In one sense there is nothing remarkable in the decision of the 2nd of July. Given two armies fighting on the same side and within a day's march of each other, and a hostile army within a day's march of both of them, it is not difficult to see what the two armies should do. Nothing is easier than to solve problems of this sort in the study. Even with the imperfect knowledge of the facts which the Prussians possessed, the arrangements made at Gitschin were no more than the suggestions of military common sense. But simple as the situation seems, nothing is so difficult as to secure such a solution in the practice of war. It is a common-place in that kind of military criticism which is wise after the event that Benedek might have avoided disaster if he had only acted on any reasonable plan and stuck to it. The merit of the Prussians lay in the system which gave military common sense its due place in the organization, so as to make sure that it would be applied when wanted. It was a matter of the judicious division of labour. At the headquarters of an army there are a hundred different anxieties. In peace there is the recruiting, training, clothing, feeding, and arming of the troops; the distribution of commands; the maintenance of discipline. In war most of these matters continue to require attention; subordinates must be kept to their appointed tasks; above all the field of politics must be watched from day to day, sometimes even from hour to hour. The Prussian system gave to the chief of the general staff the sole duty of attending to the movements of the armies, and, regarding each new situation as a problem in strategy, of explaining the solution which presented itself to his trained judgment as the best. Free from the pressure of other cares and responsibilities an officer in this position would be more likely to see clearly and judge coolly than one overloaded with work and distracted with the thousand worries of command. This is the division of labour according to kind, which gives each sort of work to a man specially trained for its performance. It is supplemented by an organization of responsibility which relieves a man from detail in proportion to the extent and grasp of his supervision. The army was broken up into minor armies each with its own commander and his chief of the staff, so that the chief of the general staff himself had to consider only the large problems of the campaign, the general nature of the movements to be effected by the two or three pieces on his board. The head of each army is told the general intention and the share of work assigned to his force. He in turn regards his army corps or divisions[1] as so many units, and besides a statement of the object to be aimed at gives only such general directions as the corps or division commanders cannot arrange for themselves. All the detail of the movements is left in the hands of the corps or division commanders and their special staffs.