“Is it, then, that those who advocate the substitution of mounted infantry for cavalry are in the right; that the lancer, hussar, and dragoon of picturesque memory have become obsolete in these days of the breechloading rifle? Almost it would seem so. But for two important considerations, the case for mounted infantry might well be deemed as proved. These considerations, however, are of such a nature as to lead the observer to directly opposite conclusions: to conclude actually that cavalry pure and simple is as useful to the army of to-day as it was to the army of Napoleon’s day; and that it is totally erroneous to suppose that mounted infantry can be an efficient substitute for cavalry. The cause of the effectiveness of Japanese cavalry is not far to seek. The men are the most intelligent of Japanese soldiers, and their many fine patrol performances are evidence of the sound methods in which they have been trained. Their weakness lies in the poor quality of the horses, and the fact that the Russian cavalry outnumbers them by six to one. Marked inferiority of force, in all forms of rivalry, is a fatal disadvantage, and it is for this reason that the Japanese have failed to shine in the rôle which experience has assigned to cavalry. The Russian cavalry, on the other hand, is estimated to number 30,000 sabres, a force of mounted men which, in the circumstances, ought to have made the lives of the Japanese commanders on the flank of the army a burden to them. Instead of which, life in the rear of the Japanese front has been a sinecure, a positive _dolce far niente_, undisturbed even by the distant flash of any of these sabres. Is this a proof that, if the sabres had been rifles, something could have been accomplished? Very far from it. It is because the Russian cavalry, armed as it is with rifle and--shade of Seydlitz!--bayonet, is trained to fight only on foot, thereby throwing away its most valuable weapon, mobility, that it has proved no more effective in the field than a flock of sheep. That the microscopic force of Japanese cavalry has held the Russian throughout the campaign--an exceedingly remarkable performance when it is remembered how indifferently the Japanese are mounted--testifies clearly enough that there must be something futile about the arming and training of the Russians.... They failed as cavalry and they failed as riflemen, and the reason of the failure was that they are neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. They are organised as cavalry, but have been trained to dismount on service. In peace they are armed with lance and sword, and in war they are asked to fight with rifle and bayonet. Truly an absurdity, worthy of one of those nebulous units evolved by our own Parliamentary reformers. Last month Mishchenko, marching forty-five miles in four long summer days, again descended on the Japanese flank, accounted for a couple of companies and a field hospital, frightened a number of Chinese carters, and