The Battle of the RiversDane, Edmund (Military historian)
History
The Battle of the Rivers
Dane, Edmund (Military historian)
World War, 1914-1918 -- Campaigns -- Western Front
Here we touch one of the hidden but fatal flaws in the German plan--the
assumption that German troops, if not superior, must at any rate be
equal in skill to any others. The German troops at Mons, admittedly,
fought with great daring, but that they fought or were led with skill is
disproved by all the testimony available. It is as clear as anything can
be that not merely the coolness and the marksmanship of the British
force was a surprise to the enemy, but the uniformity of its quality. Of
the elements that go to make up military strength, uniformity of quality
is among the most important. The cohesion of an army with no weak links
is unbreakable. It is not only more supple than an army made up of
troops of varying quality and skill, but it is more tenacious. Like a
well-tempered sword, it is at once more flexible yet more unbreakable
than an inferior weapon.
Against an inferior army the tactics of General von Kluck must
infallibly have succeeded. Against such a military weapon as the British
force at Mons they were foredoomed to failure. Assuming the British army
to be inferior, General von Kluck threw the full weight of his troops
upon it before he had tried its temper.
Studying their bearing, the importance of these considerations becomes
plain. Powerful as it was, the driving head of the great German chain
had yet not proved powerful enough inevitably to sweep away resistance.
That again disclosed a miscalculation. It is true that the British force
had to retire, and it is equally true that that retirement exposed them
to great danger, for the enemy, inflamed by his losses, was still in
numbers far superior, and what, for troops obliged to adopt marching
formations, was even more serious, he was times over superior in guns.
Few armies in face of such superiority could have escaped annihilation;
fewer still would not have fallen into complete demoralisation.
The British force, however, not only escaped annihilation, but came out
both with losses _relatively_ light, and wholly undemoralised. This was
no mere accident. Why, can be briefly told. Remember that quality of
uniformity, remember the value of it in giving cohesion to the organic
masses of the army. Remember further the hitting power of an army in
which both gunners and riflemen are on the whole first-rate shots, and
with a cavalry which the hostile horse had shown itself unable to
contend against. On the other hand, bear in mind that the greater
masses of the enemy were of necessity slower in movement, and that the
larger an army is, the slower it _must_ move.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account