STRATEGICAL EMPLOYMENT OF CAVALRY

The attempt has often been made to advance formal principles and rules for the strategical, as well as tactical employment of the Arm, which will give a more or less safe foundation on which to base the grouping and employment of the available forces.

Some regard a Cavalry Division as normally deployed when two brigades march on separate roads in first line, with the third following behind the centre in Reserve. Others want to see all brigades on one front, side by side; whilst yet others wish to see two brigades on one road, whilst the third pursues the same objective on a country lane.

Even our Cavalry Regulations—which on this subject actually ventures to trespass on strategical ground—lays down (see Section 318) that 'in Reconnaissance the mass of the Division must be kept together until the enemy's Cavalry has been beaten out of the field.'

I hold all these attempts which only hamper the free strategic employment of the Arm as not only mistaken, but contrary to the very essence of our being, and for the same reason I hold them even to be detrimental, because they are calculated to produce thoroughly false views as to the conditions and demands with which in practical warfare we are confronted. All these regulations fall to the ground the moment they have to be applied to strategical units of variable dimensions. Further, as I have developed above, the tasks which may fall to us are of such different natures that they cannot possibly be all solved by the same formulae.

The strength of the enemy must naturally exercise decisive importance on the whole character of our action and the distribution of our forces. The lie of the roads and the nature of the country also exercise their influence on our decision.

To this must be added the fact that, in view of the many strategical necessities of a great Army, the Headquarters cannot always be in a position to allot to the Cavalry a clearly-defined task either of reconnaissance or security, attack or defence; thus higher considerations may prevent the massing of the Cavalry on a single road or any other similar simple distribution. More often than not one will have to suggest the simultaneous attainment of the most varied objectives, and the Cavalry Leader will be lucky if he is not called upon to solve problems of the most heterogeneous nature, things which in their execution mutually exclude one another.

Hence one can only lay down the most general principles to govern the strategical employment of the Arm, and to meet this difficulty it becomes all the more important to develop the capacity for endurance of the troops to the utmost, so that they can successfully deal with these many variable demands.

As to how far the independent Cavalry should be thrust out in front of the following columns of the Army, all that can be laid down is, that the wider the fronts and the deeper the Army—hence the longer time the Army will take to deploy, concentrate, change its position, or execute any similar operation depending on the reports of the Cavalry—the further that Cavalry must gain ground to the front.

As to the principles governing the formal arrangement of the troops in contradiction to all attempts to lay down stereotyped formations, all that can be said is that every strategical operation, if for no other reason than to allow of reconnaissance and secure safety, requires a certain extension in breadth; but the combat itself demands concentration.

It follows from the above that the Cavalry Commander must in every initial case weigh in his own mind how much the existing circumstances may allow him to extend, and, on the other hand, how closely they compel him to keep concentrated, and he will only be able to reconcile the dilemma when he is actually clear in his own mind as to the tactical and strategical results his conduct in either case will involve.

If the essence of his duty is to secure and to screen, then, as stated above, extension and subdivision of his command naturally follows. But one must keep clearly before one's own eyes that any concentration for a combat jeopardizes the performances of these tasks, for the concentration for combat necessitates the uncovering of the front, which it is the very object of the enemy to bring about and take advantage of. Further, the wider the front, the less becomes the possibility of timely tactical concentration; hence, under such conditions, one would generally have to renounce the temptation to engage in combat with a positive object, and content one's self with keeping the enemy at a distance, for this purpose availing one's self to the utmost of the advantages the ground may confer, and such support as the reinforced Horse Artillery and mobile Infantry (in vehicles) can afford.

When the width of extension becomes very great it will be an absolute mistake to keep back reserves, since by doing so the actual front is weakened, whilst there is no guarantee that the reserve can arrive in time at the threatened point.

Further, the wider the front becomes, the greater the difficulty of strategical change of direction.

A similar extension of front as that above indicated in this resume of 'Security' duties may also become advisable when engaged on 'Reconnaissance'—for instance, when lengthy obstacles, such as watercourses, mountains, etc., only traversable at bridges, dams, or defiles, have to be surmounted.

In such cases, especially when resistance is to be anticipated, it will rarely be possible to count on being able to surmount the obstacle in one single column, since even unimportant forces under such circumstances can oppose a very protracted defence, and neutralize a large numerical superiority. When these difficulties are met with, it will be necessary even in reconnaissance to divide one's force into several columns, as then there is always the chance of successfully piercing the enemy's front at some one point, and thence rolling up his resistance all along the line.

Even in open country conditions may be encountered that render the subdivision of one's forces over a considerable extent of front desirable—i.e., when it is necessary to find the enemy, and fix the fact of his presence in certain specific districts. As an example, the conduct of the Cavalry after the Battle of Gravelotte (August 18, 1870), when it became imperative to ascertain whether MacMahon's Army was marching to the north-eastward or not.

Here it was indispensable to sweep out a wide area. To attempt such tasks with patrols alone is unadvisable, for these always require a certain tactical support behind them, by which they can be either reinforced or relieved.

Still, the point must never be lost sight of, that, since the enemy will also seek to screen his operations, a decisive collision may become necessary at any moment to tear his screen asunder. Hence it will be better, in opposition to the principles laid down for 'security' only, to keep one's principal force in groups or masses, possessing considerable striking force, and to march in such manner that a certain degree of concentration is always attainable while meeting the necessity for extension in breadth by smaller reconnoitring patrols.

Against an opponent whose general whereabouts has been ascertained, whom one is determined at any price to beat, in order then to reconnoitre, one's troops must be kept in hand, so that their complete concentration is assured in all cases, and only to divide them to the degree rendered indispensable by the general direction of the roads and the nature of the ground to be traversed. The same conditions also hold good where surprise is the essence of the undertaking. In this case it may even be advisable to suppress one's own dispositions for security, and accept the risk of being taken at a disadvantage rather than run the risk of having one's intentions prematurely disclosed.

Tactically the greater concentration guarantees tactical success, and strategically it allows greater freedom of movement and changes of direction to meet altered conditions; but one must never lose sight of the technical drawbacks such closer concentration entails.

The zone of reconnaissance is naturally always of less breadth than with divided columns; hence the possibility of screening the march of troops in the rear is diminished, the risk of being turned is increased, and the possibility of delivering a stroke in the air is not inconsiderable.

If the enemy wishes to evade us, we have scarcely any means of holding him until our main force can arrive; and finally, this condition of close concentration by no means guarantees always and everywhere either superior readiness for action or a more favourable deployment. Cases can arise in which strategic dispersion will prepare the way for tactical encounter even better than the concentrated advance; and this is particularly so when, to attain the object of our mission, a wide turning movement is necessary, for this will generally be best brought about by previous strategic dispositions; whilst the deployment of a mass from a defile or its retreat may be entirely prevented if attempted in a single column.

Hence every principle has its limitations, and circumstances will always arise which defy all stereotyped formations. Thus, even for 'screening' and 'security' cases can arise under which concentration is justified, even where the nature of the ground does not imperatively dictate it, as when, for instance, the insufficiency of one's own force excludes any distribution in breadth, and compels one to combine all efforts for the defence of decisive points. And it is precisely on the defensive that it may be of advantage to deal a blow with the concentrated strength. Equally on the strategic offensive, dispersion may be necessary, as when the enemy retreats eccentrically; or if it is necessary to occupy districts of considerable size to break down the resistance of the hostile population, or to interrupt railway communication over a considerable area.

Finally, all principles fall to the ground where the enemy's Cavalry is finally beaten out of the field, or by a succession of mistakes he gives openings which we can seize with advantage. Thus our conduct always remains dependent on the topographical nature of the country, on our own purpose and the opposition of the enemy, and only one law governs all cases—namely, expediency. The greater art of leading will naturally be required when the necessity arises to operate with more or less widely-separated columns. In all such cases everything depends on the endurance of one's troops. The principal difficulty in the way of execution lies in harmonizing and maintaining the movements of the separate detachments.

If one has to deal with Infantry only, then, since their rate of march is almost always the same, it is easy to calculate approximately where the several columns may be found; but it is quite different when one comes to deal with Cavalry, where the different Leaders may adopt very different rates of movement, or may have such variations forced upon them by other circumstances, and hence one has always to deal with quite indeterminable factors. This difficulty can never be altogether eliminated; one can only counteract it by laying down from the very first instructions for the advance of the several columns, according to time and space, from which no deviation is to be permitted without sufficient reasons, and organizing the circulation of orders and intelligence in such a manner that it will work with certainty. These two precautions supplement one another. If one can calculate approximately where the several detachments are to be found at a given time, then reports can be sent by the shortest way, and will reach their destination without delay.

It will be decidedly advisable that all detachments should report to Headquarters, and if possible to all adjacent columns, without distinct instructions, and at certain time intervals, both as to their advance, their bearing in relation to adjacent columns, as also any news they may have obtained about the enemy.

Nothing is more important to the Cavalry Leader than to be constantly informed as to the general situation of the units he controls; but it is equally important that the several groups should know what is happening to one another, for only then can they act in the spirit and in combination with the whole.

This is all the more essential because, owing to the rapidity of all movements, and to the great extension which has often to be given to the front, it is impossible for the higher Command to interfere in good time, or to obtain information from its subordinates in any emergency that may suddenly arise. The results, then, depend entirely on the independent judgment of the man on the spot, and suitable action can only be obtained when the latter is kept fully informed as to the nature of the general situation.

We should, therefore, avoid as far as possible the despatch of orders to individual Commanders without at the same time informing their comrades of the bearing of such instructions.

Wherever possible in strategical operations, the orders should be comprehensive, and should be circulated simultaneously to all subordinates. Where it is impossible to convey an order simultaneously to all, those not immediately concerned in their execution should be informed of its issue as soon as possible. Certainly, this method requires a large number of gallopers, orderlies, and so forth; but this apparent waste of energy will in the end prove the best economy, because the troops will thereby be spared many unnecessary movements.

However great the endeavour may be to diminish the difficulties of the united action of separated bodies in the combat itself, the issue of the Cavalry fight is decided so rapidly that its consequences must have begun to show themselves before either the adjacent columns or Headquarters have learnt of its commencement. We must, therefore, be clear in our own minds that successful combination of separated bodies in action can generally only be effected when the opponent is either stationary, in which case one can time one's movements against him, or when, by a protracted defence at other points, the more distant bodies have time and opportunity to reach the field.

Even when the approach of the opponent's forces has been discovered in time, it will be difficult to calculate with any degree of precision the exact point at which collision will occur, as the marching rate of the enemy's Cavalry must always remain an uncertain factor. Hence it will not suffice to evade the enemy's advance until the adjacent columns can unite, as one cannot assign to them any definite point of concentration where the distance between the columns is at all considerable. Any attempt to concentrate strategically against an enemy in movement without at some point fighting to gain time must be dismissed as illusory. In all these cases one must not hesitate to take to the rifle, and to utilize all available means of defence.

Similarly, when advancing in separated columns, it will be well to advance from one defensive section to another in rushes, and not to go beyond any one of these until fairly assured that one can reach the next without encountering the enemy's Cavalry.

If one should have the misfortune of being surprised in a district which affords no points of support, then one must retire to the next best one in order to give the adjacent columns time to swing in against the enemy's flanks. The sound of the guns will be indication enough to these to hasten their pace.

The more important it is, therefore, to march to the sound of the guns in order to save time, the more careful must one be in opening fire without sufficient cause. On the one hand, the side which wishes to attract support will not be satisfied with a few rounds, but will endeavour by continuous and heavy firing to make the danger of his situation evident; on the other, the adjacent columns will only then be justified in approaching if they are convinced that it is not a mere matter of local and transitory advantage. The Cavalry Commander must keep, therefore, a firm hand over his guns, and never allow these to come into action without express sanction, except in extreme necessity. Generally, the batteries should always march with the advance or the rear guard in order to break down rapidly any minor resistance, and to make the fullest use of such short opportunities as may arise for the utilization of their full power.

The application of these principles is, of course, much simpler when it is possible to keep the several columns close together on a convenient group of roads, all running fairly near to one another. The disadvantages which then arise make less demand on the skill of the Leader, but more on the necessarily cramped form of the disposition which, as we have above pointed out, he is compelled to adopt.

For every operation, in fact, except the direct attack, there is a certain degree of extension, which favours the immediate purpose the most, and this depends on the shape and nature of the ground; but one has always to resist the temptation to dispersion which arises, particularly when it is necessary to keep in mind the solution of several possible problems. Only very occasionally will it be expedient to divide one's troops to meet every emergency.

The General must use his judgment to decide where the chief weight of his mission lies, the principal characteristics he must impress upon his operations, and how the subsidiary purposes can be best served without applying half-purposes to the primary object. It is these considerations—the reduction of the complicated to the simple—which create the chief difficulties which weigh upon the mind of the Leader. The capacity of coming to a correct decision in every special case is a mark of the intellectually capable Commander, and of itself gives a certain guarantee of its success by rendering possible the concentration of the force upon the decisive point; but it will not alone suffice to insure success. Boldness and energy of character is the final determining cause of successful results.

Above all, every Cavalry leader must be inspired by the determination to keep the initiative under all circumstances, and never to relinquish it to his opponent. The initiative alone guarantees successes, often in a degree which one was hardly entitled to expect, for it forces the enemy to accept the law from our hands, disturbs his strategical combination, compels him to fight before his troops are united, and often gives to the numerically weaker the opportunity of establishing a relative local superiority. One must, therefore, endeavour to introduce as much of the initiative and offensive element as circumstances will permit even in the execution of defensive missions.

A Leader must never allow himself to be hindered in an advance, or be driven into an attitude of expectation by the passive opposition of the enemy's Cavalry, as so often happens in peace.

In all such cases, when a direct frontal attack holds out no prospect of success, he must immediately initiate a wide turning movement outside the effective range of the enemy's Artillery, and sacrifice without hesitation his own line of retreat. Victory restores at once the original line of advance, and the outflanking movement threatens also the enemy's retreat.

It is never permissible to wait until driven into action by superior commands, but one must always endeavour to reap, on one's own initiative, the utmost possibilities the situation holds out.

In this way we shall save the troops excessive exertions and purposeless riding about, for since the Headquarters can never grasp the situation as rapidly or as thoroughly as the General actually on the spot, it follows that their orders will generally arrive too late. Hence they often lag behind events, and call for excessive exertions, night and forced marches if the purpose is to be attained. The records of the Campaign of 1870-1871 give innumerable instances of these facts, based on experience. Finally, resolutions should never be made dependent on circumstances which may happen in the future, but must always be based on something positive, which must be followed up with all conceivable energy and circumspection. This most necessary circumspection on the part of the Leader demands a clearness of expression in the issue of orders which must never leave the subordinate officers and troops in doubt, and should always reflect a clear and determined purpose.

It is, however, equally necessary that the superior Leader must himself be clear as to how he means to carry out his purpose, has also considered all other possibilities, and has made his arrangements in such a manner that, if necessary, he can give his operations a different direction. This must be particularly the case where success depends on cunning surprise. As concerns the first point, this will require the more thorough consideration, because it is most particularly difficult to change the strategic direction of a large body of Cavalry when once it has been launched forward on a broad front. In such a case the whole carefully-elaborated network of patrols would be left, so to speak, hanging in the air. To divert it sideways into a new direction is generally impracticable; it would, in fact, in most cases be impossible to transmit to all the advanced detachments the news of the change in the dispositions.

A new system of patrols will, therefore, be absolutely necessary to save both energy and time, and the necessity for instituting this new service will be particularly detrimental to our whole operations, because the information from the new direction will generally arrive too late to be of service.

It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the Cavalry Leader should not only reconnoitre in the direction prescribed by the higher Command for its particular purpose, but should also scout independently in every direction, and inform himself of all the circumstances in the whole district over which he is operating; if necessary, organize for himself an intelligence system.[14]

In short, he must exercise such prevision that he can never be overtaken by circumstances; and in every case in which action is called for in a new, and, perhaps, unexpected direction, he should be prepared to meet the emergency. In this way he will save himself much time and energy, but it will facilitate his very difficult task essentially if he is always kept informed in sufficient time of the views and possible intention of the Chief Command; for unless this condition is complied with, it will be impossible to insure that the whole energy of the Arm will be directed to the carrying out of its reconnoitring functions in conformity with the views entertained at Headquarters. It must be characterized as one of the most suicidal errors when the superior Command conceals its purposes from its executive organs. Diffused activity, waste of energy, misunderstandings, and confusion would be the inevitable consequences, and military history—not the least that of 1870-1871—gives a long rÔle of illustrative examples.

As regards all those operations which depend on surprise, the circumspection of the Leader becomes the decisive factor. Everything must be thought out beforehand, and carefully considered. The very soul and being of the Leader must be grasped by the men under his Command, and the utmost energy in the execution of his design be demanded from every individual. As a general rule, smaller bodies, which can conceal themselves behind features of the ground, and hardly require a service of security, can act quite differently to larger ones, which cannot conceal their presence and always require a certain degree of precaution for reconnaissance and security. Above all, mobility is the essence of the whole situation, and darkness will serve as a most important contributor to success.

On main roads, where it is impossible to lose one's way, darkness can be used for forced marches to advantage if beforehand we are clear about the conditions on the side of the enemy, and hence can act with a certain degree of confidence.

One factor must never be left out of consideration—viz., that under modern conditions the difficulties of action by surprise have been enormously increased, and the enemy is under certain circumstances enabled to paralyze the tactical results of surprise. This factor arises from the existence of railways and telegraphs, and it will act most detrimentally against us when moving in the enemy's country, where both arrangements favour our opponents. Telegraphs carry the news of the appearance of Cavalry far and wide beyond the points where they have been seen by the enemy's troops, and the railways forward supports to the threatened districts.

It is, therefore, of particular importance to destroy by means of advanced patrols both telegraphs and railways all over the district on which one hopes to act by surprise, and to repeat such active destruction again and again. In such enterprises there is a wide field for slimness and craftiness—qualities which might very well be combined in greater undertakings.

Sudden changes in the line of advance behind the screen of advanced troops, unexpected concentration of separate columns at decisive points, separation and surprise reunions of one's forces, dissemination of false news, feints on points of subsidiary importance to distract the attention of the enemy—all these things can lead to the deception of the enemy, and in one's own country they will be materially supported by a friendly population; but timely and accurate information of all the circumstances of the enemy remains always a most necessary condition.

If the importance of these measures is particularly striking in these cases where we are dealing with surprises, ambushes, and so forth, they form also in every other type of Cavalry action one of the principal foundations of success, for they alone insure timely resolutions and the consequent initiation of the movements necessary to bring about concentration and separation.

The Cavalry Commander must, therefore, always choose his position when on the march, with the troops in immediate contact with the enemy; or if his troops are quartered in the neighbouring villages, then immediately behind the advanced line of cantonments, so that whenever possible he can see with his own eyes and base his decisions on first-hand evidence, where he can receive all reports as soon as possible, and make his dispositions in good time. Otherwise it will only too frequently happen that his orders and dispositions will drag behind events, and disorder and defeat will be the consequence.

This personal supervision of matters in his front is also necessary to enable him to come to a correct decision as to his line of action, whereas a Commander of all Arms can better decide by the map, because his troops are less dependent on the ground than Independent Cavalry, move more slowly, and hence are more accessible to subsequent orders. But even the utmost energy in the Leader will not alone suffice to lead things into their proper lines without the most successful and rapid reconnaissance. Hence the practical organization of the system of reconnaissance remains the essential task of all strategical Cavalry leadership; but it requires to be supplemented by an equally practical system of security.

On the two subjects so much has already been written that it is impossible to find anything new to say about them. Only one point has not been brought out sufficiently—namely, that both security and reconnaissance, in so far as both depend on patrols, will only then work successfully when they are based on a thoroughly systematized method of procedure. The subject is of such importance that I have considered it necessary to devote a short chapter to it (Book I., Chap. VIII.).

If reconnaissance—apart from the fact that the roads must be cleared for it in the first instance by the defeat of the enemy's Cavalry—lies exclusively in the hands of the patrols, nevertheless security depends on the arrangement and activity of the other branches, such as advance guards, rear guards, flanking detachments, and outposts, and the conduct of these depends, again, on thorough systematization.

When on the move, safety lies in the distance that separates the main body from the advanced detachments, and it is scarcely necessary to point out that only systematic arrangements can guarantee the necessary time for the exploration of the ground and the enemy which is requisite for safety.

Threatened flanks require special detachments, moving on the same level and at sufficient distance, and their co-operation will be insured by a careful regulation of the mutual rate of march.

A uniform rate of advance in the whole mechanism is an essential condition of complete security. Hence every means must be exhausted down to the smallest detail. It will not be necessary to assign minor flanking detachments for the duration of a whole march. During such a period it is practically impossible to retain their relation to the main body without keeping them within sight, which in most cases is quite impracticable, for circumstances may suddenly check the main body, or necessitate a change of direction. To advise the flanking detachments of such occurrences will generally be impossible, or at any rate very difficult, if one has permanently detached them, and therefore has no certainty of finding them at any particular point. Hence it is advisable to work them always in sections—that is to say, when they have reached certain points to withdraw them to the main body, and send out reliefs for the next section.

But in order that the security should never for one instant be relaxed, these fresh reliefs should always be sent out at some little distance before the point at which the former detachment is to be drawn in.

Almost more important than security at night is security during prolonged periods of rest. In that case the arrangements must be made not only in accordance with tactical requirements, but the fact must be taken into account that horses, in order to remain permanently useful, require quite a different nature of rest than is needed by men.

It is most desirable that as many horses as possible should every day be brought under shelter and unsaddled, and all bivouacking should be avoided as far as practicable.

The readiness for action from a purely tactical point of view certainly suffers, but as rest at night is an absolute necessity for the horses, one has to make the best of the matter and minimize this disadvantage as much as possible by suitable arrangements.

Against this view it is often urged that Cavalry used to bivouac much more frequently in former wars, and nevertheless remained fit for service, hence they ought to be able to do the same to-day. I consider this an entirely wrong deduction. In the first place, the demands upon the troops in former days were generally much less than at present. The periods of crisis in which great exertions had to be made by them were on the whole less frequent, and the subsequent intervals for rest and recuperation were usually longer.

Considering the average marches of the Napoleonic Cavalry as a whole, they cannot be considered particularly great, and still less was this the case under Frederick the Great, although under both Generals we find instances of great individual exertion.

Moreover, the horses in those days were much less well bred, and the commoner cold-blooded strain can stand bivouacs, cold and wet, much better than our present high-bred material, although the latter stand heat and exertion very much better. The leadership must adapt itself to these conditions. Where circumstances allow the bulk of the horses to take shelter behind the Infantry outposts, the most must be made of the opportunity, and only the more distant patrolling service be left to the Cavalry. Outpost service makes far less demands on the Infantry soldier than on the Cavalry horse, for the former is allowed to sleep when on piquet, the Cavalry horse cannot.

The Cavalry soldier certainly gains an advantage here over the much-harassed Infantry man, for naturally the man derives advantage from the care bestowed on the horse; but I hold this point is of far too trifling a nature to take into consideration when the matter affects such a necessary and important factor of strength of the whole Army. Further, this advantage is more apparent than real, and is only intended to give us the means, while sparing the material in one direction, to make greater demands on it in another. When in critical moments bold and wide-sweeping movements on the enemy's flanks and rear become necessary, where our object is to keep the enemy's movements under constant observation while screening our own; where, finally, on the close of a battle we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, or sacrifice ourselves to cover and protect the weary and retreating Infantry, then the Cavalry which has been properly nursed will be capable of exertions far beyond what could be expected of troops less thoughtfully managed. These exertions can then be unconditionally demanded, and will repay a hundredfold, both tactically and strategically, the care bestowed in easier days.

Only rarely, however, will cases arise in which Cavalry can avail themselves of the shelter of the Infantry, for the essence of all Cavalry activity lies in the future in its independent undertakings. If we were to apply to them the same principles as to the Infantry—that is to say, make a principle of bivouacking the outposts and exposing them daily to the effects of the weather—this would result in a steady drain upon the horses, which would lead to serious deterioration in their endurance. Hence the question of bringing them under cover does not apply merely to the mass of the forces, but must be extended to the whole system of outposts, and wherever practicable the greatest possible number of horses must be placed under shelter in full and complete security. This security must be sought for by the increased depth assigned to the outpost system. Even after a victorious advance one must not hesitate, under certain circumstances, to withdraw the troops in order to obtain the necessary distances between the enemy and the advance guard, as also between the advance guard and the main body. Slightly increased distance to be covered next day is nothing as compared to the advantage of greater security. It will be particularly desirable to make the most of all positions the ground may afford, which, being traversable at only certain points, hinders the approach of the enemy—such as rivers, which can only be crossed at the bridges, woods in which movement is confined to the roads, marshes, and so forth. Behind these one can generally go into cantonments without anxiety, and they offer the further advantage that they can generally be held by small forces of dismounted men. Hence the horses can generally be sent back and brought under shelter at a distance, and in case of alarm can be saddled up and be made ready by men detailed for that purpose.

Where such positions are not available, one must either go back further, or, if not altogether too near to the enemy, make the most advanced cantonments serve the purpose of the line of security.

Every evening these localities must be hastily prepared for defence, with the determination, in case of attack, of defending them carbine in hand, and without bringing out the horses until the support can come up from the rearward cantonments.

The details of such defence I have already discussed elsewhere.

This method of defence, however, must be supplemented by a suitable system of observation sent out towards the enemy. Even detachments far advanced towards the enemy may, under favourable circumstances, find temporary cover in villages, and every such period of rest is of advantage for the horse.

The Cavalry, however, which, in full confidence of its firearms and the alertness of its patrols, can venture to go into cantonments, and thus save its horses from bivouacking, will very soon assert its superiority over an enemy which seeks for safety by remaining constantly under arms, and thus dissipates its inherent energy.

This tendency towards cantonments must not be allowed to become stereotyped. Occasions will constantly arise when the Cavalry must remain in immediate touch with the enemy; then it will be compelled not only to bivouac, but will have to stand to its horses, ready to mount at a moment's notice. Such occasions will only arise in critical situations necessarily of short duration, and the conditions both of the weather and the ground must be taken into careful consideration in making the arrangements for the outposts.

Thus it is evident that it is not possible to lay down fixed rules of conduct either for operations or for the outposts, but all must be left to the capacity of the Leader and the adaptability of his men. On this capacity depends in the last resort the greater or less strategic value of the Arm. Its foundation can only be laid in peace, and will depend on thorough and successful training, together with suitable preparation of the whole organization for War. To both points I will recur in the second part of this work. Here I would only insist that naturally the collective strategic employment of the Arm must take a thoroughly different form in proportion as the troops are rendered more or less independent by their equipment, the leaders of all ranks are qualified to act on their own responsibility, and mobility is not hampered by difficulties in the provisioning of man and horse, and in the supply of ammunition. In the one case the Leader can act with courage and daring in the true Cavalry spirit; in the other he will feel himself hampered at every step, will not be able to act with the necessary degree of self-confidence, and will have to renounce the most promising undertakings because the inefficiency of his troops leaves him no alternative. However great his genius, no Leader can compensate for want of efficiency in his command; but it is the duty of such leader to maintain and increase the endurance inherent in his material to the utmost limits of its capacity.

In this connection a well-thought-out system of saving and caring for one's horses occupies the first position, for this is the bed-rock foundation of all subsequent developments. We have seen of what immense importance in this respect the sheltering and arrangements for the outposts may be. But there are other factors to be considered—above all, a rational arrangement of the marches. In the first instance, it is a mistake to believe that Cavalry in the long-run can out-stay and out-march the Infantry—that, in other words, the Cavalry horse can endure greater hardships than well-trained Infantry. For a few days that may well be so, but for continuous exertion it is by no means proved.

The German Cavalry horse is much more dependent on a sufficiency of food than the man; the nature of his load, together with the rapidity of movement, and hence the greater intensity of the exertions demanded of him, attack the animal in a far greater degree than the more uniform march performance of the men, who, moreover, are susceptible to moral influences, capable of greatly increasing their powers; finally, sore backs and lameness in long-continued exertions decimate the ranks of the horses to a much greater degree than a well-trained and equipped Infantry suffers from similar causes.

In normal conditions demands should not be made upon the Cavalry which would be justified only in moments of a crisis. We must endeavour to reduce the daily performance to the lowest limit that our purpose allows. Only in exceptional instances should one move off at such an early hour as to interfere materially with the night rest of the horses. Unfortunately, there are still officers who will not be convinced that it is the horse which most requires rest, and who are never satisfied unless they keep the Cavalry night after night on their legs, although in darkness they are useless either for reconnaissance or for fighting.

Further, in War games and Staff rides it is a custom to make demands which in practice are absolutely impossible, mostly by superior officers who have never ridden 100 kilometres (66 miles) in a single day.

An average of twenty to twenty-five miles a day is in practice a very considerable performance. To demand much more of them, day in and day out, is impracticable. On the march itself a suitable change of pace is very necessary.

To trot hour after hour is the most fruitful source of ruin to our horseflesh. Where it becomes necessary it is usually due to the want of care on the part of the Leader. Much may be done to spare the horses if we never march with considerable numbers on a single road without absolute necessity; and when this is not to be avoided, then we must seek to maintain an even pace throughout the column by the intercalation of suitable distances between the several bodies; otherwise there is a continuous hurrying up or checking of the rearward detachments, which strains the horses to the very utmost.

One must always arrange for the halts necessary for the horses, water them whenever opportunity offers, and never continue a movement to the complete exhaustion of the animals. Well-timed periods of rest increase the collective power of endurance of the horses most materially, and as the training improves, the demands made upon them can gradually be raised. To bring this greater improvement into harmony with the military requirements of the situation, next in importance to an intelligent execution of a rational marching system comes a wise economy of forces with regard to the performance of detached duties and patrolling. It is particularly with the Divisional Cavalry that the lavish assignment of orderlies and messengers to the leaders of the other Arms and to the Infantry outposts has to be kept in check, and it must be insisted upon that the men thus allotted should be returned punctually to their commands, and not be employed in duties for which they are not intended.

Thus one finds Generals who use their messengers as patrols even when special patrols have been entrusted with this duty; others who keep the detachments assigned to the outposts long after the outposts themselves have been relieved. In all these things there is a tremendous waste of energy, which must be all the more injurious the smaller the proportion of Cavalry which can be detailed to the Infantry Divisions.

It is a special duty of every Cavalry Commander to resist this tendency to the utmost of his power.

Apart from the regulation of the marching column and the economy of forces above referred to, a rational treatment of the rearward communications, particularly with the Independent Cavalry, will go far to maintain the troops in efficiency, and is also from the strategic point of view an important part of the Leader's duty. The daily despatch of numerous requisitioning detachments to great distances weakens and diminishes the troops to an inadmissible degree, unless it is managed with a wise foresight and on a rational system; often on great marches it will be altogether impossible. Then the horses must manage with what they find at their halting-places for the night. In the case of great concentration this will be altogether insufficient. Short rations reduce the horses very rapidly and only too thoroughly. It is, therefore, necessary in all independent operations of great Cavalry 'Masses' to take with one an organized and mobile supply train, and, where circumstances require, to arrange for its defence.

The timely arrival of the supply waggons, the rational utilization of the resources of the district, the contiguous replenishment of the moving supply reserves, are matters which cannot be left entirely to the Army Service Corps, but the Cavalry General must himself overlook the whole matter, and keep the general control in his own hands. For these arrangements must be regulated from the strategic point of view since the power of operating at all depends essentially upon them. Of course, the Supreme Command must lend assistance also.

In general, it will be advisable to carry with one a five to six days' ration of corn if one is to be prepared for all emergencies. That, at least, was the practical teaching of the War of 1870-1871. But one must add, the further the Cavalry is separated from the masses of the Army, and the more it renounces its communications with the latter, the greater must be the bulk of supply it takes with it; and the closer these supplies have to be kept to the troops, the more thorough must be the arrangements for their protection. The latter will be of particular importance when operating on a narrow front which favours an enemy's outflanking endeavours, whereas wider fronts of themselves give a certain degree of security to the rearward communications.

If we are entirely cut off from our home resources, then we must select some point to be occupied on the flank or in the rear of the enemy's Army, and there arrange a supply centre of our own, and make it the point of departure for separate operations.

All means are, then, proper to accumulate in such places a sufficient forage reserve, for the subsistence of the horses is the most important task which falls upon the Commander. A delay in this direction can wreck the most brilliant undertakings—jeopardize the result even of the best executed ones. Theory does not attach sufficient importance to the point here involved.

Thus we see that the tasks of the independent Cavalry Leader are both many-sided and responsible. He can only then prove equal to them when all subordinates on whom he has to count support him with the utmost goodwill and reliability.

With this necessity a new demand is made upon him—namely, to raise the spirit of the men he commands in such a manner that they will be equal to the highest requirements. Only a bold, self-confident, and active man, who everywhere sets the best example, will be able in this manner to inspire and stimulate his command. The sum of the stimulated individual performances brings with it also increased opportunities of success.

Hence the last and greatest demand for the successful conduct of a Cavalry Mass remains always the man who will inspire and stimulate the troops under him, and thus lead them to victory.[Back to Contents]