The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1900-10-12
MOST DEADLY OF WEAPONS.
French Military Expert Declares in
Favor of the Lance as the
Most Effective.


Gen. Leroy, in an article in La
France N[llitaire, still adheres to the
lance for cavalry as the queen OF
weapons" says the Army and Navy
journal. He reasons that rapidity OF
movement is the essential factor in
cavalry tactics and that the cavalry
produces results. by moral effect OF
not at,all. Shock action is the excep.
tion and not the rule. Infantry, when
the avalanche of cavalry is precipitat.
ed upon them, are either demoralized
and dispersed or else they make a sue.
cessful stand. In cavalry encounters
either, as is most frequently the case.
one troop goes about without await
ing the shock or short melee ensues
terminating in the rout of the cavalry
whose number is inferior. The flight
of few men leads to flight of the
rest. Finally, against artillery un-
supported, cavalry will almost always
find its opportunity IL it can elude OBJ
seryation before making a charge. AS
the lance makes the greatest moral
impression and infiicts the most dead.
ly wounds, it is the most effective
weapon. AS the Germans are adding
the lance to the saber anu carbine In
arming their cavalry, they are evi-
IDENTIFY of this opinion.
If Gen. Leroy had to choose between
the carbine and the lance he would re-
tain the lance, inasmuch as cavalry is
rarely called upon to fight on foot in
the defense or attack of passage OF
defle, except in the absence of infan.
try, and its fire action is more noisy
than effective. Napoleon never by any
chance called upon his cavalry to fight
dismounted. AS to the saber, Gen
Leroy says: 'Imagine yourself an in.
fantryman, a horse soldier or an artil.
leryman on a field of battle, and that
you are being charged by a troop OF
cavalry-which would you prefer that
that troop should be armed with, the
sword or will the lancer" Marmont
says the saber cannot take the place
of the lance, for If the infantry stands
fast its bayonets keep the horses toe
far off to allow horsemen to saber the
foot soldiers, whereas the chances oil
charge being successful are very diff
ferent when the same line of cavalry
is equipped with lances projecting
four feet in front of the horses.
The argument is, in short, that the
cavalryman has function entirely
distinct from that of the mounted in.
fantryman, and that entireiy different
conditions must determine his choice
of weapons. Moral effect In war is not
determined by study of the per.
nentage of losses, and it is to this
that both cavalry and artillery in q
large measure owe their value. The
mere appearance of the big American
cavalryman in unexpected places and
unexpected ways has set the legs OF
the most adventurous Filipinos into
active operation.
A German officer, writing in the
Militar Wochenblatt, observes that
cavalry fright" prevalent at the be.
ginning of his career as a soldier has
been replaced in modern days by "ar.
tillery fright" At the spring maneu.
vers in the old days leaders and men
alike paid far more attention to the
fanks than the front and often ex.
posed themselves to the infantry and
artillery of the opposing side in Their
haste to form front to the right OF
left against cavalry. Those days OF
cavalry fright" however, have gone
by and more justifiable ARTILLERY
fright" has taken it's place.