Chapter 7

90. TheBavarian Armyhas perhaps the most continuous record of good service in the field of any of the minor German armies. The oldest regiments date from the Thirty Years’ War, in which the veteran army of the Catholic league, commanded by Count Tilly and formed on the nucleus of the Bavarian army, played a conspicuous part. Later in the war the Bavarian general, Count Mercy, proved himself a worthy opponent of Turenne and Condé. Henceforward the Bavarians were engaged in almost every war between France and Austria, taking part successively in the wars of the Grand Alliance, the Spanish Succession (in which they came into conflict with the English), and the Polish and Austrian Succession wars. In pursuance of the traditional anti-Austrian policy, the troops of Bavaria, led by a distinguished Bavarian, Marshal (Prince) Wrede, served in the campaigns of 1805 to 1813 side by side with the French, and Napoleon made the electorate into a kingdom. But in 1813 Bavaria joined the Alliance, and Wrede tried to intercept the French on their retreat from Leipzig. Napoleon, however, inflicted a severe defeat on his old general at Hanau, and opened his road to France. In 1866 the Bavarians took part against Prussia, but owing to their dilatoriness in taking the field, the Prussians were able to beat them in detail. In 1870, reorganized to some extent on Prussian lines, they joined their former enemy in the war against France, and bore their full share in the glories and losses of the campaign, the II. Bavarian corps having suffered more heavily than any but the III. Prussian corps. The I. Bavarian corps distinguished itself very greatly at Sedan and on the Loire. Bavaria still retains her separate war office and special organization, and the troops have been less affected by the Prussian influence than those of the other states. The Bavarian corps are numbered separately (I. Bav., Münich; II. Bav., Würzburg; III. Bav., Nuremberg), and the old light blue uniforms and other distinctive peculiarities of detail are still maintained.91.Württembergfurnishes one army corps (XIII.; headquarters, Stuttgart), organized, clothed and equipped in all respects like the Prussian army. Like the Bavarians, the Württembergers fought against the Prussians in 1866, but in 1870 made common cause with them against the French, and by the convention entered into the following year placed their army permanently under the command of the Prussian king as emperor. The emperor nominates to the highest commands, but the king of Württemberg retains the nomination and appointment of officers in the lower grades.92. The oldHanoverian Armydisappeared, of course, with the annexation of Hanover to Prussia in 1866, but it is still represented officially by certain regiments of the X. army corps, and, in one case at least, battle honours won by the King’s German Legion in the British service are borne on German colours of to-day. TheHessian Armyis now represented by the XXV. (Grand-ducal Hessian) division, which forms part of the XVIII. army corps.

91.Württembergfurnishes one army corps (XIII.; headquarters, Stuttgart), organized, clothed and equipped in all respects like the Prussian army. Like the Bavarians, the Württembergers fought against the Prussians in 1866, but in 1870 made common cause with them against the French, and by the convention entered into the following year placed their army permanently under the command of the Prussian king as emperor. The emperor nominates to the highest commands, but the king of Württemberg retains the nomination and appointment of officers in the lower grades.

92. The oldHanoverian Armydisappeared, of course, with the annexation of Hanover to Prussia in 1866, but it is still represented officially by certain regiments of the X. army corps, and, in one case at least, battle honours won by the King’s German Legion in the British service are borne on German colours of to-day. TheHessian Armyis now represented by the XXV. (Grand-ducal Hessian) division, which forms part of the XVIII. army corps.

Italian Army

93. The old conscription law of the kingdom of Sardinia is the basis of the military organization of Italy, as its constitution is of that of the modern Italian kingdom. The Piedmontese have long borne a high reputation for their military qualities, areputation shared by the rulers of the house of Savoy (q.v.), many of whom showed special ability in preserving the independence of their small kingdom between two such powerful neighbours as France and Austria. During the wars of the French Revolution Piedmont was temporarily absorbed into the French republic and empire. The Italian troops who fought under Napoleon proved themselves, in many if not most cases, the best of the French allies, and Italy contributed large numbers of excellent general officers to theGrande Armée.

After 1815 various causes combined to place Piedmont (Sardinia) at the head of the national movement which agitated Italy during the ensuing thirty years, and bring her in direct antagonism to Austria. Charles Albert, her then ruler, had paid great attention to the army, and when Italy rose against Austria in 1848 he took the field with an excellent force of nearly 70,000 men. At the outset fortune favoured the arms of Italy; but the genius and energy of Radetzky, the veteran Austrian commander, turned the tide, and in the summer of 1849 after many battles the Piedmontese army was decisively defeated at Novara, and her king compelled to sue for peace. Charles Albert abdicated in favour of his son Victor Emanuel, a prince who had already distinguished himself by his personal gallantry in the field. Under his care the army soon recovered its efficiency, and the force which joined the allied armies in the Crimea attracted general admiration from the excellence of its organization, equipment and discipline. In 1859 Piedmont again took up arms against Austria for the liberation of Italy; but this time she had the powerful assistance of France, and played but a subordinate part herself. In this campaign the Sardinian army was composed of one cavalry and five infantry divisions, and numbered about 60,000 combatants. By the peace of Villafranca, Italy, with the exception of Venetia, was freed from the Austrians, and Lombardy was added to Piedmont. The revolutionary campaign of Garibaldi in the following year united the whole peninsula under the rule of Victor Emanuel, and in 1866, when Italy for the third time took up arms against Austria—this time as the ally of Prussia—her forces had risen to nearly 450,000, of whom about 270,000 actually took the field. But in quality these were far from being equal to the old Piedmontese army; and the northern army, under the personal command of the king, was decisively defeated at Custozza by the archduke Albert of Austria.The existing organization of the Italian army is determined by the laws of 1873, which made universal liability to service the basis of recruiting. The territorial system has not, however, been adopted at the same time, the materials of which the Italian army is composed varying so much that it was decided to blend the different types of soldiers so far as possible by causing them to serve together. The colonial wars in which Italian troops have taken part have been marked with great disasters, but relieved by the gallantry of the officers and the rank and file.

The existing organization of the Italian army is determined by the laws of 1873, which made universal liability to service the basis of recruiting. The territorial system has not, however, been adopted at the same time, the materials of which the Italian army is composed varying so much that it was decided to blend the different types of soldiers so far as possible by causing them to serve together. The colonial wars in which Italian troops have taken part have been marked with great disasters, but relieved by the gallantry of the officers and the rank and file.

Russian Army

94. The history of the Russian army begins with the abolition of the Strelitz (q.v.) by Peter the Great in 1698, the nucleus of the new forces being four regiments of foot, two of which are well known to-day under their old titles of Preobrazhenski and Semenovski. Throughout the 18th century Russian military progress obeyed successive dynasties of western European models—first those of Prussia, then those of France. In the earlier part of the 19th century the army, used chiefly in wars against the revolutionary spirit, became, like others of that time, a dynastic force; subsequently the “nation in arms” principle reasserted itself, and on this basis has been carried out the reorganization of Russia’s military power. The enormous development of this since 1874 is one of the most striking phenomena in recent military history. In 1892, in expectation of a general European war, whole armies were massed in the districts of Warsaw and Vilna, three-fifths of the entire forces being in position on the German and Austrian frontiers.

The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 is generally held to have proved that the fighting power of the Russian has in no way diminished in intrinsic value from that of the days of Zorndorf, Borodino and Sevastopol. The proverbial stubbornness of the rank and file is the distinctive quality of the armies of the tsar, and in view of the general adoption of two-years’ service in other countries it is a matter for grave consideration whether, against European forces and in defence of their own homes, the Russians would not prove more than formidable antagonists to the men of more highly individualized races who are their probable opponents. Equally remarkable is the new power of redistribution possessed by Russia. Formerly it was usual to count upon one campaign at least elapsing before Russia could intervene effectively in European wars; much, in fact the greater part, of her losses in the Crimean War was due to the enormous distances which had to be traversed on foot. Nowadays the original equal distribution of the army over the country has been modified in accordance with the political needs of each moment. In 1892 the centre of gravity was shifted to Poland and Kiev, in 1904 the performances of the trans-Siberian railway in transporting troops to the seat of war in Manchuria excited the admiration of military Europe. The attitude of the army in the troubles which followed upon the Japanese War belongs to the history of Russia, not to that of military organization, and it will be sufficient to say that the conduct of the “nation in arms” at times of political unrest may vary between the extremes of unquestioning obedience to authority and the most dangerous form of licence, examples of both being frequent in the history of nearly all national armies. A remarkable innovation in the modern history of this army is the conversion of the whole of the cavalry, except a fewéliteregiments, into dragoons of the old type. After the war of 1904-5, however, this policy was reversed and the cavalry reformed on the usual model. The Cossacks still retain to a large extent the peculiarities of the light troops of the 18th century.

Spanish Army

95. The feudal sovereignties of medieval Spain differed but little, in their military organization, from other feudal states. As usual, mercenaries were the only forces on which reliance was placed for foreign wars. These troops calledalmugávares(Arabic=scouts) won a great reputation on Italian and Greek battlefields of the 13th century, and with many transformations in name and character appeared from time to time up to the Peninsular War. Castile, however, had a military system very different from the rest. The forces of the kingdom were composed of local contingents similar to the Englishfyrd, professional soldiers who were paid followers of the great lords, and the heavy cavalry of the military orders. The groups of cities calledHermandades, while they existed, also had permanent forces in their pay. At the union of Castile and Aragon the Castilian methods received a more general application. The newHermandadwas partly a light cavalry, partly a police, and was organized in the ratio of one soldier to every hundred families. In the conquest of Grenada (1482-92)mesnadasor contingents were furnished by the crown, the nobles and the cities, and permanently kept in the field. TheHermandadserved throughout the war as a matter of course. From the veterans of this war was drawn the army which in the Italian wars won its reputation as the first army in Europe.

In 1596 the home defence of Spain was reorganized and theordenanza, or militia, which was then formed of all men not belonging to the still extant feudal contingents, was generally analogous to the system of “assizes at arms” in England. Thisordenanzaserved in the Peninsular War.

96. With the Italian wars of the early 16th century came the development of the regular army; a brief account of its place in the evolution of armies has been given above. Discipline, the feeling of comradeship and soldierly honour were the qualities which marked out the Spanish army as the model for others to follow, and for more than a century the Spanish army maintained its prestige as the first in Europe. The oldest regiments of the present Spanish army claiming descent from theterciosdate from 1535. An officer whose regiment was reduced commonly took a pike in some other corps (e.g.Tilly), theseñor soldadowas counted as a gentleman, and his wife and family received state allowances. Nor was this army open only to Spaniards. Walloons, Italians, Burgundians and other nationalities ruled over by the Habsburgs all contributed their quotas. But the career of the old army came to an end at Rocroi (1643), and after this the forces of the monarchy began more and more to conform to the French model.97. The military history of Spain from 1650 to 1700 is full of incident, and in the long war of the Spanish Succession both the army and theordenanzafound almost continuous employment. They were now organized, as were most other armies of Europe, on the lines of the French army, and in 1714 the oldtercios, which had served in the Spanish Netherlands under Marlborough, were brought to Spain. The king’s regiment “Zamora” of the present army descends from one of these which, as thetercioof Bovadilla, had been raised in 1580. The army underwent few changes of importance during the 18th century, and it is interesting to note that there were never less than three Irish regiments in the service. In 1808 theIrlanda, Ultonia(= Ulster) andHiberniaregiments had come to consist (as had similar corps in the French service before the Revolution) largely of native soldiers. At that time the Spanish army consisted of 119 Spanish and foreign (Swiss, Walloon and Irish) battalions, with 24 cavalry regiments and about 8000 artillery and engineers. There were further 51 battalions of militia, and thetotal forces numbered actually 137,000. The part played by the Spanish standing army in the Peninsular War was certainly wholly insignificant relatively to these figures. It must be borne in mind, however, that only continued wars can give real value to long-service troops of the old style, and this advantage the Spanish regulars did not possess. Further, the general decadence of administration reacted in the usual way, the appointment of court favourites to high command was a flagrant evil, and all that can be urged is that the best elements of the army behaved as well as did the Prussians of 1806, that the higher leading and the administration of the army in the field were both sufficiently weak to have ruined most armies, and that the men were drawn from the same country and the same classes which furnished theguerrilleroswhom it became fashionable to exalt at the expense of the soldiers. In the later campaigns of Wellington, Spanish divisions did good service, and the corps of La Romaña (a picked contingent of troops which had been sent before the war to Denmark at Napoleon’s instance), though often defeated, always retained some cohesion and discipline. But the result of this war, the second French invasion, and the continued civil wars of the 19th century was the destruction of the old army, and the present army of Spain still bears traces of the confusion out of which it arose.The most important changes were in 1870, when conscription was introduced, and in 1872, when universal service was proposed in its place. The military virtues of the rank and file and the devotion of the officers were conspicuously displayed in the Spanish-American War of 1898, and it cannot be claimed even for the Germans of 1870 that they fired so coolly and accurately as did the defenders of S. Juan and El Caney.

97. The military history of Spain from 1650 to 1700 is full of incident, and in the long war of the Spanish Succession both the army and theordenanzafound almost continuous employment. They were now organized, as were most other armies of Europe, on the lines of the French army, and in 1714 the oldtercios, which had served in the Spanish Netherlands under Marlborough, were brought to Spain. The king’s regiment “Zamora” of the present army descends from one of these which, as thetercioof Bovadilla, had been raised in 1580. The army underwent few changes of importance during the 18th century, and it is interesting to note that there were never less than three Irish regiments in the service. In 1808 theIrlanda, Ultonia(= Ulster) andHiberniaregiments had come to consist (as had similar corps in the French service before the Revolution) largely of native soldiers. At that time the Spanish army consisted of 119 Spanish and foreign (Swiss, Walloon and Irish) battalions, with 24 cavalry regiments and about 8000 artillery and engineers. There were further 51 battalions of militia, and thetotal forces numbered actually 137,000. The part played by the Spanish standing army in the Peninsular War was certainly wholly insignificant relatively to these figures. It must be borne in mind, however, that only continued wars can give real value to long-service troops of the old style, and this advantage the Spanish regulars did not possess. Further, the general decadence of administration reacted in the usual way, the appointment of court favourites to high command was a flagrant evil, and all that can be urged is that the best elements of the army behaved as well as did the Prussians of 1806, that the higher leading and the administration of the army in the field were both sufficiently weak to have ruined most armies, and that the men were drawn from the same country and the same classes which furnished theguerrilleroswhom it became fashionable to exalt at the expense of the soldiers. In the later campaigns of Wellington, Spanish divisions did good service, and the corps of La Romaña (a picked contingent of troops which had been sent before the war to Denmark at Napoleon’s instance), though often defeated, always retained some cohesion and discipline. But the result of this war, the second French invasion, and the continued civil wars of the 19th century was the destruction of the old army, and the present army of Spain still bears traces of the confusion out of which it arose.

The most important changes were in 1870, when conscription was introduced, and in 1872, when universal service was proposed in its place. The military virtues of the rank and file and the devotion of the officers were conspicuously displayed in the Spanish-American War of 1898, and it cannot be claimed even for the Germans of 1870 that they fired so coolly and accurately as did the defenders of S. Juan and El Caney.

Turkish Army

98. The writers who have left the most complete and trustworthy contemporary accounts of the Turkish army in the 14th and 15th centuries, when it reached the height of its most characteristic development, are Bertrandon de la Brocquière, equerry to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, and Francesco Filelfo of Tolentino. Bertrandon, a professional soldier, visited Palestine in 1432, and returned overland in 1433, traversing the Balkan Peninsula by the main trade-route from Constantinople to Belgrade. He wrote an account of his journey for Philip: seeEarly Travels in Palestine, translated and edited by T. Wright (London, 1848). Filelfo served as secretary to the Venetianbayloat Constantinople, and recorded his observations in a series of letters (seeFilelfo). Both ascribe the military superiority of the Turks over the nations of western Europe to two facts—firstly to their possession of a well-organized standing army, an institution unknown elsewhere, and secondly to their far stricter discipline, itself a result of their military organization and of the moral training afforded by Islam.

The regular troops comprised the Janissaries (q.v.), a corps of infantry recruited from captured sons of Christians, and trained to form a privileged caste of scientific soldiers and religious fanatics; and the Spahis, a body of cavalry similarly recruited, and armed with scimitar, mace and bow. Celibacy was one of the rules of this standing army, which, in its semi-monastic ideals and constitution, resembled the knightly orders of the West in their prime. The Janissaries numbered about 12,000, the Spahis about 8000. A second army of some 40,000 men, mostly mounted and armed like the Spahis, was feudal in character, and consisted chiefly of the personal followers of the Moslem nobility; more than half its numbers were recruited in Europe. This force of 60,000 trained soldiers was accompanied by a horde of irregulars, levied chiefly among the barbarous mountaineers of the Balkans and Asia Minor, and very ill-armed and ill-disciplined. Their numbers may be estimated at 140,000, for Bertrandon gives 200,000 as the total of the Turkish forces. Many 15th and 16th century writers give a smaller total, but refer only to the standing and feudal armies. Others place the total higher. Laonicus Chalcocondylas in hisTurcica Historiastates that at the siege of Constantinople in 1453 the sultan commanded 400,000 troops, but most other eye-witnesses of the siege give a total varying from 150,000 to 300,000. Many Christian soldiers of fortune enlisted with the Turks as artillerists or engineers, and supplied them at Constantinople with the most powerful cannon of the age. Other Christians were compelled to serve as engineers or in the ranks. As late as 1683 a corps of Wallachians was forced to join the Turkish army before Vienna, and entrusted with the task of bridging the Danube. But in the 18th and early 19th centuries the introduction of Christians tended to weaken themoralof the army already sapped by defeat; it was found impossible to maintain the discipline of the Janissaries, whose privileges had become a source of danger; and the feudal nobility became more and more independent of the sultan’s authority. These three causes contributed to make reorganization inevitable.The destruction of the Janissaries in 1826 marked the close of the history of the old Turkish army; already the re-creation of the service on the accepted models of western Europe had been commenced. This was still incomplete when the new force was called upon to meet the Russians in 1828, and though the army displayed its accustomed bravery, its defective organization and other causes led to its defeat. Since then the army has been almost as constantly on active service as the British; the Crimean War, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 and the Greco-Turkish War of 1897 witnessed the employment of a large proportion of the sultan’s available forces, while innumerable local revolts in different parts of the empire called for great exertions, and often for fierce fighting on the part of the troops locally in garrison and those sent up from the nearest provinces.

The destruction of the Janissaries in 1826 marked the close of the history of the old Turkish army; already the re-creation of the service on the accepted models of western Europe had been commenced. This was still incomplete when the new force was called upon to meet the Russians in 1828, and though the army displayed its accustomed bravery, its defective organization and other causes led to its defeat. Since then the army has been almost as constantly on active service as the British; the Crimean War, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 and the Greco-Turkish War of 1897 witnessed the employment of a large proportion of the sultan’s available forces, while innumerable local revolts in different parts of the empire called for great exertions, and often for fierce fighting on the part of the troops locally in garrison and those sent up from the nearest provinces.

United States Army

99. The regular army of the United States has always been small. From the first it has been a voluntary force, and until 1898 its chief work in peace was to furnish numerous small posts on the frontier and amongst the Indians, and to act as a reserve to the civil power in the great cities. In war-time the regular army, if, as was usually the case, it was insufficient in numbers for the task of subduing the enemy, formed the nucleus of large armies raised “for the war.” In 1790 the rank and file of the army, as fixed by act of Congress, amounted to 1216 men; and in 1814 an English expedition of only 3500 men was able to seize and burn Washington, the capital of a country which even then numbered eight millions of inhabitants. In 1861, at the beginning of the Civil War, the whole regular force amounted to about 15,300 men. In April of that year the president called out 75,000 volunteers for three months; and in May a further call for 42,000 was made. In July a call for 500,000 men was authorized by Congress, and as even this vast force proved insufficient it was found necessary to use a system of drafts. In October 1863 a levy of 300,000 men was ordered, and in February 1864 a further call of 500,000 was made. Finally, in the beginning of 1865 two further levies, amounting in all to 500,000 men, were ordered, but were only partially carried out in consequence of the cessation of hostilities. The total number of men called under arms by the government of the United States, between April 1861 and April 1865, amounted to 2,759,049, of whom 2,656,053 were actually embodied in the armies. If to these be added the 1,100,000 men embodied by the South during the same time, the total armed forces reach the enormous amount of nearly four millions, drawn from a population of only 32 millions—figures before which the celebrated uprising of the French nation in 1793, or the efforts of France and Germany in the Franco-German War, sink into insignificance. These 2,700,000 Federals were organized into volunteer regiments bearing state designations. The officers, except general and staff officers, were appointed by the governors of the respective states. The maximum authorized strength of the regular army never, during the war, exceeded 40,000 men; and the number in the field, especially towards the close of the war, was very much less. The states, in order to obtain men to fill their quotas, offered liberal bounties to induce men to enlist, and it therefore became very difficult to obtain recruits for the regular army, for which no bounties were given. The regular regiments accordingly dwindled away to skeletons. The number of officers present was also much reduced, since many of them, while retaining their regular commissions, held higher rank in the volunteer army. After the close of the Civil War the volunteers were mustered out; and by the act of Congress of the 28th of July 1866 the line of the army was made to consist of 10 regiments of cavalry of 12 troops each, 5 regiments of artillery of 12 batteries each and 45 regiments of infantry of 10 companies. The actual strength in August 1867 was 53,962. The act of the 3rd of March 1869 reduced the number of infantry regiments to 25 and the enlisted strength of the army to 35,036. The numbers were further reduced, without change in organization, to 32,788 in 1870 and to 25,000 in 1874. The latter number remained the maximum for twenty-four years.

In March 1898, in view of hostilities with Spain, the artillery was increased by 2 regiments, and, in April, 2 companies were added to each infantry regiment, giving it3 battalions of 4 companies each. The strength of batteries, troops and companies was increased, the maximum enlisted strength reached during 1898 being over 63,000. A volunteer army was also organized. Of this army, 3 regiments of engineer troops, 3 of cavalry and 10 of infantry were United States volunteers, all the officers being commissioned by the president. The other organizations came from the states, the officers being appointed by the respective governors. As fast as they were organized and filled up, they were mustered into the service of the United States. The total number furnished for the war with Spain was 10,017 officers and 213,218 enlisted men. All general and staff officers were appointed by the president. Three hundred and eighty-seven officers of the regular army received volunteer commissions. After the conclusion of hostilities with Spain, the mustering out of the volunteers was begun, and by June 1899 all the volunteers, except those in the Philippines, were out of the service. The latter, as well as those serving elsewhere, having enlisted only for the war, were brought home and mustered out as soon as practicable.

The act of the 2nd of March 1899 added 2 batteries to each regiment of artillery. On the 2nd of February 1901 Congress passed an important bill providing for the reorganization and augmentation (max. 100,000) of the regular army, and other measures followed in the next years. (SeeUnited States.)

Minor Armies100.Dutch and Belgian Armies.—The military power of the “United Provinces” dates its rise from the middle of the 16th century, when, after a long and sanguinary struggle, they succeeded in emancipating themselves from the yoke of Spain; and in the following century it received considerable development in consequence of the wars they had to maintain against Louis XIV. In 1702 they had in their pay upwards of 100,000 men, including many English and Scottish regiments, besides 30,000 in the service of the Dutch East India Company. But the slaughter of Malplaquet deprived the republic of the flower of the army. Its part in the War of the Austrian Succession was far from being as creditable as its earlier deeds, a Prussian army overran Holland in 1787 almost without opposition, and at the beginning of the wars of the French Revolution the army had fallen to 36,000 men. In 1795 Holland was conquered by the French under Pichegru, and in the course of the changes which ensued the army was entirely reorganized, and under French direction bore its share in the great wars of the empire.With the fall of Napoleon and the reconstitution of the Netherlands, the Dutch-Belgian army, formed of the troops of the now united countries, came into existence. The army fought at Waterloo, but was not destined to a long career, for the revolution of 1830 brought about the separation of Belgium. A Dutch garrison under Baron Chassé, a distinguished veteran of the Napoleonic wars, defended Antwerp against the French under Marshal Gérard, and the Netherlands have been engaged in many arduous colonial wars in the East Indies. The Belgian army similarly has contributed officers and non-commissioned officers to the service of the Congo Free State.101.Swiss Army.—The inhabitants of Switzerland were always a hardy and independent race, but their high military reputation dates from the middle of the 15th century, when the comparatively ill-armed and untrained mountaineers signally defeated Charles the Bold of Burgundy and the flower of the chivalry of Europe in the battles of Granson, Morat and Nancy. The Swabian war, towards the end of that century, and the Milanese war, at the beginning of the following one, added to the fame of the Swiss infantry, and made it the model on which that arm was formed all over Europe. The wealthier countries vied with each other in hiring them as mercenaries, and the poor but warlike Swiss found the profession of arms a lucrative one.A brief account of the Swiss mercenaries will be found earlier in this article. Their fall was due in the end to their own indiscipline in the first place, and the rise of the Spanish standing army and its musketeers in the second. Yet it does not seem that the military reputation of the Swiss was discredited, even by reverses such as Marignan. On the contrary, they continued all through the 17th and 18th centuries to furnish whole regiments for the service of other countries, notably of France, and individuals, like Jomini in a later age, followed the career of the soldier of fortune everywhere. The most notable incident in the later military history of the Swiss, the heroic faithfulness of Louis XVI.’s Swiss guard, is proverbial, and has been commemorated with just pride by their countrymen. The French Revolutionary armies overran Switzerland, as they did all the small neighbouring states, and during Napoleon’s career she had to submit to his rule, and furnish her contingent to his armies. On the fall of Napoleon she regained her independence, and returned to her old trade of furnishing soldiers to the sovereigns and powers of Europe. Charles X. of France had at one time as many as 17,000 Swiss in his pay; Naples and Rome had each four regiments. The recruiting for these foreign services was openly acknowledged and encouraged by the government. The young Swiss engaged usually for a period of four or six years; they were formed in separate regiments, officered by countrymen of their own, and received a higher rate of pay than the national regiments; and at the close of their engagement returned with their earnings to settle down on their paternal holdings. A series of revolutions, however, expelled them from France and Italy, and recently the advance of liberal ideas, and the creation of great national armies based on the principle of personal service, has destroyed their occupation. Switzerland is now remarkable in a military sense as being the only country that maintains no standing army (see Militia).102. TheSwedish Armycan look back with pride to the days of Gustavus Adolphus and of Charles XII. The contributions made by it to the military science of the 17th century have been noticed above. The triumphs of the small and highly disciplined army of Charles were often such as to recall the similar victories of the Greeks under Alexander. The then nebulous armies of Russia and Poland resembled indeed the forces of Darius in the 4th centuryB.C., but Peter the Great succeeded at last in producing a true army, and the resistance of the Swedes collapsed under the weight of the vastly superior numbers then brought against them.TheDanish Armyhas a long and meritorious record of good service dating from the Thirty Years’ War.103. The existing Army ofPortugaldates from the Peninsular War, when a considerable force of Portuguese, at one time exceeding 60,000 men, was organized under Marshal Beresford. Trained and partly officered by English officers, it proved itself not unworthy of its allies, and bore its full share in the series of campaigns and battles by which the French were ultimately expelled from Spain. At the peace the army numbered about 50,000 infantry and 5000 cavalry, formed on the English model, and all in the highest state of efficiency. This force was reduced in 1821, under the new constitutional government, to about one-half.104. TheRumanian, BulgarianandServianarmies are the youngest in Europe. The conduct of the Rumanians before Plevna in 1877 earned for them the respect of soldiers of all countries. Servia and Bulgaria came to war in 1885, and the Bulgarian soldiers, under the most adverse conditions, achieved splendid victories under the leadership of their own officers. In the crisis following the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (1908-9), it seemed likely that the Servian forces might play an unexpectedly active part in war even with a strong power.Bibliography.—Below are the titles of some of the more important works on the subject of armies. See also under biographical headings and articles dealing with the several arms, &c. A large proportion of the works mentioned below are concerned mainly with the development of strategy and tactics.V. der Goltz,Das Volk in Waffen(1883, new ed., 1898, English translation, P.A. Ashworth,Nation in Arms, London, 1887, new ed., 1907, French,Nation armée, Paris, 1889); Jähns,Heeresverfassung und Völkerleben(Berlin, 1885); Berndt,Die Zahl im Kriege(Vienna, 1895); F.N. Maude,Evolution of Modern Strategy(1903),Voluntary versus Compulsory Service(1897), andWar and the World’s Life(1907); Pierron,Méthodes de guerre, vol. i.; Jähns,Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften(an exhaustive bibliography, with critical notes); Troschke,Mil. Litteratur seit den Befreiungskriegen(Berlin, 1870); T.A. Dodge,Great Captains(Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Napoleon); Bronsart v. Schellendorf (Eng. trans., War Office, 1905)Duties of the General Staff; Favé,Histoire et tactique des trois armes(Liége, 1850); Maynert,Gesch. des Kriegswesens u. der Heeresverfassungen in Europa(Vienna, 1869); Jähns,Handbuch für eine Geschichte des Kriegswesens v. der Urzeit bis zur Renaissance(Leipzig, 1880); de la Barre Duparcq,Histoire de l’art de la guerre avant l’usage de poudre(Paris, 1860); Rüstow and Köchly,Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens(Aarau, 1852); Köchly and Rüstow,Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller(Leipzig, 1855); Förster, inHermes, xii. (1877); D.G. Hogarth,Philip and Alexander(London, 1897); Macdougall,Campaigns of Hannibal(London, 1858); Rüstow,Heerwesen, &c., Julius Casars(Nordhausen, 1855);Organ der M. Wissensch. Vereinof 1877 (Vienna); Polybius literature of the 17th and 18th centuries; supplement toM.W.B., 1883; the works of Xenophon, Aelian, Arrian, Vegetius, Polybius, Caesar, &c. (see Köchly and Rüstow: a collection was made in the 15th century, under the titleVeteres de re militari scriptores, 1487); Oman,A History of the Art of War: Middle Ages(London, 1898); Delpech,La Tactique au XIIIesiècle(Paris, 1886); Kohler,Die Entwickelung des Kriegswesens v.11.Jahrhdt. bis zu den Hussitenkriegen(Breslau, 1886-1893); Ricotti,Storia delle Compagnie di Ventura(Turin, 1846); Steger,Gesch. Francesco Sforzas und d. ital. Condottieri(Leipzig, 1865); J.A. Symonds,The Renaissance in Italy and The Age of the Despots; A Brandenburg Mobilization of 1477(German General Staff Monograph, No. 3); Palacky, “Kriegskunst der Böhmen,”Zeitschrift bohmisch. Museums(Prague, 1828); George,Battles of English History(London, 1895); Biottot,Les Grands inspirés devant la science: Jeanne d’Arc(Paris, 1907); V. Ellger,Kriegswesen, &c., der Eidgenossen, 14., 15., 16. Jahrhdt.(1873); de la Chauvelays,Les Armées de Charles le Téméraire(Paris, 1879); Guillaume,Hist. des bandes d’ordonnance dans lesPays-Bas(Brussels, 1873); the works of Froissart, de Brantôme, Machiavelli, Lienhard Frönsperger (Kriegsbuch, 1570), de la Noue, du Bellay, &c.; Villari,Life and Times of Machiavelli(English version); “Die frommen Landsknechte” (M. W. B., supplement, 1880);Kriegsbilder aus der Zeit der Landsknechte(Stuttgart, 1883); C.H. Firth,Cromwell’s Army(London, 1902); Heilmann,Das Kriegswesen der Kaiserlichen und Schweden(Leipzig, 1850); C. Walton,History of the British Standing Army, 1660-1700(London, 1894); E.A. Altnam inUnited Service Magazine, February 1907; Austrian official history of Prince Eugene’s campaigns, &c.; de la Barre Duparcq,Hist, milit. de la Prusse avant 1756(Paris, 1857); Marsigli,L’État militaire de l’emp. ottoman(1732); Prussian Staff History of the Silesian wars; C. von B(inder)-K(rieglstein),Geist und Stoff im Kriege(Vienna, 1895); E. d’Hauterive,L’Armée sous la Révolution(Paris, 1894); C. Rousset,Les Volontaires de 1791-1794; Michelet,Les Soldats de la Révolution(Paris, 1878); publications of the French general staff on the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars; H. Bonnal,Esprit de la guerre moderne(a series of studies in military history, 1805-1870); Paimblant du Rouil,La Division Durutte, les Réfractaires, also supplement,M.W.B., 1890; “The French Conscription” (suppl.M.W.B., 1892); C. v. der Goltz,Von Rossbach bis Jena und Auerstädt(a new edition of the originalRossbach und Jena, Berlin, 1883); German General Staff Monograph, No. 10;M.W.B.supplements of 1845, 1846, 1847, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1862, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1887; v. Duncker,Preussen während der franz. Okkupation(1872); Archives of Prussian war ministry, publications of 1892 and 1896; histories of the wars of 1866 and 1870; V. Chareton,Comme la Prusse a préparé sa revanche, 1806-1813; Reportsof Col. Baron Stoffel, French attaché at Berlin (translation into English, War Office, London); Haxthausen,Les Forces militaires de la Prusse(Paris, 1853); de la Barre Duparcq,Études historiques générales et militaires sur la Prusse(Paris, 1854); Paixhans,Constitution militaire de la France(Paris, 1849); Duc d’Aumale,Les Institutions militaires de la France(Paris, 1867); C. v. Decker,Über die Persönlichkeit des preussischen Soldaten(Berlin, 1842); War Office,Army Book of the British Empire(London, 1893); M. Jähns,Das französische Heer von der grossen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart(Leipzig, 1873); Baron Kaulbars,The German Army(in Russian) [St Petersburg, 1890];Die Schweiz im 19. Jahrhundert(Berne and Lausanne, 1899); Heimann,L’Armée allemande(Paris, 1895); R. de l’Homme de Courbière,Grundzüge der deutschen Militarverwaltung(Berlin, 1882); G.F.R. Henderson,The Science of War(London, 1905); J.W. Fortescue,History of the British Army(London, 1899- ——); R. de l’Homme de Courbière,Gesch. der brandenburg-preussisch. Heeresverfassung(Berlin, 1852); Krippentagel and Küstel,Die preuss. Armee von der ältesten Zeit bis zur Gegenwart(Berlin, 1883); Gansauge,Das brandenbg.-preuss. Kriegswesen, 1440, 1640, 1740(Berlin, 1839); A. v. Boguslawksi,Die Landwehr, 1813-1893(1893); A.R. v. Sichart,Gesch. d. k. hannover. Armee(Hanover, 1866); v. Reitzenstein,Die k. hannover. Kavallerie, 1631-1866(1892); Schlee,Zur Gesch. des hessischen Kriegswesens(Kassel, 1867); Leichtlen,Badens Kriegsverfassung(Carlsruhe, 1815); v. Stadlinger,Gesch. des württembergischen Kriegswesens(Stuttgart, 1858); Münich,Entwickelung der bayerischen Armee(Münich, 1864); officialGesch. d. k. bayer. Armee(Münich, 1901 onward); Würdinger,Kriegsgeschichte v. Bayern(Münich, 1868); H. Meynert,Gesch. des österr. Kriegswesens(Vienna, 1852),Kriegswesen Ungarns(Vienna, 1876); Anger,Gesch. der K.-K. Armee(Vienna, 1886);Beitrage zur Gesch. des österr. Heerwesens, 1754-1814(Vienna, 1872); R. v. Ottenfeld and Teuber,Die österr. Armee, 1700-1867(Vienna, 1895); v. Wrede,Gesch. d. K. u. K. Wehrmacht(Vienna, 1902); May de Rainmoter,Histoire militaire de la Suisse(Lausanne, 1788); Cusachs y Barado,La Vida Militar en España(Barcelona, 1888); Guillaume,Hist. de l’infanterie wallonne sous la maison d’Espagne(Brussels, 1876); A. Vitu,Histoire civile de l’armée(Paris, 1868); A. Pascal,Hist. de l’armée(Paris, 1847); L. Jablonski,L’Armée française à travers les âges; C. Romagny,Hist. générale de l’armée nationale(Paris, 1893); E. Simond,Hist. mil. de la France; Susane,Hist. de l’infanterie, cavalerie, artillerie françaises(Paris, 1874); Père Daniel,Hist. des milices françaises(1721); the officialHistorique des corps de troupe(Paris, 1900- ——); Cahu,Le Soldat français(Paris, 1876); J. Molard,Cent ans de l’armée française, 1780-1889(Paris, 1890); v. Stein,Lehre vom Heerwesen(Stuttgart, 1872); du Verger de S. Thomas,L’Italie et son armée, 1865 (Paris, 1866); “C. Martel,”Military Italy(London, 1884); Sir R. Biddulph,Lord Cardwell at the War Office(London, 1904); Willoughby Verner,Military Life of the Duke of Cambridge(London, 1905); W.H. Daniel,The Military Forces of the Crown(London, 1902); War Office,Annual Report of the British Army; Broome,Rise and Progress of the Bengal Army(Calcutta, 1850); W.J. Wilson,Hist. of the Madras Army(London, 1882-1885); C.M. Clode,Military Forces of the Crown; Blume,Die Grundlage unserer Wehrkraft(Berlin, 1899); Spenser Wilkinson,The Brain of an Army(London, 1890 and 1895); v. Olberg,Die französische Armee im Exerzirplatz und im Felde(Berlin, 1861);Die Heere und Flotte der Gegenwart, ed. Zepelin (Berlin, 1896); Molard,Puissances militaires de l’Europe(Paris, 1895); works of Montecucculi, Puységur, Vauban, Feuquières, Guibert, Folard, Guichard, Joly de Maizeroy, Frederick the Great, Marshal Saxe, the prince de Ligne, Napoleon, Carnot, Scharnhorst, Clausewitz, Napoleon III., Moltke, Hamley, &c.The principal general military periodicals are:—English,Journal of the R. United Service Institution; United States,Journal of the Military Service Institution; French,Revue d’histoireandRevue des armées étrangères(general staff); Rau and Lauth,L’État militaire des puissances(about every 4 years);Revue militaire générale, founded in 1907 by General Langlois;Almanach du drapeau(a popularaide-mémoirepublished annually); German, theVierteljahrsheftof the general staff;Militär-Wochenblatt(referred to above asM.W.B.—the supplements are of great value); von Löbell’sJahresberichte(annual detailed reports on the state, &c., of all armies—an Englishprécisappears annually in theJournalof the R.U.S. Institution); Austrian,Streffleurs öst. Militär-Zeitschrift, with which was amalgamated (1907) theOrgan d. militärwissenschaft. Vereins.The British War Office issues from time to time handbooks dealing with foreign armies, and, quarterly since April 1907, a critical review and bibliography of recent military literature in the principal languages, under the name ofRecent Publications of Military Interest.

Minor Armies

100.Dutch and Belgian Armies.—The military power of the “United Provinces” dates its rise from the middle of the 16th century, when, after a long and sanguinary struggle, they succeeded in emancipating themselves from the yoke of Spain; and in the following century it received considerable development in consequence of the wars they had to maintain against Louis XIV. In 1702 they had in their pay upwards of 100,000 men, including many English and Scottish regiments, besides 30,000 in the service of the Dutch East India Company. But the slaughter of Malplaquet deprived the republic of the flower of the army. Its part in the War of the Austrian Succession was far from being as creditable as its earlier deeds, a Prussian army overran Holland in 1787 almost without opposition, and at the beginning of the wars of the French Revolution the army had fallen to 36,000 men. In 1795 Holland was conquered by the French under Pichegru, and in the course of the changes which ensued the army was entirely reorganized, and under French direction bore its share in the great wars of the empire.

With the fall of Napoleon and the reconstitution of the Netherlands, the Dutch-Belgian army, formed of the troops of the now united countries, came into existence. The army fought at Waterloo, but was not destined to a long career, for the revolution of 1830 brought about the separation of Belgium. A Dutch garrison under Baron Chassé, a distinguished veteran of the Napoleonic wars, defended Antwerp against the French under Marshal Gérard, and the Netherlands have been engaged in many arduous colonial wars in the East Indies. The Belgian army similarly has contributed officers and non-commissioned officers to the service of the Congo Free State.

101.Swiss Army.—The inhabitants of Switzerland were always a hardy and independent race, but their high military reputation dates from the middle of the 15th century, when the comparatively ill-armed and untrained mountaineers signally defeated Charles the Bold of Burgundy and the flower of the chivalry of Europe in the battles of Granson, Morat and Nancy. The Swabian war, towards the end of that century, and the Milanese war, at the beginning of the following one, added to the fame of the Swiss infantry, and made it the model on which that arm was formed all over Europe. The wealthier countries vied with each other in hiring them as mercenaries, and the poor but warlike Swiss found the profession of arms a lucrative one.

A brief account of the Swiss mercenaries will be found earlier in this article. Their fall was due in the end to their own indiscipline in the first place, and the rise of the Spanish standing army and its musketeers in the second. Yet it does not seem that the military reputation of the Swiss was discredited, even by reverses such as Marignan. On the contrary, they continued all through the 17th and 18th centuries to furnish whole regiments for the service of other countries, notably of France, and individuals, like Jomini in a later age, followed the career of the soldier of fortune everywhere. The most notable incident in the later military history of the Swiss, the heroic faithfulness of Louis XVI.’s Swiss guard, is proverbial, and has been commemorated with just pride by their countrymen. The French Revolutionary armies overran Switzerland, as they did all the small neighbouring states, and during Napoleon’s career she had to submit to his rule, and furnish her contingent to his armies. On the fall of Napoleon she regained her independence, and returned to her old trade of furnishing soldiers to the sovereigns and powers of Europe. Charles X. of France had at one time as many as 17,000 Swiss in his pay; Naples and Rome had each four regiments. The recruiting for these foreign services was openly acknowledged and encouraged by the government. The young Swiss engaged usually for a period of four or six years; they were formed in separate regiments, officered by countrymen of their own, and received a higher rate of pay than the national regiments; and at the close of their engagement returned with their earnings to settle down on their paternal holdings. A series of revolutions, however, expelled them from France and Italy, and recently the advance of liberal ideas, and the creation of great national armies based on the principle of personal service, has destroyed their occupation. Switzerland is now remarkable in a military sense as being the only country that maintains no standing army (see Militia).

102. TheSwedish Armycan look back with pride to the days of Gustavus Adolphus and of Charles XII. The contributions made by it to the military science of the 17th century have been noticed above. The triumphs of the small and highly disciplined army of Charles were often such as to recall the similar victories of the Greeks under Alexander. The then nebulous armies of Russia and Poland resembled indeed the forces of Darius in the 4th centuryB.C., but Peter the Great succeeded at last in producing a true army, and the resistance of the Swedes collapsed under the weight of the vastly superior numbers then brought against them.

TheDanish Armyhas a long and meritorious record of good service dating from the Thirty Years’ War.

103. The existing Army ofPortugaldates from the Peninsular War, when a considerable force of Portuguese, at one time exceeding 60,000 men, was organized under Marshal Beresford. Trained and partly officered by English officers, it proved itself not unworthy of its allies, and bore its full share in the series of campaigns and battles by which the French were ultimately expelled from Spain. At the peace the army numbered about 50,000 infantry and 5000 cavalry, formed on the English model, and all in the highest state of efficiency. This force was reduced in 1821, under the new constitutional government, to about one-half.

104. TheRumanian, BulgarianandServianarmies are the youngest in Europe. The conduct of the Rumanians before Plevna in 1877 earned for them the respect of soldiers of all countries. Servia and Bulgaria came to war in 1885, and the Bulgarian soldiers, under the most adverse conditions, achieved splendid victories under the leadership of their own officers. In the crisis following the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (1908-9), it seemed likely that the Servian forces might play an unexpectedly active part in war even with a strong power.

Bibliography.—Below are the titles of some of the more important works on the subject of armies. See also under biographical headings and articles dealing with the several arms, &c. A large proportion of the works mentioned below are concerned mainly with the development of strategy and tactics.

V. der Goltz,Das Volk in Waffen(1883, new ed., 1898, English translation, P.A. Ashworth,Nation in Arms, London, 1887, new ed., 1907, French,Nation armée, Paris, 1889); Jähns,Heeresverfassung und Völkerleben(Berlin, 1885); Berndt,Die Zahl im Kriege(Vienna, 1895); F.N. Maude,Evolution of Modern Strategy(1903),Voluntary versus Compulsory Service(1897), andWar and the World’s Life(1907); Pierron,Méthodes de guerre, vol. i.; Jähns,Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften(an exhaustive bibliography, with critical notes); Troschke,Mil. Litteratur seit den Befreiungskriegen(Berlin, 1870); T.A. Dodge,Great Captains(Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Napoleon); Bronsart v. Schellendorf (Eng. trans., War Office, 1905)Duties of the General Staff; Favé,Histoire et tactique des trois armes(Liége, 1850); Maynert,Gesch. des Kriegswesens u. der Heeresverfassungen in Europa(Vienna, 1869); Jähns,Handbuch für eine Geschichte des Kriegswesens v. der Urzeit bis zur Renaissance(Leipzig, 1880); de la Barre Duparcq,Histoire de l’art de la guerre avant l’usage de poudre(Paris, 1860); Rüstow and Köchly,Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens(Aarau, 1852); Köchly and Rüstow,Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller(Leipzig, 1855); Förster, inHermes, xii. (1877); D.G. Hogarth,Philip and Alexander(London, 1897); Macdougall,Campaigns of Hannibal(London, 1858); Rüstow,Heerwesen, &c., Julius Casars(Nordhausen, 1855);Organ der M. Wissensch. Vereinof 1877 (Vienna); Polybius literature of the 17th and 18th centuries; supplement toM.W.B., 1883; the works of Xenophon, Aelian, Arrian, Vegetius, Polybius, Caesar, &c. (see Köchly and Rüstow: a collection was made in the 15th century, under the titleVeteres de re militari scriptores, 1487); Oman,A History of the Art of War: Middle Ages(London, 1898); Delpech,La Tactique au XIIIesiècle(Paris, 1886); Kohler,Die Entwickelung des Kriegswesens v.11.Jahrhdt. bis zu den Hussitenkriegen(Breslau, 1886-1893); Ricotti,Storia delle Compagnie di Ventura(Turin, 1846); Steger,Gesch. Francesco Sforzas und d. ital. Condottieri(Leipzig, 1865); J.A. Symonds,The Renaissance in Italy and The Age of the Despots; A Brandenburg Mobilization of 1477(German General Staff Monograph, No. 3); Palacky, “Kriegskunst der Böhmen,”Zeitschrift bohmisch. Museums(Prague, 1828); George,Battles of English History(London, 1895); Biottot,Les Grands inspirés devant la science: Jeanne d’Arc(Paris, 1907); V. Ellger,Kriegswesen, &c., der Eidgenossen, 14., 15., 16. Jahrhdt.(1873); de la Chauvelays,Les Armées de Charles le Téméraire(Paris, 1879); Guillaume,Hist. des bandes d’ordonnance dans lesPays-Bas(Brussels, 1873); the works of Froissart, de Brantôme, Machiavelli, Lienhard Frönsperger (Kriegsbuch, 1570), de la Noue, du Bellay, &c.; Villari,Life and Times of Machiavelli(English version); “Die frommen Landsknechte” (M. W. B., supplement, 1880);Kriegsbilder aus der Zeit der Landsknechte(Stuttgart, 1883); C.H. Firth,Cromwell’s Army(London, 1902); Heilmann,Das Kriegswesen der Kaiserlichen und Schweden(Leipzig, 1850); C. Walton,History of the British Standing Army, 1660-1700(London, 1894); E.A. Altnam inUnited Service Magazine, February 1907; Austrian official history of Prince Eugene’s campaigns, &c.; de la Barre Duparcq,Hist, milit. de la Prusse avant 1756(Paris, 1857); Marsigli,L’État militaire de l’emp. ottoman(1732); Prussian Staff History of the Silesian wars; C. von B(inder)-K(rieglstein),Geist und Stoff im Kriege(Vienna, 1895); E. d’Hauterive,L’Armée sous la Révolution(Paris, 1894); C. Rousset,Les Volontaires de 1791-1794; Michelet,Les Soldats de la Révolution(Paris, 1878); publications of the French general staff on the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars; H. Bonnal,Esprit de la guerre moderne(a series of studies in military history, 1805-1870); Paimblant du Rouil,La Division Durutte, les Réfractaires, also supplement,M.W.B., 1890; “The French Conscription” (suppl.M.W.B., 1892); C. v. der Goltz,Von Rossbach bis Jena und Auerstädt(a new edition of the originalRossbach und Jena, Berlin, 1883); German General Staff Monograph, No. 10;M.W.B.supplements of 1845, 1846, 1847, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1862, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1887; v. Duncker,Preussen während der franz. Okkupation(1872); Archives of Prussian war ministry, publications of 1892 and 1896; histories of the wars of 1866 and 1870; V. Chareton,Comme la Prusse a préparé sa revanche, 1806-1813; Reportsof Col. Baron Stoffel, French attaché at Berlin (translation into English, War Office, London); Haxthausen,Les Forces militaires de la Prusse(Paris, 1853); de la Barre Duparcq,Études historiques générales et militaires sur la Prusse(Paris, 1854); Paixhans,Constitution militaire de la France(Paris, 1849); Duc d’Aumale,Les Institutions militaires de la France(Paris, 1867); C. v. Decker,Über die Persönlichkeit des preussischen Soldaten(Berlin, 1842); War Office,Army Book of the British Empire(London, 1893); M. Jähns,Das französische Heer von der grossen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart(Leipzig, 1873); Baron Kaulbars,The German Army(in Russian) [St Petersburg, 1890];Die Schweiz im 19. Jahrhundert(Berne and Lausanne, 1899); Heimann,L’Armée allemande(Paris, 1895); R. de l’Homme de Courbière,Grundzüge der deutschen Militarverwaltung(Berlin, 1882); G.F.R. Henderson,The Science of War(London, 1905); J.W. Fortescue,History of the British Army(London, 1899- ——); R. de l’Homme de Courbière,Gesch. der brandenburg-preussisch. Heeresverfassung(Berlin, 1852); Krippentagel and Küstel,Die preuss. Armee von der ältesten Zeit bis zur Gegenwart(Berlin, 1883); Gansauge,Das brandenbg.-preuss. Kriegswesen, 1440, 1640, 1740(Berlin, 1839); A. v. Boguslawksi,Die Landwehr, 1813-1893(1893); A.R. v. Sichart,Gesch. d. k. hannover. Armee(Hanover, 1866); v. Reitzenstein,Die k. hannover. Kavallerie, 1631-1866(1892); Schlee,Zur Gesch. des hessischen Kriegswesens(Kassel, 1867); Leichtlen,Badens Kriegsverfassung(Carlsruhe, 1815); v. Stadlinger,Gesch. des württembergischen Kriegswesens(Stuttgart, 1858); Münich,Entwickelung der bayerischen Armee(Münich, 1864); officialGesch. d. k. bayer. Armee(Münich, 1901 onward); Würdinger,Kriegsgeschichte v. Bayern(Münich, 1868); H. Meynert,Gesch. des österr. Kriegswesens(Vienna, 1852),Kriegswesen Ungarns(Vienna, 1876); Anger,Gesch. der K.-K. Armee(Vienna, 1886);Beitrage zur Gesch. des österr. Heerwesens, 1754-1814(Vienna, 1872); R. v. Ottenfeld and Teuber,Die österr. Armee, 1700-1867(Vienna, 1895); v. Wrede,Gesch. d. K. u. K. Wehrmacht(Vienna, 1902); May de Rainmoter,Histoire militaire de la Suisse(Lausanne, 1788); Cusachs y Barado,La Vida Militar en España(Barcelona, 1888); Guillaume,Hist. de l’infanterie wallonne sous la maison d’Espagne(Brussels, 1876); A. Vitu,Histoire civile de l’armée(Paris, 1868); A. Pascal,Hist. de l’armée(Paris, 1847); L. Jablonski,L’Armée française à travers les âges; C. Romagny,Hist. générale de l’armée nationale(Paris, 1893); E. Simond,Hist. mil. de la France; Susane,Hist. de l’infanterie, cavalerie, artillerie françaises(Paris, 1874); Père Daniel,Hist. des milices françaises(1721); the officialHistorique des corps de troupe(Paris, 1900- ——); Cahu,Le Soldat français(Paris, 1876); J. Molard,Cent ans de l’armée française, 1780-1889(Paris, 1890); v. Stein,Lehre vom Heerwesen(Stuttgart, 1872); du Verger de S. Thomas,L’Italie et son armée, 1865 (Paris, 1866); “C. Martel,”Military Italy(London, 1884); Sir R. Biddulph,Lord Cardwell at the War Office(London, 1904); Willoughby Verner,Military Life of the Duke of Cambridge(London, 1905); W.H. Daniel,The Military Forces of the Crown(London, 1902); War Office,Annual Report of the British Army; Broome,Rise and Progress of the Bengal Army(Calcutta, 1850); W.J. Wilson,Hist. of the Madras Army(London, 1882-1885); C.M. Clode,Military Forces of the Crown; Blume,Die Grundlage unserer Wehrkraft(Berlin, 1899); Spenser Wilkinson,The Brain of an Army(London, 1890 and 1895); v. Olberg,Die französische Armee im Exerzirplatz und im Felde(Berlin, 1861);Die Heere und Flotte der Gegenwart, ed. Zepelin (Berlin, 1896); Molard,Puissances militaires de l’Europe(Paris, 1895); works of Montecucculi, Puységur, Vauban, Feuquières, Guibert, Folard, Guichard, Joly de Maizeroy, Frederick the Great, Marshal Saxe, the prince de Ligne, Napoleon, Carnot, Scharnhorst, Clausewitz, Napoleon III., Moltke, Hamley, &c.

The principal general military periodicals are:—English,Journal of the R. United Service Institution; United States,Journal of the Military Service Institution; French,Revue d’histoireandRevue des armées étrangères(general staff); Rau and Lauth,L’État militaire des puissances(about every 4 years);Revue militaire générale, founded in 1907 by General Langlois;Almanach du drapeau(a popularaide-mémoirepublished annually); German, theVierteljahrsheftof the general staff;Militär-Wochenblatt(referred to above asM.W.B.—the supplements are of great value); von Löbell’sJahresberichte(annual detailed reports on the state, &c., of all armies—an Englishprécisappears annually in theJournalof the R.U.S. Institution); Austrian,Streffleurs öst. Militär-Zeitschrift, with which was amalgamated (1907) theOrgan d. militärwissenschaft. Vereins.The British War Office issues from time to time handbooks dealing with foreign armies, and, quarterly since April 1907, a critical review and bibliography of recent military literature in the principal languages, under the name ofRecent Publications of Military Interest.

(C. F. A.)

1The phrase “K. und K.” (Kaiserlich und Königlich) is applied to all services common to the Austrian and Hungarian armies. “K.-K.” (Kaiserlich-Königlich) refers strictly only to the troops of Austria, the Hungarian army being known as the “K. Ung.” (Royal Hungarian) service.2FromKrümperpferde(cast horses attached to batteries, &c., for odd jobs), applied to the recruits in jest.

2FromKrümperpferde(cast horses attached to batteries, &c., for odd jobs), applied to the recruits in jest.

ARNAL, ÉTIENNE(1794-1872), French actor, was born at Meulan, Seine-et-Oise, on the 1st of February 1794. After serving in the army, and working in a button factory, he took to the stage. His first appearance (1815) was in tragedy, and for some time he was unsuccessful; it was not until 1827 that he showed his real ability in comedy parts, especially in plays by Félix August Duvert (1795-1876) and Augustin Théodore Lauzanne (1805-1877), whoseCabinets particuliers(1832),Le Mari de la dame de chœurs(1837),Passé minuit, L’Homme blasé(1843),La Clef dans le dos(1848), &c., contained parts written for him. He was twenty years at the Vaudeville, and completed at the various Parisian theatres a stage career of nearly half a century. Arnal was the author ofEpître à bouffé(1840), which is reprinted in his volume of poetry,Boutades en vers(1861).

ARNALDUS DE VILLA NOVA,also calledArnaldus de Villanueva, Arnaldus VillanovanusorArnaud de Villeneuve(c.1235-1313), alchemist, astrologer and physician, appears to have been of Spanish origin, and to have studied chemistry, medicine, physics, and also Arabian philosophy. After having lived at the court of Aragon, he went to Paris, where he gained a considerable reputation; but he incurred the enmity of the ecclesiastics and was forced to flee, finally finding an asylum in Sicily. About 1313 he was summoned to Avignon by Pope Clement V., who was ill, but he died on the voyage. Many alchemical writings, includingThesaurus ThesaurorumorRosarius Philosophorum, Novum Lumen, Flos Florum, andSpeculum Alchimiae, are ascribed to him, but they are of very doubtful authenticity. Collected editions of them were published at Lyons in 1504 and 1532 (with a biography by Symphorianus Campegius), at Basel in 1585, at Frankfort in 1603, and at Lyons in 1686. He is also the reputed author of various medical works, includingBreviarium Practicae.

See J.B. Hauréau in theHistoire littéraire de la France(1881), vol. 28; E. Lalande,Arnaud de Villeneuve, sa vie et ses œuvres(Paris, 1896). A list of writings is given by J. Ferguson in hisBibliotheca Chemica(1906). See also U. Chevalier,Repertoire des sources hist., &c., Bio-bibliographie(Paris, 1903).

ARNAUD, HENRI(1641-1721), pastor and general of the Vaudois or Waldensians of Piedmont, was born at Embrun. About 1650 his family returned to their native valley of Luserna, where Arnaud was educated at La Tour (the chief village), later visiting the college at Basel (1662 and 1668) and the Academy at Geneva (1666). He then returned home, and seems to have been pastor in several of the Vaudois valleys before attaining that position at La Tour (1685). He was thus the natural leader of his co-religionists after Victor Amadeus expelled them (1686) from their valleys, and most probably visited Holland, the ruler of which, William of Orange, certainly gave him help and money. Arnaud occupied himself with organizing his 3000 countrymen who had taken refuge in Switzerland, and who twice (1687-1688) attempted to regain their homes. The English revolution of 1688, and the election of William to the throne, encouraged the Vaudois to make yet another attempt. Furnished with detailed instructions from the veteran Josué Janavel (prevented by age from taking part in the expedition) Arnaud, with about 1000 followers, started (August 17, 1689) from near Nyon on the Lake of Geneva for theglorieuse rentrée. On the 27th of August, the valiant band, after many hardships and dangers,reached the Valley of St Martin, having passed by Sallanches and crossed the Col de Very (6506 ft.), the Enclave de la Fenêtre (7425 ft.), the Col du Bonhomme (8147 ft.), the Col du Mont Iseran (9085 ft.), the Grand Mont Cenis (6893 ft.), the Petit Mont Cenis (7166 ft.), the Col de Clapier (8173 ft.), the Col de Côteplane (7589 ft.), and the Col du Piz (8550 ft.). They soon took refuge in the lofty and secure rocky citadel of the Balsille, where they were besieged (October 24, 1689 to May 14, 1690) by the troops (about 4000 in number) of the king of France and the duke of Savoy. They maintained this natural fortress against many fierce attacks and during the whole of a winter. In particular, on the 2nd of May, one assault was defeated without the loss of a single man of Arnaud’s small band. But another attack (May 14) was not so successful, so that Arnaud withdrew his force, under cover of a thick mist, and led them over the hills to the valley of Angrogna, above La Tour. A month later the Vaudois were received into favour by the duke of Savoy, who had then abandoned his alliance with France for one with Great Britain and Holland. Hence for the next six years the Vaudois helped Savoy against France, though suffering much from the repeated attacks of the French troops. But by a clause in the treaty of peace of 1696, made public in 1698, Victor Amadeus again became hostile to the Vaudois, about 3000 of whom, with Arnaud, found a shelter in Protestant countries, mainly in Württemberg, where Arnaud became the pastor of Dürrmenz-Schönenberg, N.W. of Stuttgart (1699). Once again (1704-1706) the Vaudois aided the duke against France. Arnaud, however, took no part in the military operations, though he visited England (1707) to obtain pecuniary aid from Queen Anne. He died at Schönenberg (which was the church hamlet of the parish of Dürrmenz) in 1721. It was during his retirement that he compiled from various documents by other hands hisHistoire de la glorieuse rentrée des Vaudois dans leurs vallées, which was published (probably at Cassel) in 1710, with a dedication to Queen Anne. It was translated into English (1827) by H. Dyke Acland, and has also appeared in German and Dutch versions. A part of the original MS. is preserved in the Royal Library in Berlin.

Back to Index Next