Chapter VI: Act 1890: , the effect of which is explained in the article Insanity. Any (2)

2. Or infanticide may be the result of the struggle for existence. Thus in Polynesia, while the climate ensures food in plenty, the relative smallness of the islands imposed the custom on all families without distinction. In the Hawaiian Islands all children, after the third or fourth, were strangled or buried alive. At Tahiti fathers had the right (and used it) of killing their newly-born children by suffocation. The chiefs were obliged by custom to kill all their daughters. The society of the Areois, famous in the Society Islands, imposed infanticide upon the women members by oath. In other islands all girl-children were spared, but only two boys in each family were reared. The difficulties of suckling partly explain the custom of killing twins. For the same reason the Eskimo and Red Indians used to bury the infant with the mother who died in childbirth. Among warrior and hunter tribes, where women could not act as beasts of burden as in agricultural communities, and where a large number of girls were likely to attract the hostile attentions of neighbouring tribesmen, girl-babies were murdered. Arabs, in ancient times, buried alive the majority of female children. In many lands infanticide was regarded as a meritorious act on the part of a parent, done, as a precaution against famine, in the interests of the tribe. In other parts of the world, infanticide results from customs which impose heavy burdens on child-rearing. Of these artificial hardships the best example is afforded by India. There the practice, though forbidden by both the Vedas and the Koran, prevailed among the Rajputs and certain aboriginal tribes. Among the aristocratic Rajputs, it was thought dishonourable that a girl should remain unmarried. Moreover, a girl may not marry below her caste; she ought to marry her superior, or at least her equal. This reasoning was most powerful with the highest castes, in which the disproportion of the sexes was painfully apparent. But, assuming marriage to be possible, it was ruinously expensive to the bride's father, the cost in the case of some rajahs having been known to exceed £100,000. To avoid all this, the Rajput killed a proportion of his daughters--sometimes in a very singular way. A pill of tobacco and bhang might be given to the new-born child; or it was drowned in milk;[1] or the mother's breast was smeared with opium or the juice of the poisonous _datura_. A common method was to cover the child's mouth with a plaster of cow-dung, before it drew breath. Infanticide was also practised to a small extent by some sects of the aboriginal Khonds and by the poorer hill-tribes of the Himalayas. Where infanticide occurs in India, though it really rests on the economic facts stated, there is usually some poetical tradition of its origin. Infanticide from motives of prudence was common among some American Indian tribes of the north-west, with whom the "potlatch" was an essential part of their daughter's marriage ceremonies.

3. Or infanticide may be in the nature of a religious observance. The gods must be appeased with blood, and it is believed that no sacrifice can be so pleasing to them as the child of the worshipper. Such were the motives impelling parents to the burning of children in the worship of Moloch. In India children were thrown into the sacred river Ganges, and adoration paid to the alligators who fed on them. Where the custom prevails as a sacrifice the male child is usually the victim.

4. Or, finally, infanticide may have a social or political reason. Thus at Sparta (and in other places in early Greek and Roman history) weakly or deformed children were killed by order of the state, a custom approved in the ideal systems of Aristotle and Plato, and still observed among the Eskimo and the Kamchadales.

AUTHORITIES.--Herbert Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i. 614-619;
McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_, pp. 75 et seq.; McLennan,
"Exogamy and Endogamy" in the _Fortnightly Review_, xxi. 884 et seq.;
Darwin, Descent of Man, ii. 400 et seq.; L. Fison, and A. W. Howitt,
_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_ (1880); Westermarck, _History of Human
Marriage_ (1894); Browne, _Infanticide: Its Origin, Progress and
Suppression_ (London, 1857); Lord Avebury, _Prehistoric Times_ (1900),
and _Origin of Civilization_ (1902).

_Law._--The crime of infanticide among civilized nations is still frequent. It is however due in most cases to abnormal causes, such as a sudden access of insanity, privation, unreasoning dislike to the child, &c. It is most closely connected with illegitimacy in the class of farm and domestic servants, the more common motive being the terror of the mother of incurring the disgrace with which society visits the more venial offence. Often, however, it is inspired by no better motive than the wish to escape the burden of the child's support. The granting of affiliation orders thus tends to save the lives of many children, though it provides a motive for the paramour sometimes to share in the crime. The laws of the European states differ widely on this subject--some of them treating infanticide as a special crime, others regarding it merely as a case of murder of unusually difficult proof. In the law of England infanticide is murder or manslaughter according to the presence or absence of deliberation. The infant must be a human being in the legal sense; and "a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel-string is severed or not; and the killing of such a child is homicide when it dies after birth in consequence of injuries received before, during or after birth." À child in the womb or in the act of birth, though it may have breathed, is therefore not a human being, the killing of which amounts to homicide. The older law of child murder under a statute of James I. consisted of cruel presumptions against the mother, and it was not till 1803 that trials for that offence were placed under the ordinary rules of evidence. The crown now takes upon itself the onus of proving in every case that the child has been alive. This is often a matter of difficulty, and hence a frequent alternative charge is that of concealment of birth (see BIRTH), or concealment of pregnancy in Scotland. It is the opinion of the most eminent of British medical jurists that this presumption has tended to increase infanticide. Apart from this, the technical definition of human life has excited a good deal of comment and some indignation. The definition allows many wicked acts to go unpunished. The experience of assizes in England shows that many children are killed when it is impossible to prove that they were wholly born. The distinction taken by the law was probably comprehended by the minds of the class to which most of the unhappy mothers belong. Partly to meet this complaint it was suggested to the Royal Commission of 1866 that killing during birth, or within seven days thereafter, should be an offence punishable with penal servitude. The second complaint is of an opposite character--partly that infanticide by mothers is not a fit subject for capital punishment, and partly that, whatever be the intrinsic character of the act, juries will not convict or the executive will not carry out the sentence. Earl Russell gave expression to this feeling when he proposed that no capital sentence should be pronounced upon mothers for the killing of children within six months after birth. When there has been a verdict of murder, sentence of death must be passed, but the practice of the Home Office, as laid down in 1908, is invariably to commute the death sentence to penal servitude for life. The circumstances of the case and the disposition and general progress of the prisoners under discipline in a convict prison are then determining factors in the length of subsequent detention, which rarely exceeds three years. After release, the prisoner's further progress is carefully watched, and if it is seen to be to her advantage the conditions of her release are cancelled and she is restored to complete freedom.

In India measures against the practice were begun towards the end of the 18th century by Jonathan Duncan and Major Walker. They were continued by a series of able and earnest officers during the 19th century. One of its chief events, representing many minor occurrences, was the Amritsar durbar of 1853, which was arranged by Lord Lawrence. At that meeting the chiefs residing in the Punjab and the trans-Sutlej states signed an agreement engaging to expel from caste every one who committed infanticide, to adopt fixed and moderate rates of marriage expenses, and to exclude from these ceremonies the minstrels and beggars who had so greatly swollen the expense. According to the present law, if the female children fall below a certain percentage in any tract or among any tribe in northern India where infanticide formerly prevailed, the suspected village is placed under police supervision, the cost being charged to the locality. By these measures, together with a strictly enforced system of reporting births and deaths, infanticide has been almost trampled out; although some of the Rajput clans keep their female offspring suspiciously close to the lowest average which secures them from surveillance.

It is difficult to say to what extent infanticide prevails in the United Kingdom. At one time a large number of children were murdered in England for the purpose of obtaining the burial money from a benefit club,[2] but protection against this risk has been provided for by the Friendly Societies Act 1896, and the Collecting Societies Act 1896. The neglect or killing of nurse-children is treated under BABY-FARMING, and CHILDREN, LAW RELATING TO.

In the United States, the elements of this offence are practically the same as in England. The wilful killing of an unborn child is not manslaughter unless made so by statute. To constitute manslaughter under Laws N.Y. 1869, ch. 631, by attempts to produce miscarriage, the "quickening" of the child must be averred and proved (_Evans_ v. _People_, 49 New York Rep. 86; see also _Wallace_ v. _State_, 7 Texas app. 570).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In Baluchistan, where children are often drowned in milk, there
is a euphemistic proverb: "The lady's daughter died drinking milk."

[2] See _Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Classes_,
"Supplementary Report on Interment in Towns," by Edwin Chadwick
(_Parl. Papers_, 1843, xii. 395); and _The Social Condition and
Education of the People_, by Joseph Kay (1850).

INFANTRY, the collective name of soldiers who march and fight on foot and are armed with hand-weapons. The word is derived ultimately from Lat. _infans_, infant, but it is not clear how the word came to be used to mean soldiers. The suggestion that it comes from a guard or regiment of a Spanish infanta about the end of the 15th century cannot be maintained in view of the fact that Spanish foot-soldiers of the time were called _soldados_ and contrasted with French _fantassins_ and Italian _fanteria_. The _New English Dictionary_ suggests that a foot-soldier, being in feudal and early modern times the varlet or follower of a mounted noble, was called a boy (cf. _Knabe_, _garçon_, footman, &c., and see VALET).

HISTORICAL SKETCH

The importance of the infantry arm, both in history and at the present time, cannot be summed up better and more concisely than in the phrase used by a brilliant general of the Napoleonic era, General Morand--"_L'infanterie, c'est l'armée_."

It may be confidently asserted that the original fighting man was a foot-soldier. But infantry was differentiated as an "arm" considerably later than cavalry; for when a new means of fighting (a chariot or a horse) presented itself, it was assimilated by relatively picked men, chiefs and noted warriors, who _ipso facto_ separated themselves from the mass or reservoir of men. How this mass itself ceased to be a mere residue and developed special characteristics; how, instead of the cavalry being recruited from the best infantry, cavalry and infantry came to form two distinct services; and how the arm thus constituted organized itself, technically and tactically, for its own work--these are the main questions that constitute the historical side of the subject. It is obvious that as the "residue" was far the greatest part of the army, the history of the foot-soldier is practically identical with the history of soldiering.

It was only when a group of human beings became too large to be surprised and assassinated by a few lurking enemies, that proper fighting became the normal method of settling a quarrel or a rivalry. Two groups, neither of which had been able to surprise the other, had to meet face to face, and the instinct of self-preservation had to be reconciled with the necessity of victory. From this it was an easy step to the differentiation of the champion, the proved excellent fighting man, and to providing this man, on whom everything depended, with all assistance that better arms, armour, horse or chariot could give him. But suppose our champion slain, how are we to make head against the opposing champion? For long ages, we may suppose, the latter, as in the _Iliad_, slaughtered the sheep who had lost their shepherd, but in the end the "residue" began to organize itself, and to oppose a united front to the enemy's champions--in which term we include all selected men, whether horsemen, charioteers or merely specially powerful axemen and swordsmen. But once the individual had lost his commanding position, the problem presented itself in a new form--how to ensure that every member of the group did his duty by the others--and the solution of this problem for the conditions of the ancient hand-to-hand struggle marks the historical beginning of infantry tactics.

The phalanx and the legion.

Gallic warriors bound themselves together with chains. The Greeks organized the city state, which gave each small army solidarity and the sense of duty to an ideal, and the phalanx, in which the file-leaders were in a sense champions yet were made so chiefly by the unity of the mass. But the Romans went farther. Besides developing solidarity and a sense of duty, they improved on this conception of the battle to such a degree that as a nation they may be called the best tacticians who ever existed. Giving up the attempt to make all men fight equally well, they dislocated the mass of combatants into three bodies, of which the first, formed of the youngest and most impressionable men, was engaged at the outset, the rest, more experienced men, being kept out of the turmoil. This is the very opposite of the "champion" system. Those who would have fled after the fall of the champions are engaged and "fought out" before the champions enter the area of the contest, while the champions, who possess in themselves the greatest power of resisting and mastering the instinct of self-preservation, are kept back for the moment when ordinary men would lose heart.

It might be said with perfect justice that without infantry there would never have been discipline, for cavalry began and continued as a crowd of champions. Discipline, which created and maintained the intrinsic superiority of the Roman legion, depended first on the ideal of patriotism. This was ingrained into every man from his earliest years and expressed in a system of rewards and punishments which took effect from the same ideal, in that rewards were in the main honorary in character (mural crowns, &c.), while no physical punishment was too severe for the man who betrayed, by default or selfishness, the cause of Rome. Secondly, though every man knew his duty, not every man was equal to doing it, and in recognition of this fact the Romans evolved the system of three-line tactics in which the strong parts of the machine neutralized the weak. The first of these principles, being psychological in character, rose, flourished and decayed with the _moral_ of the nation. The second, deduced from the first, varied with it, but as it was objectively expressed in a system of tactics, which had to be modified to suit each case, it varied also in proportion as the combat took more or less abnormal forms. So closely knit were the parts of the system that not only did the decadence of patriotism sap the legionary organization, but also the unsuitability of that organization to new conditions of warfare reacted unfavourably, even disastrously, on the moral of the nation. Between them, the Roman infantry fell from its proud place, and whereas in the Republic it was familiarly called the "strength" (_robur_), by the 4th century A.D. it had become merely the background for a variety of other arms and corps. Luxury produced "egoists," to whom the rewards meant nothing and the punishments were torture for the sake of torture. When therefore the Roman _imperium_ extended far enough to bring in silks from China and ivory from the forests of central Africa, the citizen-army ceased to exist, and the mere necessity for garrisoning distant savage lands threw the burden of service upon the professional soldier.

The Roman Imperial Army.

The natural consequence of this last was the uniform training of every man. There were no longer any primary differences between one cohort and another, and though the value of the three-line system in itself ensured its continuance, any cohort, however constituted, might find itself serving in any one of the three lines, i.e. the _moral_ of the last line was no better than that of the first. The best guarantee of success became _uniform_ regimental excellence, and whereas Camillus or Scipio found useful employment in battle for every citizen, Caesar complained that a legion which had been sent him was too raw, though it had been embodied for nine years. The conditions which were so admirably met by the old system never reappeared; for before armies resumed a "citizen" character the invention of firearms had subjected all ranks and lines alike to the same ordeal of facing unseen death, and the old soldiers were better employed in standing shoulder to shoulder with the young. In brief, the old Roman organization was based on patriotism and experience, and when patriotism gave place to "egoism," and the experience of the citizen who spent every other summer in the field of war gave place to the formal training of the paid recruit, it died, unregretted either by the citizen or by the military chieftain. The latter knew how to make the army his devoted servant, while the former disliked military service and failed to prepare himself for the day when the military chief and the mercenary overrode his rights and set up a tyranny, and ultimately the inner provinces of the empire came to be called _inermes_--unarmed, defenceless--in contrast to the borderland where the all-powerful professional legions lay in garrison.

In these same frontier provinces the tactical disintegration of the legion slowly accomplished itself. Originally designed for the exigencies of the normal pitched battle on firm open fields, and even after its professionalization retaining its character as a large battle unit, it was soon fragmented through the exigencies of border warfare into numerous detachments of greater or less size, and when the military frontier of the empire was established, the legion became an almost sedentary corps, finding the garrisons for the blockhouses on its own section of the line of defence. Further, the old heavy arms and armour which had given it the advantage in wars of conquest--in which the barbarians, gathering to defend their homes, offered a target for the blow of an army--were a great disadvantage when it became necessary to police the conquered territory, to pounce upon swiftly moving bodies of raiders before they could do any great harm. Thus gradually cavalry became more numerous, and light infantry of all sorts more useful, than the old-fashioned linesman. To these corps went the best recruits and the smartest officers, the opportunities for good service and the rewards for it. The legion became once more the "residue." Thus when the "champion" reappeared on the battlefield the solidarity that neutralized his power had ceased to exist.

The battle of Adrianople, the "last fight of the legion," illustrates this. The frontal battle was engaged in the ordinary way, and the cohorts of the first line of the imperial army were fighting man to man with the front ranks of the Gothic infantry (which had indeed a solidarity of its own, unlike the barbarians of the early empire, and was further guaranteed against moral over-pressure by a wagon laager), when suddenly the armoured heavy cavalry of the Goths burst upon their flank and rear. There were no longer _Principes_ and _Triarii_ of the old Republican calibre, but only average troops, in the second and third lines, and they were broken at once. The first line felt the battle in rear as well as in front and gave way. Thereafter the victors, horse and foot, slaughtered unresisting herds of men, not desperate soldiers, and on this day the infantry arm, as an arm, ceased to exist.

The Dark Ages.

Of course, not every soldier became a horseman, and still fewer could provide themselves with armour. Regular infantry, too, was still maintained for siege, mountain and forest warfare. But the _robur_, the kernel of the line of battle, was gone, and though a few of the peoples that fought their way into the area of civilization in the dark ages brought with them the natural and primitive method of fighting on foot, it was practically always a combination of mighty champions and "residue," even though the latter bound themselves together by locked shields, as the Gauls had bound themselves long before with chains, to prevent "skulking." These infantry nations, without any infantry system comparable to that of the Greeks and Romans, succumbed in turn to the crowd of mounted warriors--not like the Greeks and Romans for want of good military qualities, but for want of an organization which would have distributed their fighting powers to the best advantage. One has only to study the battle of Hastings to realize how completely the infantry masses of the English slipped from the control of their leaders directly the front ranks became seriously engaged. For many generations after Hastings there was no attempt to use infantry as the kernel of armies, still less to organize it as such beforehand. Indeed, except in the Crusades, where men of high and of low degree alike fought for their common faith, and in sieges, where cavalry was powerless and the services of archers and labourers were at a premium, it became quite unusual for infantry to appear on the field at all.

Bouvines.

The tactics of feudal infantry at its best were conspicuously
illustrated in the battle of Bouvines, where besides the barons,
knights and sergeants, the Brabançon mercenaries (heavy foot) and the
French communal militia opposed one another. On the French right wing,
the opportune arrival of a well-closed mass of cavalry and infantry in
the flank of a loose crowd of men-at-arms which had already been
thoroughly engaged, decided the fight. In the centre, the respective
infantries were in first line, the nobles and knights, with their
sovereigns, in second, yet it was a mixed mass of both that, after a
period of confused fighting, focussed the battle in the persons of the
emperor and the king of France, and if the personal encounters of the
two bodies of knights gave the crowded German infantry a momentary
chance to strike down the king, the latter was soon rescued by a
half-dozen of heavy cavalrymen. On the left wing, the count of
Boulogne made a living castle of his Brabançon pikes, whence with his
men-at-arms he sallied forth from time to time and played the
champion. Lastly, the Constable Montmorency brought over what was
still manageable of the corps that had defeated the cavalry on the
right (nearly all mounted men) and gave the final push to the allied
centre and right in succession. Then the imperial army fled and was
slaughtered without offering much resistance. Of infantry in this
battle there was enough and to spare, but its only opportunities for
decisive action were those afforded by the exhaustion of the armoured
men or by the latter becoming absorbed in their own single combats to
the exclusion of their proper work in the line of battle. As usual the
infantry suffered nine-tenths of the casualties. For all their numbers
and apparent tactical distribution on this field, they were "residue,"
destitute of special organization, training or utility; and the only
suggestion of "combined tactics" is the expedient adopted by the count
of Boulogne, rings of spearmen to serve as pavilions served in the
tournament--to secure a decorous setting for a display of knightly
prowess.

In those days in truth the infantry was no more the army than to-day the shareholders of a limited company are the board of directors. They were deeply, sometimes vitally, interested in the result, but they contributed little or nothing to bringing it about, except when the opposing cavalries were in a state of moral equilibrium, and in these cases anything suffices--the appearance of camp followers on a "Gillies Hill," as at Bannockburn or the sound of half-a-dozen trumpets--to turn the scale. Once it turned, the infantry of the beaten side was cut down unresistingly, while the more valuable prisoners were admitted to ransom. Thereafter, feudal tactics were based principally on the ideas of personal glory--won in single combat, champion against champion, and of personal profit--won by the knight in holding a wealthy and well-armed baron to ransom and by the foot-soldier in plundering while his masters were fighting. In the French army, the term _bidaux_, applied in the days of Bouvines to all the infantry other than archers and arblasters, came by a quite natural process to mean the laggards, malingerers and skulkers of the army.

Revival of infantry.

But even this infantry contained within itself two half-smothered sparks of regeneration, the idea of _archery_ and the idea of _communal militia_. Archery, in whatever form practised, was the one special form of military activity with which the heavy _gendarme_ (whether he fought on horseback or dismounted) had no concern. Here therefore infantry had a special function, and in so far ceased to be "residue." The communal militia was an early and inadequate expression of the town-spirit that was soon to produce the solid burgher-militia of Flanders and Germany and after that the trained bands of the English cities and towns. It therefore represented the principles of solidarity, of combination, of duty to one's comrade and to the common cause--principles which had disappeared from feudal warfare.[1] It was under the influence of these two ideas or forces that infantry as an arm began once again, though slowly and painfully, to differentiate itself from the mass of _bidaux_ until in the end the latter practically contained only the worthless elements.

Courtrai.

The first true infantry battle since Hastings was fought at Courtrai
in 1302, between the burghers of Bruges and a feudal army under Count
Robert of Artois. The citizens, arrayed in heavy masses, and still
armed with miscellaneous weapons, were careful to place themselves on
ground difficult of access--dikes, pools and marshes--and to fasten
themselves together, like the Gauls of old. Their van was driven back
by the French communal infantry and professional crossbowmen,
whereupon Robert of Artois, true feudal leader as he was, ordered his
infantry to clear the way for the cavalry and without even giving them
time to do so pushed through their ranks with a formless mass of
gendarmerie. This, in attempting to close with the enemy, plunged into
the canals and swamped lands, and was soon immovably fastened in the
mud. The citizens swarmed all round it and with spear, cleaver and
flail destroyed it. Robert himself with a party of his gendarmerie
strove to break through the solid wall of spears, but in vain. He was
killed and his army perished with him, for the citizens did not regard
war as a game and ransom as the loser's forfeit. As for the communal
infantry which had won the first success, it had long since
disappeared from the field, for when count Robert ordered his heavy
cavalry forward, they had thought themselves attacked in rear by a
rush of hostile cavalry--as indeed they were, for the gendarmerie rode
them down--and melted away.

Crécy (q.v.) was fought forty-four years after Courtrai. Here the knights had open ground to fight on, and many boasted that they would revenge themselves. But they encountered not merely infantry, but infantry tactics, and were for the second, and not the last, time destroyed. The English army included a large feudal element, but the spirit of indiscipline had been crushed by a series of iron-handed kings, and for more than a century the nobles, in so far as they had been bad subjects, had been good Englishmen. The English yeomen had reached a level of self-discipline and self-respect which few even of the great continental cities had attained. They had, lastly, made the powerful long-bow (see ARCHERY) their own, and Edward I. had _combined_ the shock of the heavy cavalry with the slow searching preparatory rain of arrows (see FALKIRK). That is, infantry tactics and cavalry tactics were co-ordinated by a _general_, and the special point of this for the present purpose is that instead of being, as in France, the unstable base of the so-called "feudal pyramid," infantry has become an _arm_, capable of offence and defence and having its own special organization, function in the line of battle and tactical method. This last, indeed, like every other tactical method, rested ultimately on the _moral_ of the men who had to put it into execution. Archer tactics did not serve against the disciplined rush of Joan of Arc's gendarmerie, for the solidarity of the archer companies that tried to stop it had long been undermined.

The English archer.

Yet we cannot overrate the importance of the archer in this period of military history. In the city militias solidarity had been obtained through the close personal relationship of the trade gilds and by the elimination of the champion. Therefore, as every offensive in war rests upon boldness, these militias were essentially defensive, for they could only hope to ward off the feudal champion, not to outfight him (Battle of Legnano, 1176. See Oman, p. 442). England, however, had evolved a weapon which no armour could resist, and a race of men as fully trained to use it as the gendarme was to use the lance.[2] This weapon gave them the power of killing without being killed, which the citizens' spears and maces and voulges did not. But like all missiles, arrows were a poor stand-by in the last resort if determined cavalry crossed the "beaten zone" and closed in, and besides pavises and pointed stakes the English archers were given the support of the knights, nobles and sergeants--the armoured champions--whose steady lances guaranteed their safety. Here was the real forward stride in infantry tactics. Archery had existed from time immemorial, and a mere technical improvement in its weapon could hardly account for its suddenly becoming the queen of the battlefield. The defensive power of the "dark impenetrable wood" of spears had been demonstrated again and again, but when the cavalry had few or no preliminary difficulties to face, the chances of the infantry mass resisting long-continued pressure was small. It was the combination of the two elements that made possible a Crécy and a Poitiers, and this combination was the result of the English social system which produced the _camaraderie_ of knight and yeoman, champion and plain soldier. Fortified by the knight's unshakeable steadiness, the yeoman handled his bow and arrows with cool certainty and rapidity, and shot down every rush of the opposing champions. This was _camaraderie de combat_ indeed, and in such conditions the offensive was possible and even easy. The English conquered whole countries while the Flemish and German spearmen and vougiers merely held their own. For them, decisive victories were only possible when the enemy played into their hands, but for the English the guarantee of such victories was the specific character of their army itself and the tactical methods resulting from and expressing that character.

The Hundred Years' War.

But the war of conquest embodied in these decisive victories dwindled in its later stages to a war of raids. The feudal lord, like the feudal vassal, returned home and gave place to the professional man-at-arms and the professional captain. Ransom became again the chief object, and except where a great leader, such as Bertrand Du Guesclin, compelled the mercenaries to follow him to death or victory, a battle usually became a mêlée of irregular duels between men-at-arms, with all the selfishness and little of the chivalry of the purely feudal encounter. The war went on and on, the gendarmes thickened their armour, and the archers found more difficulty in penetrating it. Moreover, in raids for devastation and booty, the slow-moving infantryman was often a source of danger to his comrades. In this _guerrilla_ the archer, though he kept his place, soon ceased to be the mainstay of battle. It had become customary since Crécy (where the English knights and sergeants were dismounted to protect the archers) for all mounted men to send away their horses before engaging. Here and there cavalry masses were used by such energetic leaders as the Black Prince and Du Guesclin, and more often a few men remained mounted for work requiring exceptional speed and courage,[3] but as a general rule the man-at-arms was practically a mounted infantryman, and when he dismounted he stood still. Thus two masses of dismounted lances, mixed with archers, would meet and engage, but the archers, the offensive element, were now far too few in proportion to the lances, the purely defensive element, and battles became indecisive skirmishes instead of overwhelming victories.

Cavalry therefore became, in a very loose sense of the word, infantry. But we are tracing the history not of all troops that stood on their feet to fight, but of infantry and the special tactics of infantry, and the period before and after 1370, when the moral foundations of the new English tactics had disappeared, and the personality of Du Guesclin gave even the bandits of the "free companies" an intrinsic, if slight, superiority over the invaders, is a period of deadlock. Solidarity, such as it was, had gone over to the side of the heavy cavalry. But the latter had deliberately forfeited their power of forcing the decision by fighting on foot, and the English archer, the cadre of the English tactical system, though diminished in numbers, prestige and importance, held to existence and survived the deadlock. Infantry of that type indeed could never return to the "residue" state, and it only needed a fresh moral impetus, a Henry V., to set the old machinery to work again for a third great triumph. But again, after Agincourt, the long war lapsed into the hands of the soldiers of fortune, the basis of Edward's and Henry's tactics crumbled, and, led by a greater than Du Guesclin, the knights and the nobles of France, and the mercenary captains and men-at-arms as well, _rode down_ the stationary masses of the English, lances and bowmen alike.

The net result of the Hundred Years' War therefore was to re-establish the two arms, cavalry and infantry, side by side, the one acting by shock, and the other by fire. The lesson of Crécy was "prepare your charge before delivering it," and for that purpose great bodies of infantry armed with bows, arblasts and handguns were brought into existence in France. When the French king in 1448 put into force the "lessons of the war" and organized a permanent army, it consisted in the main of heavy cavalry (knights and squires in the "ordonnance" companies, soldiers of fortune in the paid companies) and archers and arblasters (_francs-archers_ recruited nationally, arblasters as a rule mercenaries, though largely recruited in Gascony). To these _armes de jet_ were added, in ever-increasing numbers, hand firearms. Thus the "fire" principle of attack was established, and the defensive principle of "mass" relegated to the background. In such circumstances cavalry was of course the decisive arm, and the reputation of the French gendarmerie was such as to justify this bold elimination of the means of passive defence.[4]

Burgher militias.

The foot-soldier of Germany and the Low Countries had followed a very different line of development. Here the rich commercial cities scarcely concerned themselves with the quarrels or revolts of neighbouring nobles, but they resolutely defended their own rights against feudal interference, and enforced them by an organized militia, opposing the strict solidarity of their own institutions to the prowess of the champion who threatened them. The struggle was between "you shall" on the part of the baron and "we will not" on the part of the citizens, the offensive _versus_ the defensive in the simplest and plainest form. The latter was a policy of unbreakable squares, and wherever possible, strong positions as well. Sometimes the citizens, sometimes the nobles gained the day, but the general result was that steady infantry in proper formation could not be ridden down, and as yeomen-archers of the English type to "prepare" the charge were not obtainable from amongst the serf populations of the countryside, the problem of the attack was, for Central Europe, insoluble.

The Wagenburg.

The unbreakable square took two forms, the _wagenburg_ with artillery, and the infantry mass with pikes. The first was no more, in the beginning, than an expedient for the safe and rapid crossing of wider stretches of open country than would have been possible for dismounted men, whom the cavalry headed off as soon as they ventured far enough from the shelter of walls. The men rode not on horses but on carriages, and the carriages moved over the plains in laager formation, the infantrymen standing ready with halbert and voulge or short stabbing spear, and the gunners crouching around the long barrelled two-pounders and the "ribaudequins"--the early machine guns--which were mounted on the wagons. These _wagenburgen_ combined in themselves the due proportions of mobility and passive defence, and in the skilled hands of Ziska they were capable of the boldest offensive. But such a tactical system depended first of all on drill, for the armoured cavalry would have crowded through the least gap in the wagon line, and the necessary degree of drill in those days could only be attained by an army which had both a permanent existence and some bond of solidarity more powerful than the incentive to plunder--that is, in practice, it was only attained in full by the Hussite insurgents. The cavalry, too, learned its lesson, and pitted mobile three-pounders against the foot-soldiers' one- and two-pounders, and the _wagenburg_ became no more than a helpless target. Thus when, not many years after the end of the Hussite wars, the Wars of the Roses eliminated the English model and the English tactics from the military world of Europe, the French system of fire tactics--masses of archers, arblasters and handgun-men, with some spearmen and halberdiers to stiffen them--was left face to face with that of the Swiss and Landsknechts, the system of the "long pike."

The Swiss.

A series of victories ranging from Morgarten (1315) to Nancy (1477)
had made the Swiss the most renowned infantry in Europe. Originally
their struggles with would-be oppressors had taken the form, often
seen elsewhere, of arraying solid masses of men, united in purpose and
fidelity to one another rather than by any material or tactical
cohesion. Like the men of Bruges at Courtrai, the Swiss had the
advantage of broken ground, and the still greater advantage of being
opposed by reckless feudal cavalry. Their armament at this stage was
not peculiar--voulges, gisarmes, halberts and spears--though they were
specially adept in the use of the two-handed sword. But as time went
on the long pike (said to have originated in Savoy or the Milanese
about 1330) became more and more popular until at last on the verge of
their brief ascendancy (about 1475-1515) the Swiss armed as much as
one quarter of their troops with it. The use of firearms made little
or no progress amongst them, and the Swiss mercenaries of 1480, like
their forerunners of Morgarten and Sempach, fought with the _arme
blanche_ alone. But in a very few years after the Swiss nation had
become soldiers of fortune _en masse_, the more open lands of Swabia
entered into serious and bitter competition with them. From these
lands came the Landsknechts, whose order was as strong as, and far
less unwieldy than, that of the Swiss, whose armament included a far
greater proportion of firearms, and who established a regimental
system that left a permanent mark on army organization. The
Landsknecht was the prototype of the infantryman of the 16th and 17th
centuries, but his right to indicate the line of evolution had to be
wrung from many rivals.

The long pike.

The year 1480 indeed was a turning-point in military history. Within the three years preceding it the battles of Nancy and Guinegate had destroyed both the old feudalism of Charles the Bold and the new cavalry tactics of the French gendarmerie. The former was an anachronism, while the latter, when the great wars came to an end and there was no longer either a national impulse or a national leader, had lapsed into the old vices of ransom and plunder. With these, on the same fields, the _franc-archer_ system of infantry tactics perished ignominiously. It rested, as we know, on the principle that the fire of the infantry was to be combined with and completed by the shock of the gendarmerie, and when the latter were found wanting as at Guinegate, the masses of archers and arblasters, which were only feebly supported by a few handfuls of pikemen and halberdiers, were swept away by the charge of some heavy battalions of Swabian and Flemish pikes. Guinegate was the _début_ of the Landsknecht infantry as Nancy was that of the Swiss, and the lesson could not be misread. Louis XI. indeed hanged some of his _franc-archers_ and dismissed the rest, and in their place raised "bands" of regular infantry, one of which bore for the first time the historic name of _Picardie_. But these "bands" were not self-contained. Armed for the most part with _armes de jet_ they centred on the 6000 Swiss pikemen whom Louis XI., in 1480, took into his service, and for nearly fifty years thereafter the French foot armies are always composed of two elements, the huge battalions of Swiss or Landsknechts,[5] armed exclusively with the long pike (except for an ever-decreasing proportion of halberts, and a few arquebuses), and for their support and assistance, French and mercenary "bands."

The Italian wars of 1494-1544, in which the principles of fire and shock were readjusted to meet the conditions created by firearms, were the nursery of modern infantry. The combinations of Swiss, Landsknechts, Spanish "tercios" and French "bands" that figured on the battlefields of the early 16th century were infinitely various. But it is not difficult to find a thread that runs through the whole.

The Italian Wars, 1494-1525.

The essence of the Swiss system was solidity. They arrayed themselves in huge oblongs of 5000 men and more, at the corners of which, like the tower bastions of a 16th-century fortress, stood small groups of arquebusiers. The Landsknechts and the Romagnols of Italy, imitated and rivalled them, though as a rule developing more front and less depth. At this stage solidity was everything and fire-power nothing. At Fornuovo (1495) the mass of arquebusiers and arblasters in the French army did little or nothing; it was the Swiss who were _l'espérance de l'ost_. At Agnadello or Vailá in 1509 the ground and the "encounter-battle" character of the engagement gave special chances of effective employment to the arquebusiers on either side. Along the front the Venetian marksmen, secure behind a bank, picked off the leaders of the enemy as they came near. On the outer flank of the battle the bands of Gascon arquebusiers, which would otherwise have been relegated to an unimportant place in the general line of battle, lapped round the enemy's flank in broken ground and produced great and almost decisive effect. But this was only an afterthought of the king of France and Bayard. In the rest of the battle the huge masses of Swiss pikes were thrown upon the enemy much as the old feudal cavalry had been, regardless of ditches, orchards and vineyards.

Then for a moment the problem was solved, or partially solved, by the artillery. From Germany the material, though not--at least to the same extent--the principle, of the _wagenburg_ penetrated, in the first years of the 16th century, to Italy and thence to France. Thus by degrees a very numerous and exceedingly handy light artillery--"carts with gonnes," as they were called in England--came into play on the Italian battlefields, and took over from the dying _franc-archer_ system the work of preparing the assault by fire. For mere skirmishing the Swiss and Landsknechts had arquebusiers enough, without needing to call on the masses of Gascons, &c., and _pari passu_ with the development of this artillery, the "bands," other than Swiss and Landsknechts, began to improve themselves into pikemen and halberdiers. At Ravenna (1512) the bands of Gascony and Picardy, as well as the French _aventuriers_ (the "bands of Piedmont," afterwards the second senior regiment of the French line) fought in the line of battle shoulder to shoulder with the Landsknechts. On this day the fire action of the new artillery was extraordinarily murderous, ploughing lanes in the immobile masses of infantry. At Marignan the French gendarmerie and artillery, closely and skilfully combined, practically destroyed the huge masses of the Swiss, and so completely had "infantry" and "fire" become separate ideas that on the third day of this tremendous battle we find even the "bands of Piedmont" cutting their way into the Swiss masses.

The Spanish infantry and the arquebus.

But from this point the lead fell into the hands of the Spaniards. These were originally swift and handy light infantry, capable--like the Scottish Highlanders at Prestonpans and Falkirk long afterwards--of sliding under the forest of pikes and breaking into the close-locked ranks with buckler and stabbing sword. For troops of this sort the arquebus was an ideal weapon, and the problem of self-contained infantry was solved by Gonsalvo de Cordoba, Pescara and the great Spanish captains of the day by intercalating small closed bodies of arquebusiers with rather larger, but not inordinately large, bodies of pikes. These arquebusiers formed separate, fully organized sections of the infantry regiment. In close defence they fought on the front and flanks of the pikes, but more usually they were pushed well to the front independently, their speed and excellent fire discipline enabling them to do what was wholly beyond the power of the older type of firing infantry--to take advantage of ground, to run out and reopen fire during a momentary pause in the battle of lance and pike, and to run back to the shelter of their own closed masses when threatened by an oncoming charge. When this system of tactics was consecrated by the glorious success of Pavia (1525), the "cart with gonnes" vanished and the system of fighting everywhere and always "at push of pike" fell into the background.

16th Century-tactics.

The lessons of Pavia can be read in Francis I.'s instructions to his
newly formed Provincial (militia) Legions in 1534 and in the battle of
Cerisoles ten years later. The "legion" was ordered to be composed of
six "bands"--battalions we should call them now, but in those days the
term "battalion" was consecrated to a gigantic square of the Swiss
type--each of 800 pikes (including a few halberts) and 200
arquebusiers. The pikes, 4800 strong, of each legion were grouped in
one large battalion, and covered on the front and flanks by the 1200
arquebuses, the latter working in small and handy squads. These
"legions" did not of course count as good troops, but their
organization and equipment, designed deliberately in peace time, and
not affected by the coming and going of soldiers of fortune, represent
therefore the theoretically perfect type for the 16th century.
Cerisoles represents the system in practice, with veteran regular
troops. On the side of the French most of the arquebuses were grouped
on the right wing, in a long irregular line of companies or strong
squads, supported at a moderate distance by companies or small
battalions of "corselets" (pikes of the French bands of Picardy and
Piedmont); the rest of the line of battle was composed of
Landsknechts, &c., similarly arrayed, except that the arquebusiers
were on the flanks and immediate front of the "corselets" and behind
the arquebuses and corselets of the right wing came a Swiss monster of
the old type. On the imperial side of the Landsknechts, Spanish and
Italian infantry were drawn up in seven or eight battalions, each with
its due proportion of pikes and "shot." The course of the battle
demonstrated both the active tactical power of the new form of
fire-action and the solidity of the pike nucleus, the former in the
attack and defence of hills, woods and localities, the latter in an
episode in which a Spanish battalion, after being ridden through from
corner to corner by the French gendarmes, continued on its way almost
unchecked and quite unbroken. This combination of arquebusiers
supported by corselets in first line and corselets with a few
arquebusiers in second, reappeared at Renty (1554), and St Quentin
(1557), and was in fact the typical disposition of infantry from about
1530 to 1600.

By 1550, then, infantry had entirely ceased to be an auxiliary arm. It contained within itself, and (what is more important) within its regimental units, the power of fighting effectively and decisively both at close quarters and at a distance--the principal characteristic of the arm to-day. It had, further, developed a permanent regimental existence, both in Spain and in France, and in the former country it had progressed so far from the "residue" state that young nobles preferred to trail a pike in the ranks of the foot to service in the gendarmerie or light horse. The service battalions were kept up to war strength by the establishment of depots and the preliminary training there of recruits. In France, apart from Picardie and the other old regiments, every temporary regiment, on disbandment, threw off a depot company of the best soldiers, on which nucleus the regiment was reconstituted for the next campaign. Moreover, the permanent establishment was augmented from time to time by the colonel-general of the foot "giving his white flag" to temporary regiments.

The French infantry in 1570.

The organization of the French infantry in 1570 presents some points
of interest. The former broad classification of _au delà_ and _en deça
des monts_ or "Picardie" and "Piedmont," representing the home and
Italian armies, had disappeared, and instead the whole of the
infantry, under one colonel-general, was divided into the regiments of
Picardie, Piedmont and French Guards, each of which had its own
colonel and its own colours. Besides these, three newer corps were
_entretenus par le Roy_--"Champagne," practically belonging to the
Guise[6] family, and two others formed out of the once enormous
regiment of Marshal de Cossé-Brissac. At the end of a campaign all
temporary regiments were disbanded, but in imitation of the Spanish
depot system, each, on disbandment, threw off a depot company of
picked men who formed the nucleus for the next year's augmentation.
The regiment consisted of 10-16 "ensigns" or companies, each of about
150 pikemen and 50 arquebusiers. Each company had a proprietary
captain, the owners of the first two companies being the
colonel-general and the colonel (_mestre de camp_). The senior captain
was called the sergeant-major, and performed the duties of a second in
command and an adjutant or brigade-major. Unlike the regimental
commander, the sergeant-major was always mounted, and it is recorded
that one officer newly appointed to the post incurred the ridicule of
the army by dismounting to speak to the king. "Some veteran officers,"
wrote a contemporary, "are inclined to think that the regimental
commander should be mounted as well as the sergeant-major." The
regiment was as a rule formed for parade and battle either in line 10
deep or in "battalion" (i.e. mass), Swiss fashion. The captain
occupied the front, the ensigns with the company colours the centre,
and the lieutenants the rear place in the file. The sergeants, armed
with the halbert, marched on each side of the battalion or company.
Though the musket was gradually being introduced, and had powerful
advocates in Marshal Strozzi and the duke of Guise, the bulk of the
"shot" still carried the arquebus, the calibre of which had been,
thanks to Strozzi's efforts, standardized (see CALIVER) so that all
the arms took the same sizes of ball. The pikeman had half-armour and
a 14-ft. pike, the arquebusier beside the firearm a sword which he was
trained to use in the manner of the former Spanish light infantry. The
arquebusiers were arrayed in 3 ranks in front of the pikes or in 10
deep files on either flank.