Chapter IV: Part 4

But neither the Austrian nor the Prussian cavalry was so armed as to be able to make raiding movements with much hope of success. Cavalry without the power of using effective fire-action can never accomplish anything of importance on a raid; for a small force of hostile infantry can easily thwart its objects. The dragoon regiments were armed with the carbine, it is true, but they seem to have been studiously taught to feel a contempt for its use. At Tischnowitz (on the advance from Königgrätz to Brünn) a Prussian advanced-guard, consisting of dragoons, kept off a large force of Austrian cavalry by means of carbine fire, until the arrival of reinforcements enabled the dragoons to charge with the saber. According to Hozier, the Austrian cavalry pulled up sharply, “half surprised, half frightened, to find that a carbine could be of any use, except to make noise or smoke, in the hands of a mounted man.” Yet nothing seems to have been learned from this incident, and it was not until a brigade of German cavalry, consisting of three regiments, was stopped at the village of Vibray, in December, 1870, by a bare dozen of riflemen, and the Uhlans were everywhere forced to retire before the undisciplined _Francs-tireurs_, that the necessity of fire-action on the part of all cavalry was forced home to the Germans. Even yet the strategical value of the American cavalry raids seems to be under-estimated by European military critics, who seem also to regard anything like extensive fire-action on the part of cavalry as scarcely short of military heresy. Von der Goltz says: “Much has been spoken in modern times of far-reaching excursions of great masses of cavalry in the flank and rear of the enemy, which go beyond the object of intelligence, and have for their aim the destruction of railways, telegraph wires, bridges, magazines and depots. The American War of Secession made us familiar with many such ‘raids,’ on which the names of a Stuart, an Ashby, a Morgan and others, attained great renown. But, in attempting to transfer them to our theaters of war, we must primarily take into consideration the different nature, civilization and extent of the most European countries, but more especially those of the west. Then, regard must be paid to the different constitution of the forces. If a squadron of horse, improvised by a partisan, was defeated in such an enterprise, or if, when surrounded by the enemy, it broke itself up, that was of little consequence. It was only necessary that it was first paid for by some successes. Quite a different impression would be caused by the annihilation of one of our cavalry regiments, that by history and tradition is closely bound up with the whole army, and which, when once destroyed, cannot so easily rise again as can a volunteer association of adventurous farmers’ sons.

“The thorough organization of the defensive power of civilized nations is also a preventive to raids. Even when the armies have already marched away, squadrons of horse can, in thickly populated districts, with a little preparation, be successfully repulsed by levies. The French _Francs-tireurs_ in the western departments attacked our cavalry, as soon as they saw it isolated.”

With all deference to the great military writer here quoted, it is impossible to concede that he has grasped the true idea of cavalry raids. The slight esteem in which he holds “a volunteer association of adventurous farmers’ sons” is not surprising, for Europeans have rarely formed a just idea of American volunteers, and the effective fire-action of the American cavalry seems to be taken by foreign critics as proof positive that those troops were not _cavalry_, but merely mounted infantry--a view not shared by those who participated in the saber charges of Merritt, Custer and Devin. As to the annihilation of a Prussian cavalry regiment, there should be no objection to the annihilation of any regiment, however rich it may be in glorious history and tradition, provided that the emergency demands it, and the results obtained be of sufficient value to justify the sacrifice. Von Bredow’s charge at Mars-la-Tour was deemed well worth the sacrifice of two superb cavalry regiments; yet the results obtained by that famous charge certainly were not greater than those achieved by Van Dorn in the capture of Holly Springs. The former is supposed to have stopped a dangerous French attack; the latter is known to have checked a Federal campaign at its outset. Even had Van Dorn’s entire force been captured or slain (instead of escaping without loss) the result would have justified the sacrifice. Nor is the danger of annihilation great, if the cavalry be properly armed and trained. That cavalry untrained in fire-action can be successfully repulsed by levies, in thickly populated districts, is undoubtedly true; but such cavalry as that which, under Wilson, dismounted and carried entrenchments by a charge on foot, would hardly be stopped by such troops as _Francs-tireurs_ or any other hasty levies that could be raised in a country covered with villages. Superior mobility should enable cavalry to avoid large forces of infantry, and it should be able to hold its own against any equal force of opposing cavalry or infantry. The objections of Von der Goltz and Prince Hohenlohe to raids by large bodies of cavalry, lose their force if we consider the cavalry so armed and trained as to be capable of effective fire-action. When cavalry is so armed and organized as to make it possible for Prince Hohenlohe to state that a cavalry division of six regiments “could put only 1,400 carbines into the firing line,” and that “in a difficult country it could have no chance against even a battalion of infantry decently well posted,” we must acknowledge that a respectable raid is out of the question.

We do not find, in 1866, the cavalry pushed forward as a strategic veil covering the operations of the army. On the contrary we find the cavalry divisions kept well to the rear, and the divisional cavalry alone entrusted with reconnoissance duty, which it performed in anything but an efficient manner. At Trautenau, Von Bonin’s cavalry does not seem to have followed the retreat of Mondl, or to have discovered the approach of Von Gablentz. If it was of any use whatever, the fact is not made apparent in history. At Nachod, Steinmetz’s cavalry did better, and gave timely warning of the approach of the enemy; but generally, throughout the campaign, the Prussian cavalry did not play a part of much importance either in screening or reconnoitering. It profited greatly by its experience, however, and in the Franco-German war we find it active, alert, ubiquitous, and never repeating the drowsy blunder committed when it allowed Frederick Charles unwittingly to bivouac within four miles and a half of Von Benedek’s entire army, or the inertness shown when it permitted the Austrian army to escape from all touch, sight or hearing, for three days, after the battle of Königgrätz.

On the part of the Austrians, the cavalry was even more negligent and inefficient. Outpost and reconnoissance duties were carelessly performed; and Von Benedek was greatly hampered by a want of timely and correct information of the enemy’s movements. In only one instance does the Austrian cavalry seem to have been used profitably; namely, in covering the retreat of the defeated army at Königgrätz. In the words of Hozier: “Although operations had been conducted in its own country, where every information concerning the Prussian movements could have been readily obtained from the inhabitants, the Austrian cavalry had made no raids against the flank or rear of the advancing army, had cut off no ammunition or provision trains, had broken up no railway communications behind the marching columns, had destroyed no telegraph lines between the front and the base of supplies, had made no sudden or night attacks against the outposts so as to make the weary infantry stand to their arms and lose their night’s rest, and, instead of hovering around the front and flanks to irritate and annoy the pickets, had been rarely seen or fallen in with, except when it had been marched down upon and beaten up by the Prussian advanced-guards.” Surely it needed all the energy and valor shown in the last hours of Königgrätz to atone, in even a small degree, for such inefficiency.

* * * * *

The full offensive value of artillery was not yet understood in any army; and it is not surprising to notice in this campaign the utter absence of the tactics which, in the war with France, brought the German guns almost up to the skirmish line, and kept them actively engaged at close range until the end of the battle. It is, however, amazing to observe the slowness and general inefficiency of the Prussian artillery in every action. At Trautenau, though there were 96 guns belonging to Von Bonin’s corps, only 32 were brought into action, while 42 remained in the immediate vicinity without firing a shot. The remaining 22 guns do not seem to have reached the field at all. At Soor the Austrians brought 64 guns into action; but of the 72 guns of the Prussians, only 18 were brought into action from first to last. At Nachod, Skalitz and Gitschin it is the same story--plenty of Prussian artillery, but only a small portion of the guns brought into action, and those without appreciable effect.

Prince Hohenlohe says that in the entire campaign “the Prussian artillery, which numbered as many pieces as its adversary, had only once been able to obtain the numerical superiority. It had, on all occasions, fought against forces two, three, or even four times superior in number.” At Königgrätz the Prussian artillery was handled with surprising feebleness. The Crown Prince finally succeeded in bringing to bear on the Austrian right a force of artillery superior in numbers to that opposed to him; but, even in this case, his guns accomplished but little. As to the artillery of Frederick Charles, it practically accomplished nothing at all; and it was scarcely of more use on the Bistritz than it would have been in Berlin. From the beginning to the end of the battle, the Austrians had everywhere a decided superiority of artillery fire, except only in the one case on their right.

The Prussian Staff History says, in regard to the engagement south of the Sadowa wood: “A want of unity in the direction of the artillery was painfully evident on this part of the field. Two commandants of regiments were on the spot, but the eleven batteries then present belonged to five different artillery divisions, some of them to the divisional artillery and some to the reserve. This accounts for the want of unity of action at this spot; some batteries advanced perfectly isolated, whilst others retired behind the Bistritz at the same time.” To this Colonel Home adds: “A great deal of this was due to the fact that the guns came into action on one side of a small, muddy, stream, over which there were very few bridges, and across which bridges might have been thrown with ease, while the wagons remained on the other.” It may be further added, that the Prussian artillery seems to have been unduly afraid of encountering infantry fire, and to have had a bad habit of withdrawing to refit and to renew its ammunition. It is said of the Prussian artillery, that “they planted themselves here and there among the reserves, and never found places anywhere to engage.”[22] On the march the artillery was kept too far to the rear, and, owing to its inefficient action, the infantry, long before the close of the campaign, generally showed a disposition to despise its help, and to hurry into action without it, crowding the roads, and refusing to let the guns pass. Much had been expected of their artillery by the Prussians, and its feeble action was a severe disappointment to them. It is to the glory of the Prussians that they were quick to fathom the causes of the inefficiency of their artillery, and that they were able, in four years, to replace the impotence of Königgrätz with the annihilating “circle of fire” of Sedan.

The Austrians far surpassed their adversaries in the skill and effectiveness with which they used their artillery. The superiority of the French artillery had largely contributed to the Austrian disasters in Italy seven years before, and the lesson had not been forgotten. From the beginning of the Campaign of 1866, the Austrian artillery was an important factor in every engagement, and at Königgrätz it was handled superbly. But, in every case, it was used defensively, and the Austrian artillerists originated no new tactical features, and taught no lessons that could not have been learned from Gettysburg, Malvern Hill, Solferino, or even Wagram.

* * * * *

The concentration of the Prussian armies preparatory to hostilities was made partly by marching, and partly by railroad transportation. The work accomplished by the railroads may, perhaps, be best expressed in the words of the Prussian Staff History: “The whole of the marches and of the railway movements were so arranged by the General Staff, in harmony with the railway department, that in their execution, in which both the military and civil powers were concerned, no impediments or delays could occur. The result of these arrangements was, that in the twenty-one days allowed, 197,000 men, 55,000 horses, and 5,300 wagons were transported for distances varying between 120 and 300 miles, without any failure, and in such a manner that they attained the required spots at the very hour requisite.” Prussia was thus enabled, in the short space of three weeks, to place 325,000 men on the hostile frontiers, of which number 267,000 were ready for operations against Austria. Yet, great as this achievement was, it shows that the Prussian military system had not yet reached the perfection shown in 1870, when nineteen days sufficed for the mobilization of an army of 440,000 Germans, and its concentration on the frontier of France.

Further than in the matter of mobilization and concentration, the use of railways in the Austro-Prussian war presented no new features. In the matter of supplying armies in the field, the small area of the theater of war, and the inertness of the cavalry, were such that it is almost impossible to make a comparison of the use of railways in this campaign with the use of the same means of transport in the War of Secession. If we imagine a Prussian army pushing entirely through the Austrian Empire, to the vicinity of Belgrade, and dependent for its supplies on a single line of railway, back to a base on the Prussian frontier; and if we imagine, moreover, that the Austrian cavalry possessed vigilance, enterprise, good firearms and modern ideas, instead of being a mere military anachronism, we can picture a parallel to Sherman’s Atlanta campaign.

* * * * *

In regard to the use of the electric telegraph by the Prussians, Hamley says: “The telegraphic communication between the two Prussian armies invading Bohemia in 1866 was not maintained up to the battle of Königgrätz: had it been, and had the situation on both sides been fully appreciated, their joint attack might have been so timed as to obviate the risk of separate defeat which the premature onset of Prince Frederick Charles’ army entailed.” Yet Hozier describes in glowing terms the equipment of Frederick Charles’ telegraph train, and speaks with somewhat amusing admiration of the feat of placing the Prince’s headquarters, at the castle of Grafenstein, in direct telegraphic communication with Berlin, though the castle was five miles from the nearest permanent telegraph station. With each of the Prussian armies was a telegraph train, provided with the wire and other material requisite for the construction of forty miles of line. Yet, though communication was opened between the Crown Prince and Frederick Charles early on June 30th; though there were three days in which to construct a telegraph line; though the headquarters at Gitschin, Kamenitz and Königinhof could have been put in direct communication without exhausting much more than half the capacity of a single telegraph train, the Prussians neglected even to preserve telegraphic communications to the rear of their armies (and thus with each other _via_ Berlin), and, as we have seen, staked their success upon the safe delivery of a message carried by a courier, over an unknown road, on a night of pitchy darkness. Here again a valuable lesson might have been learned from the Americans.[23]

* * * * *

Though the War of Secession was begun without military preparation on either side; though its earlier operations sometimes presented features that would have been ludicrous but for the earnestness and valor displayed, and the mournful loss of life which resulted; our armies and generals grew in excellence as the war continued; and before the close of the conflict, the art of war had reached a higher development in America than it attained in Europe in 1866, and, in some respects, higher than it reached in 1870.

Notwithstanding the excellent organization, the superior arms and thorough preparation of the Prussian armies; notwithstanding the genius of Von Moltke and the intelligence and energy of his subordinates, the prime cause of Austrian failure is found in the neglect of the Austrian generals to watch the development of the art of war on our side of the Atlantic. Had they profited by our experience, their infantry, on one side of the theater of operations, would have been able, behind entrenchments, to contain many more than their own numbers of the Prussians; and Von Benedek, profiting by his interior lines, could then have thrown superior numbers against the other armies of his adversary. Opposing the Prussian columns with heavy skirmish lines constantly reinforced from the rear, the men of the firing line availing themselves of the cover afforded by the ground, he would have neutralized, by superior tactics, the superior arms of his opponent. His cavalry, instead of using the tactics of a by-gone age, would have been used, in part, in cutting the Prussian communications, bringing their advance to a halt, gaining time for him, when time was of priceless value, and enabling him to seize the initiative.

Possibly the war might, nevertheless, have resulted in Prussian success; for Von Moltke has always shown a power to solve quickly, and in the most perfect manner, any problem of war with which he has been confronted, while Von Benedek had only the half-development of a general possessing tactical skill without strategical ability. But the great Prussian strategist would have failed in his first plan of campaign, and he could have been successful only when, like his opponent, he availed himself of the new developments in warfare illustrated by the American campaigns. The Seven Weeks’ War would have been at least a matter of months; Austria would not have been struck down at a single blow; other nations might have been drawn into the prolonged conflict, and the entire history of Europe might have been different.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] These guns were classed, not according to the weight of the projectile, but according to the diameter of the bore. Thus the gun firing a 15-lb. shell was rated as a 6-pdr., because the diameter of its bore was the same as that of a 6-pdr. smooth-bore gun.

[2] See frontispiece map.

[3] It may be of assistance to the reader, in the following pages, to note that the divisions in the Prussian army are numbered consecutively throughout the several army corps. Thus, the Ist Corps consists of the 1st and 2d Divisions; the IId Corps, of the 3d and 4th Divisions; the VIth Corps, of the 11th and 12th Divisions, and so on.

[4] Derrécagaix and the Prussian Official History both condemn Von Clausewitz’s delay. Adams, however, finds an excuse for it. He says: “The first question that arises is, should Clausewitz have occupied Trautenau? Mondl was up, in all probability, and he would have been deeply engaged before Grossmann [commanding the right column] came up, against orders. He could not have been acquainted with the situation, for Bonin himself was not, and it is difficult, therefore, to attach blame to him. The cause of Grossmann’s delay is said to have been the hilly character of the road. Mondl, on the other hand, reaching Hohenbrück about 7:30, seems to have halted there to form. The Austrian official account states that he had occupied the heights since 9:15, and before this he had reached Hohenbrück at 7:45. When he had formed--that is to say, waited to mass his brigade before deploying--the position must have been taken up by him between 8:30 and 9:15. Had Clausewitz advanced, it would have taken three-quarters of an hour to debouch in force south of Trautenau, so that he would have had to continue his march without halting to cross the Aupa, and push forward from Trautenau, contrary to orders, in order to engage Mondl on the very strong ground he by that time had fully occupied.

“Probably the latter was informed ... that no immediate danger was impending, or he would not have waited leisurely to form. The first duty of the advance, on coming into collision with the enemy, is to occupy rapidly such localities as may prove of use in the impending action.”

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the heights were unoccupied when Von Clausewitz arrived at Parschnitz; and it was _his_ duty, as well as that of Mondl, on coming into collision with the enemy, to occupy rapidly such localities as might have proved of use in the impending action. As to engaging Mondl “on the very strong ground he by that time had fully occupied,” it is sufficient to state that he had only a brigade, while Von Clausewitz had a division. A subordinate commander assumes a grave responsibility when he violates or exceeds his orders; but it is hardly to be expected that an able division commander will fetter himself by observing the strict letter of an order, when he knows, and his superior does not know, that the condition of affairs in his front is such as to offer an opportunity for a successful and valuable stroke, even though that stroke be not contemplated in the orders of his chief. Von Alvensleben understood matters better when he marched without orders to assist Von Fransecky at Königgrätz. If a division commander were never expected to act upon his own responsibility when a movement is urged by his own common sense, it is evident that the position of general of division could be filled by a man of very limited abilities.

[5] “While this was going on a staff-officer ... of General Beauregard’s headquarters ... came up to General Bragg and said, ‘The General directs that the pursuit be stopped; the victory is sufficiently complete; it is needless to expose our men to the fire of the gun-boats.’ General Bragg said, ‘My God! was a victory ever sufficiently complete?’”--_Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. I., p. 605._

[6] The above criticism on the delay of Frederick Charles is based mainly on the comments of Major Adams, in his “Great Campaigns in Europe.” Hozier, who, in the main, follows the Prussian Staff History of the war, has nothing but praise for the Prince. The absence of adverse criticism on the action of Frederick Charles in the Prussian Official History is, perhaps, explained by the high military and social position of that general. Adams seems to think that a forward movement by Frederick Charles would have caused Clam-Gallas to abandon Münchengrätz at once, and does not seem to consider that if the Austro-Saxons had not been dislodged, Clam-Gallas would have had the Prussian communications by the throat, while covering his own, and that this advantage might have compensated him for his separation from Von Benedek. It may be urged in objection to these comments, that Frederick Charles did not know the exact condition of affairs in his front at the time. To this it may be replied that ability to appreciate a strategical advantage, and power to form a correct estimate of the enemy’s dispositions, are a test of a general’s merits as a strategist. McClellan is not excused for believing that, when Lee was attacking his right at Gaines’ Mill, the enemy was in strong force between the Federal army and Richmond; and Hamley is not gentle in his comments on Napoleon’s failure to estimate correctly the force and dispositions of the Prussians at Jena; though, being an Englishman, he does not hesitate to adopt another standard of criticism when he finds it necessary to defend Wellington for his error in leaving at Hal 17,000 men so sorely needed at Waterloo.--[See Hamley’s “Operations of War,” p. 94 _et seq._, and p. 198].

[7] It should be remembered that, in addition to the four corps immediately opposed to the Crown Prince, the IIId and IId Austrian Corps were at Von Benedek’s disposal; the latter being scarcely more than two marches distant from Josephstadt.

[8] At the battle of Königgrätz, Frederick Charles had 123,918 men. His losses at Gitschin aggregated 2,612 men. It seems, therefore, that 130,000 men is a high estimate of the maximum force which he would have been able to oppose to Von Benedek at Gitschin, had the latter made a junction with Clam-Gallas at that point.

[9] Col. C. B. Brackenbury, R. A., who accompanied the Austrian headquarters during the campaign, says that on one occasion he heard Von Benedek say, hotly, to his disputing staff, “For God’s sake do something!” and mentions the following incident: “After the battles of Nachod and Trautenau the second officer of the Intelligence Department examined all the prisoners, and obtained clear information of the whereabouts of all the columns of the Crown Prince, then struggling through the mountain passes. He wrote his report and took it to the officer who had been sent to Benedek to decide the strategy of the campaign. At that time several Austrian corps were close by. The General looked at the paper and had all the facts explained to him. He then dismissed the Captain, who, however, remained and said, probably in that tone of distrust which prevailed, ‘Now, Herr General, I have shown you that the Crown Prince can be beaten in detail if attacked by our great force within half a day’s march; may I ask what you propose to do with the Austrian army?’ The General replied, ‘I shall send it against Prince Frederick Charles.’ The Captain put his hands together in an attitude of supplication and said, ‘For God’s sake, sir, do not,’ but was ordered out of the room. I did not know this fact when Benedek said, the day after the defeat of Königgrätz, ‘Did you ever see such a fine army so thrown away?’”--“_Field Works_,” by Col. C. B. Brackenbury, R. A., p. 205 and note.

[10] Gitschin, Jung Buntzlau, and Libau are shown on Map No. 6. The positions of the other places here mentioned are, in reference to Gitschin, as follows: Aulibitz, nearly 4 miles east; Chotec, about 7-1/2 miles east; Konetzchlum, about 6-1/2 miles east-south-east; Milicowes, about 4-1/2 miles south-south-east; Podhrad, about 2 miles south-west; Robaus, about 2 miles east; Dworetz, near, and north of, Robaus.

[11] It is interesting to note the growth of great generals under the influence of their actual experience in war. The Frederick of Rossbach and Leuthen was very different from the Frederick of Mollwitz. In 1796 we find Napoleon calling a council of war before hazarding a second attempt upon Colli’s position at St. Michel, and showing, even in that vigorous and brilliant campaign, a hesitation never shown by the Napoleon of Ulm and Austerlitz. The Grant of Vicksburg was not the Grant of Shiloh; and Lee at Chancellorsville and Petersburg does not seem like the same commander who conducted the impotent campaign of 1861 in West Virginia. The old saying, “Great generals are born, not made,” is not altogether true. It would be more correct to say, “Great generals are born, and then made.”

[12] The author’s own observations of the topography of the field correspond, in the main, with the description given above. The Bistritz, however, is not such a formidable obstacle as one might infer from the description quoted. At the village of Sadowa it is a mere ditch, not much larger than some of the _acequias_ in Colorado or Utah. It is perhaps eight feet wide and three feet in depth. It could hardly have been an obstacle to infantry. Its muddy bottom and marshy banks doubtless rendered it a considerable obstacle for artillery, but the eight villages through which it flows, within the limits of the battle field, certainly could have furnished abundant material for any number of small bridges required for crossing it. In the vicinity of Nechanitz, the Bistritz, having received the waters of a tributary creek, becomes a true obstacle, as it spreads out to a width of about thirty yards, and the banks are swampy. It should be remarked that at the time of the author’s visit to Königgrätz, there had been very heavy rains, and the condition of the stream was probably the same as on the day of the battle.

[13] A sketch of these operations is given in the appendices.

[14] The strength of the Union army at Gettysburg was 78,043. The Confederate army numbered about 70,000. The Union army lost 3,072 killed, and 14,497 wounded. The Confederates lost 2,592 killed, and 12,709 wounded. In comparing the losses of Gettysburg with those of Königgrätz, no account is here taken of the “missing” in either the Union or the Confederate losses; though the missing (exclusive of prisoners) are figured in with the killed and wounded of the Prussian and Austrian armies. The figures in regard to Gettysburg are taken from the tables (compiled from official records) in “Battles and Leaders of the Civil War.” The figures in regard to Königgrätz are taken from the Prussian Official History.

[15] See page 70.

[16] Although the above comment coincides in its main features with the criticism of Hozier on the same subject, it is based upon the author’s own observation of the views of the field afforded from the church tower of Chlum, and from Von Benedek’s position near Lipa.

[17] For example, the formation of Sedgwick’s division at Antietam, Meade’s at Fredericksburg, Pickett’s at Gettysburg, and Sheridan’s at Chattanooga.

[18] See the interesting comments of General J. D. Cox on the assaults in column at Kenesaw Mountain, p. 129, Vol. IX., (“Atlanta”), Scribner’s “Army and Navy in the Civil War.”

[19] The following remarks of Captain F. N. Maude, R. E., on “The Tactics of the American War” sustain the views expressed above, and are interesting as showing an able English military critic’s appreciation of the advanced tactical development of the American armies:

“It is curious to note how little attention has been devoted to the study of the fighting of this most bloody of modern wars; and yet it would seem that the records of these campaigns fought out to the bitter end by men of our own Anglo-Saxon races, would be a far more likely source of information, from which to deduce the theory of an attack formation specially designed to meet our needs, than the histories of struggles between French and Germans, or Russians and Turks. Von Moltke is reported to have said that ‘nothing was to be learnt from the struggle of two armed mobs.’ If that is really the case, which we venture to doubt exceedingly, the great strategist must ere this have been sorry he ever spoke, for, armed mobs or not, both Southern and Northern troops bore, and bore victoriously, a per centage of loss before which even the best disciplined troops in Germany, the Prussian Guard Corps, failed to make headway. It is of no relevance to the argument to say that the breech-loader was not then in use. When a man is hard hit himself, or sees his comrade rolled over, it never enters his head to consider whether the hit was scored by muzzle-loader or breech-loader; the fact itself, that he or the other man is down, is the only one he concerns himself with, and when the percentage of hits in a given time rises high enough, the attack collapses equally, no matter against what weapon it may be delivered.

“Actually, though the armament was inferior, the per centage of hits was frequently far higher than in breech-loading campaigns. There is no action on record during recent years in which the losses rose so high, and in so short a time, as in the American fights.”

After a brief description of Meagher’s attack at Fredericksburg, and Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, Captain Maude continues:

“Surely, Moltke never spoke of such gallant soldiers as an armed mob, seeing that they succeeded in driving an attack home against four times the per centage of loss that stopped the Prussian guard at St. Privat.... And assuming, for the moment, that the saying attributed to him is really true, we cannot help fancying that he must have often bitterly regretted it when watching his own men in the manœuvers of late years, attacking in what is really, practically the same formation which the armed mobs worked out for themselves.

“The points of contrast between ourselves and the Americans are far too numerous to be dismissed without comment. They began the war with a drill book and system modeled on our own, and they carried it out to its conclusion, with only a few modifications of detail, but none of principle. The normal prescribed idea of an attack appears to have been as follows: A line of scouts, thickened to skirmishers according to the requirements of the ground; from 2 to 300 paces in rear, the 1st line, two deep, precisely like our own, then in rear a 2d line and reserve. Of course, their lines did not advance with the steady precision of our old peninsula battalions. Their level of instruction was altogether too low, and besides, the extent of fire-swept ground had greatly increased. Eye witnesses say that after the first few yards, the line practically dissolved itself into a dense line of skirmishers, who threw themselves forward generally at a run as far as their momentum would carry them; sometimes, if the distance was short, carrying the position at the first rush, but more generally the heavy losses brought them to a halt and a standing fire fight ensued. They knew nothing of Scherff’s great principle, on which the ‘Treffen Abstande’ or distances between the lines are based, but they generally worked it out in practice pretty successfully. The second line came up in the best order they could and carried the wreck of the first on with them; if they were stopped, the reserve did the same for them, and either broke too, or succeeded.

* * * * *

“It will be seen that except in its being more scientifically put together, this German attack is, practically, precisely similar to that employed by the Americans, with the sole difference that the breech-loader has conferred on the assailants the advantage of being able to make a more extended use of their weapons, and has reduced to a certain extent the disadvantage of having to halt.

* * * * *

“Had we, in 1871, been thoroughly well informed as to the methods employed across the Atlantic, we should have seen at once that the new weapons did not necessarily entail any alteration in principle in our drill book, and with a little alteration in detail, have attained at one bound to a point of efficiency not reached even in Germany till several years after the war.”--“_Tactics and Organization_,” by Capt. F. N. Maude, R. E., p. 299, _et seq._

[20] See pp. 42 and 78.

[21] In Clery’s “Minor Tactics” occurs the following astonishing passage: “The use made of entrenchments by the Turks was not the least remarkable feature of the war of 1877. Field works, as aids in defense, had been used with advantage in previous wars, but no similar instance exists of an impregnable system of earthworks being improvised under the very noses of the enemy.” Col. Clery’s book is an evidence of his intelligent study and thorough knowledge of European military history; yet, as late as 1885, this professor of tactics at the Royal Military College at Sandhurst seems not to have heard of Johnston’s works at Kenesaw Mountain, or the fortifications constructed at Spottsylvania and Petersburg.

[22] May’s “Tactical Retrospect.”

[23] For a description of the American military telegraph, see Grant’s Memoirs, Vol. II., p. 205, _et seq._ See also the comments on the military telegraph, in Sherman’s Memoirs, Vol. II., p. 398.

APPENDIX I.

THE PRUSSIAN ADVANCE FROM KÖNIGGRÄTZ TO THE DANUBE.

The day after the battle of Königgrätz was occupied by the Prussians in resting their fatigued troops, and in separating the mingled corps and detachments of the different armies. Late in the afternoon the first movements in advance began.

The fortresses of Josephstadt and Königgrätz were still in the hands of the Austrians. They were well garrisoned, and could only be taken by siege. Both were summoned to surrender, and both refused. These fortresses were of the greatest importance, as they commanded the line of railway on which the Prussians depended for supplies, and controlled the passage of the Elbe in the vicinity of the battle field. Strong detachments were, therefore, left to mask the fortresses, and on the 5th of July the Prussian armies marched to Pardubitz and Przelautsch, at which points they crossed the Elbe. A division of Landwehr was sent to Prague, which city surrendered, without resistance, on the 8th of July. The Prussians were thus able to open communications with the rear by rail, _via_ Pardubitz, Prague, Turnau and Reichenberg, in spite of the fortresses of Theresienstadt, Königgrätz and Josephstadt.

After the battle of Königgrätz all touch with the Austrians had been lost, and for three days the Prussians were completely in the dark as to the direction taken by the retreating army. On July 6th it was learned that Von Benedek, with the greater portion of his army, had retreated upon Olmütz.

After the battle two lines of retreat were open to Von Benedek. It was desirable to retreat upon Vienna, for the double purpose of protecting the city, and effecting a junction with the victorious troops, withdrawn from Italy for the defense of the capital.[24] But Vienna was 135 miles distant; the army had been heavily defeated; and there was danger that a retreat of such a distance would degenerate into a demoralized rout. Olmütz was only half as far away; its fortress would afford the necessary protection for reorganizing and resting the army; and its position on the flank of the Prussians would be a serious menace to their communications, in case of their advance on Vienna. Von Benedek, therefore, retreated upon Olmütz, sending the Xth Corps by rail to Vienna, and the greater part of his cavalry by ordinary roads to the same point.

The situation was now favorable to Von Moltke. He had the advantage of interior lines, and he did not hesitate to make use of them. Yet the problem was by no means devoid of difficulties. The Austrian army at Olmütz was still formidable in numbers; the extent of its demoralization was not known; the Austrian troops had a high reputation for efficiency, and for a capacity to present an undaunted front after a defeat; and it was thought possible that Von Benedek might assume the offensive. To leave such a formidable army unopposed on his flank was not to be thought of; yet it was desirable to reach Vienna before the arrival at that city of the troops recalled from Italy, or, at any rate, before a considerable army could be concentrated for the defense of the capital. A division of the Prussian forces was, therefore, necessary. The Army of the Elbe and the First Army were directed upon Vienna: the former to move _via_ Iglau and Znaym; the latter, _via_ Brünn. The Crown Prince was directed upon Olmütz to watch Von Benedek. There were three courses open to the Austrian commander: 1. To attack the flank of the First Army, between Olmütz and Vienna; 2. To withdraw rapidly to the capital; 3. To attack the Crown Prince. In the first case, the First Army would be supported by the Army of the Elbe, and the combined forces would be able to take care of themselves. In the second case, the Crown Prince was to attack the retiring army and harass its march. In the third case, the Crown Prince, who, though inferior in numbers, was superior in _morale_, might be more than a match for the Austrians. In case of defeat, however, he was to retreat into Silesia, where he would have the support of the Prussian fortresses; while Von Moltke, freed from Von Benedek, could seize the Austrian capital and command peace.

On July 7th the cavalry of the Second Army recovered touch with the Austrians, and there was some skirmishing with their rear guards.

On July 8th the Austrian government made overtures for an armistice of not less than eight weeks, nor more than three months; as a condition to which the fortresses of Königgrätz and Josephstadt were to be surrendered. The proposition was rejected by the Prussians, who continued to advance.

Von Benedek was relieved from the chief command of the Austrian army, being superseded by Archduke Albrecht, who had won the victory of Custozza over the Italians. Von Benedek retained command, however, until the arrival of his army on the Danube. The Austrians were now straining every nerve to assemble an army at Vienna. Leaving only one corps and one division in Italy, the Archduke’s army had been recalled from Venetia, and was proceeding, by rail and by forced marches, to the Danube.

On the 11th of July Von Benedek’s army was ordered to Vienna. This army, after a continuous retreat of eight days duration, had just completed its concentration at Olmütz; but the movement to Vienna was begun without delay, the IIId Corps being sent on the day the order was received. The withdrawal of the army from Olmütz to Vienna was not an easy operation. The railway was, as yet, beyond the reach of the Prussians; but the aid that it could lend was not great. It was estimated that the withdrawal of the entire army by the single line of railway would require a full month. Part of the troops were, accordingly, hurried on by rail, and the bulk of the army was ordered to march by the valley of the March to Pressburg. This was the most direct route, and the one which offered the best roads for marching, though by taking this line the Austrian army would expose a flank to the attack of the Prussians. Above all things, celerity was necessary, in order that the march might be completed without fatal interruption. Von Benedek’s army marched in three echelons. The first, composed of the IId and IVth Corps, with the greater part of the Saxon cavalry, started on the 14th of July. The second, consisting of the VIIIth and Ist Corps, left the next day; and the third, made up of the VIth Corps and the Saxons, followed on the 16th.

The Austrian cavalry presented a bold front to the Prussian armies moving on Vienna, and a sharp action was fought at Tischnowitz, on the 11th of July, between the cavalry of Frederick Charles’ advanced-guard and a division of Austrian lancers, resulting in the defeat of the latter. On the 12th Frederick Charles took possession of Brünn without resistance. The next day, after some skirmishing with the Austrian cavalry, the Army of the Elbe occupied Znaym.

After a rest of two days, the Army of the Elbe and the First Army continued their march towards the Danube; the former being directed towards Krems, the latter moving _via_ Nikolsburg.

The Austrian troops from Italy began to arrive at Vienna on the 14th of July. In the meantime, the Crown Prince, hearing of Von Benedek’s withdrawal from Olmütz, directed his march on Prerau, and, on the 14th, reached Prosnitz, about twelve miles south of Olmütz. The first Austrian echelon, marching by the right bank of the March, just escaped serious collision with the Crown Prince, the cavalry of the Second Army skirmishing with the Saxon cavalry, and becoming engaged with a battalion of infantry on the flank of the Austrian IId Corps.

On the following day Von Bonin, with the Ist Corps and Von Hartmann’s cavalry division, attacked the second echelon of Von Benedek’s army, and defeated it in the actions of Tobitschau and Rokienitz. As a result of these actions, the right bank of the March was no longer available for the Austrian retreat. Von Benedek had, however, succeeded in slipping away from the Crown Prince, though at the expense of losing his best and most direct road to Vienna.

Learning that large bodies of Austrians had been seen moving south from Olmütz for some days, Von Moltke saw at once that it would be impossible to bar Von Benedek’s path with the Second Army, and immediately ordered the First Army to Lundenburg. The railway and telegraph at Göding were cut by a detachment of Prussian cavalry, on the 15th, and Frederick Charles occupied Lundenburg the next day.

This was a severe blow to Von Benedek, for he thus lost his railway communication with Vienna, his march by the valley of the March was headed by the Prussians, and he was compelled to make a detour by crossing the Carpathian mountains and following the valley of the Waag. To compensate, as far as possible, for the loss of the shorter road, Von Benedek hastened his troops by forced marches. Von Moltke did not deem it prudent to send the Second Army after Von Benedek into the valley of the Waag, as communication between the Crown Prince and Frederick Charles would thus be lost, and it was now desirable to concentrate rather than separate. It was accordingly determined to push forward with all available troops to the Danube. The Crown Prince had already seen the impossibility of thwarting Von Benedek’s retreat, and, as early as the 15th, had left the Ist Corps to mask Olmütz, had directed the Vth Corps and a cavalry division to follow on the flank of Von Benedek, and had pushed forward with the rest of his army upon Brünn, where he arrived on the 17th. On the same day the Army of the Elbe and the First Army were in the neighborhood of Nikolsburg.

On the 19th the heads of the Prussian armies were within less than two days’ march of the Austrian capital, but part of the Prussian forces were as far back as Brünn. Von Moltke did not know, to a certainty, how much of Von Benedek’s army had been brought back from Olmütz before the obstruction of the railway. A large part of it might already be in his front; he knew that large bodies of troops had come in from Italy; the fortifications of Florisdorf were extensive; and it seemed possible that the Austrians might, by a last great effort, have assembled an army large enough to enable them to push forward from Florisdorf, to deliver battle on the Marchfeld for the defense of their capital. With the double object of preparing to attack and being in readiness to receive an attack, Von Moltke ordered the Army of the Elbe to Wolkersdorf, the First Army to Wagram, and the Second Army in reserve at Schönkirchen. The Prussian army was thus concentrated behind the Russbach, in position to meet an attack of 150,000 Austrians from Florisdorf; to reconnoiter and attack the Florisdorf entrenchments; or to leave a corps of observation in front of them and push to the left and seize Pressburg. The Second Army, with the exception of the Vth Corps, was to be in position to support the other two by the 21st. The Vth Corps was to be hurried up as rapidly as possible, in order that the entire army might be concentrated for a decisive battle.

The only troops of Von Benedek’s army which had reached Vienna by the 20th were the Xth and IIId Corps, part of the Saxons, and four cavalry divisions, numbering altogether from 55,000 to 60,000 men. The reinforcements from Italy which had arrived at the capital numbered about 50,000 men.

Although the occupation of Pressburg was absolutely necessary to secure the prompt junction of the divided Austrian armies, that important point was held by only a single brigade. As soon as the Austrian IId Corps had reached Tyrnau, its leading brigade was pushed forward rapidly, in country carts, to reinforce the brigade at Pressburg, and the rest of the corps hastened towards the same place by forced marches. If Pressburg fell into the hands of the Prussians, the force still with Von Benedek, constituting the bulk of his army, would not be able to reach Vienna, and form a junction with the Archduke Albrecht, except by making a long detour _via_ Komorn, and would probably be delayed so long as to be helpless to prevent the capture of the capital.

On the 21st of July the Army of the Elbe and the First Army were in position behind the Russbach, and the Second Army was drawing near, its two advanced corps being not more than one day’s march distant. The situation of the Austrians was critical. Their IId Corps had not yet reached Pressburg, and that all-important point was still held by only two brigades. The Ist, VIth and VIIIth Corps, and a division of Saxons, had gotten no farther than Neustadtl and Trentschin, nearly sixty miles from Pressburg. On the same day Von Fransecky, with the Prussian IVth Corps and a cavalry division, crossed the March, in the vicinity of Marchegg, advancing upon Pressburg. Everything portended to the Austrians the loss of that valuable strategic point, and the consequent cutting off of Von Benedek from Vienna. The Prussian army, numbering, at least, 184,000 men, was concentrated and opposed to an army of not more than 110,000 men, at most, at Vienna. The capture of the capital seemed certain; and Von Moltke, with his forces augmented to 200,000 men, by the reinforcements that were pushing on to join him, could then turn upon Von Benedek, and give a _coup de grace_ to the last remnant of Austria’s military power.

At this junction, however, diplomacy stepped in, and, through the mediation of France, a five days’ armistice, as a preliminary to peace, was agreed upon; the armistice to go into effect at noon on the 22d of July.

On the 22d Von Fransecky struck the two Austrian brigades at Blumenau, just in front of Pressburg. While everything was going in favor of the Prussians, and they seemed to be not only on the point of defeating the Austrians, but of capturing their entire force, the hour of noon arrived; the armistice went into effect, the action was, with difficulty, broken off, and, after the sudden termination of the battle, both armies bivouacked on the field.

The preliminary terms of peace were signed at Nikolsburg on the 26th of July, and definitely ratified at Prague on the 30th of August. The orders for the withdrawal of the Prussian armies were issued on the 25th of August, and the Austrian territory was entirely evacuated by them by the 20th of September.

By the terms of the treaty of peace, Venetia was ceded to Italy; the old Germanic confederation was dissolved; Schleswig-Holstein became the property of Prussia; Austria consented to the formation of a North German Confederation, and a union of the South German States, from both of which confederations she was to be excluded; and the defeated power agreed to pay 40,000,000 Prussian thalers to the victor. From this sum, however, 15,000,000 thalers were deducted as the price of the Austrian claims to Schleswig-Holstein, and 5,000,000 thalers for the free maintenance of the Prussian army in the Austrian provinces from the preliminary truce to the final establishment of peace. Peace with the German allies of Austria was made at about the same time. As a result of the war, Prussia annexed the territories of Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau and the free city of Frankfort. The population of the victorious kingdom was increased by 4,285,700 people; and its area, by nearly 25,000 square miles of land.

FOOTNOTE:

[24] A brief sketch of the operations in Italy is given in Appendix III.

APPENDIX II.

THE CAMPAIGN IN WESTERN GERMANY.

The surrender of the Hanoverian army at Langensalza, on June 29, 1866, left Von Falckenstein free to operate against the armies of the South German States. His army, now designated “The Army of the Maine,” numbered 45,000 men and 97 guns.

Opposed to him were the Bavarian Corps, numbering 40,000 men and 136 guns, and the VIIIth Federal Corps, numbering 46,000 men and 134 guns. The former, under the command of Prince Charles of Bavaria, had concentrated at Schweinfurt; the latter, under the command of Prince Alexander of Hesse, at Frankfort.