But Napoleon would recognize that it is by rapidly prolonging their own flank against being turned, or by enveloping or enfilading the enemy’s line by participation in the counter-attack, or by work such as that done by the German horse artillery and cavalry at Loigny-Poupry on December 2, 1870 (late in the war when the German cavalry had learnt their lesson), that cavalry show to advantage. There 2150 German sabres and 24 guns, acting in combination, first dashed aside the opposition offered by the French in villages on the left flank of their line of battle, and then, sweeping round, proceeded to threaten and shell the left rear of the French infantry line--good work, and showing the value of mobile forces boldly thrown at a flank, but lacking in the final stage in that resolute determination which gives full value to such a movement, and this, no doubt, because they had not been trained in peace to act together.[38] This leads one to consider what was the training of our own cavalry subsequent to 1870. Was it not the general tendency of our authorities and tactical experts to discredit the action of cavalry on the battlefield, without considering whether the armament, organization, and previous training of the cavalry of both France and Germany were such as to lead to success? These points all influenced the course of the actions in the first months of the 1870 war in the most remarkable manner. Again, was the leading, except for a few bright exceptions, satisfactory? French and German writers on cavalry plainly intimate that the direction of cavalry enterprise by the higher leaders, and the action of the cavalry leaders, were distinctly disappointing.[39] Meantime a belief gained from the American War that dismounted tactics were the solution to the cavalry question obsessed some, as it always will those who lack (i.) a practical knowledge of the arm, (ii.) imagination, (iii.) an acquaintance with military history, though the most acute thinker of that time, Henderson, lays down very concisely in _Science of War_, p. 60, “that mounted infantry were absolutely worthless against cavalry.” In peace, as the value of the bullet rose, the use of cavalry fell in the mind of the man of theory. Probably only the few, who with an open mind thoroughly tested the two rival lines of action in the field, and on every kind of ground, were able to give a correct appreciation. But these never swerved from the opinion that mounted men relying only on the rifle were hopeless in attack or in the open against cavalry, but were, on the other hand, of great value in defence, or in broken ground, or in retreat, and further, that many small opportunities, far more than for shock action, would be offered to them, which cunning and versatility would enable them to profit by.