Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-08-16
THE QUEEN OF WEAPONS.
French Authority Comes Out in Favor
of the Lance.

From the Army and Navy Journal.
! Gen. Leroy. in an article in La France
Militaire. still adheres to the lance for cav
airy as the queen of weapons" He reasons
that rapidity of movement Is the essential
factor in cavalry action, and that the cav
airy produces results by moral effect or not
at all. Shock action Is the exception and
not the rule. Infantry, when the avalanche
of cavalry is precpitated upon them. are
either demoraliZed and dispersed or else
they make a successful stand. In cavalry
encounters either. as is most frequently the
case. one troop goes about without awaiting
the shock, or a short melee ensues termi-
| mating in the rout of the cavalry whose mo-
rale is inferior. The flight of a few men
leads to flight of the rest Finally. against
artillery unsupported. cavalry will almost
always find its opportunity IL 1t can elude
observation before making charge. AS the
lance makes the greatest moral impression
and inf1icts the most deadly wounds 1t is
the most effective weapon. AS the G,.rma ms
are adding the lance to the saber and car
IDENTIFY Of this opinion.
If Gen. Leroy had to choose between the
carblne and the lance he would retain the
lance. inasmuch as cavalry is rarely called
upon to fight on foot In the defense or at
tack of passage or defile, except in the
absence Of infantry. 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 Lee
| roy says: Imagine yourself an infantry
man. horse soldier or an artilleryman on
| field of battle. and that you are being
| charged by troop of cavalry-which would
| you prefer that that troop should be armed
| WITH the sword or with the lancer" Mar
| mont says the saber cannot take the place
| of the lance. for If the infantry stands fast
| its bayonets keep the horses too far off TO
allow horsemen to saber the foot soldiers
whereas the chances of a charge being sue
| cessful are very different when the same
| line OF cavalry Is equipped with lances pro-
| Jecting -FOUR feet In front of the horses
The argument Is. in short, that the cav
| alryman has function entirely distinct
| from that OF the mounted infantryman and
| that entirely different conditions must de-
| termine his choice of weapons. Moral effect
in war is not determined by a study of the
percentage of losses, and it ia TO this that
| both cavalry and artillery in a large mea a.
ure owe their value. The mere appearances
of the big American cavalryman in unex-
pected 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 the Cavalry
| fright" prevalent at the beginning of his
! career as a soldier, has been replaced In
modern days by ARTILLERY fright" At the
| spring maneuvers in the old days leaders
and men alike paid far more attention To
the TANKS than the 'front.' and often exposed
| themselves to the infantry and artillery Of
the opposing side In their haste to form a
! front to the right or left against cavalry
Those days Of cavalry fright" however,
have gone by. and a more justiflable EAR
tiilery fright" has taken Its place.