ށ PREFACE. THE purpose of the Army Book is to give to all its readers a comprehensive knowledge of the British army and military system. With this object in view, a certain amount of what is history must be introduced; not, however, as a main feature, but in order to give the reader a grasp of the antecedents of the army, of the experiences gained in war, and of the effect of these antecedents and experiences on the action of the statesmen who have been concerned in establishing the system in force. Similarly, in the several chapters on the components of the army-infantry, cavalry, &c., what is historical in them will, it is thought, better conduce to the understanding of the spirit and best traditions of the arm concerned. Matter of controversy has been unavoidable, but beyond the sincere endeavour to represent adequately the intention animating the measures of reform on which the army system is based, no attempt at controversy has been made. nor is needed. The example of the military organization of the principal powers of Europe has undoubtedly been before the country, while army reforms have been in progress; and as, though never strictly followed, the example has done much to inspire these reforms it will necessarily be often referred to. That organization, whose essence is short service with reserves, although it is applied in practice on the Continent on the largest scale, through the plan of universal obligation for military service-the nation in arms--has, as compared with former systems, distinctive features of detail as well 509248 as of principle, so generally accepted by all the chief military powers as to be here designated the "modern system." It is now twenty years since the first introduction into this country of the "modern system," in its English garb. Not only recruiting, and the regimental system of organization, but the Acts affecting the Army and regulations of all kinds have in this interval undergone a more or less complete revision or reconstruction, and the present moment appears more favourable than any in the past for describing the results. Characteristic of the modern system is the increased interest evinced by all classes in each and every country in its military organization, means, and methods. This is very observable in the states of the Continent, particularly where universal service has been longest established. In Germany conversance with things military pervades all classes. In France the army is enthusiastically supported. In Austria where the legislative houses use their power of expression and criticism very freely, the close knowledge of the army displayed by them, as well as by the ordinary press, is remarkable. In this country the navy is our first line, and there is no cause to complain of the interest the public bestows on it. With the army, in whose excellence are involved so many questions of detail, the public interest and knowledge are further to seek, and the British legislature while equally responsible with that of any Continental nation is less endowed with the critical knowledge requisite for the use of its controlling power. This is probably to be accounted for by the circumstances of our national history. But the tendency of the times is all towards improvement in these respects. Through the comparative frequency in late years of our small wars the national interest in the soldier has been raised. The institution of the war correspondent has supplied the popular demand: the growth and consolidation of the volunteer system have brought some features of the military career home to our daily life; this last cause has perhaps done more than any thing else to popularize the army, formerly an exotic institution, strange, mistrusted, and engaging attention only in connection with history or when history was being made. While welcoming this improvement and invoking more knowledge of military affairs, quality rather than quantity is perhaps what is most wanted. Even a positive experience of regimental life, however intense and sincere, may mislead as to the title of its possessor to the functions of a critic, when the subject for criticism is a military system owing its inspiration and its source to the deep-laid experience of the country, its statesmen and great officers; and whose results are deeply seated and broadly spread. It is not from its effect here and there that a true judgment of its value can be framed; this can only be attained by study, comparison, and the "enquiring wisely" which Solomon recommends. And when the system is criticised, it is often overlooked how much has depended rather on the manipulation of it than on the system itself. Experience has to be bought; how difficult must it have been to graft into the habits of administration, engendered by the old hand-to-mouth policy, that careful foresight and sureness of aim which the "modern system" demands, with its rigid terms of engagement, and consequent fixed period for replacement of men. There are rules for the game, and their neglect brings its Nemesis as surely as the missing the mark in the Quentin play of our forefathers. Nor is the question of the provision of fighting men the only one demanding attention. In the training of an army the great difficulty to be contended with lies in the enormous difference between its life and surroundings in peace, and the knowledge and qualities it must be ready to exhibit in war. It is unlike a navy which is always on active service, and whose officers are called on continually during their career to encounter danger, and incur the gravest responsibilities. For this reason alone ariny management may well be entitled to special consideration. The general organization under which an officer of the army works has a very important effect on the development of his character; it affects the qualifications demanded of him at the outset of his career, the study and practice enjoined on him throughout his service, and last, but not least, the extent to which he is made, in each rank, to exercise responsibility. "As the tree falls so will it lie"; as the service moulds the officer, so will he be. We may be well assured that in the aggregate, selection or no selection, the choice of men for high employment is limited to the officers the service can produce. Everything then depends on this-that the organization should be so devised as to supply officers of trained capacity equal on emergency to their higher duties. In fine, this book is designed to offer to its readers an account of the existing army system and of its antecedents without knowledge of which no such progressive modifications as a healthy life demands can safely be undertaken. A WORK of precisely the kind now presented to readers of all classes, military and civil, has not hitherto been attempted either officially or by private enterprise, and the Editors therefore feel they must beg the kind indulgence of their readers. The work is arranged in four parts, of which Part I. is devoted to tracing out the gradual development of the British army system. Part II. deals with the components of the army, as stated, with some reference to history. A detailed reproduction of official regulations has on principle been avoided. The text of such regulations is the sole authority: a list of those in force is issued with Army Orders for January, which can be purchased for twopence. Part III. treats (1) of that important branch of the army Imperial and native, which is stationed in and provides for the safety and defence of our Indian Empire, and (2) of the forces raised in the Colonies for their own defence. |