The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-11-10
Gest Of War i'm the Eighteenth and Nine
teenth Centuries.

teenth Centuries,
The Pau MoH CARTE has the following obser-
yatiOns;-
"An exhaustive comparison of the cost of
var now and formerly would be a most instruc-
nve and somewhat appalling document. II
would be impossible to draw out such contrast
with complete accuracy; but It might be done
approximately. The expensiveness OF war to q
country comprises many items:-The size OF
Armies and navles; the cost of transport; the
pr1ce OF arms and ammunition; the slaughter
dneetly or indirectly caused; the extent and
complication of the Notifications constructed
and destroyed; and the wealth and civilization
OF the district which is the seat of war. Some
OF these can be ascertained or estimated; others
can only be guessed at Thus the siege and de-
struction of fortress like Sebastopol is iucom-
parably more costly to both parties than the
siege OF fortress ike Namur. campaign in
England, or in the heart of France or Germany,
as compared with campaign carried on In
Russia, In Poland, or even in Spain, would be
cOstler beyond all measure of comparison, both
IN reference to the amount of property destroyed,
and the delicate and complex processes of civil
liSed ana industrial life suspended or deranged.
In wild and thinly peopled lands war may cost
nothing but gunpowder and life; in rich and
populons countries far advanced I'M al the luxu-
nous appliances OF modern existence its expense
."Sornes actually incelculable.
"a lew facts nay, however, be noted doYu
by which something, not o. an estimate, bot of
an idea, may be arrived at as to the vastly IN,
creased cost of warfare now, and IN the daVs OF
our fathers and grandfathers. One point OF
comparison is that the armies we fight with are
enormously greater than they used 10 be. This
IS owing In part to our improved faclhueS lor
the transport OF troops, materials, and the com
missariat Railways do now, and 40 lar % l%hoIe
rapidly and cheaply, what bullocks ana wagons
did for Frederick the Great and the Duke OF
Wellington. In the campaigns OF the lasI cell,
tury, IN all the chief battles OF the seven leaLs
War, the Prussians never had more than sGvJhty NY
thousand men n the field, and very rarely hali
that number. In only two or tnree cuses ulo
the aggregate Of the combatants on Doth slues
reach one hundred thousand. Even IN the carry
battles of Napoleon, the forces engaged were
what wonld now be considered small. Before
Wa0rau he never had more than one hundred
thousand men in the field, and seldom nearly as
many. At Marengo he had not thirty thousand.
IL was not till the day Of his downfall ap-
preached that he began to deal with corps
d'drmee as numerous and colossal as those witS
which the wars of our daysIare making us fami.
liar. At Borodino and Dresden quarter OF
million we're engaged, and at Leipsic, if figures
can be trusted, not far from half million. The
British force with which our great Duke won
his Peninsular victories never once, we believe
at least not more than once-reached hfty
thousand; and his entire army, even reckoning
SpaniaIds and Portuguese, seldom much eX-
ceeded that number. At the crowning victory
of Waterloo the forces on both sides were under
one hundred and forty thousand, and OF these
not one-third were English. Compare these
armies with the three hundred thousand who
fought at Solferino, the four hundred and
twenty thousand at Sadowa, and the multi
tudes, often exceeding quarter of Million
with which the Americans tried the terrible
ssues of their civil controversy, and the advance
made in recent tunes, ii it be an advance, will
be obvious at once.
at is some comfort to know that the slaughter
in our days, in spite of our mightier artillery
and our dtTaes de precision, Is not proportioned
10 the number engaged. Why this should be
SO we are not prepared TO say, and we are aware
that the popular impression is different one;
but we believe the facts would be found to bear
us out. In Frederick's wars the proportion of
killed and wounded ON both sides to the forces
in the field ranged from one-siXth to one-tenth,
and at the peculiar battle OF Zonsdorf FAR eX-
ceeded this ratio. In Napoleon's campaigns II
was still higher, often averaging fifth: while
at Eylau and Borodino 1t Is SAID to have reached
third. In some OF the cases, perhaps, the
missing may have been included, but not
usually AllisOns calculation is, that from 1892 to
1915, three millions Of French soldiers perished
iu the field or in the hospital and az least al
equal number out OF the ranks of their antago
niets. The proportion of the slain and disabled
in the American battles is not known with any
accuracy, but probably no one would place il
higher than one.tenth; while in the Italian bat.
ties of 1859 it is estimated at scarcely more thar
n twelfth, and at Sadowa about fifteenth
Still though the proportion Is less than it used
to be, the positive number who fall is even
greater, and the cost in life therefore heavier.
at we compare the cost of the arms and ar
tillery now in use, and their suitable ammuni-
tion, with the rude and cheaper weapons which
cOntented us IN the last war, some OF the ngures
are very startling. The old calculation ror a
man-of-war used TO be roughly $1,000 per gun;
three-deCkeT cost, therefore, el00,0OO OF
Gl20,000. A firstrate iron-plated vessel canuot
we believe, be completed under halt a million,
and some OF our experimental ships are under
stood to have cost nearly twice that sum. 4
Mime or an Enfield ride, with its cartridge, l'
nearly five times as expensive as the old Bro ~
Bess. Even before conversion into breech
loader, an Enfield (cOmplete) cost upwards o.
E5. We doubt If the old musket when manu-
factured wholesale costs much above 81
The rifed twelve-pounder now III favor foI
field batteries cost 900, and each shell i
fires four sklllings. The brass nIne- FOUNDER
which it superseded, cost ESQ., and its shell 3s
But as this would be worth as old metal ESQ
while the iron gun wonld scarcely sell for any
thing, the true comparative figures would be 60
against ESQ. Lastly, the 6S.pounder, tormer
in use for fortifcations and shore batteries, cos
9l00, its carriage and slide another fl00, and il
shot As. The Armstrong nine-inch twelve to
gun, with which we should now arm our iort
costs one thousand two hundred pounds, and il
iron carriage and slide three hundred pound
more, while the steel shells it fires cost, as "
stated few weeks since, nine pounds eacl
The Palliser shell, which will probably supe
sede these can be made for forty-fve shilling
If the more costly missiles be used, every she
we fire in the next war from our great embr
sures will be worth ten-pOund note.n
Josh Billings on Mosquitoes.