I may, however, touch here upon another matter which is connected with dismounted action, _i.e._ the question of armament. It has often been proposed, and from influential quarters, to replace the cavalry sword by some kind of a bayonet. If, it is said, with a certain appearance of justification, cavalry are to assault hostile positions on foot, they must have some _arme blanche_ for the hand-to-hand fight, and this can only be a bayonet. The war in Manchuria, where such mêlées repeatedly took place, is cited as a proof of the necessity of such an armament. I cannot ally myself with such proposals. As to the repeated hand-to-hand fights in the Russo-Japanese war, these took place principally because the Russians found it impossible to evacuate their entrenchments in time, and that they took such full advantage of cover that they were in some measure surprised by the attacker. These examples can certainly not be adapted therefore to the dismounted action of our cavalry. With them it will never be a question of prepared positions--which cavalry will, as a rule, neither attack nor defend--but of actions resulting from a battle of encounter. In such cases, however, as the experience of military history teaches us, a hand-to-hand fight is quite exceptional. Even the struggle for localities is fought out almost entirely with the firearm. If the defence should consist of dismounted cavalry and cyclists, it cannot as a rule be assumed that such troops will allow the attack to come to close quarters. They will more generally, as soon as the decision of the fire fight has become clear, endeavour to reach their horses or cycles and to escape the fire of the pursuit. As a matter of fact, therefore, dismounted cavalry would really only use the bayonet on foot in quite exceptional cases, and it would only be justifiable to introduce it if there were no attendant disadvantages. Such, however, is not the case. I would regard the abolition of the present sword as a great danger, calculated to seriously injure the morale of the cavalry. Our lance is an excellent weapon for the charge, but for single combat only in cases where the men have freedom of movement. In the close turmoil of the fight it is very difficult to handle with success; besides which, it easily becomes unserviceable on striking an object too heavily. Should it pierce a body at the full speed of a horse's gallop it will generally bend on being drawn out (if indeed the rider in his haste extricates it at all), and then becomes unserviceable. In such a case the man needs his sword. A short bayonet can never replace this, and a compromise between a bayonet and a sword would be of but little service. If the sword is taken away from the cavalry soldier he will be rendered in many cases weaponless. There can be no doubt of this. And the consciousness of this drawback would very soon be felt by the troops and would damp their eagerness for the fight.