regular and formidable
battle-corps of thirteen divisions of infantry, without counting those
of the guard and the grenadiers. Besides these, the corps of Bernadotte
and Marmont detached to the right, and that of Augereau to the left,
were ready for action on the flanks. But after the passage of the Danube
at Donauwerth every thing was changed. Ney, at first reinforced to five
divisions, was reduced to two; the battle-corps was divided partly to
the right and partly to the left, so that this fine arrangement was
destroyed.

It will always be difficult to fix upon a stable organization. Events
are, however, seldom so complicated as those of 1805; and Moreau's
campaign of 1800 proves that the original organization may sometimes be
maintained, at least for the mass of the army. With this view, it would
seem prudent to organize an army in four parts,--two wings, a center,
and a reserve. The composition of these parts may vary with the strength
of the army; but in order to retain this organization it becomes
necessary to have a certain number of divisions out of the general line
in order to furnish the necessary detachments. While these divisions are
with the army, they may be attached to that part which is to receive or
give the heaviest blows; or they may be employed on the flanks of the
main body, or to increase the strength of the reserve. Bach of the four
great parts of the army may be a single corps of three or four
divisions, or two corps of two divisions each. In this last case there
would be seven corps, allowing one for the reserve; but this last corps
should contain three divisions, to give a reserve to each wing and to
the center.

With seven corps, unless several more are kept out of the general line
in order to furnish detachments, it may happen that the extreme corps
may be detached, so that each wing might contain but two divisions, and
from these a brigade might be occasionally detached to flank the march
of the army, leaving but three brigades to a wing. This would be a weak
order of battle.

These facts lead me to conclude that an organization of the line of
battle in four corps of three divisions of infantry and one of light
cavalry, with three or four divisions for detachments, would be more
stable than one of seven corps, each of two divisions.

But, as every thing depends upon the strength of the army and of the
units of which it is composed, as well as upon the character of the
operations in which it may be engaged, the arrangement may be greatly
varied. I cannot go into these details, and shall simply exhibit the
principal combinations that may result from forming the divisions in two
or three brigades and the corps in two or three divisions. I have
indicated the formation of two infantry corps in two lines, either one
behind the other, or side by side. (See Figures from 17 to 28
inclusive.)

_Different Formations of Lines of Battle for Two Corps of Infantry._

[Illustration: Fig. 17. Two Corps deployed, One behind the Other.]

First Corps.
----- ----- ^ ----- -----
2d Division. | 1st Division.

Second Corps.
----- ----- ^ ----- -----
2d Division. | 1st Division.

[Illustration: Fig. 18. Two Corps formed Side by Side.]

Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
----- ----- | ----- -----
1st Division. | 1st Division.
|
----- ----- | ----- -----
2d Division. | 2d Division.

[Illustration: Fig. 19. Two Corps of 2 Divisions of 3 Brigades each.]


First Corps.

----- ----- ----- ^ ----- ----- -----
2d Division. | 1st Division.

Second Corps.

----- ----- ----- ^ ----- ----- -----
2d Division. | 1st Division.

[Illustration: Fig. 20. Two Corps Side by Side.]


Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
----- ----- ----- | ----- ----- -----
1st Division. | 1st Division.
|
----- ----- ----- | ----- ----- -----
2d Division. | 2d Division.

[Illustration: Fig. 21. 2 Corps of 2 Divisions of 3 Brigades each.]

First Corps.

2d Division. 1st Division.
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----

Second Corps.

2d Division. 1st Division.
----- ----- ----- -----
----- -----


[Illustration: Fig. 22. 2 Corps of 2 Divisions of 3 Brigades each,
placed Side by Side.]


Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
1st Division. | 1st Division.
----- ----- | ----- -----
----- | -----
|
2d Division. | 2d Division.
----- ----- | ----- -----
----- | -----

_Formation of Two Corps of Three Divisions of Two Brigades each._

[Illustration: Fig. 23.]

First Corps.
---- ---- ^ ---- ---- ^ ---- ----
3d Division. | 2d Division. | 1st Division.

Second Corps.
---- ---- ^ ---- ---- ^ ---- ----
3d Division. | 2d Division. | 1st Division.


[Illustration: Fig. 24.]

Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
---- ---- ^ ---- ---- | ---- ---- ^ ---- ----
2d Division. | 1st Division | 2d Division. | 1st Division
|
---- ---- | ---- ----
3d Division. | 3d Division.


[Illustration: Fig. 25.]

2d Corps. ^ 1st Corps.
|
---- ---- | ---- ----
1st Division.| 1st Division.
|
---- ---- | ---- ----
2d Division. | 2d Division.
|
---- ---- | ---- ----
3d Division. | 3d Division.

* * * * *

_Two Corps of Three Divisions of Three Brigades each._

[Illustration: Fig. 26. Two Divisions in the 1st Line, and one in the
2d Line.]

First Corps.

^
---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ----
2d Division. | 1st Division.

---- ---- ----
3d Division.


Second Corps.

^
---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ----
2d Division. | 1st Division.

---- ---- ----
3d Division.

[Illustration: Fig. 27. Same Order with 3d Brigade as Reserve, and the
2 Corps Side by Side.]

Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
2d Division. ^ 1st Division. | 2d Division. ^ 1st Division.
---- ---- | ---- ---- | ---- ---- | ---- ----
---- | ---- | ---- | ----
|
|
---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ----
3d Division. | 3d Division.


[Illustration: _Shallower Formation: Twelve Brigades in the First Line,
and Six in the Second Line._

Fig. 28.]

Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
2d Division. ^ 1st Division. | 2d Division. ^ 1st Division.
---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ----
|
---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ----
3d Division. | 3d Division.

* * * * *

Note.--In all these formations the unit is the brigade in line; but
these lines may be formed of deployed battalions, or of battalions in
columns of attack by divisions of two companies. The cavalry attached to
the corps will be placed on the flanks. The brigades might be so drawn
up as to have one regiment in the first line and one in the second.

The question here presents itself, whether it is ever proper to place
two corps one behind the other, as Napoleon often did, particularly at
Wagram. I think that, except for the reserves, this arrangement may be
used only in a position of expectation, and never as an order of battle;
for it is much better for each corps to have its own second line and its
reserve than to pile up several corps, one behind the other, under
different commanders. However much one general may be disposed to
support a colleague, he will always object to dividing up his troops for
that purpose; and when in the general of the first line he sees not a
colleague, but a hated rival, as too frequently happens, it is probable
he will be very slow in furnishing the assistance which may be greatly
needed. Moreover, a commander whose troops are spread out in a long line
cannot execute his maneuvers with near so much facility as if his front
was only half as great and was supported by the remainder of his own
troops drawn up in rear.

The table below[42] will show that the number of men in an army will
have great influence in determining the best formation for it, and that
the subject is a complicated one.

In making our calculations, it is scarcely necessary to provide for the
case of such immense masses being in the field as were seen from 1812 to
1815, when a single army contained fourteen corps varying in strength
from two to five divisions. With such large numbers nothing better can
be proposed than a subdivision into corps of three divisions each. Of
these corps, eight would form the main body, and there would remain six
for detachments and for strengthening any point of the main line that
might require support. If this system be applied to an army of one
hundred and fifty thousand men, it would be hardly practicable to employ
divisions of two brigades each where Napoleon and the allies used corps.

If nine divisions form the main body,--that is, the wings and the
center,--and six others form the reserve and detachments, fifteen
divisions would be required, or thirty brigades,--which would make one
hundred and eighty battalions, if each regiment contains three
battalions. This supposition brings our army up to one hundred and
forty-five thousand foot-soldiers and two hundred thousand in all. With
regiments of two battalions there would be required one hundred and
twenty battalions, or ninety-six thousand infantry; but if each regiment
contains but two battalions, each battalion should be one thousand men
strong, and this would increase the infantry to one hundred and twenty
thousand men and the entire army to one hundred and sixty thousand men.
These calculations show that the strength of the minor subdivisions must
be carefully considered in arranging into corps and divisions. If an
army does not contain more than one hundred thousand men, the formation
by divisions is perhaps better than by corps. An example of this was
Napoleon's army of 1800.

Having now endeavored to explain the best method of giving a somewhat
permanent organization to the main body of an army, it will not be out
of place for me to inquire whether this permanency is desirable, and if
it is not advantageous to deceive the enemy by frequently changing the
composition of corps and their positions.

I admit the advantage of thus deceiving the enemy; but it may be gained
while still retaining a quite constant organization of the main body. If
the divisions intended for detachments are joined to the wings and the
center,--that is, if those parts contain each four divisions instead of
three,--and if one or two divisions be occasionally added to the wing
which is likely to bear the brunt of an engagement, each wing will be a
corps properly of four divisions; but detachments will generally reduce
it to three, and sometimes two, while it might, again, be reinforced by
a portion of the reserve until it reached five divisions. The enemy
would thus never know exactly the strength of the different parts of the
line.

But I have dwelt sufficiently on these details. It is probable that,
whatever be the strength and number of the subdivisions of an army, the
organization into corps will long be retained by all the great powers of
Europe, and calculations for the arrangement of the line of battle must
be made upon that basis.

The distribution of the troops in the line of battle has changed in
recent times, as well as the manner of arranging the line. Formerly it
was usually composed of two lines, but now of two lines and one or more
reserves. In recent[43] conflicts in Europe, when the masses brought
into collision were very large, the corps were not only formed in two
lines, but one corps was placed behind another, thus making four lines;
and, the reserve being drawn up in the same manner, six lines of
infantry were often the result, and several of cavalry. Such a formation
may answer well enough as a preparatory one, but is by no means the best
for battle, as it is entirely too deep.