Weapons of war.—Artillery.—Train of artillery.—Chevaux-de-frise.—Bows and arrows.—The old archer.—The musket.—The bayonet.—Captain Von Selmnitz.—Broad-swords.—Highlanders.—Artillery and stores sent to Spain.—James II. of Scotland.—Buonaparte and Colonel Evain.—Wooden cannon.—Brass twenty-four-pounder from the wreck of the Royal George.—The brass sixty-eight-pounder in the Tower, called the ‘Great Harry,’ a beautiful mortar.—The new destructive power.
“Can you tell us something about the artillery, uncle? There must be a great many pieces of cannon used in an army?”
“There are; and if you never know more about 81them than the information you get from me, so much the better; better to hear of them than to be among them. I will say a little about the weapons of war generally, but can only glance at the subject: it would take me a week to tell you everything, if I had it all at the tip of my tongue.”
“Well, so that your account is not too short, we must be satisfied.”
“As the world turns round, the weapons in use among soldiers and sailors and the customs of warfare change.
“When the twang of the bow is heard no more,
Then muskets rattle and cannons roar.
I need not dwell on the clubs, the spears, the bills, and battle-axes of former times; the slings, the bows and arrows, the cross-bows and the maces, that were accustomed to deal death around, are unknown to modern warfare, nor are the scythe-armed chariot, the battering-ram, the balista, or the catapulta, now ever used in the sea or land service of Old England.”
“Ay! gunpowder has put them all aside.”
“Artillery does not mean cannon only, but all the huge weapons, apparatus, and stores used in the field, or in garrisons and sieges. A train of artillery comprehends cannon, mortars, and howitzers of all kinds, properly mounted; with horses, carriages, mortar-beds, block-carriages, ammunition-waggons, stores, shells, shot, bullets, powder, and cartridges.”
82“What a deal of room a train of artillery must take up!”
“Indeed it does, for beside what I have told you, it includes artificers’ tools, intrenching tools, and miners’ tools, with forges, capstans and gins, pontoons, pontoon-carriages, tumbrels, chevaux-de-frise, palisades, drag-ropes, platforms, harness, flints, powder-measures, fuze-engines, and tents, to say nothing of a hundred other things that I cannot remember.”
“What is meant by chevaux-de-frise?”
“Chevaux-de-frise are pieces of timber, about ten or a dozen feet long, stuck all over with wooden pins, six feet long, shod with iron. They are used to stop up a breach, or a pass, or to secure a camp, and are sometimes rolled down on the enemy in an assault. The sword, the musket, the pike, and the bayonet, the cannon, the howitzer, and the mortar, with granades, rockets, and shells, are the principal weapons of our present wars. There are some who still entertain the opinion that bows and arrows in English hands have been more destructive than muskets bristling with bayonets, and this seems to me to be very like the truth. The difference between the long-bow and the cross-bow, is this: the long-bow is only a bow and string, and its force depends on the power of the arm that draws it. The cross-bow, is a bow fastened on a stock, so that when it is once drawn ready to be let off, it has 83the same power whether let off by a strong man or a weak one.”
“Why, boys shoot with bows and arrows.”
“They do, but they must be men to draw an arrow to the head on the string of the long-bow of old times. Topham, one of the strongest men ever known, laughed to scorn an old archer, who boasted that he could draw a cloth-yard arrow to the head on the long-bow. Topham tried to do this, but could only half draw it, while the old archer, taking up the bow, performed the feat adroitly. But a word as to the power of the bow. A military man of experience says, ‘The accuracy and range of the arrow fully equalled the 84present most perfect practice of the rifle, and it greatly exceeded it with respect to rapidity of discharge.’ In the early part of the reign of Henry VIII. it was still the opprobrium of an archer if he shot a single shaft during a battle without killing or disabling his enemy. Some have compared this with Marshal Saxe’s calculations upon the efficacy of the musket. Marshal Saxe estimated that in no case did more than one ball in eighty-five take effect, and that at the battle of Tournay, not more than one half in four hundred was calculated to have killed an enemy; it must be left to military men to say whether the lead ‘shot from the deadly level of a gun,’ has been made more deadly since the tactics of Marshal Saxe. The disuse of the long-bow is hardly to be accounted for. An archer was deemed disqualified for service if he could not fire twelve unerring shafts in one minute. This, if we take the accuracy of their fire, for we must be allowed the term, into consideration, will make the practice of musketry very inferior.”
“Do you think bows and arrows will ever be used again by soldiers?”
“I think not, for the archer is not so well provided for close fighting as he who carries a musket: the ball on the inside, and the bayonet on the out, render the musket a most formidable weapon.”
“How dreadful it must be to charge with the 85bayonet! but, indeed, the sword must be dreadful too.”
“As I have undertaken to answer your questions, and to tell you about war and warlike weapons, I suppose that you must know all that I happen to remember. About a dozen years ago Captain Von Selmnitz projected a new mode of employing the bayonet, and afterwards paid such attention to it that it became very popular; and many officers in the service of other countries resorted to Dresden to study under him. It was thought by many, that under this system a single foot soldier, of common strength and of moderately good eye and limb, would be able to resist two horsemen. It was the dexterous use made of the cudgel among the common people in Brittany and Normandy, that led Selmnitz to reflect on the matter, and to apply it to the bayonet.”
“Which is the worst, the bayonet or the sword?”
“There is a difference of opinion respecting swords and bayonets as weapons of destruction, or, in other words, between the power of infantry armed with swords, and infantry armed with muskets and bayonets. An officer describes the bayonet as a rickety, zigzag, unhandy instrument, and says that, ‘at Preston-Pans two thousand highlanders, armed only with broad-swords and targets, overthrew, at the very first onset, nearly two thousand British infantry, and completed their defeat in about a quarter of 86an hour. The same was the case at Falkirk, and even at Culloden: every point of the line that the highlanders reached in their charge was completely overthrown! The destruction made by musketry is certainly not so great as we might expect from so formidable a weapon.’”
“One would think that almost every bullet would kill a man.”
“That is not the case by a great deal, as you shall hear. The same officer goes on to reason the matter thus: ‘Supposing that twenty thousand French were killed and wounded at Waterloo, and allowing five thousand of these to have fallen by the fire of the artillery and the sabres of the cavalry, it leaves fifteen thousand to the share of the infantry; and counting the latter at thirty thousand only, though the number present was certainly greater, it required an entire day’s hard fighting before the thirty thousand had disabled fifteen thousand adversaries; that is, all the exertions of two men, during an entire day, only brought down one enemy! We must not here think of two fencers, who by equal skill and courage foil each other’s exertions. There is no such thing as parrying a musket-ball when properly aimed, nor is there any defensive power in modern armies beyond what they derive from their offensive strength; for with modern arms all fighting is purely offensive. The above estimate of the efficiency of modern tactics may, indeed, be considered as highly 87overrated, because it applies only to the most sanguinary battles fought during the war, such as that of Marengo, Talavera, Boradino, and others, but by no means to actions of minor note: at Rolica only a few hundred French were put hors-de-combat, and at Vimiera sixteen thousand British only killed and wounded two thousand French, in what was called a smart action.’
“It is, however, maintained by others, to be impossible for the sword to contend generally with success against the musket and bayonet, for that the latter, to say nothing of the advantage of the fire, are more than a match for the sword in themselves; but this is a subject that we had better leave. My own opinion is, from what I have seen, that soldiers armed with swords alone would on very few occasions wait the issue of a charge of fixed bayonets. May the sword never be drawn in a bad cause, and the bayonet never be used as an instrument of oppression.”
“Which are the strongest, cavalry or infantry?”
“That depends much on circumstances. I remember no instance at the battle of Waterloo of the French cuirassiers—certainly some of the bravest and best cavalry in the world—breaking the British squares, though cavalry may, in other instances, have had the advantage.”
“Why, there must be no end to the guns and swords required by an army, hundreds of thousands must be wanted.”
88“Within one year from the beginning of the war in Spain against the French, England sent over to the Spanish armies, money to the amount of two million pounds; a hundred and fifty pieces of field-artillery, forty-two thousand rounds of ammunition, two hundred thousand muskets, sixty-one thousand swords, seventy-nine thousand pikes, twenty-three million ball-cartridges, six million loaded balls, fifteen thousand barrels of gunpowder, ninety-two thousand suits of clothing, three hundred and fifty six thousand sets of accoutrements and pouches, three hundred and ten thousand pairs of shoes, forty tents, two hundred and fifty thousand yards of cloth, ten thousand sets of camp-equipage, a hundred and eighteen thousand yards of linen, fifty thousand great coats, fifty thousand canteens, fifty thousand havresacs, and a great variety of other stores.”
“If England sent two hundred thousand muskets over to Spain and thousands of barrels of gunpowder, what a many muskets must have been used in all! and what a deal of powder!”
“From 1803 to 1816 England put in circulation more than three million muskets, without reckoning those sent out of the country on private accounts. Eighty thousand barrels of gunpowder were used up every year; but after 1812, to the conclusion of peace, more than three times this quantity of powder was used. If you want to see field-pieces and stores, you must go to Woolwich, 89and there you will see enough. Cannon are cast solid, and bored out after. James II. of Scotland, in the year 1460, led on an army to besiege Roxburgh, and being more curious than wise, he stood near the gunners, when a cannon, not properly made, burst and broke his thigh-bone—he died immediately.”
“Ay! that was a sad accident; but he should have kept at a greater distance. It must take a long time to make a cannon.”
“I will tell you in how short a time Buonaparte provided himself with cannon, after losing all that he had taken with him to the campaign in Russia, for I have an account of it here in print, and will read it:—‘At the period of the disastrous campaign of Moscow Colonel Evain was at Paris, where he had been directed to remain, in order to organize and forward the immense supplies of artillery and ordnance stores, that were required for the grand army.’ The celebrated 29th bulletin, from Smorgonj, had scarcely reached Paris, and had been made public but a few hours, when a messenger from the Tuileries came to Colonel Evain’s officer, and, to his utter surprise, informed him the Emperor had just arrived, and forthwith demanded his presence at the Tuileries. Though thunderstruck at the unexpected intelligence, which at once demonstrated the terrible misfortunes of the French army, Evain hastened to the palace, and was instantly ushered into the presence of his imperial master, 90whom he found in his travelling dress, pale, fatigued, with a beard of several days’ growth, and in an evident state of great mental suffering. He had scarcely time to make his bow or utter a word, ere Napoleon advanced towards him, and abruptly exclaimed, ‘Well, Evain! you have read my 29th bulletin; it does not tell the worst; it would have been impossible to have alarmed France. We have not a gun or a caisson remaining! But our resources are immense—our losses can be repaired.’ Then, after a pause, he added—‘By the first of March I must have six hundred pieces of cannon, horsed and equipped. I know your zeal and activity; you know I must be obeyed.’ Then approaching close to Evain, Napoleon took hold of his arm, and with a smile, added—‘If I have my guns on the appointed day you shall receive the brevet of Major-general; if not, I will hang you.’ Without being disconcerted, Colonel Evain replied: ‘Sire, the time is limited, but our arsenals are well-stored. If your majesty will inform me where I can procure money to purchase horses, your orders shall be obeyed.’—‘Is that the only difficulty?’ rejoined the Emperor. Then, sitting down to his bureau, he wrote an order for three millions of francs on his private treasury, the contents of which were in the vaults beneath the Tuileries—and Evain took his leave. On the 1st of March, Evain kept his word, and the Emperor fulfilled his promise.”
91“Both Buonaparte and Colonel Evain must have been in right earnest.”
“That is very true; and Buonaparte was not a man to be trifled with. If you should ever go to the Tower of London you will see weapons of war in abundance, though very many were destroyed by the late great fire on the premises. Among the stores were, a wooden cannon called ‘Policy,’ used at the siege of Bologne to induce the governor to suppose that the English were well supplied with artillery; a brass twenty-four pounder, from the wreck of the Royal George, having lain under water fifty-two years; a fine brass twenty-four pounder, bearing a Persian inscription; and a sixty-eight pounder, of brass, called the ‘Great Harry.’ Whether all, or any of these were destroyed, I cannot tell.”
“A wooden cannon must be an odd kind of thing.”
“There is in St. James’s Park, London, a mortar that is worth going a long way to see. This mortar is a beautiful specimen of workmanship, surrounded with pikes, intersecting each other, and forming a barrier which protects it from injury on the part of the public. The mortar bears the following inscription.
92
‘TO COMMEMORATE
The raising of the siege of Cadiz, in consequence of the glorious victory gained by the Duke of Wellington over the French, near Salamanca, on the 22nd July, 1812. This mortar, cast for the destruction of that great fort, with powers surpassing all others, and abandoned by the besiegers on their retreat, was presented, as a token of respect and gratitude, by the Spanish Nation, to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent.’
“I might tell you of Perkins’s steam-gun, of Shrapnel’s shells, of Congreve’s rockets, and of Cochrane’s bomb-cannon, but I want to speak of a new power, that is more destructive than all these put together.”
93“What can that be, uncle? Why, it must be wonderful!”
“It was on Saturday, the 20th of February, 1841, that Sir Robert Peel, Sir George Murray, Sir Henry Hardinge, Sir Francis Burdett, Lord Ingestre, Colonel Gurwood, Captain Britten, Captain Webster, and others, met together to witness an experiment about to be tried. A boat, twenty-three feet long and seven broad, had been placed on a sheet of water, in the grounds of Mr. Boyd, in Essex, a few miles only from London. The boat had been filled up with solid timber, four and a half feet deep, crossed every way, and clamped together as closely as possible, with eight-inch spike nails, so that it was almost as firm as a solid tree. The boat was set in motion, and then struck by the new power just abaft her starboard-bow. The effect was terrible. The water parted and appeared like a huge bowl, with lightning playing on its surface. The boat was scattered into a thousand pieces. A column of water, resembling a huge fountain, threw the fragments of the boat some hundred feet into the air, and many of these fell at a distance of two or three hundred yards.”
“What a dreadful explosion!”
“Dreadful indeed, boys! The eight-inch spike nails that I spoke of, were snapped in pieces like so many carrots, and the mast of the boat resembled a tree riven by the lightning. The boat 94weighed perhaps two tons and a half, and the timber in her five tons and a half more; the weight of water displaced by the explosion could hardly be less than fourteen or fifteen tons, and yet the instrument of destruction that effected all this mischief was only eighteen pounds in weight.”
“What, was it gunpowder!”
“That I cannot tell. Fearful as it was when exploded, it was harmless enough before, for one of the captains kicked it about like a foot-ball. The inventor said that he could carry enough on a single mule to destroy the strongest fortress in Europe.”
“Terrible! Terrible! Why, it would destroy a ship directly.”
“Yes. A small craft with this power on board would tear to pieces the largest ship that ever was built. Muskets, cannon, bombshells, rockets, and explosions of every kind are not to be compared to it; and, most likely, should it ever come into general use, it will make a complete change in naval and military tactics all over the world.”