As regards the cavalry the Western Allies had six divisions, including one of three brigades. The enemy had at least nine, possibly more (one, the Guard Cavalry Division, of three brigades), as it is not clear from the German account how much cavalry was transferred from the Sixth Army to the Fourth Army.[2] It may be noted that a German cavalry division included, with its two or three cavalry brigades, horse artillery batteries and the two or three _Jäger_ battalions, three or more machine-gun batteries and two or more companies of cyclists; and was thus, unlike ours, a force of all arms. The German General Staff reveal nothing about the exact strength of the artillery. In a footnote it is mentioned that in addition to infantry divisions the III Reserve Corps contained siege artillery, _Pionier_ formations and other technical troops; and in the text that 'all the available heavy artillery of the Sixth Army to be brought up (to assist the Fourth Army) for the break-through.' The Germans had trench-mortars (_Minenwerfer_) which are several times mentioned, whilst our first ones were still in the process of improvisation by the Engineers of the Indian Corps at BETHUNE. The statement that 'the enemy's' (_i.e._ British, French and Belgian) 'superiority in material, in guns, trench-mortars, machine-guns and aeroplanes, etc., was two, three, even fourfold' is palpably nonsense when said of 1914, though true perhaps in 1917 when the monograph was written. The fact seems to be that the Germans cannot understand defeat in war except on the premise that the victor had superiority of numbers. To show to what extent this creed obtains: in the late Dr. Wylie's _Henry V._, vol. II. page 216, will be found an account of a German theory, accepted by the well-known historian Delbrück, that the English won at Agincourt on account of superior numbers, although contemporary history is practically unanimous that the French were ten to one. Dr. Wylie sums it up thus: 'Starting with the belief that the defeat of the French is inexplicable on the assumption that they greatly outnumbered the English, and finding that all contemporary authorities, both French and English, are agreed that they did, the writer builds up a theory that all the known facts can be explained on the supposition that the French were really much inferior to us in numbers ... and concludes that he cannot be far wrong if he puts the total number of French (the English being 6000) at something between 4000 and 7000.'