Naturally, therefore, by degrees the proportion of firearms in the
_battaglia_ (whence comes our modern “battalion”) increased, and the
formation of definite fighting units, such as brigades, by Gustavus
Adolphus, Maurice of Nassau, and others, began to make the force more
capable of direction and control. De Rohan in France, too, devised
regiments on what were then scientific principles. His were composed
of 600 pikes, 600 musketeers, and 240 swordsmen, and, later, cavalry
were placed between these massive battalions. Speaking generally, the
artillery was little moved, and remained stationary during a battle.
The cavalry charged sword in hand or with pistols, and the infantry
received the charge with the pike or partially met it by fire. But with
an improved artillery arose also the necessity for ammunition and other
supply trains from fixed magazines, and hence more careful strategy
based on care for these magazines or “bases of operations,” and regard
for the roads “or lines of communication” leading from them to the
army, influenced the conduct of campaigns; so also did the introduction
of superior organisation.
For food supplies, armies on the move were still dependent on the
good-will of the people, open markets, or plunder. It was long before
the supply of troops formed part of the serious study of the art
of war. There was yet but little change in the method of fighting.
Artillery as an “arm” was not. Rupert thought still that cavalry was
the principal arm and could do anything. Cromwell alone recognised what
trained infantry could be made to do.
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